Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness

From: Richard Heathfield (invalid_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 02/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:31:24 +0000

Edward G. Nilges wrote:

<snip>

> [...] Sunstein shows that many newsgroups are so sealed-off from
> exogenous information that the participants wind up sharing each
> other's false ideas, such as "dis guy Nilges is a schnook".
>
> This is due to excessive emphasis on "filtering" as an unalloyed good,
> whether automated filtering as "visioned" by Bill Gates in The Road
> Ahead, or police actions such as Richard Heathfield's possibly paid
> activities.

Filtering is, of course, neither good nor bad of itself, any more than, say,
sorting or shuffling. The distinction between "good filtering" from "bad
filtering" is, I suppose, purely in the mind of the person(s) affected. But
is excessive emphasis placed on filtering as an unalloyed good? I don't
believe so. I happen to think that, for example, comp.programming benefits
from /not/ being filtered (for example, by a moderator); to add such
filtering would increase turnaround time (which is a Bad Thing) in return
for the dubious privilege of providing a discussion environment that is
blander, less thought-provoking, and possibly less information-rich too.

Consequently, despite the fact that the absence of a moderator means that we
will inevitably suffer the occasional NetKook, I am very much against the
idea of this newsgroup being moderated. I point this out purely in the
interests of accuracy. Mr Nilges consistently, and erroneously, claims that
I may receive financial recompense for keeping the lid on this newsgroup.
Well, if that /were/ true, my would-be employers would be very disappointed
with me, since I make no effort whatsoever to do that. What I /do/ try to
do is help to keep the newsgroup focused on computer programming, which is
its intended topic as per the charter (hence the name comp.programming, of
course).

<snip>

> "Knowing what I want to know", and the loud, vulgar, Philistine demand
> for practicality is a brutalization that is caused by industrial
> specialization.

Again, Mr Nilges has utterly missed the point. Firstly, whilst practicality
is certainly a virtue for a computer programmer, it is by no means
essential to the art of computer programming, if eschewed /deliberately/.
Take, for example, the very enjoyable pastime of obfuscation - not as a
means of keeping one's job!, but as a leisure activity. Consider, for
example, this program (best viewed in a non-proportional font):

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>

#define O int
#define B main
#define F char
#define U if
#define S atoi
#define C for
#define A putchar
#define T '*'
#define E ' '
#define D '\n'
#define c ==
#define o =
#define d ++
#define e return
#define r ||

                         O
                        B (
                       O k
                      , F
                     * v
                    [ ]
                     ) {
                      O i
                 , j = 9
                ; U ( k > 1
               ) { j = S
              ( v [ 1
             ] ) ; }
            U ( ! (
             j > 0 )
              ) { j =
         5 ; } U ( (
        j & 1 ) c 0 ) {
       d j ; } C (
      i = 0 ;
     i < j * j
    ; A ( i / j
     c ( 3 * j
      ) / 2 -
       ( i % j + 1
        ) r i / j c j /
         2 - i % j r
              i / j c
             j / 2 +
            i % j r
             i / j c
              i % j -
               j / 2 ? T
                : E ) , i d
                 , i % j
                      c 0
                     ? A
                    ( D
                     ) :
                      0 )
                       ; e
                        0 ;
                         }

I have deliberately kept this program rather simple (for an obfuscated
program). There are only two levels of obfuscation (if you don't count the
arty layout). The first - the #define level - is trivially removed with a
preprocessor, but the second is slightly less obvious to the casual reader,
as you will see if you take the trouble to look. I refrained (with some
difficulty) from adding further levels, since they would not have added to
my point, which is this: the above program took me approximately half an
hour to write; it is of no practical use (as far as I can tell), and yet it
is bang on-topic for comp.programming.

Now, obfuscated programming may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it can be
a most delicate art, and words like "brutal" and "Philistine" clearly don't
apply. Thus, to say of this newsgroup that "the loud, vulgar, Philistine
demand for practicality is a brutalization that is caused by industrial
specialization" is really rather wide of the mark.

<snip>

> Indeed, this form of manipulation of people who claim to be either
> independent thinkers (but who are only independent stinkers), or serve
> with purity and idea such as Communism or the C programming language,
> by clever Dicks, appears here in this newsgroups as the Heathman leads
> the lemmings over the cliff.

Mr Nilges's delight in offensively scribbling over people's names does him
no more credit now than it ever did.

> But in general and worldwide, it seems, people today jest know exactly
> what they need to know, and no more.

Would that they even knew that! For example, it would be quite handy if Mr
Nilges were capable of learning there are *other newsgroups* other than
comp.programming, and that *other subjects* can be discussed freely in
those *other newsgroups*.

> They "snip nonsense" like
> Heathfield...

Better to snip nonsense than to retain it.

> and make complete fools of themselves by using Wikipedia
> to prove that Edward G. Nilges, *monstrum horribilum* is...uh...right.
>
> Oops.
>
> Oh well.
>>
>> -Arthur,
>> signing off 

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Programmers unpaid overtime.
    ... [Same old same old from Nilges. ... We're here to discuss programming, ... > specific problem would VIOLATE the ng charter! ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Programmers unpaid overtime.
    ... [Mr Nilges' article weighed in at 316 lines. ... relevant to this newsgroup, by removing all the irrelevant stuff. ... <snip of irrelevant stuff> ... If you feel the need to discuss the profession and cannot find an ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness
    ... Mr Nilges has yet to try such a strategy. ... >> programming, which is its intended topic as per the charter (hence the ... They could try using a newsgroup where labour situations are topical. ... > makes topicality strictly an external, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Programmers unpaid overtime.
    ... > Edward G. Nilges wrote: ... >> I have not seen a single useful result of yours about programming in ... >> this newsgroup. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design
    ... It appears Mr Nilges is wriggling again, but he only succeeds in impaling ... Perhaps this is only because Mr Nilges posts so much to this newsgroup. ... If Mr Nilges thinks of discussions of programming as "toxic sludge", ... he could have learned of his mistake eighteen months ago. ...
    (comp.programming)