00:00:00 --- log: started forth/03.12.09
00:22:35 <r> 100 allot
00:25:54 --- quit: I440r_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
00:32:48 --- quit: r ("ircII EPIC4pre2   cLIeNUX. Can you say that?")
01:35:54 <hovil> one day I might start thinking like a forth programmer
01:36:16 <hovil> instead of trying to hammer C pegs into forth holes
03:21:16 --- part: hovil left #forth
04:02:41 --- quit: wUoNrFk (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
04:03:16 --- join: wUoNrFk (~unfy@ip68-99-27-190.om.om.cox.net) joined #forth
04:09:15 --- join: Robert__ (~snofs@c-305a71d5.17-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) joined #forth
04:09:16 --- quit: Robert (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
04:56:24 --- quit: haroldo (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
04:58:42 --- join: haroldo (~haroldo@r200-40-216-27-dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) joined #forth
05:41:15 --- join: I440r (~mark4@12-160.lctv-a5.cablelynx.com) joined #forth
05:54:09 --- nick: Robert__ -> Robert
06:03:06 --- quit: haroldo (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
06:04:39 --- join: haroldo (~haroldo@r200-40-218-135-dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) joined #forth
06:12:13 --- join: I440r_ (~mark4@saturn.vcsd.com) joined #forth
06:48:39 <arke> 01:38:10 < hovil> one day I might start thinking like a forth programmer
06:48:39 <arke> 01:38:32 < hovil> instead of trying to hammer C pegs into forth holes
06:48:43 <arke> heehee lol
07:20:46 --- join: schihei (~schihei@pD9E5C9DA.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
07:24:12 <I440r_> where is hovil ?
07:44:11 <jc> so isforth has no magic word to create and initialize a variable?
07:44:21 <I440r_> variable foo
07:44:25 <I440r_> foo off
07:44:29 <I440r_> foo on
07:44:38 <I440r_> sets foo to 0 or -1 (false or true)
07:44:41 <jc> off and on are not '1234'
07:44:53 <I440r_> variable foo 1234 foo !
07:45:02 <jc> well, yah, but that seems pretty old sk00l.
07:45:08 <I440r_> put that in your source
07:45:13 <I440r_> if it aint broke... :)
07:45:25 <I440r_> i prefer var and const
07:45:29 <I440r_> 10 var foo
07:45:36 <I440r_> 1 !> foo
07:45:38 <I440r_> off> foo
07:45:44 <I440r_> on> foo
07:45:46 <I440r_> incr> foo
07:45:49 <I440r_> decr> foo
07:47:43 <I440r_> and a const is TRUELY constant at run time its a literal
07:48:10 <I440r_> which is alot faster than a variable or a var or a constant
07:48:49 <I440r_> jc are you trying to so something specific with isforth or just playing ?
07:51:38 --- join: tathi (~josh@pcp02123722pcs.milfrd01.pa.comcast.net) joined #forth
07:53:25 <jc> playing.  And a const isn't appropriate.  I just want a global, and I want it preinialized to 0.
07:53:41 <I440r_> 0 var foo then
07:53:52 <I440r_> or variable foo foo off
07:54:12 <I440r_> the foo off occurs at compile time so it isnt that bad
07:54:25 <I440r_> and it shows clearly in the source that the variable is being initialized
07:54:35 <jc> From a readibility standpoint, using off to set 0 is bad form.  That implies later that it's a binary state variable.  I would flag that in a code review.
07:55:28 <I440r_> true but if you comment the line.... :)
07:55:37 <I440r_> do variable foo 0 foo !
07:55:52 <I440r_> its 6 of one, half a dzn of the other
07:57:18 <jc> Yea.  While I don't think variables should be *required* to be initialized, it just seems like it would be nice to have ivariable or somesuch, so you can say "0 ivariable foo"
07:57:26 <jc> or variable>
07:57:32 <I440r_> sure
07:57:32 <jc> Or maybe >variable.  I dunno.
07:57:35 <I440r_> i for initialized
07:57:38 <jc> yah
07:57:49 <I440r_> : ivariable create , ;
07:57:55 <jc> :)
07:58:25 <I440r_> thats the old 79 std way - and i AGREE - the 83 stanbdard b0rked this
07:58:45 <I440r_> i can add ivariable to the next release on request :)
07:59:38 <jc> : >variable create , ;
07:59:38 <jc> create filename ," testfile"
07:59:38 <jc> create buffer 512 allot
07:59:38 <jc> 0 >variable fd
07:59:41 <jc> That segfaulted.
08:00:05 <I440r_> err gimme a second :)P
08:01:14 <I440r_> works for me
08:01:23 <I440r_> what did it segfault on exactly
08:02:45 <I440r_> eventually io need to add signals to isforth so a segfault just does an abort" moron!"
08:02:47 <jc> I dunno.  I did it via a fload.  Let me try by hand.
08:02:52 <jc> Yes
08:03:03 <I440r_> meanwhile ill try fload it :)
08:03:58 <I440r_> ohhh
08:04:02 <I440r_> fd is already defined lol
08:04:07 <I440r_> i should change that maybe
08:04:13 <jc> By bad.
08:04:13 <I440r_> make it fload-fd or something
08:04:15 <jc> er, my.
08:04:23 <jc> I typed 'load t.f' instead of 'fload t.f'
08:04:25 <I440r_> it SHOULDNT barf on you tho
08:04:45 <I440r_> you can do an fload from the command line as you run isforth
08:04:49 <I440r_> ./isforth -fload file.f
08:05:29 <jc> It's a stupid program.  It just opens a file name 'testfile' and reads and prints the file out, reading 512 byte blocks at a time.
08:05:44 <I440r_> thats not dumb heh
08:05:45 <jc> Most embedded Forths don't have file commands.
08:05:55 <I440r_> no. true
08:06:03 <I440r_> have you looked at the file cat.f ?
08:06:15 <I440r_> thats a very very cheezyt forth version of unix cat heh
08:07:13 <jc> No, i missed that one.  That's sort of what I was starting to write.  I wanted to mess with file I/o, and argv cracking.
08:07:34 <I440r_> the file i/o is not fully implemented in isforth but its useable
08:07:41 <I440r_> that cat.f reads ONE char at a time heh
08:07:51 <I440r_> but linux buffers the file too so...
08:09:32 <I440r_> for large files i would suggest memory mapping them and processing the entire file in one go
08:09:44 <I440r_> fload does that which is why its as fast as it is
08:09:45 <jc> Yea, I was going to see if mmap() was implemented.
08:09:52 <I440r_> <mmap>
08:10:11 <jc> The bad thing about 1 char at a time I/O is that you're constantly trapping into the kernel.  Usermode buffering is much more efficient.
08:10:11 <I440r_> all syscalls are in the form <syscall-name>
08:10:21 <I440r_> correct
08:10:32 <I440r_> but for a cheezy cat example like that its not too bad :)
08:10:55 <jc> Should be easy to change, tho.  If it's factored properly :)
08:10:57 <I440r_> how interested would you be in helping out with isforth ?
08:11:06 <I440r_> cat.f IS factored well heh
08:11:18 <I440r_> i tend to factor as much as i can - tho i do get lazy sometimes
08:11:30 <jc> I had to admit to having a short attention span.  Right at the moment, I don't want to make a commitment that I won't keep.
08:11:45 <jc> s/had/have/
08:11:47 <I440r_> heh thats MY problem right now lol
08:13:54 <jc> isforth does not warn about duplicate definitions?
08:15:03 <I440r_> no
08:15:21 <I440r_> i thunked about putting it in but it would only slow down the comnpile and theres NOTHING wrong with duplicates
08:15:38 <I440r_> you should be putting your project in its own vocabulary 
08:15:47 <I440r_> vocabulary my-shit my-shit definitions
08:16:11 <jc> Not if you intend for it to happen.  I could foresee myself accidently duping a word, tho, on a large project.
08:16:11 <I440r_> btw are you familiar with the only also mechanism ?
08:16:17 <jc> No
08:16:46 <I440r_> its the vocabulary search order stack words - isforths is different, i dont have an "also"
08:17:23 <jc> : rblocks ( -- )
08:17:23 <jc>   begin
08:17:23 <jc>     512 buffer fd @ fread
08:17:23 <jc>          ?dup
08:17:23 <jc>   while
08:17:23 <jc>     buffer swap type
08:17:25 <jc>   repeat ;
08:17:36 <jc> You could replace (cat) with that, although it doesn't check for errors.
08:18:05 <I440r_> the ?dup while tests for errors and eof
08:18:13 <I440r_> it just doesnt distinguish between them :)
08:18:36 <I440r_> after the repeat you could add errno if ." bleh" cr then
08:18:53 <jc> from "man 2 read", "On  error, -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately"
08:19:00 <jc> I think the system call returns -1 on error.
08:19:02 <I440r_> oh yea
08:19:05 <I440r_> BUT
08:19:05 <jc> And -1 to type would be BAD.
08:20:18 <I440r_> your right, i do return -1 on error within a syscall
08:20:29 <I440r_> the syscall returns -errno on error
09:14:49 --- join: rO| (rO_@pD9E0AE2E.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
09:26:53 <jc> Tell me again what nutcase decided that Forth didn't need <= or >= ?
09:30:14 <I440r_> lol
09:30:28 <I440r_> that might have been cm
09:30:33 <I440r_> > not < not hhe
09:30:38 <I440r_> : <= > not ;
09:30:45 <I440r_> : >= < not ;
09:32:23 <jc> Is there a .abort" or something similiar?
09:33:27 <I440r_> what would .abort" do ?
09:33:33 <I440r_> theres abort"
09:33:45 <I440r_> ( --- flag ) abort" messsage"
09:33:52 <I440r_> the abort is a noop if flag is false
09:33:55 <jc> Ah.  Tried abort, .abort, .abort" but skipped abort"...
09:34:13 <I440r_> abort should be there too
09:34:20 <I440r_> thats an unconditional quiet abort
09:34:31 <I440r_> basucally a jump back to quit :)
09:35:16 <jc> You're right, it's there.  It just didn't print anything.  Which, if it's quiet, it kinda wouldn't now, would it...
09:36:09 <I440r_> heh
09:55:25 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@h000094d30ba2.ne.client2.attbi.com) joined #forth
10:00:24 <jc> I440r_, can you take a DCC?
10:01:30 <I440r_> prolly not - how big is it ?
10:01:38 <jc> Not much.  
10:01:49 <jc> I can email it.
10:01:51 <I440r_> email it - ill meg the email
11:12:58 --- join: skylan (sjh@vickesh01-4746.tbaytel.net) joined #forth
11:20:34 <I440r_> no email off you jc
11:27:06 --- join: Robert__ (~snofs@c-305a71d5.17-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) joined #forth
11:29:06 --- quit: schihei (Client Quit)
11:39:25 --- quit: Robert (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
11:40:06 --- nick: Robert__ -> Robert
12:05:13 --- quit: tathi ("leaving")
12:39:10 --- join: schihei (~schihei@pD9E5C22A.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
12:47:42 --- join: madgarden (~madgarden@Kitchener-HSE-ppp3576567.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
13:58:25 --- quit: schihei (Client Quit)
14:17:16 --- quit: dpb9cpu (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:17 --- quit: jc (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:17 --- quit: I440r_ (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:17 --- quit: ChanServ (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: Herkamire (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: rO| (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: skylan (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: madgarden (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: I440r (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: chandler (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: warp0x00 (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:18 --- quit: ianp (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:19 --- quit: haroldo (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:19 --- quit: wUoNrFk (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:19 --- quit: arke (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:20 --- quit: onetom (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:20 --- quit: oooo_ (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:20 --- quit: mur (tolkien.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
14:17:40 --- join: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: madgarden (~madgarden@Kitchener-HSE-ppp3576567.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: skylan (sjh@vickesh01-4746.tbaytel.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@h000094d30ba2.ne.client2.attbi.com) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: rO| (rO_@pD9E0AE2E.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: I440r_ (~mark4@saturn.vcsd.com) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: haroldo (~haroldo@r200-40-218-135-dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: I440r (~mark4@12-160.lctv-a5.cablelynx.com) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: wUoNrFk (~unfy@ip68-99-27-190.om.om.cox.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: arke (~chris@ca-cmrilo-cuda1-c3b-124.vnnyca.adelphia.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: chandler (~darmok@64-145-60-36.client.dsl.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: warp0x00 (~warpzero@dsl.142.mt.onewest.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: onetom (~tom@cab.bio.u-szeged.hu) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: dpb9cpu (~dpb@lexx.daves.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: jc (~jcw@adsl-33-138-241.asm.bellsouth.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: ianp (ian@rbgrn.net) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: oooo_ (o@virgo.bombsquad.org) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- join: mur (~mur@uiah.fi) joined #forth
14:17:40 --- mode: tolkien.freenode.net set +o ChanServ
14:57:10 --- quit: rO| ()
14:59:02 --- join: slava (~slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth
14:59:06 <slava> Herkamire, hey
14:59:09 <slava> Herkamire, check your email
15:36:11 <I440r_> brb - goin home :)
15:36:51 --- quit: I440r_ ("Reality Strikes Again!")
16:11:02 --- part: madgarden left #forth
16:27:49 --- join: I440r_ (~mark4@12-160.lctv-a5.cablelynx.com) joined #forth
17:05:50 <arke> hey Mark
17:12:30 <I440r_> !
17:12:33 <I440r_> whussup
17:12:40 <I440r_> sorry was chattin with a gurl irl
17:12:55 <arke> IRL!?
17:13:02 <arke> you were talking with a girl IRL?
17:13:03 <arke> OMG
17:13:06 <arke> you are the kind
17:13:09 <arke> king*
17:13:21 * arke kneels and praises I440r_ 
17:13:28 <I440r_> she is gorgeous too
17:13:31 <arke> ...
17:13:31 <arke> er
17:13:33 <arke> lol
17:13:42 <arke> maybe i shouldn't kneel.
17:13:45 <I440r_> but she wouldnt come in hehe
17:13:51 <I440r_> damn her for being too smart :/
17:13:56 <I440r_> so anyway whussup ?
17:13:58 <arke> shes not supposed to ... youre supposed to go in!
17:14:06 <arke> unless ... you're a lesbian?
17:14:09 <arke> I440r_: nothing really.
17:14:11 <I440r_> she was outside in here car
17:14:14 <arke> doing chemistry homework
17:14:27 <arke> I440r_: well, it was dark.
17:14:35 <I440r_> :)
17:14:41 <I440r_> i wont kiss-n-tell
17:15:05 <arke> !
17:17:49 <Robert> Heh.
17:17:56 <Robert> Yeah, damn her for being smart. :)
17:18:00 * Robert will go to bed
17:22:18 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:22:31 <wUoNrFk> so.. given up on french women, onlyme ?
17:23:01 <I440r_> dont have a french gf lol
17:23:27 <I440r_> but if you know any french wimmin who are cutensexy and single..... :)
17:23:51 <I440r_> so did you get that code working ?
17:24:12 <I440r_> btw myriam is getting married last i knew lol
17:24:40 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:24:47 <wUoNrFk> married ? cool for her.
17:25:04 <wUoNrFk> and yes, she was who i was referencing, couldn't recall the name other than an 'm' tho heh
17:25:14 <I440r_> dont know if she is yet but its in the todo list :)
17:25:15 <wUoNrFk> code working -> multitasking / fnsave stuff -> nope.
17:25:28 <wUoNrFk> been busy writing boring ass printer drivers.
17:25:30 <I440r_> doh!
17:25:45 <I440r_> how come your writing printer drivers ?
17:25:48 <I440r_> what printer ?
17:25:50 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:25:52 <I440r_> (s)
17:25:54 <wUoNrFk> modular printer driver for our games.
17:26:06 <I440r_> why do video games need a printer ?
17:26:19 --- quit: arke (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
17:26:20 <wUoNrFk> we do casino games :)
17:26:36 <wUoNrFk> so instead of doing a hopper, you might get a cashout ticket instead.
17:26:43 <I440r_> oh yea
17:26:53 <I440r_> bally did that too
17:27:02 <I440r_> they are still video games lol
17:27:08 <wUoNrFk> a whole bunch of serial & LPT impact printers... citizen, ithica, jcm, seiko, bematech, etc.
17:27:29 <wUoNrFk> aye, my spin code is the shit... :) best looking spin on the planet, bar none :)
17:27:45 <I440r_> i wrote a serial printer driver for a miniature citizen impact printer using the nec 75x lol
17:27:53 <I440r_> a shitty 4 bit controller lol
17:29:29 <wUoNrFk> heh
17:29:32 <I440r_> i launched wmpower and it linux hard crashed. in fact it RESET
17:29:43 <wUoNrFk> we haven't moved to using an 8051/z80 for our peripherals yet.
17:29:54 <I440r_> then when i rebooted and started x again all my windowmaker dockapp icos were reset to their default image
17:29:54 <wUoNrFk> dunno if we ever will
17:30:07 <I440r_> the 8051 would rock!
17:30:13 <wUoNrFk> it'd be kind of nice to modularize it.. but owell. as long as i can write modular & universal drivers, we'll keep having the host system do it
17:30:15 <I440r_> check out those cygnal processors!
17:30:32 <I440r_> ive got a really nice 8051 forth for the cygnal processors
17:30:37 <wUoNrFk> cygnal -> single cycle instruction processors ? effective '300mhz 8051' shit ?
17:30:46 <I440r_> the 8051 compiles all the code its going to run ITSELF
17:31:10 <I440r_> yes but i dont think 300 mhz is right
17:31:23 <I440r_> they run at up to 50 mhz i think
17:31:34 <I440r_> awesome chips
17:31:44 <I440r_> you can run code in flash while writing to FLASH
17:31:51 <I440r_> they are the ONLY chip you can do that with
17:31:59 <wUoNrFk> something like '50mhz, single cycle per instruction instead of 12' or something... i think they compared it to the 'high performance' dallas 8051's that were 6 cycles/instruction.
17:32:05 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:32:13 <wUoNrFk> i don't have much use for that kind of stuff.. it's narly , sure..... but.. hm.
17:32:20 <I440r_> yes normal 8051's have a 12 clock cycle instruciton cycle
17:32:33 <I440r_> and run at 1 mhz lol
17:32:46 <wUoNrFk> and i've got an 8051 programming suite at home (including stuff to write to the atmel $3 an $7 flash'd 8051's and stuff) ... but... i've not seen a reason to play with it yet :)
17:33:22 <I440r_> :)
17:33:47 <I440r_> i think im madly in lust with this gurl here and it sux cuz im leaving soon :/
17:33:48 <wUoNrFk> here at work we primarily use atmel 8020c51's... 20pin 8051 with i think 4k of flash.  it's a 1:12 chip, tho... we run'em at 11.whatever mhz (to get 9600 baud), etc.
17:34:10 <wUoNrFk> we also sometimes use the a 40pin atmel, but.. still.. shrug.
17:34:26 <wUoNrFk> to be blunt, i'd be more interested if we were doing some ARM or 68k based stuff
17:34:45 <wUoNrFk> (68k would be the magic breaking point for me (16bit proc... meaning it'd be something i'd play with (audio :) :) ))
17:36:01 --- join: mark4 (~mark4@12-160.lctv-a5.cablelynx.com) joined #forth
17:36:26 --- quit: I440r_ (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
17:36:28 <wUoNrFk> wb
17:36:33 <mark4> mental note. plug laptop in next time
17:36:35 <mark4> lol
17:36:37 <mark4> what was it you said just before i barfed ?
17:36:39 <mark4> heh
17:36:39 <wUoNrFk> ya know, for the printer to work -> ya gotta plug in the serial cable.
17:36:53 <mark4> heh
17:36:53 <wUoNrFk> <I440r_> i think im madly in lust with this gurl here and it sux cuz im leaving soon :/
17:36:54 <wUoNrFk> <wUoNrFk> here at work we primarily use atmel 8020c51's... 20pin 8051 with i think 4k of flash.  it's a 1:12 chip, tho... we run'em at 11.whatever mhz (to get 9600 baud), etc.
17:36:54 <wUoNrFk> <wUoNrFk> we also sometimes use the a 40pin atmel, but.. still.. shrug.
17:36:54 <wUoNrFk> <wUoNrFk> to be blunt, i'd be more interested if we were doing some ARM or 68k based stuff
17:36:54 <wUoNrFk> <wUoNrFk> (68k would be the magic breaking point for me (16bit proc... meaning it'd be something i'd play with (audio :) :) ))
17:37:14 <mark4> take a look at the msp430
17:37:20 <mark4> i would love to do a forth for that
17:38:35 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:38:47 <wUoNrFk> the 68k would have ultra cheap development tools :)
17:38:49 <mark4> prolly over priced for your needs tho
17:38:50 <wUoNrFk> as would some arm's :)
17:39:12 <wUoNrFk> if i can pay $10 a chip and get almost-free tools (other than required hardware), that'd be my preference :)
17:39:13 <mark4> the msp430 would have motorolas bullshit ide crap
17:39:22 <wUoNrFk> hm
17:39:29 <wUoNrFk> dunno if i'd need any of that
17:39:37 <mark4> they should make ALL their devel tools free
17:39:44 <wUoNrFk> btw -> 8051 + hardware midi decoder + compact flash = hmm :)
17:39:51 <mark4> heh
17:40:00 <mark4> 8051 is a powerfull lil sucker
17:40:07 <mark4> its very much under-rated
17:40:14 <wUoNrFk> heh
17:40:53 <wUoNrFk> i'd like to eventually get setup so i can take some of the high pin count 8051's and do memory mapped devices and stuff... that'd be handy :)
17:41:14 <mark4> heh
17:41:25 <wUoNrFk> but
17:41:29 <wUoNrFk> i have like, no free time.
17:41:39 <wUoNrFk> so the odds of me actually doing anything with my toys -- not that good :(
17:41:50 <mark4> eventually eh
17:42:20 <wUoNrFk> wanting to work on PC games as well as do hardware and some metal work .. and then there's the femme + kid... no free time. none. zero. zilch. etc.
17:42:35 <mark4> oooh you got a kid?
17:42:45 <mark4> unf jr !!!!
17:42:54 <mark4> i want kidz
17:42:56 <mark4> i like kidz
17:43:03 <mark4> i just couldnt eat a WHOLE one
17:43:52 <wUoNrFk> heh
17:44:04 <wUoNrFk> yea... got a lil squirmy. aint my blood, but sure as hell is my kid :)
17:44:18 <wUoNrFk> i'll get one of my blood in about 3 years or something.
17:44:27 <mark4> cool
17:44:37 <wUoNrFk> whole blood thing isn't all much of an issue other than stating non-irresponsibility
17:45:12 <mark4> hhe
17:46:02 <mark4> now if i can just get this girl to cooperate ill practice geting a kid... prefereably without actually getting one :/
17:51:02 <wUoNrFk> heh
17:51:10 <wUoNrFk> practice is good :)
17:51:17 <mark4> } : )
18:12:02 --- join: arke (~chris@ca-cmrilo-cuda1-c3b-124.vnnyca.adelphia.net) joined #forth
18:15:41 --- join: haroldo_ (~haroldo@r200-40-166-133-dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) joined #forth
18:17:13 <jc> Bah.  AVRs and MSP430s are the way.  
18:18:01 <jc> The 8051 is underrated, it's just a lousy programming model.  The lack of stack is it's biggest drawback.
18:18:44 --- quit: haroldo (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
18:18:50 <wUoNrFk> it's got push & pop, so pfft :)
18:18:53 <mark4> i got a 128 byte parameter stack and 128 byte return stack on my 51 forth
18:19:07 <wUoNrFk> mark: ouch, require an extended 8051
18:23:33 <mark4> i got 4k of external ram and 256 bytes of internal ram and 32k of in system programmable flash
18:25:38 <wUoNrFk> but.. you've customized your forth towards a given processor.  is your stack space and everything else definable ? 
18:26:49 <jc> Yea, and you have no 16 bit instructions to access that stack.
18:27:13 <jc> External RAM accesses are expensive.  You have 1, maybe 2 DPTRs.
18:27:20 <jc> And usually the second DPTR is poorly implemented.
18:28:42 <jc> I worked somewhat with the Dallas engineers on the DS89C320.  Tried to convince them of a good way to implement the switching to the second DPTR, that wouldn't totally fuck up all existing interrupt code.  They liked it, but I talked to them too late in the development cycle.
18:29:18 <mark4> only 1 dptr. and these 8051s are faster than some 16 bit controllers
18:29:27 <jc> Which one are you using?
18:29:45 <jc> Faster clock rate.  Not necessarily a faster useful instruction rate.
18:29:58 <mark4> faster instruction rates
18:30:03 <mark4> www.cygnal.com
18:34:27 <jc> Ah, yes.  Used one of those in a design 2 years ago.  F005
18:35:09 <mark4> cool
18:35:11 <jc> Too expensive, though.  
18:35:17 <mark4> ya
18:35:24 <mark4> they been bought out now
18:35:47 <jc> http://tinymicros.com/gallery/products/DSC00030
18:35:59 <jc> You can't see it, but it's under the GPS module, in the middle at the bototm.
18:36:56 <jc> Interfaces to the 5 accelerometers, has a 2K FIFO between the Cygnal and the 386.  Manages the power on the board when the 386 is off, and polls the cellphone for SMS messages.  When the power comes up, the cellphone is switched to the 386.
18:37:23 <jc> Also handles the battery control logic, and power control to the cellphone, audio amp, stuff like that.
18:38:37 <mark4> thats using a 386 ex?
18:38:42 <mark4> they still make them?
18:39:12 <jc> Oh, absolutely.  They sell millions per year.  It's still one of the most used embedded 386 parts there is.
18:39:52 <jc> Supposedly we have documents that garuntee they won't be EOL'ed for at least 5 years.  Although that was 2 years ago.
18:40:10 <mark4> cool
18:44:10 <jc> It's a nice part.  It is fast, and low power.  The reason I chose that one is because the 12-bit A/Ds are *really* good.  Cygnal was started by some guys from Maxim or Dallas (I forget which).  They designed the analog section themselves, licesened the core, then bought the company they licensed it from.
18:44:21 <jc> I think it was Maxim engineers.
18:45:12 <jc> I have some software I wrote to do the JTAG programming from Linux.  I may be able to give you a copy of that.
18:45:35 <jc> It's written in C, tho, so you may not like it :)
18:46:08 <mark4> i would LOVE to see that!
18:46:15 <mark4> can you do single stepping ?
18:46:41 <mark4> i wanty to give my forth the ability debug accross the jtag but ive got next to NO knowledge of how to go about htat
18:46:49 <jc> No, they wouldn't release anything except the erase/program/verify/reset sequences.  I thought about reverse engineering the bitstream on the dongle under Windows, but never had time.
18:46:55 <mark4> the cygnal debugger is the biggest pile of shit i ever saw after NEC emulators
18:47:09 <jc> If they have the codes available now you could add it.  JTAG is pretty easy, as a whole.
18:47:17 <mark4> i asked their tech support to make the disassembly window do symbolic disassembly
18:47:24 <mark4> and they asked me "whats symbolic disassemly"
18:47:32 <mark4> no. they DONT
18:47:40 <mark4> they have a fucked up windows fuck off and die dll grrr
18:47:42 <mark4> pisses me off
18:47:51 <mark4> they wont release the knowhow to use the e2c
18:47:52 --- join: kc5tja (~kc5tja@66-91-231-74.san.rr.com) joined #forth
18:47:52 --- mode: ChanServ set +o kc5tja
18:47:55 <mark4> ec2
18:47:56 <jc> There's very few IDEs that make me happy.  
18:48:15 <jc> I'm gonna finish watching 24.  After that's over + 10, I'll hunt up the JTAG code.
18:48:16 <jc> Back ina  few.
18:48:24 <mark4> k
18:56:43 <kc5tja> Hmm...  I just realized something rather important with respect to FS/Forth: I cannot store the word list data structures outside of the compilation image, as they are required for proper operation in the target image.  :)
18:59:07 <MysticOne> noooooooo
18:59:10 * MysticOne has no idea what that means
18:59:12 <MysticOne> but nooooooo!
19:00:04 <kc5tja> Right now, I have a 16KB code space, and a separate 24KB buffer used to hold the bindings between words and their addresses.
19:00:30 <kc5tja> But if I were to save the image, only the 16KB buffer would be saved; consequently, the bindings between the Forth definitions and their names would be lost.
19:00:39 <MysticOne> hmmm...
19:00:39 <kc5tja> Thus, I need a larger dictionary size.
19:00:42 <MysticOne> which would mean it wouldn't work
19:00:52 <kc5tja> Well, it'd work for software that didn't need an interpreter or compiler.
19:01:12 <MysticOne> hmmm...
19:01:18 <kc5tja> But certainly not for software which uses the interpreter engine -- and that means, definitely not for an interactive FS/Forth session.  :)
19:02:32 <kc5tja> The disadvantage to all this is, were I to turnkey a program, I must include the name bindings with it, even if I don't include the interpreter/compiler code.
19:14:20 <mark4> would be easier to reverse engineer
19:14:39 <kc5tja> So?
19:15:34 <jc> What's your email, mark4?
19:15:59 <mark4> i messaged it to you earlier
19:16:03 <mark4> ill do so again
19:16:07 <jc> I got i.
19:17:04 <TreyB> Would you guys mind critiquing a bit of code?
19:17:19 <mark4> who ??
19:17:24 <TreyB> Anyone :-)
19:17:26 <kc5tja> The only other alternative is to keep the dictionary entries separate from the core code image, and that cannot really be done using ELF in any sane manner.
19:17:35 <mark4> well paste it in :)
19:17:45 <TreyB> Let's see if this works...
19:17:45 <TreyB> BASE @ HEX 01000193 CONSTANT FNV_32_PRIME BASE !
19:17:45 <TreyB> : fnv_32_buf ( hash c-addr len -- result )
19:17:45 <TreyB>     0 DO                    ( hash c-addr )
19:17:45 <TreyB>         SWAP FNV_32_PRIME * ( c-addr hash )
19:17:45 <TreyB>         OVER C@ XOR SWAP    ( hash c-addr )
19:17:47 <TreyB>         1+
19:17:49 <TreyB>     LOOP
19:17:51 <TreyB>     DROP
19:17:53 <TreyB>     ;
19:18:00 <TreyB> Oooh.  It even retains the formatting.
19:18:02 <jc> Ahh!  My eyes!  It's all in caps!
19:18:02 <mark4> isforth does it - you can have the headers in a seperate elf section
19:18:40 <mark4> the comments arent :)
19:18:59 <TreyB> The original had tabs.
19:19:08 <jc> PRIME * ?  isn't that a cable company?  You're not endorsing a CABLE company, are you?
19:19:45 <TreyB> http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/
19:19:47 <kc5tja> mark4: But then you need symbol relocation records and the like for it, no?  And you still need that section when turnkeying.
19:20:16 <mark4> no - look at isforths code, IT relocated the headers itselfr
19:20:37 <mark4> and no. the turnkey doesnt retain any header info at all
19:21:31 <kc5tja> mark4: Is IT an acronym or just a sticky use of the SHIFT-key?
19:21:48 <Herkamire> slava: got your e-mail. haven't had time to try it yet
19:22:51 <mark4> shift key lol
19:23:29 <kc5tja> mark4: So you maintain a pointer to the symbol section in your main code section.  That means you have one relocation record for it then.
19:24:39 <mark4> no. actually i just have one section but i know wherein that section the first header is. when i break out to one meg i set my head space to be the upper 512k and then reloacete each header out to there
19:24:51 <mark4> i then point HERE at where the headers used to be
19:25:22 <mark4> when i fsave (not turnkey) i relocate them back to where HERE is and save the code space and head space to the same section
19:28:26 <arke> its Samuel!
19:28:28 <arke> And Mark!
19:28:50 <arke> And Jason!
19:29:02 <arke> And Trey!
19:29:05 <arke> And J.C.?
19:29:24 <jc> Yes.
19:29:40 <mark4> would that mechanism be too complecated for fsforth ?
19:31:57 <kc5tja> mark4: No, but I considered that solution, and I didn't want to have to deal with relocations.  :)
19:32:19 <mark4> yes. ONE relocation item - 4 bytes
19:32:21 <arke> mark4: oh yeah, how does isforth turnkey/fsave?
19:32:50 <kc5tja> mark4: I'm just looking at options for the time being, because right now, I'm embedding the wordlists in a separate chunk of memory.
19:32:51 <mark4> fsave i just explained. turnkey is identical excpt it doesnt relocate all headers down to "here"
19:33:02 <mark4> right
19:33:26 <kc5tja> mark4: But I realized, if I were to save the image, I would lose the wordlist data, because it's not a part of the dictionary.
19:33:56 <mark4> you could have a "file name" for the "headers file" and save out to two seperate files
19:34:08 <mark4> when you load the code IT loads the headers
19:34:10 <kc5tja> mark4: No.  That's unacceptable for me.
19:34:17 <mark4> would be for me too
19:34:51 <kc5tja> I can get more flexibility by saving the image in a proprietary format, and using a C trampoline to bootstrap the native code image.
19:35:12 <kc5tja> (which was my very first plan for FS/Forth, if you remember)
19:35:56 <arke> kc5tja: you mean, sorta doing relocations yourself?
19:36:10 <kc5tja> arke: No, using position independent code.
19:36:18 <kc5tja> Basically, something like this:
19:36:27 <kc5tja> int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
19:36:27 <kc5tja> {
19:36:35 <kc5tja>   ProcessArguments( argc, argv );
19:36:49 <kc5tja>   f = fopen( img_filename, "rb" );
19:36:53 <kc5tja>   if( f != NULL )
19:37:07 <kc5tja>     image = malloc( g_image_size );
19:37:13 <kc5tja>     if( image != NULL )
19:37:14 <kc5tja>     {
19:37:42 <kc5tja>       fread( image, file_size, 1, f );
19:38:18 <kc5tja>       fclose(f);
19:38:19 <kc5tja>       (void (*)( void * ))(image)(image);  /* Start the image! */
19:38:21 <kc5tja>     }
19:38:23 <kc5tja>   }
19:38:24 <kc5tja> }
19:39:40 --- join: jdrake (~GodlessHo@CPE00045afdd0e8-CM014410113717.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth
19:39:51 <kc5tja> Basically, C acts as a trampoline -- it's used exclusively to get the image up and running, and that's that.  Beyond the bootstrap process, it's never used again.
19:40:01 <kc5tja> (unless you code in some functionality yourself.)
19:40:33 <kc5tja> Note I avoided error checking for brevity.
19:40:51 <arke> erm
19:40:52 <arke> ....
19:40:54 <kc5tja> re jdrake
19:40:57 <arke> thats not gonna work.
19:41:10 <jdrake> good evening kc5tja
19:41:11 <kc5tja> Sure it would.
19:41:25 <kc5tja> How do you think BigForth works?  :)
19:41:37 <kc5tja> Or gforth?  Or Win32Forth?
19:41:39 <chandler> how dare you paste C in here?
19:41:50 <kc5tja> chandler: I could paste Scheme instead.
19:41:55 <arke> ....
19:41:56 <chandler> that would be acceptable
19:41:58 <kc5tja> Or how about Oberon?
19:41:59 <arke> that CANT work.
19:42:04 <kc5tja> arke: Why not?
19:42:05 <chandler> that, on the other hand, would not
19:42:07 <jdrake> Ada Only
19:42:19 <kc5tja> chandler: Hmm...well, I'm sorry.  You'll just have to accept it.
19:42:24 <arke> kc5tja: because that doesnt relocate. unless it uses all relative.
19:42:28 <jdrake> : ;
19:42:31 <kc5tja> 'cos Oberon is my all-time favorite systems-level programming language, second only to Forth.
19:42:34 <TreyB> iForth works that way.
19:42:42 <mark4> well this channel isnt moderated at all
19:42:43 <kc5tja> arke: Did you read where I wrote 'position independent code' above?
19:42:43 <chandler> DIE, SPAWN OF PASCAL!
19:42:45 <chandler> er, excuse me
19:42:46 <jc> Won't work on all archs, tho.  Some memory managment won't let you execute from allocate memory, as it's marked as data, not code.
19:42:52 <arke> kc5tja: ok...
19:43:03 <chandler> jc: a simple call to mprotect() will fix that
19:43:04 <mark4> go ahead and paste micro$haft visual basic if ya wanna :P
19:43:07 <arke> kc5tja: just make sure theres no absolute code. because otherwise, you're fux0red
19:43:09 <arke> :)
19:43:14 <kc5tja> chandler: Sorry, but Oberon is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cleaner than Pascal, C, and any other systems language I've seen to date.
19:43:25 <chandler> what's a "systems language"?
19:43:34 <TreyB> arke: if he got this far, he can probably handle the PIC vs. absolute issues :-)
19:43:37 <kc5tja> arke: Of course.
19:43:40 <mark4> jc isforth sys mprotects its entire memory space to +rwx :)
19:43:42 <kc5tja> chandler: A language you can use to write an OS in.
19:43:53 <arke> kc5tja: btw, im switching to dvorak :)
19:44:06 <jc> watch for a lot of new typos.
19:44:28 <chandler> kc5tja: if that includes modulo a bit of assembly, why don't Forth and Common Lisp fit in there too?
19:44:34 <jc> or, Thai-Pos, as I like to call them.
19:45:10 <mark4> i need to go eat
19:45:12 <mark4> im hungreee
19:45:18 <mark4> ill be back in a few mins
19:45:39 <chandler> kc5tja: or was that a veiled insult to the language of this channel? :-)
19:45:59 <kc5tja> chandler: They can.  But I feel Oberon is better for practical reasons.  Oberon's type safety is extremely convenient to have for writing systems-level code.
19:47:17 <kc5tja> I also like the fact that Oberon has such an overwhelmingly clean syntax that any moron can write code for it that anyone else can easily read.
19:47:28 <jdrake> chandler, why do you feel any pascal derived language to be Spawn of His Holiness, Satan, present ruler of Heaven and beyond?
19:47:31 <kc5tja> C, Forth, and Lisp all take great skill to write human readable code in.
19:47:44 <chandler> perhaps I don't write enough systems-level code. I've always felt that static typing was like paren balancing - a garuntor of nothing useful
19:48:12 <kc5tja> chandler: You haven't used a language with strict typing then.
19:48:15 <jdrake> chandler, may I recommend you go into #hprog and talk to smerdyakov? 
19:48:20 <kc5tja> Static typing is useless unless it's enforced.
19:48:33 <chandler> kc5tja: I've used SML
19:48:38 <jdrake> *AHEM* ada *AHEM*
19:49:08 <kc5tja> jdrake: Oberon's typing is at least as strong as Ada's.  Not knowing Ada, though, I cannot say it's stronger.
19:49:09 <chandler> jdrake: why?
19:49:19 <jdrake> has anyone ever written a graphical game recently in forth?
19:49:33 <kc5tja> jdrake: No.
19:49:55 <jdrake> chandler, lets just say he is a guy that you would not be able to budge from the opposite position of needing static typing (specifically for what he refers to as 'programming in the large')
19:50:05 <jdrake> he is a little haughty
19:51:08 <kc5tja> That's a position I equally oppose.
19:51:15 <chandler> well I don't program large. Perhaps on large projects with a sufficient quantity of average programmers, it can be useful
19:51:47 <kc5tja> chandler: Even us experts can make mistakes.  Type checking can be useful in catching mistakes before costly debugging efforts are necessary.
19:52:13 <jdrake> are there any languages that have come from forth? (not just forth variants unless interesting)
19:52:24 <kc5tja> Postscript.
19:52:38 <kc5tja> PDF, though it's not turing complete.
19:52:42 <slava> joy
19:52:43 <kc5tja> Those are the only two I know of.
19:52:52 <kc5tja> Oh, yeah, Joy.  Forgot about that one.
19:52:56 <chandler> kc5tja: I'm usually writing incremental, exploratory code, and then it's often CLOS-ified. That can't happen without dynamic typing
19:53:01 <slava> i'm developing one right now
19:53:04 <chandler> a type error at runtime is not a catastrophe
19:53:50 <kc5tja> chandler: You're right; CLOS *MUST* run in a dynamic environment.  That's why it takes milliseconds to dispatch methods sometimes.
19:54:06 <chandler> kc5tja: I'm sure that's intended to sound worse than it does
19:54:11 <kc5tja> Especially when you have lots of implementations of a given generic, and they're all invoked with roughly equal frequency.
19:54:41 <kc5tja> No; I'm thinking of the case where a single generic has hundreds of specializations, and the generic dispatcher must scan its implementation list every time.
19:55:19 <kc5tja> CLOS is the epitome of flexibility, not efficiency.  It seems almost designed specifically for exploratory programming, which is a nice asset in its favor.
19:55:24 <kc5tja> But I would never consider using it for production code.
19:56:11 <chandler> why not? I have a fast computer. (yes, the old tired argument, but for many things like web serving, fast enough is what counts)
19:56:36 <kc5tja> Because it goes against my personal philosophy.
19:56:44 --- quit: arke (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
19:56:48 <chandler> ok. that's cool
19:56:55 <kc5tja> At this level fo the argument, personal philosophical differences dictates which language choice is better than anything else.  :)
19:57:25 <kc5tja> I mean, I love Lisp.  But I wouldn't use it in the specific case above.
19:57:30 <chandler> personally I'm more interested in programmer efficiency, because my G5 is "fast enough" most of the time - incl. for writing deployed code (web apps et al)
19:57:36 <kc5tja> However, I have found that I can implement a CLOS-like system in Forth with only moderate boilerplate.
19:57:55 <chandler> what would that get you? if it's single dispatch you might as well just write your own single dispatch system in Lisp too
19:58:05 <kc5tja> It wouldn't be single dispatch.
19:58:20 <chandler> then doesn't it have the same problem with scanning the dispatch list?
19:58:25 <kc5tja> Yep.
19:58:36 <chandler> then the solution in both cases is to not write edge-case CLOS :-)
19:58:52 <kc5tja> Sometimes you don't have that option though.
19:58:59 <kc5tja> Otherwise, I agree.
19:59:48 <kc5tja> I guess my point is, I've outgrown the "language A is better than language B" attitude without providing what I feel are sound, technical merits to support my argument.
20:00:06 <kc5tja> Just because Wirth invented a language doesn't, by default, make the language unsuitable or useless, or even dangerous.
20:00:09 <kc5tja> Pascal was bad.
20:00:12 <kc5tja> Modula-2 was better.
20:00:17 <kc5tja> Oberon is overwhelmingly superior.
20:00:20 <chandler> I think Native Oberon is very cool
20:00:23 <chandler> it's not for me, though
20:00:28 <jdrake> Turbo Pascal :-) mmmmm
20:00:50 <kc5tja> What I feel is a grave injustice is that each succeeding language Wirth developed, Wirth got less and less recognition for.  :(
20:00:57 <chandler> the "DIE, SPAWN OF PASCAL" comment was obviously a joke
20:01:09 <kc5tja> I especially appreciate Oberon's support for garbage collection.
20:01:34 <jdrake> kc5tja, were you programming only with oberon or with the whole gui stuff too?
20:02:06 <kc5tja> jdrake: I never did any GUI stuff -- I found its graphics architecture too undocumented for me to invest time reverse engineering its API.
20:02:14 <kc5tja> I only did core language programming.
20:02:56 <kc5tja> It wasn't until I moved on to other projects that I finally received a document explaining the Gadgets system.
20:03:09 <kc5tja> By then, I was already involved with said other projects, and never went back (yet).
20:03:37 <kc5tja> Also, my window manager currently intercepts all my function keys, so that makes using the Oberon System rather difficult.  :)
20:03:40 <chandler> as far as static typing goes - perhaps it's useful for communicating system design with average programmers, but in general I encounter type errors so infrequently that it wouldn't buy me anything
20:03:57 <chandler> has anyone written a WM in forth?
20:04:19 <kc5tja> chandler: No, but that was going to be something I was going to write with FS/Forth once I got it able to emit its own binaries.  :)
20:04:42 <chandler> ah. you should write your own X protocol implementation
20:04:51 <kc5tja> Hehe
20:04:55 <kc5tja> Nahh, I won't go that far.
20:05:05 <chandler> it can be useful - CLX is significantly nicer to use than xlib
20:05:33 <kc5tja> Oh, you mean to bind XLib to Forth.
20:05:42 <kc5tja> I thought you meant to replace xlib completely.
20:05:45 <chandler> I did
20:05:52 <chandler> CLX is a CL implementation of the X protocol
20:05:58 <chandler> it was developed alongside xlib at MIT
20:06:02 <kc5tja> How difficult is it to do that?
20:06:22 <chandler> probably very, honestly
20:06:30 <chandler> even wrapping xlib can be a pain, from what I understand
20:06:47 <kc5tja> I would just implement the code I needed, and nothing else.
20:07:23 <chandler> ah. well with Volume 0 on hand it could be tolerable to do it by hand, but writing a WM is an exersize in pain anyway, thanks to I39L
20:07:28 <chandler> (aka ICCM)
20:07:44 <kc5tja> You mean ICCCCCCCCCCCCCM?
20:07:44 <kc5tja> :)
20:07:59 <chandler> yeah, shortened to I39L
20:08:03 <chandler> (I, 39 letters, L)
20:08:36 * chandler represents the X Hater's Union local no. 317
20:12:20 <kc5tja> Heheh
20:12:38 <kc5tja> I think I have volume 0 -- not sure.
20:12:48 <kc5tja> I'd have to check.  It's either volume 0 or volume 1.
20:12:56 <chandler> vol 1 is xlib, 0 is x protocol
20:12:59 <chandler> it might be available online now
20:12:59 <kc5tja> It has a sample wm in it though.  And yes, it's a major pain in the @#(8&# to code.
20:13:09 <kc5tja> Oh, then I have volume 1.
20:28:48 <Herkamire> have there been any other implementations of an X server besides xfree?
20:31:39 <jc> You mean open source, or any at all?
20:38:39 <kc5tja> There are tons of X servers.
20:38:50 <kc5tja> (well, more appropriately, X clients)
20:39:37 <kc5tja> But as far as I know, xfree86 is the only open source X client.
20:41:53 <jc> x servers, arent't they?    X is backwards from what you might think.  So xfree86, xwin32, etc are all servers.
20:42:15 <jc> Where'd the first part of that sentence go?!?  Who took it?
20:42:25 <kc5tja> Oops, yeah, i was thinking pre-reversed, and I reversed it once more. 
20:42:34 <jc> It's confusing and stupid.
20:42:41 <kc5tja> But accurate.
20:44:18 <jc> I dunno.  I prefer to think of the display as a client to the program that's serving the information.
20:45:04 <kc5tja> But the X server is a proper server; the X client software all connect to it (the sole server), not vice versa.
20:46:15 <jc> but but but but but...
20:46:18 <kc5tja> :)
20:47:08 <jc> What's important is that *I* don't like it.  And since the earth, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and reality all revolve around *me*, I think it needs to be changed.
20:47:20 <kc5tja> Personally, I'd arrange for a different setup myself.
20:47:25 <jc> BTW, my other nick is DarlMcBride/BillGates
20:47:27 <kc5tja> I'd make each application their own server.
20:47:40 <kc5tja> Only they serve only their own program's display list.
20:48:10 <kc5tja> The client is responsible for connecting to a server everytime it opens a window.
20:48:26 <kc5tja> That's how I'd handle it.
20:48:45 <jdrake> screw it all and just use a console
20:49:06 <kc5tja> jdrake: You can't use a console to represent graphical data.
20:49:29 <jc> Yea, graphics are a dumb idea, anyway.   So is anything faster than 1200 baud, and no one needs more than 640K.
20:50:12 * kc5tja chuckles at the 1200 baud reference.  :D
20:51:58 <jdrake> i had a 2400 once
20:53:50 <jc> I have several original 300 baud Hayes modems, a few Transets, 2 dozen Chronographs, and assorted other Hayes modems, 1200 and up.
20:54:41 <mark4> lol i have THREE kaypro 2's
20:54:44 <jdrake> does anyone know the origin of 'flat' and 'flatmate' vs. 'room' and 'roommate'?
20:54:54 <jc> The Chronographs are true works of art.
20:56:06 <mark4> :)
20:56:37 <jdrake> watches?
20:58:04 <jc> No no no!
20:58:43 <jdrake> that is what google comes up with
20:58:45 <jc> http://incolor.inebraska.com/bill_r/hayes_stack_chronograph.htm
20:59:54 <slava> Herkamire, are you there?
21:00:01 <slava> Herkamire, that error is caused by me forgetting to package a file into LSD.jar...
21:00:26 <jdrake> jc, i don't understand what makes that a chronograph
21:00:43 <jdrake> "
21:00:43 <jdrake> Chronograph - Watch or other apparatus with two independent time systems: one indicates the time of day, and the other measures brief intervals of time"
21:01:46 <kc5tja> What an ODD computer peripheral!
21:03:31 <jc> It's not a "chronograph" in terms of a precision time keeping piece.  It was the first external RTC for a computer, however.  Remember, back in the old days, computers didn't have RTC chips.
21:03:59 <jc> It does keep good time, however.
21:04:18 <jdrake> my first computer was a Tandy 1000SL
21:04:39 <jc> Youngster.
21:04:46 <jdrake> 8086 chip, 384k ram, 64k used for rom, no harddrive, a single 360k DSDD drive
21:05:01 <jdrake> which we picked up another one of those drives too later on
21:05:09 <jdrake> it had a tandy graphics adapter
21:05:19 <jdrake> which was better than CGA but not as good as EGA
21:05:33 <jdrake> it had an RTC on it
21:05:42 <jdrake> the only thing it didn't seem to have - a battery for it
21:05:58 <jdrake> i called tandy once and they wanted over $100cdn for the bloody battery
21:06:22 <jc> I'm hunting (idly) for a couple of system.  I want a Poly-88, an IMSAI VDP-80, PDP 11/40 or 11/70, PDP-8 (front panel option), and a Sage 68K system.
21:06:32 * chandler still desires a lispm
21:06:52 <jc> I have a Sol-20, IMSAI 8080 w/ FP, and several Otrona Attaches, arguably one of the first portable computers.
21:07:02 <jc> http://tinymicros.com/pc is how I keep track of some of this junk
21:07:36 <jc> Although I need to do a detailed inventory of my vintage systems.  I bought a couple of Apples and C-64s that are unaccounted for.
21:07:40 <jdrake> that blade would be nice :-)
21:07:49 <jc> It's a slug.
21:07:59 <jdrake> it wouldn't have been before
21:08:18 <jc> You ever used CDE?  CDE is *slow*
21:08:20 <jdrake> i know it was a low end machine
21:08:23 <jc> Yea
21:08:30 <jdrake> jc, thank god i didn't ever use it ;-)
21:08:32 <jc> It does OK with Gentoo.  I used it as a file server.
21:08:42 <chandler> the problem is the IDE chipset
21:08:48 <chandler> and the video
21:08:51 <jc> What sucks about runnign Gentoo is I can't use the 733Mhz co-proc card for anything.
21:08:52 <chandler> and the memory bus
21:09:01 <chandler> heck, the whole thing sucks
21:09:07 <chandler> jc: you have a SunPCi? cool
21:10:04 <jc> I bought it to pickup Solaris.  Then I found it was just sitting there, and I saw there was a Gentoo Sparc port.  So I tried it, and it kind of stuck.  Now I still don't have anything else to run Solaris on.
21:10:33 <chandler> run it on X86; chances are your homebuilt X86 is much better hardware and more stable than a Sun Blade
21:10:52 <jc> I forget what I paid for it.  $1100 or $1200 with the SunPCI card.  Nwo you can get these things in the low 700's.
21:11:24 <jc> The Blade 1000 and 1500 are the "better" low-end machines.
21:11:42 <chandler> yes indeed
21:12:02 <chandler> but honestly an Ultra 10 is just as capable, and has far fewer problems
21:12:47 <jdrake> What is this quote referring to? "a significant amount is damn near impossible for the average Joe, and you'd need a LOT of it to kill anyone. It's also expensive--one estimate puts the price at about $300 per kilogram. Hit 'em over the head with a bottle of Poland Spring and save yourself some grief."
21:13:22 <chandler> crack cocaine
21:13:38 <jdrake> nope
21:14:32 <jdrake> they are more concerned about it getting into the hands of certain enemies (not that they can stop them from getting it) more than they are about cocaine
21:14:53 <chandler> sarin
21:14:54 <chandler> dunno
21:15:06 <jc> Naw, something to be put into the water supply.
21:15:11 <jc> A toxin of some kind.
21:15:19 <chandler> no clue
21:15:21 <jdrake> jc, very very close
21:16:03 <jdrake> jc, i will give you another hint - a frozen piece would sink in a pond
21:16:18 <jc> heavy water.
21:16:21 <jdrake> :-)
21:16:27 <jdrake> you got yourself a botsnack
21:16:32 <jc> *woof*
21:16:41 <jdrake> now what made you think of that
21:16:49 <chandler> huh? I'm so confused. why are we concerned about people getting heavy water?
21:17:11 <jc> The context of the "Hit'm over the head...grief" is the giveaway.
21:17:28 <jdrake> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mheavywater.html   for details chandler
21:17:39 <jc> It makes no sense to say that, unless the context relates to somehow doing something else with water.
21:18:25 <jdrake> how would you like some dideuterium oxide coffee?
21:18:50 <chandler> you can make heavy water yourself with a fusor, no? all you need is a neutron source
21:19:15 <jdrake> one of the staff in the comic User Friendly was serving it to his mates in the isp
21:20:13 <jdrake> here is the toxicology for dideuterium oxide: "High concentrations in the body can affect biochemical processes. Ingestion of large amounts impairs kidney function, CNS operation. Chemical presents no hazard unless significant quantities are ingested."
21:20:27 <jc> I remember some college students setting up a kiosk, and getting people to sign a petition to ban hydrogen dioxide.   It's toxic in large quantities, inhibits respiration, it's classed as a solvent.
21:21:11 <jdrake> why would they want to ban it?
21:21:35 <jc> It was a joke.  People are too stupid to realize it's H2O, or water.  Sorry, and it was dihydrogen oxide.
21:21:35 <jdrake> or is it one of those save the whales crusades?
21:21:49 <jdrake> D2O :-)
21:22:30 <jdrake> one thing I have learned in the retail business - customers are morons, stupid idiots, or both.
21:22:33 --- join: zardon (~zardon@d216-232-233-5.bchsia.telus.net) joined #forth
21:22:40 <jdrake> now of course there is the odd exception
21:22:42 <jc> There was also a group that wanted to stamp out womens sufferage.  
21:23:08 <jdrake> i heard about that one I think
21:23:14 <jdrake> it would not be a bad idea
21:23:32 <jc> I trust you looked both right AND left before saying that :)
21:23:45 <zardon> heh
21:23:48 <jdrake> it would hopefully be able to get them back into their proper place - The Home, The Kitchen, and Taking Care of My Kids
21:24:15 <jc> I don't know which was a bigger mistake.  Letting them vote, or letting them drive.
21:24:16 <mark4> hi zardon
21:24:22 <zardon> hello
21:24:47 <mark4> you new in here? im bad with names but i dont think ive seen that one before :)
21:25:06 <jdrake> jc, let them vote - each night - you unzip or she unzips for you
21:25:08 <zardon> not really
21:25:26 <zardon> i was on quite a bit a few months back
21:25:28 <jc> That'd work, jdrake.
21:25:58 <jdrake> then maybe the kiss up or kiss below
21:26:02 <jc> I suppose I should go to bed.  I have to get up before 10AM, and that always plays hell.
21:26:22 <jdrake> jc, night
21:26:26 <zardon> bye
21:26:42 <jc> see ya'll tomorrow.  Well, later today, if you're EST.
21:26:49 <jdrake> +
21:26:51 * chandler is est
21:26:55 <chandler> and should go to bed too
21:27:02 <mark4> my alarm goes off at 0630
21:28:08 <mark4> i just emailed bill oriley about a segment he did on the assault weapon ban
21:28:24 <mark4> fscking moron opening his trap on a subject he knows nothing of grrr
21:29:13 <jdrake> mark4, why would somebody need an assault weapon?
21:29:25 <jc> The term "assault weapon" is bullshit.
21:29:33 <mark4> thers NO SUCH thing
21:29:35 <jc> I really am going to bed.  Right after I rant.
21:29:42 <mark4> jc well said
21:30:01 <chandler> how about "crazy shit I don't want the stupid people to have"?
21:30:03 <mark4> jdrake the term "assault weapon" was coined by the anti gun croud to make it seem like a more powerful weapon
21:30:03 <chandler> does that term work?
21:30:14 <jc> And there's NO reason a citizen in good standing should not be allowed to own the same weapons as the police or military use.  To allow otherwise is to permit a government that can oppress you.
21:30:21 <chandler> jc: dear lord
21:30:23 <mark4> chandler study the 2a
21:30:38 <jc> Like what?  Gasoline in a bottle?  Gonna let crazy Eddy down the street have that?
21:30:39 <mark4> jc or ones the criminals DO get hold of
21:30:43 <jc> Arson is less dangerous?
21:30:47 <chandler> you're going to tell me that there's any weapon you want the stupid people to have that's an effective defence against the arsenal of the government?
21:31:09 <jdrake> jc, People should not be permitted to have a weapon if not used for hunting
21:31:17 <mark4> chandler, the second ammendments PRIMARY role is to defend the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT
21:31:37 <jdrake> Police and Military are special cases that serve the public
21:31:40 <mark4> the government has NO legal right to restrict who can carry what weapoins OR where
21:31:50 <chandler> mark4: and that ROLE is NO LONGER feasable, because the founding fathers didn't forsee VTOL AIRCRAFT and PRECISION-GUIDED BOMBS
21:31:57 <mark4> jdrake no. the poliece are not your personal body guards
21:32:06 <jdrake> mark4, i am not asking them to be
21:32:08 <jc> SERVE the public?  When just about the freakin' library has a SWAT team?  The government does not SERVER the public.  That's old school wishful thinking.
21:32:32 <zardon> gun control, a nice wind'er down topic
21:32:43 <jdrake> because they should not have to be, because guns should not be allowed in most cases
21:32:49 <mark4> guns dont kill people, gun laws kill people. i invite anyone who does not understand this to google for "A Nation of Cowards"
21:32:51 <jc> But more later.  I gotta take the dog to the opthomolagist in the AM, and that's more important in the very short term.
21:33:10 <chandler> in any event, the answer is quite clear
21:33:13 <chandler> I should have all the weapons
21:33:17 <jdrake> mark4, go give me a break, guns are designed to kill people, it does not matter if a person usually needs to be involved
21:33:20 <mark4> zardon lol
21:33:50 <jdrake> almost all security guards around are not even allowed to carry a gun around here, the only ones permitted seem to be brinks when they come around to pickup money
21:33:56 <mark4> jdrake anything can be made to KILL someone, a gun can be used for evil deeds but it can also be used to PREVENT evil deeds
21:34:11 <zardon> jdrake .ca ?
21:34:21 <jdrake> zardon, Heil Martin!
21:34:24 <mark4> jdrake thats like saying "here ya go criminals, were all unarmed, come get us"
21:34:27 <zardon> heh
21:34:51 <mark4> also known as a defensless victim zone
21:34:54 <jdrake> The Fifth Reich is starting on friday, (Fourth was Chretien)
21:34:56 <zardon> thats friday, 3 more sleeps
21:35:10 <jdrake> mark4, so you would have everybody carry around a handgun?
21:35:48 <mark4> jdrake if i ever became dictator of the world i would enact a law requireing ALL law abiding citizens to carry a LOADED firearm at ALL times
21:35:57 <mark4> jdrake look at chicago and washington dc
21:35:59 <chandler> mark4: dear lord, you simply don't get it
21:36:07 <chandler> if you're dictator of the world, you take all the weapons
21:36:14 <mark4> two highest rates of murder in the world. also the higest gun control in the coun try
21:36:18 <mark4> country
21:36:25 --- join: Sonarman (~matt@adsl-63-196-0-205.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) joined #forth
21:36:31 <jdrake> mark4, gee I wonder why they are the highest
21:36:33 <mark4> chandler.. you meani would be doing it... WRONG ???
21:36:34 <mark4> lol
21:36:35 <zardon> seen bowling for columbine?
21:36:41 <chandler> mark4: yes
21:36:45 <mark4> jdrake because the citizens are not allowed to defend themselves
21:37:13 <jdrake> mark4, so you give everybody a gun so they can kill everybody else because they felt threatened by the blackman at the end of the street
21:37:25 <jdrake> don't forget the terrorists, commies, jews, and atheists
21:37:43 <zardon> guns are just a treatment for the symptoms
21:37:44 <mark4> zardon i can give you a URL which proves that moore not only LIED but BULLSHITED too. he spliced tapes together and made people say things they NEVER said
21:37:59 <chandler> if it doesn't fit into your purse / on our person comfortably, I don't see why it's relevant to the issue of carrying a weapon with you
21:38:05 <chandler> er, s/our/your/
21:38:21 <mark4> he put speaches that happend prior to columbine out of context so they would LOOK bad
21:38:50 <zardon> i've not heard about that mark4
21:38:50 <mark4> chandler i carry a 1911 where its legal for me to do so
21:39:10 <mark4> im in texas atm and its not legal for me to carry it here but its within arms reach as we speak
21:39:23 <mark4> zardon ill get you the URL hang on
21:39:28 <jdrake> mark4, are you very paranoid?
21:39:47 <jdrake> I have NEVER touched a gun, or do I have any desire to
21:39:48 <mark4> http://www.hardylaw.net/
21:39:51 <zardon> i don't think i would someone i found lifting my TV
21:39:53 <mark4> jdrake no. just very prepared
21:39:55 <zardon> shhot
21:39:57 <zardon> shoot
21:39:59 <zardon> arg
21:40:51 <zardon> i don't trust government myself, but i prefer to be informed and alert, rather than armed
21:41:36 <jdrake> and may I bring into the point here: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Note that the militia is a part of the army (google: "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army"). This does not mean regular citizens.
21:42:12 <jdrake> Militia certainly does not refer to individual citizens
21:42:16 <mark4> you jdrake "the PEOPLE" in every other ammendment means INDIVIDUALS - not "the government"
21:42:31 <zardon> look at Angola, there are weapons there per capita than the US
21:42:39 <zardon> more
21:42:53 <zardon> man, im dropping words tonight
21:43:19 <jdrake> mark4, that may be (militia is infact made up of individuals), but that is in reference to members of a militia
21:43:20 <chandler> mark4: so why exactly is it necessary that the second amendment should be relevant today?
21:43:23 <jdrake> not every old citizen
21:43:41 <mark4> jdrake no - im in a militia. im a member of the nra 
21:43:55 <mark4> the ammendment does NOT mean "the national guard"
21:43:59 <mark4> or "the army"
21:44:10 <mark4> there was no national guard at the time they framed the constitution
21:44:16 <mark4> it meant ME. YOU. etc etc
21:44:31 <chandler> who cares. repeal the damn thing, let Congress enact the limits, and replace it with an amendment granting broad crypto and reverse-engineering rights
21:45:25 <chandler> the DMCA et al are far more scary than any ban or restriction on guns
21:45:39 <zardon> indeed
21:45:45 <mark4> chandler,  if the second goes the first will not stand long. nor the 4th or 5th
21:45:58 <zardon> im sorry, but a 1911 is no match for Shock Troops or Death Squads
21:45:58 <chandler> I call bullshit. Support that position.
21:46:01 <jdrake> mark4, a) NRA is more of a lobby group than any kind of militia, and b) it certainly isn't very well regulated
21:46:16 <mark4> jdrake i have issues with them too lol
21:46:20 <mark4> but it still counts
21:46:44 <mark4> and i believe the term "well regulated" had different meaning back then
21:47:02 <jdrake> mark4,   if you are speaking of what was back then...
21:47:09 <mark4> but i forget exactly what it would be translated into in todays language
21:47:28 <jdrake> back then they were fighting or defeated a foreign army
21:47:43 <jdrake> mark4, like the accuracy in the many versions of the bible?
21:48:22 <zardon> lets not go there :)
21:48:37 <chandler> mark4: you still haven't supported your statement
21:49:23 <mark4> jdrake no - they had an opressive regeme they had just ousted. they had that fresh in their minds when they framed the constitition, they did not want the same oppression to happen to US
21:49:30 <mark4> chandler which ones ?
21:49:40 <chandler> 23:49 < mark4> chandler,  if the second goes the first will not stand long. nor the 4th or 5th
21:49:45 <mark4> chandler did you read "a nation of cowards" ?
21:49:49 <chandler> no
21:49:55 <mark4> google for it
21:49:57 <mark4> its an education
21:50:03 <mark4> and an interesting read too
21:50:58 <mark4> When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is Liberty
21:51:11 <chandler> I just scrolled through it and saw an uninformed use of the phrase "philosopher-king". find me something by someone who doesn't misconstrue Plato.
21:51:23 <jdrake> i like this one ammendment - number 27
21:51:52 <mark4> try read the whole thing
21:52:20 <chandler> he obviously hasn't taken the time to actually read The Republic. why would I bother reading what he's written?
21:52:21 <kc5tja> Without having read it, because one author misconstrues another author does not necessarily make his point invalid.
21:52:39 <chandler> kc5tja: no, but it may make my judgement that it's not worth my time
21:52:39 <mark4> !
21:52:53 <mark4> shows your ignorance
21:52:57 <mark4> in this subject i mean
21:53:05 <mark4> not intending to start a flame war today :)
21:53:29 <mark4> ok if you wont read that then go read the federalis papers
21:53:41 <zardon> it does not matter if the average citizen has a gun, control is of the mind
21:54:02 <mark4> tho i think youll have an easier time of the former suggested reading heh
21:54:06 <zardon> it just means, that you will have armed groups of citizens rooting out the enemy of the decade
21:54:10 <jdrake> mark4, you are a standard gun head trying to push his position from any angle using any crack available
21:54:13 <kc5tja> I think the whole issue boils down to one of education.
21:54:16 <chandler> out of date. out of touch. if you want to argue by the word of the constitution, then you might find a few dozen FBI and other intelligence agency people willing to convince you that the 1st amendment does not apply to computers.
21:54:38 <kc5tja> Early in the US's history, people knew how to use guns, they knew how to respect them, and they fully grok'ed the idea that they can kill a person.
21:54:58 <kc5tja> Today, many people can't even park their cars in a straight line, let alone handle a gun with respect or care.
21:54:59 <mark4> jdrake no - ive studied and listended to both sides of this arguement and i cannot see anything except bullshit from the anti gun crowd
21:55:12 <jdrake> mark4, i don't see anything but bullshit on your sie
21:55:19 <kc5tja> This is the crux of the issue, I think.
21:55:21 <jdrake> but I am Canadian
21:55:33 <mark4> kc5 true but - lets take granny with the shakes walking in central part at midnight (the fool)
21:55:36 <jdrake> and I feel we are more enlightened on this issue
21:55:55 <mark4> if she is attacked by the many gangs therein she could defend herself with a gun
21:56:00 <chandler> in any event, my position on gun control is quite simple and far more logically consistent than either of yours.
21:56:04 <chandler> you give them all to me.
21:56:05 <mark4> ok she has the shakes but there is also strenght in fear
21:56:07 <zardon> what, if the system in general, at an early stage, reduced crime?
21:56:14 <kc5tja> mark4: If granny has the shakes, she's going to have a very hard time aiming.
21:56:19 <zardon> more education, social programs
21:56:32 <mark4> kc5 no - there is strenght in fear
21:56:38 <jdrake> zardon, are you trying to suggest social'ism?
21:56:43 <kc5tja> mark4: Umm...no.  There is only weakness in fear.
21:56:46 <jdrake> :-)
21:56:48 <zardon> then the idea of justice would not be akin to say, The Congo
21:56:51 <kc5tja> Have you ever truely been afraid?
21:56:52 <kc5tja> I have.
21:56:53 <mark4> i like the g gordon liddy model of gun control
21:56:54 <kc5tja> I almost died.
21:56:57 <mark4> "hit what you aim at"
21:57:06 <kc5tja> I'm lucky that I came to my senses before I did.
21:57:23 <zardon> im no commie, but im no right wing republican, most certainly not
21:57:26 <kc5tja> (This was when I was nearly choked to death outside my apartment door)
21:57:41 <mark4> zardon i would never call you a commie
21:57:46 <mark4> you facist pig you!!!!!
21:57:48 <mark4> heh
21:57:55 <zardon> heh
21:58:00 <zardon> it does not bother me
21:58:05 <mark4> :P
21:58:08 <kc5tja> It is only when I calmed down that I was able to gain the strength needed to pry the bastard's arms off my neck enough to let me breath.  And that royally pissed him off.
21:58:38 <mark4> kc5 why was he doing that ????
21:58:42 <chandler> http://www.comics.com/comics/frazz/archive/images/frazz2003152481204.gif
21:58:46 <kc5tja> mark4: He was a tweaker.
21:58:46 <chandler> that's my politics in a nutshell
21:58:51 <mark4> did ya whoop his as ?
21:58:53 <mark4> tweaker ?
21:59:06 <kc5tja> mark4: No, I did not whoop his ass.  I was badly wounded, I could barely walk.
21:59:15 <kc5tja> I was practically choked out, after all.
21:59:28 <kc5tja> But his father happened to come along and break up the fight.
21:59:37 <kc5tja> That's when I stumbled into my apartment to call the cops.
21:59:38 <mark4> whats a tweaker ?
21:59:57 <kc5tja> mark4: You're a member of the NRA and don't know what a tweaker is?  Routine crystal meth user.
22:00:21 <jdrake> mark4, do you pay dues towards the NRA?
22:00:52 <mark4> oh. i dont study drugs :)
22:00:55 <mark4> other than caffine
22:01:02 <mark4> and a shot of JD every now and then  heh
22:01:11 <mark4> jdrake i pay my membership
22:01:41 <jdrake> how much is that in general?
22:01:58 <jdrake> general being for anyone
22:02:29 <mark4> ive not paid in 4 years. i bought a 5 year membership
22:02:37 <mark4> www.nra.org
22:03:05 <jdrake> i would feel very soiled if I clicked on that
22:03:29 <zardon> yeah, the nra leaves a bad taste in my mouth
22:03:55 <mark4> not as bad a taste as the clinton news network tho
22:03:56 <chandler> something about three letter organizations starting with N
22:04:03 <zardon> CNN?
22:04:14 <zardon> are you kidding, thats pretty right wing
22:04:18 <jdrake> what kind of militia requires payment for membership? Aren't militia members normally paid?
22:04:19 <kc5tja> Well, many people thoroughly dislike the ARRL too, but the ARRL is the one and only ham radio advocacy group that regularly stands up for ham radio user's rights in Washington DC.
22:04:20 <mark4> the nra is too limp wristed for my views, they dont fight enough, they cave in to the lefties
22:04:31 <chandler> NRA, NEA, NSA... I see a pattern here
22:04:45 <zardon> NSC..
22:04:56 <jdrake> how about the NFS
22:05:01 <mark4> lol
22:05:03 <chandler> that's evil too
22:05:07 <mark4> sure is
22:05:08 <zardon> yeah
22:05:10 <kc5tja> chandler: Q appears in Iraq and Al Quaeda too; yet there is no link between them.
22:05:17 <mark4> you can get ROOTED!!!
22:05:22 <chandler> NIS too
22:05:24 <chandler> and NTP
22:05:26 <jdrake> they have No Fing Shit to talk about
22:05:39 <chandler> kc5tja: you sure? Fox News said so...
22:05:59 <kc5tja> chandler: Fox "news" is well known fabricator of lies and disinformation and right-wing propeganda.
22:06:11 <mark4> well fox news is the LEAST yello of all but they do bullshit some :)
22:06:18 <mark4> they also dont always get their facts straight
22:06:19 <kc5tja> chandler: That's why they were utterly laughed (literally) out of court when they sued Al Franken.
22:06:29 <chandler> please, learn to tell a joke
22:06:34 <kc5tja> mark4: "Some?"  Excuse me?
22:06:55 <mark4> they said that "Land" (the inventor of the polorid camera" had more patents to his name than any other individual.
22:07:03 <jdrake> The Only Valud News Source is "This hour has 22 minutes"
22:07:09 <zardon> hehe
22:07:09 <mark4> i bet kc can tell you who realy holds that distinction
22:07:12 <chandler> I can't stand any of it. I watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer; they play two ads at the beginning of the program and from then on I'm safe from the blinking yelling screaming #@$#@ ads
22:07:20 <jdrake> http://www.22minutes.com/intro.htm
22:07:23 <zardon> one segment in particular is my favorite
22:07:51 <kc5tja> mark4: No, I can't, because I don't particularly care.
22:08:11 <kc5tja> But if I wished to find out, I know the proper channels and research methods to do so.
22:08:11 <mark4> kc5 i what do you mean 'some' ?
22:08:26 <mark4> kc5 im sure you do :)
22:08:39 <kc5tja> mark4: You said they distort the facts "some."  I questioned your apparent defense of their tactics.
22:08:40 <mark4> try tesla
22:08:50 <jdrake> mark4, thou must put all your faith in this show: http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/
22:09:04 <mark4> kc5 oh. they dont distort nearly as much as cnn etc
22:09:17 <kc5tja> mark4: CNN merely filters.  They don't fabricate.
22:09:45 <mark4> kc5 an ommission is sometimes worse than an outright lie
22:09:50 <mark4> it is never less than one however
22:09:51 <kc5tja> Fucking hell no.
22:10:01 <jdrake> Forth Type Question Period
22:10:04 <kc5tja> An omission is just a gap that can be filled in.
22:10:15 <kc5tja> A lie is utterly misleading, leading one to believe that no gap exists, and thus, not to do research.
22:10:17 <jdrake> Are there any languages that compile to forth rather than C?
22:10:22 <chandler> yeah. like omitting to describe people who blow up civilians as "terrorists"
22:10:49 <mark4> kc5 no - they only omit those FACTS that disproves what they are trying to say
22:10:57 <mark4> jdrake assembler
22:10:59 <kc5tja> mark4: It's still not lying.
22:11:04 <kc5tja> It's bias.
22:11:11 <kc5tja> And we all know that all news sources are biased.
22:11:13 <kc5tja> It's a fact of life.
22:11:18 <kc5tja> But LYING is outright evil.
22:11:20 <chandler> kc5tja: some much less than others
22:11:24 <chandler> have you ever watched the news hour?
22:11:30 <kc5tja> It's misleading, and patently against every religious substrate in the world.
22:11:33 <mark4> kc5 yes. it is. but i didnt say it was lying, i said it was equal to it or worse
22:11:42 <mark4> its misrepresenting the truth
22:12:12 <kc5tja> Omission can never, ever be worse than lying.
22:12:16 <kc5tja> By definition.
22:12:27 <chandler> definintion of /what/?
22:12:35 <kc5tja> An omission is just that: a hole.
22:12:58 <mark4> well - lets agree to disagree :)
22:13:15 <chandler> so which is worse - a small lie, or omitting to tell anyone that you know when the next big terrorist attacks are going to occur?
22:13:28 <kc5tja> A lie, however, is filling in what would otherwise be a hole (which is a perfectly valid argumentative tactic) with misinformation (which is NOT a valid tactic).
22:13:32 <jdrake> mark4, what is your position on homosexual marriage?
22:13:42 <kc5tja> A small lie is far, far worse.
22:13:43 <mark4> thers no such thing
22:13:47 <zardon> heh
22:14:04 <chandler> kc5tja: whoa. that's one heck of a view. I don't know if most people would agree with it.
22:14:19 <mark4> stealing is evil. lying is evil. murder is evil. homosexuality is "an abomination"
22:14:20 <Sonarman> lying about where the next big terrorist attack is going to be is worse than omitting to tell
22:14:27 <chandler> deliberately not revealing information which could save lives would be counted as pretty negative to most people
22:14:28 <jdrake> mark4, there is - it is called a pair being united in a bond until divorce
22:14:30 <chandler> and most religions, too
22:14:40 <jdrake> mark4, so you are a conservative christian?
22:14:44 <zardon> so you support your semi-deposed sodomy laws?
22:14:51 <kc5tja> mark4: If it's such an abomination, then why does every other species in the world do it?
22:14:59 <kc5tja> It's just nature -- get used to it.
22:15:21 <mark4> jdrake mariage is a religeous thing primarilly. you are stating to GOD that you will remain faithfull etc etc
22:15:23 <zardon> a little gene-wise NOTing is not really worth killing over imo
22:15:32 <chandler> anyone who proclaims their sexual preferences proudly should be sent to the re-education camps
22:15:32 <kc5tja> chandler: Sure it is.  But lying is worse, because it gives a false assurance for more misleading than an omission.
22:15:48 <zardon> i heard about such 'camps'
22:15:57 <mark4> kc5 only man has a soul - and for one who references the bible methunks you missed some of it
22:16:02 <jdrake> mark4, if I get married I am telling a vow to my to be wife, and to witnesses. There is no god involved
22:16:07 <zardon> where the kids were made to huff amonia and watch porn
22:16:19 <zardon> welcome to the 1950s
22:16:22 <kc5tja> mark4: That's a pretty pretensious thing to say.  How do you know monkeys don't have souls?  Who are you to put yourself in God's place?
22:16:22 <mark4> jdrake as you wish
22:16:28 <chandler> zardon: no, no, my re-education camps
22:16:37 <zardon> oh, sorry
22:16:48 <chandler> focused on the religion of extreme intellectualism
22:17:06 <mark4> kc5 maybe thats just my roman catholic (argh) upbringing.
22:17:07 <zardon> http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=boys_beware
22:17:19 <zardon> thats a nice little film
22:17:21 <kc5tja> mark4: I'm baptised Roman Catholic too.  :)
22:17:29 <jdrake> mark4, do you think your god created adam and eve a few thousand years ago just a few days after the earth was created?
22:17:30 <mark4> kc5 lol
22:17:54 <mark4> jdrake in god days yes - thats like microsoft minutes but different
22:18:03 <chandler> kc5tja: nobody cares if monkeys don't have souls, because they're inferior creatures.
22:18:09 <mark4> however - prove he didnt
22:18:18 <zardon> prove HE exists
22:18:19 <jdrake> mark4, are these god days variable length?
22:18:20 <kc5tja> chandler: Whatever.
22:18:42 <chandler> zardon: I can't prove it, but I can make you want it
22:18:48 <kc5tja> chandler: The way I see it, God created the universe via the Big Bang, and just sat back and watched the entertainment that ensued.
22:18:53 <jdrake> after the earth was created it seems there would have to have been about 4 billion years wait before any life was there
22:18:55 <mark4> zardon i dont need to prove it to you as long as i know it in my OWN heart
22:18:59 <Herkamire> many people care about animal rights
22:19:01 <kc5tja> Everything else is nature's doing.
22:19:08 <chandler> kc5tja: I'm a Deist too
22:19:14 <chandler> however, I'm also amoral
22:20:02 <chandler> and completely intellectually superior to all of you
22:20:06 <zardon> hehe
22:20:08 <Herkamire> anybody with a serious problem with homosexuality should get a life and stop trying to fuck with other peoples.
22:20:11 <mark4> kc5 i cant remember who said it, it might have been einstine - "when science reaches the pinacle of its knowledge and understanding it will find religeon there waiting for it"
22:20:30 <chandler> mark4: Einstein was a Deist.
22:20:53 <mark4> and ?
22:20:57 <zardon> i don't like the idea of buying into a 'religious package'
22:21:08 <chandler> mark4: he did not believe that God interfered with the universe
22:21:15 <chandler> no Jesus Christ, no revelation, no nothing
22:21:25 <chandler> so his conception of religion was a bit different
22:21:30 <mark4> zardon i dont like organized religeon, "build me a church" has nothing to do with brick and mortar
22:21:33 <kc5tja> mark4: Einstein also wrote, "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that 
22:21:33 <kc5tja> killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
22:22:04 <Herkamire> zardon: me neither. choose your own beliefs individually. decide/find what you think is good and true.
22:22:04 <jdrake> mark4, tell me why I440r said the exact same thing as you did on September 24, 2002  at 10:20:20?
22:22:14 <zardon> true
22:22:16 <mark4> i AM i440r lol
22:22:26 <jdrake> I am an atheist, reject all (as I call it...) delusion created long ago by people with little understand of what was around them
22:22:27 <kc5tja> What he's objecting to are two things here: puppets (the populace who don't/won't/can't think for themselves), and mindless violence towards others.
22:22:31 <mark4> kc5 i see nothing i disagree with in that statement
22:22:38 <mark4> the sheeple
22:22:47 <chandler> zardon: tell me, if there is no intelligent creator to the universe, then is it reasonable to assume that we would be capable of creating a universe?
22:23:01 <zardon> i don't know
22:23:19 <jdrake> chandler, it is reasonable yes
22:23:25 <zardon> but im not going to just give up on that question, and delegate responsibility to some inivible force
22:23:30 <jdrake> but that does not make us gods
22:23:31 <kc5tja> And religion, by definition, is shepharding.  In fact, the analogy of "God's children" to sheep, with the apostles and Christ himself being our Shephard are too uncanny.  Those with blind faith are sheep.
22:23:31 <chandler> God is a construction I have invented in order to provide a basis for the belief that I can create a universe like our own
22:23:51 --- nick: mark4 -> I440r_
22:23:55 <I440r_> is that better ??? heh
22:24:15 <chandler> jdrake: so you would say that it is impossible?
22:24:20 <I440r_> oh. i have a bitchx open somewhere erm
22:24:31 <I440r_> hrn
22:24:44 <jdrake> chandler, no I am saying that it is entirely reasonable to believe that at one point in the future we may be able to create what would be classified as a universe
22:24:48 <I440r_> oh - i know where it is lol - its in a vnc on my server lol
22:25:04 --- quit: I440r ("[BX] Time wasted: 1 millenia 8 centuries 7 decades 0 years 4 months")
22:25:26 --- quit: Sonarman ("leaving")
22:25:40 <zardon> that was awsome
22:25:55 <jdrake> and I also claim that it does not immediately make us gods, any more than it might make somebody making this universe a god
22:25:58 <Herkamire> zardon: what was awesome?
22:26:16 <zardon> that insane session of opposing views
22:26:17 <chandler> jdrake: then what defines God-hood, if not the act of creating a universe?
22:26:42 <Herkamire> there are thousands of definitions of god
22:26:54 <Herkamire> pick one or make up your own
22:26:56 <zardon> what about religions with more than one god?
22:26:58 <jdrake> chandler, God is a linguistic and conceptual creation for meaning somebody with supreme power over all
22:27:07 <chandler> zardon: who can tell? they could be dead, for all we know
22:27:22 <zardon> and speaking of faith
22:27:22 <chandler> jdrake: interesting. Newton didn't see it that way. Neither did Voltaire. Neither did Einstein.
22:27:35 <zardon> why is it so hard for people to talk about aliens?
22:27:43 <jdrake> chandler, old dead kookes
22:27:58 <kc5tja> The words "god" and "good" actually derive from the same root word.  Which came first can't really be said with our present knowledge, but it's clear they are related (at least at the times of their introduction; when something is `good,' it's God-like, or vice versa)
22:28:21 <chandler> jdrake: please tell me that was sarcasm
22:28:27 <zardon> well, French has disperate words for both
22:28:30 <jdrake> kc5tja, the hebrew word that is often refered to in translation as god is actually those that come from the sky
22:28:59 <jdrake> chandler, they may have had many useful contributions to science, but that does not make their other beliefs any more relevant
22:29:09 <kc5tja> zardon: So does every Latin-based language.  I'm talking before then.
22:29:25 <chandler> their influence on modern society suggests that they way they used this term might not be as irrelevant as you think
22:29:26 <zardon> which language, Grunt?
22:29:27 <jdrake> it might be best to say that nobody is a god, but one can be believed to be a god
22:30:08 <kc5tja> zardon: Possibly.  German evolved entirely from illiterate peoples, and has been the very core of early English.
22:30:30 <chandler> jdrake: that no make sense to me
22:30:32 <jdrake> an athiest might try to say that there is no god, but what they are really trying to do is convince the other guy that who they believe to be a god is not (thus god does not exist if he is not a god)
22:30:44 <kc5tja> We also know that some of mankind's earliest beginnings (or remnants thereof) exist in what is now France and Germany.
22:30:45 --- quit: Herkamire ("bedtime")
22:30:57 <jdrake> kc5tja, i would vote for africa
22:31:09 <jdrake> 100,000 year old residence in a cave specifically
22:31:18 <zardon> I was listening to a programme about modern language comming out of Turkey
22:31:21 <jdrake> thus to not preclude the possible alien involvement
22:31:23 <chandler> It came out of Afrika-ka-ka.
22:31:40 <kc5tja> jdrake: OK, let me clarify then: the earliest homo sapiens.
22:31:54 <jdrake> kc5tja, i am speaking of homo sapiens
22:32:18 <jdrake> zardon, the women I have seen always told me that modern language had cum out of their mouth
22:32:22 <zardon> homo erectus was not capable of symbolic thought as far as i know
22:32:46 <zardon> hmm~ im crunching on that
22:32:53 <chandler> meanwhile, Homo Sapiens Superior is now beginning in Bloomington, IN.
22:33:09 <I440r_> zardon i would hazzard a guess that homo erectus was oure equal in intelligence
22:33:19 <I440r_> he just didnht have the experiences we have nor the knowledge
22:33:22 <jdrake> do you know what would have been interesting...
22:33:37 <kc5tja> jdrake: I don't deny that either.  But there are sites in France and Germany which date back from before the earliest of civilizations.
22:33:51 <jdrake> kc5tja <100k?
22:34:09 <kc5tja> Cave paintings in France?  Certainly.
22:34:21 <I440r_> kc5 even THAT you cant state because we have NO reliaable means of dating either the sites or the civilizations
22:34:27 <I440r_> carbon dating is BUNK
22:34:41 <kc5tja> I440r_: It is not.  It is the most accurate dating method we have.  
22:34:50 <kc5tja> I440r_: What proof do you have that it is bunk?
22:34:59 <zardon> i read that there may be a major error
22:35:01 <kc5tja> I440r_: And if it's so bunk, why is it still in use after so long?
22:35:05 <kc5tja> And what do you propose to replace it with?
22:35:06 <zardon> in the decay rate of c-14
22:35:09 <I440r_> kc5 and it can be off by a few billion years
22:35:13 <jdrake> what if one of our cousins had inhabited asia in such a way as to cross the land bridge before our natives in N.A. did, and say that they never got the chance to do so (our natives), thus having one society developing separate from our own on asia/europe/africa
22:35:17 <kc5tja> I440r_: Bullshit.
22:35:19 <I440r_> i dont have any basis but neither do you that its accurate
22:36:04 <kc5tja> I440r_: I do have a basis.  I'm a physicist.  I'm quite familiar with how radioactive dating techniques work.
22:36:13 <kc5tja> And we do know the decay rate for C-14 quite well.
22:37:47 <I440r_> kc5 err... no... you THINK you are lol - 5 thousand years fromnow someone is going to prove that carbon dating is at least 50 billuon years inaccurate and will give a new dating metod which will also eventually be disproved
22:37:48 <kc5tja> And while it's true that we can't pin down the exact date/time of something via C-14 dating, we can pin down, to a reliable degree of certainty, a range of times for an object's creation.
22:37:49 <zardon> i read that a stelagmite(sp) had two different decay rates
22:38:11 <zardon> and that dates of ~50,000 years could be off by ~8,000 years
22:38:17 --- join: njd2 (~junk@ras.aicon.no) joined #forth
22:38:29 <zardon> hello
22:38:31 --- nick: njd2 -> njd
22:38:42 <njd> hi
22:38:42 <kc5tja> I440r_: You're being a moron about this, you know that?  You are spouting off bullshit misinformation, yet again, without providing adequate backing.
22:38:50 * kc5tja is going to /ignore I440r_ soon if it keeps up.
22:38:54 <njd> lol
22:39:17 <I440r_> kc5 whatever
22:39:23 <jdrake> kc5tja, would you use carbon dating to date a vase?
22:39:30 <kc5tja> jdrake: Absolutely.
22:39:31 <I440r_> i do not trust nore believe in carbon dating
22:39:45 <I440r_> you cant possibly prove to me that it works
22:39:47 <kc5tja> I440r_: Again, do you have any alternatives you WOULD believe in?
22:39:48 <jdrake> kc5tja, but would that not get the date the clay used in the vase was made?
22:39:51 <I440r_> no matter HOW much you think it does
22:40:10 <kc5tja> I440r_: Then you disbelieve in nature as it exists today?
22:40:11 <zardon> when i finish my Time Machine, we will invite you along.
22:40:17 <I440r_> kc5 not really, i dont think the human race is capable of understnding physics at that level yet :)
22:40:40 <kc5tja> I440r_: The fact that we have atomic weapons is clear and present evidence that we do.
22:40:50 <chandler> wow, that sounds like an argument of mine
22:40:55 <kc5tja> I440r_: I can assure you, the Japanese are patently aware of our knowledge of physics.
22:40:57 <jdrake> kc5tja, doesn't that just prove our stupidity?
22:41:05 <kc5tja> jdrake: No.
22:41:08 <I440r_> kc5 no 
22:41:18 <kc5tja> I440r_: Yes.
22:41:25 <jdrake> it seems like we are stupid enough to have developed a weapon to destroy ourselves
22:41:48 <kc5tja> jdrake: That's the not fault of the scientists.  That's the fault of the administration backing them.
22:41:51 <chandler> I'm still here, aren't I?
22:42:00 <I440r_> kc5 so youy believen in string theory ?
22:42:16 <zardon> yes you are mr chandler
22:42:24 <I440r_> or even any of the other quantum mechanics theories floating arround ?
22:42:26 <kc5tja> I440r_: There is not enough evidence yet to say one way or the other.  But the evidence for it is building, and I'm inclined to lend credence to it over alternative theories.
22:42:49 <kc5tja> As far as QED, yes, I believe wholeheartedly in it, until *DECISIVELY PROVEN NOT TO BE TRUE*.
22:42:54 <kc5tja> Which you clearly have not done yet.
22:43:13 <jdrake> kc5tja, if you wanted to go visit planet Vulcan (startrek planet vulcan), what would be your most likely method of transport if you didn't want to wait ages
22:43:15 <I440r_> kc5 it could possibly be CLOSE to the truth, close enough that we could use the theory to produce a SUB atomic weapon. that still doesnt make the theory true
22:43:24 <I440r_> close, possibly. accurate no
22:43:28 <chandler> kc5tja: QED involves real numbers. Real numbers don't exist. QED, so to speak.
22:43:31 <kc5tja> jdrake: Yes, it would, but carbon dating isn't used on the clay itself, but usually on surfacants on the clay itself.  E.g., remants of dies or paints used.
22:43:55 <kc5tja> I440r_: It makes it true until proven false.
22:44:24 <kc5tja> jdrake: I'd declare it not feasible without cryosleep technology, and not go.
22:44:43 <chandler> The universe is discrete and contains a finite but unboundedly growing amount of information. Prove /that/ one false :-)
22:44:45 <jdrake> but you don't want to miss your daughter's wedding on vulcan
22:45:07 <zardon> or IN Vulcan~
22:45:09 <kc5tja> jdrake: Good for her.
22:45:25 <I440r_> kc5 ill accept that
22:45:31 <I440r_> or rather
22:45:44 <I440r_> it makes it "possibly true" until proven false
22:45:45 <jdrake> kc5tja, how about if some Centauri Warship jumped out of hyperspace above your house?
22:46:17 <I440r_> jdrake has read too much hitch hikers lol
22:46:25 <jdrake> I440r_, that is babylon5
22:46:39 <zardon> burn
22:46:49 <jdrake> The Greatest Science Fiction Show Since Forever (after DoctorWho)
22:46:50 <chandler> "geez, mankind. you couldn't even make it to Alpha Centarui? The plans were on display."
22:47:20 <chandler> jdrake: DS9 >>>>>> Babbling 5, punk :D
22:47:31 <kc5tja> I440r_: In case you aren't aware of current events, every reformation of our world view completely explains the former, as well as providing more detail.  QED replaces the simplistic relativistic model (Yes, Einstein, *technically*, is wrong), which replaces Newton's explanation, et. al.  Hawking's will probably replace Feynmann's view, et. al.
22:47:34 <I440r_> oh. i was close :)
22:47:59 <kc5tja> The point is, they don't disprove the former: they augment it with increasing level of detail.
22:48:15 <kc5tja> This universe is fractal -- however finite you want it to be, there are still more levels of sub-whatevers to explore.
22:48:24 <chandler> I440r_: you might be interested in an essay by Asimov called "The Relativity of Wrong"
22:48:25 <kc5tja> Photons are finite, but themselves are composed of electric and magnetic fields.
22:48:36 <kc5tja> Electric and magnetic fields are in turn likely to be expressed via strings.
22:48:37 <jdrake> kc5tja, would it be possible for you to travel to Vulcan at near light speed, where it will take you a long time possibly, but for you it might take a week or two?
22:48:41 <kc5tja> What strings are, who knows?
22:49:18 <chandler> kc5tja: if the universe does not obey the property that I named, then it cannot be replicated by us. I refuse to believe it. It /is/ understandable, though perhaps not discoverable.
22:49:24 <I440r_> chandler i read alot of asimov - i missed that one tho :)
22:49:30 <I440r_> not read him in years
22:50:06 --- join: Ralph (htp@h24-68-59-249.gv.shawcable.net) joined #forth
22:50:14 <chandler> I think kc5tja is ignoring me :-)
22:50:28 <kc5tja> chandler: Yes, because your arguments will lead nowhere.
22:50:56 <chandler> heh. you're right - I'm just trying to be provocative :-)
22:51:34 <kc5tja> jdrake: If a centauri warship suddenly jumped out of hyperspace above my house, I might then consider it.
22:51:51 <kc5tja> jdrake: For then, there would be direct observational evidence that FTL is possible, though not immediately understandable by me.
22:52:00 <jdrake> kc5tja, how about the relative frame of reference question i posed
22:52:13 <kc5tja> jdrake: For the case where v = 0.999.... * c, then no, because by the time I'd arrive on Vulcan, my daughter would likely be dead.
22:52:28 <jdrake> kc5tja, forget that daughter piece :-)
22:52:59 <jdrake> how do you calculate your frame of reference vs. 'real time'
22:53:03 <kc5tja> jdrake: I'd probably do one better; I'd probably enlist with the Centaurian Academy of Physics to severely update my knowledge.
22:53:04 <jdrake> given a speed 
22:53:37 <chandler> see, this is why I like computation. It never falls out from underneath you.
22:53:39 <kc5tja> Define `frame of reference.'
22:54:18 <jdrake> kc5tja, the time it would really take you to reach the destination vs. the time you would feel pass
22:54:46 <kc5tja> jdrake: That's expressed in Einstein's theory of relativity.
22:56:00 <kc5tja> There is a Lorentz contraction factor of (IIRC) sqrt( 1 - (v*v / c*c) )
22:56:17 <kc5tja> Since velocity is a factor of both distance and time, one can solve for time.
22:56:53 <kc5tja> Time dilation is, in fact, a big problem for interplanetary and interstellar travel.
22:57:20 <kc5tja> As far as I know, there is no standard way to overcome its problems, except to keep your velocity sufficiently less than c to make it a relative non-issue.
22:57:29 <kc5tja> Which is easy to do with today's propulsion systems, I can assure you.  :)
22:57:54 <jdrake> i want my shuttle craft where I can travel to other planets :-)
22:57:56 <kc5tja> However, as our propulsion systems enhance towards the point where v >= 0.3c then Lorentz time dilation will need to be considered.
22:58:11 <jdrake> interesting
22:58:41 <jdrake> how would we get by the thing with a paper clip hitting the ship and it blowing up? (which I think would be worst the higher speed you get)
22:59:01 <jdrake> there is going to be space dust around
22:59:15 <jdrake> and who knows what we can see because it isn't in our spectrum of vision
22:59:18 <kc5tja> Space dust is easily deflected.  Paper clips, however, are quite another matter.
22:59:29 <jdrake> or ... foam ...
22:59:37 <kc5tja> Heh, yeah, foam would be pretty nasty.
23:00:37 <jdrake> how does forth assign variables?
23:00:49 <kc5tja> How do you mean assign -- how does it store values in them?
23:01:23 <jdrake> both how it might do it, and what the syntax is
23:01:28 --- part: njd left #forth
23:01:29 <zardon> VARIABLE NAME
23:01:36 <kc5tja> It uses the ! operator to store a value at an arbitrary memory location (equivalent to POKE in Basic).  When you execute a variable's name, it places its address on the stack.
23:02:08 <kc5tja> So if you have variable foo, for example, and you then execute foo, you'll have foo's address on the stack.
23:02:18 <jdrake> so 40 ! foo?
23:02:22 <kc5tja> This lets you write: 5 foo ! to store the value 5 into foo.
23:02:31 <jdrake> wasn't sure if it was before or after
23:02:50 <zardon> the variable puts the address on the stack
23:02:55 <zardon> ! is a binary operator
23:03:04 <kc5tja> Remember that !, like most other Forth words, takes its parameters from the stack.  Thus, to put the arguments on the stack, code must come before it.  :)
23:03:16 <jdrake> even if a word isn't defined?
23:03:26 <kc5tja> It must be defined to use it.
23:03:48 <kc5tja> This is where variable foo comes in.  It defines foo, gives it an address, and sets its default value to zero (usually).
23:03:51 <jdrake> i want to get some of these details straight I am trying to work out how I can do this in my interpreter which i am aiming for no direct memory (entirely safe using mostly references)
23:04:15 <jdrake> good that will be easy enough to work in
23:04:39 * kc5tja grins -- ``safe'' and ``Forth'' have rarely been used in the same sentence over the years.  :D
23:04:45 <zardon> hehe
23:04:52 <zardon> Forth <> ADA
23:05:06 <jdrake> i know forth is basically highlevel assembly :-)
23:05:18 <kc5tja> For a non-existant processor, at that.  :D
23:05:45 <jdrake> why don't thinks compile to forth instead of C when translatng?
23:06:07 <zardon> hmm
23:06:26 <zardon> are you talking about normal Forth, or some of the special Forth -> C translators?
23:06:36 <zardon> Forth is an interactive language
23:06:46 <jdrake> zardon, it doesn't always have to be
23:06:48 <zardon> the run-time is the language
23:06:53 <zardon> i know
23:06:54 <jdrake> i am saying like this:
23:07:04 <jdrake> Pascal -> C instead being Pascal -> Forth
23:07:18 <jdrake> because Forth compiles straight into assembly in most cases
23:07:26 <kc5tja> Well, depends on the compiler.
23:07:27 <jdrake> whereas C is another complex language
23:07:40 <zardon> only subrountine threading
23:07:47 <kc5tja> Most high level languages do compile to some kind of stack representation before being translated to final machine code.
23:07:57 <kc5tja> zardon: Not true.  c.f. RAFTS
23:08:03 <zardon> yes, i know :)
23:08:09 <jdrake> *most8
23:08:09 <zardon> im being general here
23:08:14 <kc5tja> I didnt' see that.
23:08:27 <kc5tja> Most commercial compilers do a great job of emitting good native code too.
23:08:28 <zardon> i was going to qualify it
23:08:34 <jdrake> how are most forth object extensions implemented
23:08:42 <zardon> OO?
23:08:48 <jdrake> yes
23:08:52 <jdrake> i have heard of them
23:08:52 <kc5tja> jdrake: I think there is precisely one answer for each OO extension that exists.  :)
23:08:57 <zardon> there are a few
23:08:57 <I440r_> can anyuone tell me what the definition of a "lazy" functional language is ?
23:09:06 <zardon> Haskell :))
23:09:09 <zardon> thats all i know
23:09:11 <I440r_> i know
23:09:12 <jdrake> I440r_, i would assume lazy typing
23:09:12 <I440r_> and clean
23:09:16 <kc5tja> I440r_: A language that doesn't evaluate its arguments until they are absolutely, positively, 100% needed.
23:09:24 <jdrake> oh that lazy defin
23:09:25 <I440r_> aha
23:09:31 <I440r_> does forth qualify ?
23:09:38 <jdrake> might one do a OO in forth
23:10:05 <I440r_> kc5 by that definition does forth qualify ?
23:10:10 <kc5tja> I440r_: No.  Forth is a very aggressive in evaluating arguments, by its nature (arguments must exist on the stack before an operator can execute them).
23:10:37 <I440r_> ok. but it doesnt evaluate them till it NEEDS to... heh
23:10:44 <I440r_> ok, im pushin it :P
23:10:50 <kc5tja> You can emulate lazy evaluation by passing execution tokens around though, to execute when you need a parameter computed at run-time.  Basically callbacks.
23:10:54 <zardon> heh
23:11:03 <chandler> fake closures, so to speak
23:11:13 <chandler> which is how Schemers simulate it
23:11:42 <kc5tja> Well, not even a closure, really -- just a function pointer.  :D
23:11:47 <chandler> yup
23:12:04 <kc5tja> Unless its context is entirely restrained to its data stack, in which case it'd be a pure closure.  :D  But that's a pretty limited function.
23:12:18 <chandler> hehe
23:12:46 <I440r_> so are lazy functional languages easier to compile or harder
23:12:58 <I440r_> is it an improvement in compiler technology
23:13:02 <kc5tja> I don't know.  I would suspect they're harder to optimize at least.
23:13:23 <kc5tja> I don't know that either.  It does make writing certain programs easier though.
23:13:46 <kc5tja> For examine, in a lazy functional language, you can say things like:
23:13:46 <chandler> ((lambda (x) 1) ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))))
23:13:48 <zardon> i hear they are harder to optimize
23:14:11 <kc5tja> x = (for all n from 1 to infinity, do: n + 5);
23:14:24 <zardon> but caml or Ocaml seems to do quite well in that competition
23:14:29 <kc5tja> and it'd be a perfectly valid program statement.
23:14:51 * chandler is working on a partial evaluator right now
23:14:54 <kc5tja> Then, if you say, x[5], the compiler would know to execute the expression for the case where n = 5, or it'd return 10.
23:15:21 <kc5tja> I know ML is not lazy; it's aggressive.  Is CaML and Ocaml aggressive as well?
23:15:42 <zardon> i have a feeling they are
23:16:08 <kc5tja> chandler: For Scheme?
23:16:12 <chandler> s/agressive/call by value/
23:16:17 <chandler> kc5tja: Common Lisp, just out of habit
23:16:30 <kc5tja> chandler: Ahh.
23:16:33 <chandler> and familiarity
23:16:37 <chandler> and usefulness
23:17:56 <kc5tja> I don't understand why folks don't think Scheme is 'useful.'  I agree Lisp is a nice system, but it seems to me that Scheme gets a lot of flack for nothing.
23:18:41 <I440r_> kc5 even C is usefull lol
23:18:54 <kc5tja> I440r_: Yes, I'm writing my text editor in it.  :)
23:19:14 <chandler> kc5tja: lack of commonality
23:19:23 <chandler> the community basically can't get their act together
23:19:29 <chandler> nor do they want to
23:19:34 <I440r_> lol
23:19:40 <chandler> there's also much less of a focus on developing good programmer tools
23:19:46 <I440r_> im debating weather or not to write a flat file editor in forth
23:19:56 <I440r_> im part way into writing a block file editor for isforth
23:20:08 <I440r_> for the help system and the diehards :)
23:21:59 <kc5tja> I440r_: Interesting.
23:22:23 * kc5tja has considered switching to flat files for FS/Forth, primarily so that I can switch back to Smalltalk style Forth.
23:22:28 <I440r_> not really - its boring thats why its on hold heh
23:22:47 <I440r_> but i didnt miss the the tone of voice therer :P
23:25:20 <kc5tja> ??
23:25:39 <kc5tja> To whom are you responding?
23:26:01 <I440r_> you said "interesting" - sounded like "not very interesting" lol
23:37:39 <jdrake> rewrite doom in forth
23:38:30 <chandler> mmmmmh. Ich muß schlafen.
23:39:24 <jdrake> Nein! Aufenthalt Wach Für immer!
23:40:05 <jdrake> Sie müssen mich während aller Zeit außerdem anbeten, andernfalls
23:40:05 <jdrake> beende ich Sie
23:42:20 <kc5tja> I assume "Ich mu(ss) schlafen," means, "I must sleep."  :)
23:42:31 <jdrake> kc5tja, that is what systrans says
23:42:50 <jdrake> german looks cool ;-)
23:43:08 <zardon> not as cool as russian
23:43:14 <kc5tja> I wanted to take Japanese in school, but I'm thinking of changing to German, actually.
23:43:24 <jdrake> but russian uses commie cyrillic
23:44:06 <zardon> no no, Commonwealth of Independant States
23:44:12 <jdrake> russia might be commie pretty soon again
23:44:17 <zardon> yeah
23:44:45 <zardon> when you have commies and ultranationalists at your not-so-democratic heals
23:44:54 <jdrake> i think that communism might have worked better there if stalin never existed ;-)
23:45:09 <zardon> yeah, that was sortof a non-starter
23:45:27 <jdrake> zardon, Commonwealth of Independant States?
23:45:32 <jdrake> Like Chechnia?
23:45:40 <kc5tja> The problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intensions.
23:45:48 <kc5tja> Communism is a good idea.
23:45:54 <jdrake> i agree there
23:45:55 <zardon> heh
23:46:04 <kc5tja> But I don't think it's practical on the scale of a national government.
23:46:20 <jdrake> The road to hell is also paved with bad spelling and grammar
23:46:21 <kc5tja> The power over too many people is too centralized.
23:46:35 <zardon> haha
23:46:43 <jdrake> i think a tribal state system worked much better than what we have now
23:46:53 <kc5tja> Absolutely.
23:46:56 <kc5tja> I'm all for autonomy.
23:47:10 <kc5tja> Ever since I read the Dragonriders of Pern, I knew exactly what form of government I considered ideal.  :D
23:47:33 <jdrake> the prose I would ask - would it be possible for a set of societies that are tribal based to get high technology and be able to go into space and all with avoiding the shit we have been through during the last 500 years
23:48:02 <jdrake> the societies would be tightly knit alliances most likely
23:48:03 <kc5tja> I don't think so.
23:48:22 <kc5tja> The cold war was pretty much a necessity for going into space.
23:48:38 <jdrake> i don't think that was necessarily true
23:48:42 <kc5tja> (from a political perspective)
23:48:43 <jdrake> it only accelerated it greatly
23:48:55 <jdrake> we have another space race coming up on us though
23:49:09 <kc5tja> Which one is this?
23:49:15 <jdrake> china...
23:49:21 <zardon> India
23:49:25 <jdrake> european union is also getting into the game
23:49:39 <kc5tja> I don't think we'll be competing with these folks though.
23:49:44 <zardon> they don't have the political pressure
23:49:53 <jdrake> china i think will be a competitor
23:50:11 <kc5tja> China has tons of political pressure.  China does nothing without the government's approval.  :)
23:50:13 <zardon> India as well i reckon
23:51:34 <kc5tja> Well, I have to get to bed.
23:51:37 <kc5tja> I have work in the morning.
23:51:55 <kc5tja> Nice conversations today.  :)
23:52:00 <kc5tja> (Mostly at least)
23:52:06 <jdrake> :-)
23:52:17 <jdrake> always have an irrational guy round here i guess
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/03.12.09