00:00:00 --- log: started forth/19.03.17
01:10:31 --- quit: Keshl (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
01:19:05 --- join: Keshl (~Purple@207.44.70.214.res-cmts.gld.ptd.net) joined #forth
03:19:58 --- join: xek (~xek@apn-31-0-23-83.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl) joined #forth
03:42:32 --- quit: xek (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
04:18:56 --- join: xek (~xek@apn-31-0-23-80.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl) joined #forth
04:25:06 <WilhelmVonWeiner> shalom forth gang
04:26:56 <KipIngram> Greetings and saluttions.
04:27:25 <WilhelmVonWeiner> any interesting discussion I'd have missed over the past couple days?
04:29:27 <KipIngram> Hmmm.
04:29:55 <KipIngram> We talked a bit about DOES> yesterday morning, and I went off and added it to my system.  First time EVER I found it to be completely simple and straightforward.
04:30:26 <KipIngram> I decided that the combination of 1) indirect threading and 2) headers separate from bodies makes it simple.
04:31:00 <KipIngram> dave0 is working on NUMBER.
04:31:08 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth
04:31:45 <WilhelmVonWeiner> NUMBER shan't be hard
04:32:01 <WilhelmVonWeiner> is he implementing it in Forth or what
04:32:07 <KipIngram> No, it's just sort of tedious if you want to make it totally rigourous.
04:32:14 <KipIngram> Rigorous as in rejecting all invalid strings.
04:32:30 <KipIngram> Yes, I think so.
04:32:41 <KipIngram> I'm toying with control structures today.
04:33:06 <KipIngram> In a private conversation PoppaVic was lamenting the inability to BREAK from a BEGIN AGAIN or similar loop.
04:33:17 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I like what Chuck did with colorForth, recursion only
04:33:22 <KipIngram> I'm toying with ideas that would make it easy.
04:33:25 <KipIngram> Yes, me too.
04:33:38 <WilhelmVonWeiner> FOR..NEXT is good though.
04:33:58 <KipIngram> I haven't put any control flow structures in my Forth yet, and I'm getting by just fine so far.
04:36:15 <dave0> hi KipIngram :-)
04:36:22 <KipIngram> Hi dave0
04:36:26 <dave0> hi WilhelmVonWeiner :-)
04:37:20 <dave0> i need to factor >number into smaller words
04:38:03 <KipIngram> I think I wound up with 26.
04:38:24 <dave0> it's a mess of IF statements at the moment and i'm pretty sure it doesn't work... there's lots of stack juggling
04:38:46 <dave0> 26 sounds like a lot!
04:38:55 <KipIngram> They're quite short.
04:39:41 <KipIngram> And I'm covering ALL the bases as far as I know - I think it rejects everything that's not a valid number.
04:42:05 <dave0> the interface is different for  >number   and    >float
04:42:27 <KipIngram> Oh, my NUMBER recognizes floats too.
04:42:34 <KipIngram> I have them woven together.
04:42:47 <KipIngram> It leaves integers on the regular stack and floats on the floating point stack.
04:42:52 <dave0> >number is (c-addr u -- n c-addr u) but >float is (c-addr u -- f true | false)
04:42:54 <KipIngram> The FPU stack I mean.
04:43:13 <dave0> ah i'm just going by the standard
04:43:15 <KipIngram> Hmmm.
04:43:40 <KipIngram> What's the output c-addr u for >number?
04:43:59 <KipIngram> Mine's stupid simple: here is a string - either give me a number back or die.
04:44:04 <dave0> >number  returns a string of characters NOT used or left over but >float gives true flag and the number for a valid number or flase on error
04:44:39 <KipIngram> I see.  If my NUMBER can't use all the characters that's an error.
04:45:47 <dave0> returning a string of leftover characters could be useful to convert a string of numbers separated by eg. commas
04:45:52 <KipIngram> Also, my NUMBER expects the address of a counted Forth string - that's what BL WORD provides for me when it takes the next word of input.
04:46:11 <KipIngram> Though almost the first thing I do is convert it to a null-terminated c-style string so I won't have to keep up with the count.
04:46:27 <KipIngram> So it's required that there be room to put a null at the end of it.
04:46:56 <dave0> KipIngram: do you return the converted number and a flag to indicate success?
04:47:06 <KipIngram> No.
04:47:24 <KipIngram> I return the converted number on success and on failure I throw a system error.
04:47:31 <dave0> ah
04:47:34 <KipIngram> I don't return if it's not a valid number - the interpreter gets restarted.
04:48:15 <KipIngram> I love Forth's error system - you just don't "handle" errors in your code - the system handles them.  So you can do good path coding only.
04:51:20 <dave0> handling errors is a real pain lol
04:53:17 <KipIngram> <err#> ERR is your friend.
04:54:29 <dave0> >number and >float having different interfaces really bugs me
04:54:50 <KipIngram> So change it.
04:54:55 <KipIngram> You don't have to be bound by the standard.
04:55:20 <dave0> i don't know which one to pick heh
04:56:38 <dave0> KipIngram: i've deviated from the standard in a few places... i was planning that once i had everything working, i would write a "compatbility" file that would change what i'd written to match with the standard
04:57:29 <dave0> for example i don't believe in counted strings, so anything that uses a string is always (c-addr u) but like you pointed out, WORD uses a counted string
04:57:55 <KipIngram> I think they both have their place.
04:58:37 <dave0> so the compatilibity file would redefine WORD to use the standard's interface
04:59:45 <dave0> oh FIND i think uses counted strings.. i would redefine it as    : FIND count find ;     just a little stub
05:03:48 <KipIngram> Yes, find uses a counted string.
05:04:05 <KipIngram> find and number are the two places you might send the string given to you by bl word.
05:04:58 <KipIngram> My FIND does NOT convert to a null-terminated string - it compares the counted string count byte and all to the strings in the symbol table.
05:05:20 <KipIngram> But with NUMBER I found it more convenient to convert and let the null terminate my conversion.
05:05:45 <KipIngram> NUMBER already had a mess of stuff to juggle on the stack - I didn't need to add a count to keep up with too.
05:06:18 <dave0> i want to use PARSE instead of WORD
05:06:41 <dave0> or PARSE-NAME they return (c-addr u)
05:07:15 <KipIngram> I like getting back just the one thing on the stack that's a "handle" to my result.
05:07:34 <dave0> i'm trying to find a different word to FIND
05:08:10 <dave0> KipIngram: i'm not a fan of counted strings :-)
05:09:02 <KipIngram> You mentioned that.  :-)
05:09:09 <dave0> ehehehe
05:09:11 <KipIngram> My FIND does return two things.
05:09:30 <dave0> the standard FIND has a weird interface
05:09:55 <KipIngram> A flag on top - if the flag is true, then underneath is the address of a half-cell in RAM that contains the word's symbol table index.
05:10:05 <KipIngram> And that address happens to be just the right one for creating a new dictionary entry.
05:10:41 <KipIngram> If the flag is false, the address underneath is a pointer to the counted string (same address that was passed in) ready for me to call NUMBER on.
05:11:01 <KipIngram> My system has deviated somewhat from the standard because of my symbol table, which isn't a traditional feature.
05:11:22 <KipIngram> I have it to support my eventual plans for source code compression.
05:11:33 <KipIngram> Source blocks will just have tokens that specify symbol table entries.
05:12:18 <KipIngram> I'll sort my symbol table so that the most frequently usd words have the lowest indices; low indices I can represent using fewer bytes in the source stream.
05:12:29 <KipIngram> The first 127 words will require only one byte to specify.
05:13:59 <KipIngram> It makes it so I have no variable length strings in the dictionary entries themselves.
05:14:08 <KipIngram> My headers generally have four 32-bit fields:
05:14:22 <KipIngram> 1) link (distance back to the next entry in the linked list)
05:14:26 <KipIngram> 2) symbol table index
05:14:31 <KipIngram> 3) CFA 
05:14:36 <KipIngram> 4) PFA
05:14:50 <KipIngram> Primitives don't have a PFA.
05:15:05 <KipIngram> And words created by a defining word that uses DOES> have an extra PFA.
05:15:55 <KipIngram> In those words the CFA points to the "dodoes" runtime, the first PFA points to the memory space allocated for that word, and the second PFA points to the  DOES> code associated with the word.
05:16:01 <dave0> are your headers separated from your machine code or threaded code? there was an interesting discussion on having separate headers
05:16:12 <KipIngram> Yes, they're separate.
05:16:21 <KipIngram> I've decided that is a big payoff.
05:16:34 <dave0> ah
05:16:37 <KipIngram> It made my implementation of DOES> a slam dunk - it took about four minutes to get in and tested.
05:16:46 <dave0> lol
05:16:52 <KipIngram> After we discussed it here yesterday - the discussion got my thoughts on it clear.
05:17:36 <KipIngram> Basically when dodoes starts, the W register is pointing to the first CFA.  So dodoes runs the same code that's in dovar - that gets the address of the data on the stack.
05:17:51 <KipIngram> Then dodoes increments W to point at the second PFA, and falls into docol.
05:17:57 <KipIngram> Simple.
05:18:28 <dave0> it's a clever trick
05:19:22 <KipIngram> It is.  When the defining word executes, CREATE goes first and creates the normal "variable" header.  That gets the new word's CFA pointing to dovar and the PFA pointing to the data.  Then the allocation words execute, making the data space.
05:19:44 <KipIngram> Then does> executes.  It's a : definition, so the address on the return stack is pointing to the first word after DOES> in the defining word definition.
05:20:01 <KipIngram> does> *pops* that return address and adds it as the second PFA to the new word's header.
05:20:24 <KipIngram> Then DOES> just returns.  Since that address got popped, it returns to the caller of the defining word.
05:20:32 <KipIngram> It all just worked out slick as a whistle.
05:21:31 <KipIngram> See, if the headers weren't separate, then the data space would come right after the first PFA, and it would be an ugly hoop jump to add the second PFA.
05:21:42 <KipIngram> Oh, DOES> also changes the new word's cfa from dovar to dodoes.
05:22:30 <KipIngram> I've implemented DOES> on several prior systems, and I always got it to work, but it was always UGLY.
05:23:04 <dave0> i couldn't find and equivalent to FIND in the standard... it's interface is (c-addr -- c-addr 0 | xt 1 | xt -1) c-addr 0 if the word's not found, xt 1 if it found it and it is immedaite, xt -1 otherwise... i want something like FIND-XT (c-addr u -- xt true | false) and i would write : FIND dup count find-xt IF nip dup immedaite? IF 1 ELSE -1 THEN ELSE 2drop 0 THEN ;
05:23:31 <dave0> i think that's the right stack juggling
05:24:30 <dave0> FIND-XT is a much simpler inteface IMHO
05:25:09 <dave0> oh 2drop is wrong.. delete that
05:38:37 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection)
06:20:02 --- join: john_metcalf (~digital_w@host86-149-143-53.range86-149.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth
06:53:34 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
06:57:47 --- join: cheater (~cheater@unaffiliated/cheater) joined #forth
10:22:15 --- quit: xek (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
11:11:41 --- quit: nighty- (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke)
11:57:53 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
12:33:18 --- join: [1]MrMobius (~default@c-73-134-82-217.hsd1.va.comcast.net) joined #forth
12:36:41 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
12:36:42 --- nick: [1]MrMobius -> MrMobius
12:36:51 --- join: gravicappa (~gravicapp@h109-187-202-26.dyn.bashtel.ru) joined #forth
13:54:40 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
15:25:20 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
15:29:43 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
15:59:40 <PoppaVic> OK, so... what's the recommended 'serial.fs' for Gforth 0.7.3?
16:05:57 --- quit: ashirase (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
16:07:36 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
16:15:12 <KipIngram> Ah, hah hah hah hah hah.  
16:15:22 <KipIngram> I can assemble into the dictionary and make primitives now.
16:15:42 <KipIngram> Haven't written the words to make it graceful yet, but I was able to do this:
16:15:44 <KipIngram> create my_swap  ok
16:15:46 <KipIngram> here srel ' my_swap h!  ok
16:15:48 <KipIngram> [r11] rax mov; rcx [r11] mov; rax rcx mov; next;  ok
16:15:50 <KipIngram>   ok
16:15:52 <KipIngram>   ok
16:15:54 <KipIngram>   ok
16:15:56 <KipIngram> 1 2 my_swap s. 2 1  ok
16:16:27 <KipIngram> my_swap s. 1 2  ok
16:16:29 <KipIngram> my_swap s. 2 1  ok
16:16:44 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
16:17:10 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
16:20:33 --- join: tabemann (~travisb@h193.235.138.40.static.ip.windstream.net) joined #forth
16:21:40 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
16:24:28 <PoppaVic> wheee
16:24:40 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
16:29:01 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
16:30:40 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
17:35:02 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
17:35:10 --- quit: john_cephalopoda (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
17:38:38 --- join: tabemann (~travisb@h193.235.138.40.static.ip.windstream.net) joined #forth
17:49:16 --- join: john_cephalopoda (~john@unaffiliated/john-cephalopoda/x-6407167) joined #forth
17:50:34 --- join: nighty- (~nighty@b157153.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) joined #forth
17:54:15 <KipIngram> you know, it occurred to me earlier that I ought to be able to change permissions on my heap pages at will.  If I've filled a page with just definitions or headers (no variables), then i can write protect it once I have it full and have moved on.
17:54:27 <KipIngram> Then I wouldn't have to include those pages in the list that I save/restore on error recovery.
18:20:23 <KipIngram> You know, PAD is sort of a cluster-f***.
18:20:37 <KipIngram> I've had to change how I do it like four times over the course of working on this thing.
18:20:47 <KipIngram> I need to do a string stack or something, so it has a properly rational home.
18:23:07 <PoppaVic> only in secondaries, now ;-)
18:27:00 <KipIngram> It's really only used by the interpreter.
18:27:09 <KipIngram> I never actually use it in any of my words.
18:34:19 <tabemann> back
18:35:29 --- quit: john_metcalf (Quit: john_metcalf)
18:35:56 <KipIngram> Evening, tabemann.
18:36:20 <tabemann> hey
18:38:01 * tabemann is reading about a company here in WI which is chipping its employees
18:38:18 * tabemann would support banning chipping people
18:38:35 <tabemann> not even optional chipping
18:38:50 <tabemann> because there would still be pressure to go along with it
18:38:55 <PoppaVic> already been banned; emloyees were peeved.
18:39:18 <tabemann> already been banned where?
18:39:31 <PoppaVic> I dunno, it was newsworthy 2 weeks ago.
18:39:55 <PoppaVic> THey had an injunction or whatever: installing the chips was determined to "require a physician".
18:40:09 <PoppaVic> I no longer ask why.
18:40:28 <KipIngram> *F* that.
18:40:35 <KipIngram> *Not* *a* *chance*.
18:40:49 <KipIngram> I'd totally support that as well.
18:40:58 <PoppaVic> It's coming - enjoy
18:41:23 <KipIngram> Not a chance.
18:41:34 <KipIngram> I'lll live on welfare first
18:41:47 <tabemann> okay, wisconsin bans chipping people against their will
18:41:50 <tabemann> but that's not enough
18:41:59 <tabemann> we need to ban all chipping people
18:42:02 <MrMobius> its not a big deal really
18:42:07 <KipIngram> It has to be banned at least at the "group" level.
18:42:08 <MrMobius> ive been chipped in my forehead and right hand
18:42:23 <KipIngram> If a lone individual wants a chip, maybe that's ok.
18:42:25 <KipIngram> MAYBE.
18:42:27 <PoppaVic> Generally, about 5 minutes ago I'd have noted: "Personal choice", and even "States Rights"
18:42:38 <KipIngram> But no company or other organization should be able to have any sort of program of that type.
18:43:08 <KipIngram> ^ That's the problem.
18:43:16 <KipIngram> 90% of the people decide it's not a big deal.
18:43:23 <KipIngram> Then they just cram it down the throats of the other 10%.
18:43:32 <KipIngram> Once they get what they consider to be "critical mass."
18:43:33 <PoppaVic> as longg as it ain't me
18:43:58 <tabemann> the problem, MrMobius, is that employers will start requiring their employees to get chipped
18:44:25 <PoppaVic> Wisconsin is already an "At Will" state 
18:44:33 <tabemann> yes
18:45:01 <tabemann> that's why the only thing that's enough is a complete, exception-less ban
18:45:22 <PoppaVic> See, we are back to speaking for "everyone else we ain't asked"
18:46:04 <KipIngram> Yeah - I don't want to close the door to people who WANT it, legitimately.
18:46:31 <KipIngram> Shouldn't it be easy enough to "detect" whether a person's request is their own or coerced by a third party?
18:46:39 <tabemann> no
18:46:55 <PoppaVic> KipIngram: I suspect the major, huge selling point would be: getting chipped tp ditch yer wallet, ids, CC, etc - one more step and ditch the phone, too
18:47:00 <KipIngram> We can ban asking whether you're chipped or not on employment applications, the same way we ban things like asking if you're married and so on.
18:47:09 <KipIngram> Yes, and that's fine.
18:47:13 <KipIngram> If someone WANTS to do it.
18:47:15 <KipIngram> I do NOT.
18:47:23 <PoppaVic> "Oh, you refuse a chip? Have a nice day - Next Applicant!?"
18:47:31 <KipIngram> But I don't feel tht I have the right to tell others not to, just for my convenience / security.
18:47:32 <tabemann> companies must be banned from asking people to get chipped or asking whether people are chipped
18:47:41 <KipIngram> Yes.
18:47:43 <KipIngram> ^ that.
18:47:50 <KipIngram> Don't ask, and don't 'ask.
18:47:55 <PoppaVic> can't be done - yer back to deciding for others again
18:48:03 <KipIngram> No - you're not.
18:48:09 <PoppaVic> ..and then, once decided, they can bring it up next year
18:48:11 <KipIngram> Any *individual* who wants a chip can go get one.
18:48:19 <KipIngram> Companies are not individuals and have no rights.
18:48:30 <KipIngram> Never mind what they say about corporations being legal entities.
18:48:32 <PoppaVic> KipIngram: any INDIVIDUAL wants one, if they want their job.
18:48:34 <KipIngram> That's a bullshit concept.
18:48:36 <tabemann> that's a key thing - companies must not have rights
18:48:42 <KipIngram> Yes.
18:49:09 <PoppaVic> kip: good luck with that - have you even heard from yer congresscritters and state loonies over the past 2 years, let alone 4?
18:49:10 <KipIngram> Companies shouldn't be allowed to lobby, either.
18:49:34 <tabemann> companies should not have first amendment rights
18:49:50 <PoppaVic> I guess that means all the mom&pop vape-shops will be closing, then ;-)
18:50:46 <tabemann> it means that things will be far more democratic once business interests are taken out of the political process
18:51:01 <PoppaVic> terrific, back to mob-rule.
18:51:24 <tabemann> democracy is supposed to be rule by the people, not rule by business
18:51:47 <KipIngram> The mom and the pop have ALL rights.
18:51:53 <KipIngram> The mom&pop vape shop has ZERO.
18:52:15 <PoppaVic> happily we do not have a democrazt
18:52:19 <PoppaVic> crazy
18:54:10 <tabemann> you're one of those people who associate democracy with the likes of Athens and the Icelandic Commonwealth, even though those things were far less democratic than I at least would like
18:54:51 <PoppaVic> Am I? how thrilling
18:55:19 <KipIngram> We should be a "democracy" only for elections.
18:55:23 <KipIngram> One person, one vote.
18:55:27 <KipIngram> Beyond that we are a republic.
18:55:39 <PoppaVic> hence "Democratic Republic"
18:55:40 <tabemann> and all votes should be equal
18:55:53 <KipIngram> The people have no explicit voice - our representatives are empowered to "voice" for us.
18:56:00 <tabemann> which is why I personally are for proportional representation
18:56:01 <KipIngram> If we don't like it, we can vote them out.
18:56:17 <KipIngram> What do you mean by that?
18:56:26 <tabemann> you don't vote for a candidate
18:56:27 <KipIngram> Like in the House, vs. the Senate?
18:56:29 <tabemann> you vote for a party
18:56:34 <KipIngram> No way man.
18:56:41 <tabemann> and seats are allocated from a party list
18:56:43 <KipIngram> The party system is EVIL INCARNATE.
18:57:03 <tabemann> this is immune to gerrymandering and whatnot
18:57:11 <KipIngram> The "party" has a position on every issue.
18:57:19 <KipIngram> That might not match ANY one person's position on the issues.
18:57:32 <tabemann> usually you have many parties in this kind of system, with many different positions
18:57:39 <KipIngram> *CANDIDATES* are more numerous than parties, and thus provide more "coverage of the spectrum."
18:57:49 <tabemann> and parties have to form coalitions to form governments, because no party has a majority
18:57:57 <KipIngram> Where do you live?
18:58:00 <KipIngram> We have TWO.
18:58:10 <KipIngram> And none of the others count.
18:58:17 <tabemann> I'm an American, but I'm envisioning a system like that of Israel
18:58:39 <PoppaVic> wel, we have one- but they share the bedroom and bicker.
18:58:51 <KipIngram> Is there an institutional feature that has allowed them to avoid collapsing to two parties?
18:59:02 <KipIngram> Or is it just an effect of the Israeli mind-set?
18:59:28 <tabemann> it's an effect of having proportional representation
19:00:10 <KipIngram> I'm gong to have t think about that.
19:00:20 <KipIngram> To me voting for a party seems like it would hurt rather than help.
19:00:21 <tabemann> the reason why I'm so against first-past-the-post is that it's so rife with gerrymandering
19:00:24 <KipIngram> But I will ponder it.
19:00:40 <KipIngram> Oh yeah.  And gerrymandering is down to an engineering science these days.
19:00:43 <tabemann> e.g. the state legislature here in WI is gerrymandered such that the Republicans are heavily over-represented
19:00:45 <KipIngram> Down to the street level.
19:01:05 <KipIngram> Well, and in some places the Democrats are.
19:01:09 <PoppaVic> KipIngram: cuz no one can layout a grid anymore - damned schools
19:01:20 <KipIngram> It's just a matter of who happened to be in power when someone got smart enough to figure it out.
19:01:41 <KipIngram> PoppaVic: All it takes is a few - they sell their services to ALL the political groups.
19:01:52 <KipIngram> A small number of smart people can do major good, or bad.
19:02:24 <KipIngram> You know there must be consulting groups that specialize in nothing but that.
19:02:26 <PoppaVic> I'm not worried: they can't manage a grid. Form a committee - lock them in a room somewhere and leave
19:02:36 <KipIngram> And I bet some of them are DAMN SMART.
19:02:48 <KipIngram> If that's what I chose to go off and do you better believe I'd have it down to an art.
19:02:53 <PoppaVic> grids just lay there
19:02:54 <tabemann> the thing is they'll get away with it if you give them the chance
19:03:04 <KipIngram> Yes.
19:03:06 <tabemann> so that's why you must make it impossible no matter how hard they try
19:03:16 <KipIngram> It's human nature to abuse every possible advantage, in any arena.
19:03:20 <tabemann> which means you need a voting system that makes it impossible
19:03:45 <KipIngram> We refrain from doing things when the possibility of being punished for them rises high enough to swing the cost / benefit analysis negative.
19:04:29 <tabemann> the thing is that there are people who will never think they may be punished, so they'll do things regardless of how high you make the penalties
19:04:33 <KipIngram> Many, or even most, humans could be noble - but as long as their are bad apples we have to enforce the rules stringently, or else those bad apples will take over.
19:04:41 <KipIngram> Um, just like they have.
19:04:43 <tabemann> which is a key problem with criminal justice
19:05:01 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
19:05:13 <KipIngram> Well, those people you have to either catch them, or accept them winning.
19:05:14 <tabemann> and oftentimes it is the rich and the powerful who are these people
19:05:23 <KipIngram> Damn straig.
19:05:26 <KipIngram> straight
19:05:40 <KipIngram> The people who sit in the front pew in the church.
19:05:54 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
19:06:02 <tabemann> and the thing is that they are often the people who are most likely to get away with what they do
19:07:01 <tabemann> e.g. the megacorporations who will do things to get fined, to just eat the fine as if it were nothing, and continue with what they were doing, because no one is willing to punish them hard enough to change their behavior
19:07:48 <tabemann> that's why the EU had to instate seemingly insane penalties with the GDPR, because there's no way otherwise you could get them to obey
19:07:56 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@223.072.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
19:08:48 --- part: PoppaVic left #forth
19:08:53 <dave0> hi
19:09:08 <KipIngram> Well, they seem insane to you and me as individuals, but actually they're "right" given the size of the primary offenders.
19:09:20 <KipIngram> I'd like to see a three strikes and you're out form of tha tlaw.
19:09:23 <dave0> hi KipIngram 
19:09:23 <KipIngram> that law
19:09:30 <tabemann> hey dave, ashirase 
19:09:37 <KipIngram> Get caught a third time, and you are SHUT DOWN.
19:09:39 <KipIngram> Liquidated.
19:09:45 <KipIngram> No matter how big you are.
19:09:51 <dave0> hi tabemann 
19:09:58 <KipIngram> Google, Microsoft, Facebook, whoever.
19:10:16 <KipIngram> Oh, that's bad for the stockholders?
19:10:20 <KipIngram> Well, yeah, it is.
19:10:24 <KipIngram> They should have run their company better.
19:10:56 <tabemann> the problem with that is that you'll get smaller organizations with simply don't have the wherewithal to follow the letter of something like the GDPR, which will end up as collateral cdamage
19:11:53 <KipIngram> Make the fines a percentage of annual revenue.
19:12:58 <tabemann> that's kinda what they did with the GPDR
19:13:13 <KipIngram> I don't know if that covers all the bases, but it's likely the best we can do.
19:13:19 <tabemann> but with an either-or aspect to it
19:13:53 <KipIngram> And whenever a decision has to be made as to whether the law will more heavily favor large companies vs. small?
19:13:58 <KipIngram> It should ALWAYS be the small company.
19:14:04 <KipIngram> They're the ones we want.
19:14:06 <tabemann> the thing is that the fixed part of the penalty is enough to put many small organizations out of business
19:14:30 <tabemann> which is why I think it would have been better to be only a percentage
19:16:52 <KipIngram> Well, then they haven't implemented the "percentage of revenue" thing right.
19:16:55 * KipIngram shrugs.
19:18:22 <tabemann> okay, just checked, that's the maximum penalty - but the problem with making it a maximum, is that it leaves it open to punish one company heavily and another lightly in an ad hoc fashion
19:19:19 <tabemann> who's to say that they won't punish mom and pop the full 10 million euros, and google only that and not the 2% annual global turnover
19:23:43 <KipIngram> Because if it works that way it's NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED.
19:23:58 <KipIngram> It should be a PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL REPORTED REVENUE.
19:24:00 <KipIngram> No fixed part.
19:24:08 <KipIngram> Percentage with no loopholes.
19:24:39 <KipIngram> If it's not working, it's because it's fallen in to political pressure from corporate lobbying.
19:24:45 <KipIngram> The *idea* is sound.
19:26:02 <tabemann> Google got fined - only $57 M
19:26:29 <tabemann> unless Google makes far less than what I think they do, that's a slap on the wrist for them
19:26:36 <tabemann> whoops
19:26:52 <tabemann> no $57 M
19:26:59 <KipIngram> I agree totally.
19:27:02 <KipIngram> It's not working.
19:27:04 <tabemann> that was dollars, not euros
19:27:44 <KipIngram> Look.  What the politicians really want is to be able to have Google happy with them so they get the campaign donations, and have us happy with them because they can point to having "taken action."
19:28:16 <KipIngram> As long as we're stupid enough to let them get away with claiming to have done something without really doing anything, this is what we will get.
19:28:32 <KipIngram> This is all *our* fault.
19:28:37 <KipIngram> We the voters accept this stuff.
19:28:48 <tabemann> yes
19:32:15 <tabemann> GPDR sounds fearsome, yet allows the system to pretend to have done something when the politicians decide they don't really want to do anything
19:33:13 <tabemann> and yes, I agree that the only way for it to work and to be fair is to be a fixed percentage of total revenue, no buts or ifs
19:33:14 <KipIngram> ^ Bingo.
19:34:08 <KipIngram> The "fixed percentage" part was absolutely the big corporations trying to use the system to take out their small competition.
19:34:19 <KipIngram> I *guarantee* you the big boys lobbied for that.
19:34:32 <KipIngram> Once they realized that SOMETHING was going to happen no matter what.
19:34:37 <tabemann> you mean the fixed component, not the percentage component
19:34:45 <KipIngram> Sorry - yes.
19:34:50 <KipIngram> Fixed "component."
19:35:06 <KipIngram> Look, this happens at all levels.
19:35:17 <KipIngram> My state, Texas, has a "no pass, no play" law.
19:35:24 <KipIngram> For all extracurricular activities.
19:35:27 <KipIngram> Sounds great.
19:35:42 <KipIngram> But if you are enrolled in AP (advanced placement) courses, the rule doesn't apply.
19:35:47 --- quit: dddddd (Remote host closed the connection)
19:35:51 <KipIngram> So the schools just enroll their star players in all AP courses.
19:35:54 <KipIngram> Problem solved.
19:36:10 <KipIngram> The politicians got to tout that they had supported no pass / no play, and NOT A DAMN THING changed.
19:36:22 <KipIngram> Absolutely NOTHING happened.
19:36:30 <KipIngram> It's business as usual.
19:37:22 <KipIngram> But my community is so obsessed over high school footbal that I absolutely think if I started to pry into these things and publish about it that I'd get caught out somewhere and beaten to within an inch of my life.
19:38:36 <tabemann> I'm reminded of the law wisconsin passed after Kelo vs. City of New London
19:39:15 <tabemann> there was so much anger about that supreme court decision that many states passed laws not allowing the government to take properties and then give them to private entities
19:39:22 <tabemann> so wisconsin passed such a law
19:39:37 <tabemann> except they put in it that they could still do if a property was judged by the gov't to be "blighted"
19:39:44 <tabemann> mind you it's the government that gets to decide that
19:40:25 <KipIngram> Yes - precisely.
19:40:33 <KipIngram> Always a subtle "out" left.
19:46:55 <tabemann> okay, I'm gonna head home shortly
19:47:23 <tabemann> talk to you later
19:52:05 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
20:12:34 <KipIngram> Yeah, I'm sacking out too.  I sense we are actually in a fair bit of agreement on this stuff.  :-)
20:12:36 <KipIngram> Rest well.
20:30:24 --- join: tabemann (~travisb@2600:1700:7990:24e0:e195:6b4e:1b5c:932b) joined #forth
20:48:15 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
21:01:01 --- join: gravicappa (~gravicapp@h109-187-202-26.dyn.bashtel.ru) joined #forth
21:22:41 --- quit: jedb (Remote host closed the connection)
21:22:56 --- join: jedb (~jedb@199.66.90.113) joined #forth
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/19.03.17