Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #57611 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:10 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:12 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 09:00 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 02:06 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:51 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 17:03 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 18:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 10:03 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-25 10:48 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 21:33 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:25 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> - 2015-02-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 14:13 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:53 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:58 +0100
Let's talk about UFOs then Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 14:26 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-25 21:10 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 22:35 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 14:46 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:59 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:38 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 04:47 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 12:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-26 16:46 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:16 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 21:54 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then mt <mahdert@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:09 -0800
Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 05:56 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:39 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 14:00 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 21:30 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:56 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:16 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-27 08:25 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 10:14 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 15:39 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-02 09:04 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 13:04 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 09:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:27 +1300
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 02:16 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 10:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:29 +0100
Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:27 -0700
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:01 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 23:17 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-02-27 12:15 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:29 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:45 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:43 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 23:09 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 22:10 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 14:19 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 00:57 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:09 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 09:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 13:55 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 16:20 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 08:09 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 09:21 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 09:28 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 12:49 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 05:59 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 15:50 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 07:10 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:01 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 19:39 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:36 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 21:55 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:39 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-02 01:33 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 16:53 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-02 14:49 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 16:14 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 22:49 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 23:04 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-02 02:29 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 00:41 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 02:07 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-04 09:44 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-01 14:26 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:08 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-01 14:31 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:44 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:24 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:11 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-03 15:51 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:20 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 09:48 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 01:05 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:41 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 05:06 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:58 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:59 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:52 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:11 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 11:40 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:59 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 11:43 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 12:57 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 19:19 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 12:55 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 22:47 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 14:24 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 11:54 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:14 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 14:22 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 02:57 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 14:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 15:43 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-05 09:57 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 19:17 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 17:08 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 21:27 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 18:22 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-07 19:01 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 20:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-06 09:58 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:17 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 19:17 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:30 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 09:47 -0600
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 11:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-04 12:16 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:23 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 15:30 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 17:31 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 10:46 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-16 18:25 -0500
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 14:12 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 09:08 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-03 10:00 +0100
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-26 22:07 +0000
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 14:21 -0800
Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md502u$tfe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57858 |
On 03-Mar-15 12:19, jacob navia wrote: > Le 03/03/2015 15:59, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >> OTOH, science has debunked thousands of supernatural explanations, >> so it's rational to be skeptical of_any_ supernatural >> explanations, even if the specific one at had has yet to be >> debunked. > > Please note: > > Supposing that aliens exist and they observe us is not "supernatural" > in any way! That part was about fairies, not aliens. It is likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe; we've found hints that it exists[ed] elsewhere in our own solar system, under far less hospitable conditions than on Earth. > Obviously supposing that we are the ONLY intelligent beings in the > whole universe is stupid. Then, aliens must exist somewhere. It's debatable whether any of that likely alien life is intelligent; we have no credible evidence of that, at least. > Supposing that the many unexplained sightings are a consequence of > their existence is just a logical step. It is NOT a "supernatural" > explanation by any means. Such aliens would also have to be intelligent enough to develop FTL travel, which our current understanding of science deems impossible. However, for such aliens to discover us and visit us, exposing themselves only to ignorant rednecks--and kidnapping said rednecks, anally probing them (why?!), and then returning them with intact memories but no other evidence--doesn't seem credible at all. If such aliens did visit us, it would likely be to kill or enslave us. The "coincidence" that such aliens apparently started visiting us right around the time both commercial airlines and secret military aircraft research started is too much to stomach. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md5a63$74p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57859 |
Le 03/03/2015 19:55, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : > On 03-Mar-15 12:19, jacob navia wrote: >> Supposing that the many unexplained sightings are a consequence of >> their existence is just a logical step. It is NOT a "supernatural" >> explanation by any means. > > Such aliens would also have to be intelligent enough to develop FTL > travel, which our current understanding of science deems impossible. > We have already theoretical suggestions that FTL travel is possible without leaving general relativity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive > However, for such aliens to discover us and visit us, exposing > themselves only to ignorant rednecks--and kidnapping said rednecks, > anally probing them (why?!), and then returning them with intact > memories but no other evidence--doesn't seem credible at all. Yes. All those "abductions" stories are highly suspect. I do not think that the aliens would take anyone and put it back into human society again. If such > aliens did visit us, it would likely be to kill or enslave us. > They surely do not need that with all the technology they got to have with FTL travel... We could have enslaved all the termites in an ants nest but... we didn't do it. What would we need the ants for? > The "coincidence" that such aliens apparently started visiting us right > around the time both commercial airlines and secret military aircraft > research started is too much to stomach. > I brought the reference of a visit 7 thousand years ago The book "The origin Map" by the sientist of JPL that I mentioned is published by iUniverse (www.iuniverse.com) ISBN: 0-595-24122-0 Printed in 2002 in the U.S.A People in the middle ages or before would (of course) not think about "aliens" but "angels" "demons" or similar stuff. And probably they visited us during all those millions of years when here there were only animals...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 14:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1faa4a6f-8506-4d6d-b6a3-96f3eef3aa10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57865 |
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 9:48:00 PM UTC, jacob navia wrote: > > People in the middle ages or before would (of course) not think about > "aliens" but "angels" "demons" or similar stuff. > Erich von Daniken suggested that. It's not inherently a bad idea, the snag is the specifics - in virtually every case, the alien encounter theory is much less convincing than the developing mythology and storytelling theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md6iqs$ksb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57865 |
On 03/03/15 22:47, jacob navia wrote: > Le 03/03/2015 19:55, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >> On 03-Mar-15 12:19, jacob navia wrote: >>> Supposing that the many unexplained sightings are a consequence of >>> their existence is just a logical step. It is NOT a "supernatural" >>> explanation by any means. >> >> Such aliens would also have to be intelligent enough to develop FTL >> travel, which our current understanding of science deems impossible. >> > > We have already theoretical suggestions that FTL travel is possible > without leaving general relativity. See > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive Quote from that article: In Miguel Alcubierre's original calculations, a bubble macroscopically large enough to enclose a ship of 200 meters would require a total amount of exotic matter greater than the mass of the observable universe, and straining the exotic matter to an extremely thin band of 10−32 meters is considered impractical. Everything we currently know about the scientific laws of the universe suggest that faster than light travel is either completely impossible, or at best completely infeasible. > >> However, for such aliens to discover us and visit us, exposing >> themselves only to ignorant rednecks--and kidnapping said rednecks, >> anally probing them (why?!), and then returning them with intact >> memories but no other evidence--doesn't seem credible at all. > > Yes. All those "abductions" stories are highly suspect. I do not think > that the aliens would take anyone and put it back into human society again. > > If such >> aliens did visit us, it would likely be to kill or enslave us. >> > > > They surely do not need that with all the technology they got to have > with FTL travel... > > > We could have enslaved all the termites in an ants nest but... we didn't > do it. What would we need the ants for? Humans still enslave each other, even though they don't need to. But I agree that any civilisation capable of interstellar travel (whether faster or slower than light) is not going to need to kill or enslave anyone. They will already have figured out solutions to most resource issues, and if they arrived at planet earth looking for form a colony, they would simply /buy/ space and resources. It would be much easier than killing or enslaving. > > >> The "coincidence" that such aliens apparently started visiting us right >> around the time both commercial airlines and secret military aircraft >> research started is too much to stomach. >> > > I brought the reference of a visit 7 thousand years ago > The book "The origin Map" by the sientist of JPL that I mentioned is > published by iUniverse (www.iuniverse.com) > > ISBN: 0-595-24122-0 Printed in 2002 in the U.S.A > > People in the middle ages or before would (of course) not think about > "aliens" but "angels" "demons" or similar stuff. > > And probably they visited us during all those millions of years when > here there were only animals...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md6rnm$nlu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57878 |
On 04/03/15 09:22, David Brown wrote: <snip> > But I agree that any civilisation capable of interstellar travel > (whether faster or slower than light) is not going to need to kill or > enslave anyone. They will already have figured out solutions to most > resource issues, and if they arrived at planet earth looking for form a > colony, they would simply /buy/ space and resources. It would be much > easier than killing or enslaving. "Welcome back, love. I'll pop the frimar on, so you can have a nice cup of plarden. How was your day?" "Oh, it was just fegarl! Really bnap! I think we can definitely book that holiday on Rigel 7 now." "Ooooh, can we?" "Definitely. You see, I finally got permission to go out to Sol 3." "Oh, is that the new lot?" "Yeah, they only joined the Commonwealth a few makarls ago. And they are *seriously* naive." "What do you mean?" "Well, I met with their leader today, Mister Chang, and he's granted our merap *exclusive* mining rights on Sol 5, 6, and 7, *and* we've got permission to build a grintel station, *and* he's given us entrimax privileges throughout the Sol system (except for Sol 3, obviously) for the next 200 makarls. And you know what he wanted in return?" "Tell me." "He seemed fascinated by stuff that works on his planet at temperatures where water is liquid. He wanted... let's see... oh yes, hundred fusion generators, tech specs on superconductors, and of course a batch of FTL engines. And that's it." "Is that all?" "Yes! Incredible, isn't it? I'll be going back tomorrow to deliver them. Only trouble is, where can I find them?" "You would have found them all over Gerindal's glonroom floor, but I've tidied up now. Check the toy-box in the middle cupboard." <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x3qAhO.1iD.UZ9JP@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57882 |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:54:09AM +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 04/03/15 09:22, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > > >But I agree that any civilisation capable of interstellar travel > >(whether faster or slower than light) is not going to need to kill or > >enslave anyone. They will already have figured out solutions to most > >resource issues, and if they arrived at planet earth looking for form a > >colony, they would simply /buy/ space and resources. It would be much > >easier than killing or enslaving. > > "Welcome back, love. I'll pop the frimar on, so you can have a nice cup > of plarden. How was your day?" > "Oh, it was just fegarl! Really bnap! I think we can definitely book > that holiday on Rigel 7 now." > "Ooooh, can we?" > "Definitely. You see, I finally got permission to go out to Sol 3." > "Oh, is that the new lot?" > "Yeah, they only joined the Commonwealth a few makarls ago. And they are > *seriously* naive." > "What do you mean?" > "Well, I met with their leader today, Mister Chang, and he's granted our > merap *exclusive* mining rights on Sol 5, 6, and 7, *and* we've got > permission to build a grintel station, *and* he's given us entrimax > privileges throughout the Sol system (except for Sol 3, obviously) for > the next 200 makarls. And you know what he wanted in return?" > "Tell me." > "He seemed fascinated by stuff that works on his planet at temperatures > where water is liquid. He wanted... let's see... oh yes, hundred fusion > generators, tech specs on superconductors, and of course a batch of FTL > engines. And that's it." > "Is that all?" > "Yes! Incredible, isn't it? I'll be going back tomorrow to deliver them. > Only trouble is, where can I find them?" > "You would have found them all over Gerindal's glonroom floor, but I've > tidied up now. Check the toy-box in the middle cupboard." Jupiter is mine. Mister Chang, I will see you in court. Regards, Steve Thompson -- GOTO's are like guns. Safety is entirely contingent on the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 14:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md7php$tq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57878 |
On 04-Mar-15 03:22, David Brown wrote: > On 03/03/15 22:47, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 03/03/2015 19:55, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >>> If such aliens did visit us, it would likely be to kill or >>> enslave us. >> >> They surely do not need that with all the technology they got to >> have with FTL travel... >> >> We could have enslaved all the termites in an ants nest but... we >> didn't do it. What would we need the ants for? > > Humans still enslave each other, even though they don't need to. > > But I agree that any civilisation capable of interstellar travel > (whether faster or slower than light) is not going to need to kill > or enslave anyone. They will already have figured out solutions to > most resource issues, and if they arrived at planet earth looking for > form a colony, they would simply /buy/ space and resources. It would > be much easier than killing or enslaving. It's a common theme in "first contact" sci-fi movies, and we would be foolish not to consider the possibility, though it's unlikely we could do anything to stop such a superior adversary anyway. As to why they would, someone once noted that animals (on Earth, though I don't see a reason to assume they'd be different elsewhere) divide the world into four broad categories: 1. Things to eat 2. Things to fight 3. Things to fuck 4. Rocks #4 seems like the ideal option, i.e. we're so uninteresting that aliens simply dismiss our very existence. #3 seems unlikely, unless there's something more sinister behind all those redneck abductees' stories of anal probing. #2 or #1 would be rather bad news for us. Another possibility is that they'd look at what we humans have been doing (to each other and to our ecosystem) over the last few hundred years or so and exterminate us to protect the planet. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7yIh7.ih6.oeixY@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57878 |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:22:16AM +0100, David Brown wrote: > > We could have enslaved all the termites in an ants nest but... we didn't > > do it. What would we need the ants for? > > Humans still enslave each other, even though they don't need to. > > But I agree that any civilisation capable of interstellar travel > (whether faster or slower than light) is not going to need to kill or > enslave anyone. They will already have figured out solutions to most > resource issues, and if they arrived at planet earth looking for form a > colony, they would simply /buy/ space and resources. It would be much > easier than killing or enslaving. Those statements are based on largely unwarranted assumptions. The task of inferring the motivations of hypothetical aliens is nearly impossible, and while physics and cosmology imply certain constraints (distribution of elements per unit volume of space, etc.) the parameter space is all but wide open. A considerable amount of science fiction deals with various alien- human contact scenarios, however much of it is useless in the context of figuring out how they might behave towards humanity or local resources. This is mainly due to the fact that fictional narratives are usually a vehicle for the exploration of purely human socio- political phenomenon. Aliens often stand in for a human demographic which it might be politically inexpedient to identify as such in a direct fashion. Of course this is not always true, but in the main fiction takes the sting out of uncomfortable characterizations by assigning such to a non-existent faction. This is important if the alternative is writing about influential political blocs baldly where the consequences of insult might be incarceration or worse. Suggesting that aliens would "buy space and resources" in preference to "killing and enslaving" makes sweeping assumptions about alien values and physiology (in the sense of neurophysiology). Furthermore, atomic mechanosynthesis (to say nothing of elemental nuclear transmutation) vastly reduces the value of Earth as a physical resource in comparison to the programmed manufacture of desired resources out of the matter comprising other solar system objects. In short, why bother with Earth when our hypothetical aliens could just as easily exploit the matter and energy available in other star systems? They might still be interested in Earth if some retained defect in their physiology and mental processes made Humans and Earth unique and desirable from their warped perspective, but to beings who are able to think logically and scientifically about the universe, humanity at best is a potential competitor to scarce (for large values of scarce) galactic matter and energy resources. Sensible aliens might have better things to do than engage with terrestrial politics so that they might establish an on-planet settlement. But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C and in particular Standard C (Say C99). Most of us here think it is a good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose language. Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C might look like? Or should we perhaps assume that the future of computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic of our primitive fixed-architecture computers. Enquiring minds want to know. Regards, Steve Thompson -- GOTO's are like guns. Safety is entirely contingent on the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 14:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87twxzpk1a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #57902 |
Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of > existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C > and in particular Standard C (Say C99). Most of us here think it is a > good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose > language. Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C > might look like? Or should we perhaps assume that the future of > computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general > purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous > to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic > of our primitive fixed-architecture computers. It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). Church's lambda calculus (slightly) predates the notion of a Turing machine, but pretty much everyone (Church included) agreed that Turing's model captures, more naturally, the idea of a procedure or method. And then it turned out that something not entirely unlike a universal TM (minus unbounded store) was realisable in hardware only a few years later. "Functional" programming languages are not a natural fit for this type of hardware, but imagine if someone had come up with the lambda calculus in, say, the mid 19th century. It's a useful tool for formalising logic (it's original purpose) and it would have become the "obvious" way of specifying a logical or mechanical procedure. It seems likely that early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. On such hardware, C would probably be unbelievably slow and cumbersome and it wold offer nothing by way of compensation. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md9tjt$j8t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57905 |
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:59:29 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > [snip] > > Church's lambda calculus (slightly) predates the notion of a Turing > machine, but pretty much everyone (Church included) agreed that Turing's > model captures, more naturally, the idea of a procedure or method. And > then it turned out that something not entirely unlike a universal TM > (minus unbounded store) was realisable in hardware only a few years > later. > > "Functional" programming languages are not a natural fit for this type > of hardware, but imagine if someone had come up with the lambda calculus > in, say, the mid 19th century. It's a useful tool for formalising logic > (it's original purpose) and it would have become the "obvious" way of > specifying a logical or mechanical procedure. It seems likely that > early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort > of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. > > [snip] The question then transforms and becomes "what hardware is a more natural fit for the functional languages and way of thinking?" This, now, is mostly a what-if exercise, but who knows? Something completely out of the left field may creep up. Also, how exactly did this thread appear? I ignored it until today...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 09:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <md9udr$lki$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57905 |
On 3/5/15 8:59 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > It seems likely that > early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort > of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. > > On such hardware, C would probably be unbelievably slow and cumbersome > and it wold offer nothing by way of compensation. We’ve kinda danced around this with WCS, and I’ve programmed in non-procedural / non-sequential languages with (only) tree-structured data. One of the things that struck me as natural in that context was to incorporate functional analysis into compilers and have the compiler produce, not only optimized object output, but also a microcode module for an optimal instruction set. “Unbelievably slow and cumbersome” may be a result of making unwarranted assumptions. :-) -- Morris Dovey http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HbpYyU.nFY.P2oPW@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57905 |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: > <snip> > > But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of > > existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C > > and in particular Standard C (Say C99). Most of us here think it is a > > good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose > > language. Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C > > might look like? Or should we perhaps assume that the future of > > computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general > > purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous > > to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic > > of our primitive fixed-architecture computers. > > It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming > languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history > (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). > Church's lambda calculus (slightly) predates the notion of a Turing > machine, but pretty much everyone (Church included) agreed that Turing's > model captures, more naturally, the idea of a procedure or method. And > then it turned out that something not entirely unlike a universal TM > (minus unbounded store) was realisable in hardware only a few years > later. > "Functional" programming languages are not a natural fit for this type > of hardware, but imagine if someone had come up with the lambda calculus > in, say, the mid 19th century. It's a useful tool for formalising logic > (it's original purpose) and it would have become the "obvious" way of > specifying a logical or mechanical procedure. It seems likely that > early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort > of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. > On such hardware, C would probably be unbelievably slow and cumbersome > and it wold offer nothing by way of compensation. I struggle to imagine a "lambda calculus machine" that would do "tree-rewriting". I understand that hardware defines the meaning of bits in a program, however the notion of going from bits to base-2 numerical representation to binary logical operators to computing machinery that operates with those primitive entities seems to be something of a minimum energy path, and leads pretty much straight to functional programming, does it not? Your calculus machine would seem to require "more energy" to get from theory to a functional prototype, but I may be misunderstanding something important here so I cannot be all that confident of this armchair analysis. At any rate, what I am trying to suggest is that the minimum energy path dominates the development of technology (particularly in the capitalist economic environment) and it is difficult to see how computers would be fundamentally different in the alternate history scenario. A history of alien technological progress is not something I would venture to speculate on, although as mathematics seems intrinsic to reality/existence it is obviously possible that a completely different socio-economic environment presents vastly different constraints to the design and development of arbitrary technologies. This is a little like speculating on the development of energy technology. Without contemporary politics and capitalism, would we have had a better chance of developing renewable energy resources such as solar or nuclear in preference to petroleum? Clearly the fact that oil is easy to extract from the ground is a major factor in its rise to prominence as a dominant energy resource. Computers with logic gates and the obvious necessity of having large numbers of them may be representative of a similar constraint. Perhaps if you could describe what you mean by a lambda calculus machine I might find it easier to assess its complexity. Regards, Steve Thompson -- GOTO's are like guns. Safety is entirely contingent on the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87bnk76yp7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #57914 |
Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: >> <snip> >> > But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of >> > existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C >> > and in particular Standard C (Say C99). Most of us here think it is a >> > good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose >> > language. Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C >> > might look like? Or should we perhaps assume that the future of >> > computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general >> > purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous >> > to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic >> > of our primitive fixed-architecture computers. >> >> It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming >> languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history >> (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). > >> Church's lambda calculus (slightly) predates the notion of a Turing >> machine, but pretty much everyone (Church included) agreed that Turing's >> model captures, more naturally, the idea of a procedure or method. And >> then it turned out that something not entirely unlike a universal TM >> (minus unbounded store) was realisable in hardware only a few years >> later. > >> "Functional" programming languages are not a natural fit for this type >> of hardware, but imagine if someone had come up with the lambda calculus >> in, say, the mid 19th century. It's a useful tool for formalising logic >> (it's original purpose) and it would have become the "obvious" way of >> specifying a logical or mechanical procedure. It seems likely that >> early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort >> of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. > >> On such hardware, C would probably be unbelievably slow and cumbersome >> and it wold offer nothing by way of compensation. > > I struggle to imagine a "lambda calculus machine" that would do > "tree-rewriting". I understand that hardware defines the meaning of > bits in a program, however the notion of going from bits to base-2 > numerical representation to binary logical operators to computing > machinery that operates with those primitive entities seems to be > something of a minimum energy path, and leads pretty much straight to > functional programming, does it not? That's just arithmetic -- I am pretty sure any machine would have arithmetic, and binary arithmetic has obvious advantages making it a natural choice. > Your calculus machine would seem > to require "more energy" to get from theory to a functional prototype, > but I may be misunderstanding something important here so I cannot be > all that confident of this armchair analysis. Obviously I am speculating too, but is it obviously the "least energy" path to go from "what is the sum of these numbers?" to putting the numbers in consecutively addressed storage locations; using another location (which we'll call a register) to address them; setting yet another to zero; fetching the number indexed by the first into another location where we can add to the value fetched from the total; then write back the new sum; increment the address; jump back to the start of whole operation...? <snip> > Perhaps if you could describe what you mean by a lambda calculus > machine I might find it easier to assess its complexity. Lambda forms are evaluated by repeated substitution of names for values; those values being, in general, other forms. The basic operations you need are those that let you built and re-write tree structures. In such a model there is no inherent interest in what follows what in memory. What matters are (in the simplest form) the left and right children of a cell. You want to be able to allocate a cell and have un-referenced cells made available for re-use. The rewriting needs to handle some issues relating to bound variables, but that whole issue can be elegantly finessed by removing all the names from the forms. Every lambda form can be converted to one that has no variables at all and the resulting tree is particularly simple to reduce. I've no idea if this is really plausible as an alternative path for electronic computers, but I am also sure that I don't know it isn't, and that seems to be the key to alternate history speculation. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y9Pj92.OET.DLkva@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57916 |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:17:40PM +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> writes: > >> <snip> > >> > But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of > >> > existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C > >> > and in particular Standard C (Say C99). Most of us here think it is a > >> > good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose > >> > language. Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C > >> > might look like? Or should we perhaps assume that the future of > >> > computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general > >> > purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous > >> > to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic > >> > of our primitive fixed-architecture computers. > >> > >> It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming > >> languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history > >> (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). > > > >> Church's lambda calculus (slightly) predates the notion of a Turing > >> machine, but pretty much everyone (Church included) agreed that Turing's > >> model captures, more naturally, the idea of a procedure or method. And > >> then it turned out that something not entirely unlike a universal TM > >> (minus unbounded store) was realisable in hardware only a few years > >> later. > > > >> "Functional" programming languages are not a natural fit for this type > >> of hardware, but imagine if someone had come up with the lambda calculus > >> in, say, the mid 19th century. It's a useful tool for formalising logic > >> (it's original purpose) and it would have become the "obvious" way of > >> specifying a logical or mechanical procedure. It seems likely that > >> early electronic computers might then have been designed with some sort > >> of tree-rewriting system rather than a linear writable store. > > > >> On such hardware, C would probably be unbelievably slow and cumbersome > >> and it wold offer nothing by way of compensation. > > > > I struggle to imagine a "lambda calculus machine" that would do > > "tree-rewriting". I understand that hardware defines the meaning of > > bits in a program, however the notion of going from bits to base-2 > > numerical representation to binary logical operators to computing > > machinery that operates with those primitive entities seems to be > > something of a minimum energy path, and leads pretty much straight to > > functional programming, does it not? > > That's just arithmetic -- I am pretty sure any machine would have > arithmetic, and binary arithmetic has obvious advantages making it a > natural choice. > > > Your calculus machine would seem > > to require "more energy" to get from theory to a functional prototype, > > but I may be misunderstanding something important here so I cannot be > > all that confident of this armchair analysis. > > Obviously I am speculating too, but is it obviously the "least energy" > path to go from "what is the sum of these numbers?" to putting the numbers > in consecutively addressed storage locations; using another location > (which we'll call a register) to address them; setting yet another to > zero; fetching the number indexed by the first into another location > where we can add to the value fetched from the total; then write back > the new sum; increment the address; jump back to the start of whole > operation...? > > <snip> > > Perhaps if you could describe what you mean by a lambda calculus > > machine I might find it easier to assess its complexity. > > Lambda forms are evaluated by repeated substitution of names for > values; those values being, in general, other forms. The basic > operations you need are those that let you built and re-write tree > structures. In such a model there is no inherent interest in what > follows what in memory. What matters are (in the simplest form) the > left and right children of a cell. You want to be able to allocate a > cell and have un-referenced cells made available for re-use. > > The rewriting needs to handle some issues relating to bound variables, > but that whole issue can be elegantly finessed by removing all the names > from the forms. Every lambda form can be converted to one that has no > variables at all and the resulting tree is particularly simple to > reduce. > > I've no idea if this is really plausible as an alternative path for > electronic computers, but I am also sure that I don't know it isn't, and > that seems to be the key to alternate history speculation. It still sounds as though the memory used to represent the tree is going to have the same basic properties of RAM as we know it, and that your tree operations are simply going to represent complex microcoded operations. The thing about memory cells are that in number they will still be made of large numbers of gates. If you are positing an entirely different kind of memory cell, that merely suggests that the logic-gate arrangement is more complex and not that arrays of memory cells will be managed or instantiated as anything other than an array. Regards, Steve Thompson -- GOTO's are like guns. Safety is entirely contingent on the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 21:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ra7ifatc9is7a1h8a3koqruhiki5lfa6ul@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57914 |
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:59:43 +0000, Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > >This is a little like speculating on the development of energy >technology. Without contemporary politics and capitalism, would we >have had a better chance of developing renewable energy resources such >as solar or nuclear in preference to petroleum? Clearly the fact that >oil is easy to extract from the ground is a major factor in its rise >to prominence as a dominant energy resource. Ease of extraction is one factor, but don't forget just how good short/medium chain hydrocarbons are as an energy storage/transport mechanism. They're energy dense in both mass and volume, easy to handle, fairly non-toxic, and other than that pesky greenhouse gas, reacting them results in fairly harmless byproducts (CO2 and water vapor). If we didn't have a hydrocarbon based economy, we'd probably invent them to just serve the transportation sector.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PD6Iip.1Md.xcnMB@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57924 |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:27:16PM -0600, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:59:43 +0000, Steve Thompson > <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >This is a little like speculating on the development of energy > >technology. Without contemporary politics and capitalism, would we > >have had a better chance of developing renewable energy resources such > >as solar or nuclear in preference to petroleum? Clearly the fact that > >oil is easy to extract from the ground is a major factor in its rise > >to prominence as a dominant energy resource. > > > Ease of extraction is one factor, but don't forget just how good > short/medium chain hydrocarbons are as an energy storage/transport > mechanism. They're energy dense in both mass and volume, easy to > handle, fairly non-toxic, and other than that pesky greenhouse gas, > reacting them results in fairly harmless byproducts (CO2 and water > vapor). If we didn't have a hydrocarbon based economy, we'd probably > invent them to just serve the transportation sector. Good point, but tangential to the thrust of my argument. In relation to C, my query was a little more prosaic. For instance, C is defined in such a way that the size of basic types is left implementation dependent. In a parallel reality the standardization process might have specified exact type sizes for basic types. We can enumerate a list of C characteristics and identify various places where compromises were made, perhaps mainly because of existing practice, such as in this example. So if our hypothetical aliens were developing a C language, what could we suggest about its characteristics? (Whether or not our aliens would have a stored program computer anything like what we use today is a different and vexing question.) For my part this question is interesting in the abstract since I disagree with certain aspects of C, much as I enjoy using it. So in my own code I define my own integer types such that I always know their range when I use them. You will be unsurprised to learn their names: s8, u8, s16, u16, s32, u32, s64, and u64. I have an architecture-dependent header file which defines these types for the target machine. (I understand that many implementations define int32_t and such, but it seems to be something of an afterthought and not so much a part of the early language specification.) Obviously this is hugely advantageous for real-world code since I know where I am at risk of overflow/underflow conditions. Standard C types make it difficult to have certainty on this matter, and porting code which uses normal 'int' types requires a detailed review to avoid the many problems associated with varying type sizes. I have no idea why this practice is not standardized, but there you are. I like to think that aliens would recognize the importance of establishing the range of variables in their code and the importance of avoiding breakage when code is used on different architectures. Regards, Steve Thompson -- GOTO's are like guns. Safety is entirely contingent on the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdfhup$msp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57973 |
Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: (snip) > Good point, but tangential to the thrust of my argument. > In relation to C, my query was a little more prosaic. > For instance, C is defined in such a way that the size of basic types > is left implementation dependent. In a parallel reality the > standardization process might have specified exact type sizes for > basic types. We can enumerate a list of C characteristics and > identify various places where compromises were made, perhaps mainly > because of existing practice, such as in this example. We have one of those here, called Java. Seems to me that Java was designed to be easy to learn by C programmers (and maybe not anyone else). Integers have known size, and floating point has to be IEEE single and double. > So if our hypothetical aliens were developing a C language, what could > we suggest about its characteristics? (Whether or not our aliens > would have a stored program computer anything like what we use today > is a different and vexing question.) C was designed when processors were more varied than today. There is a C compiler for the 36 bit PDP-10. I am not so sure about the 60 bit CDC machines. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 11:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6147777-1525-4369-82d0-7e2611bbd19e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57905 |
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:59:39 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming > languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history > (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). > An imperative list of instructions is very basic to human psychology. "do this, then do this, then do this" is the way we work. Subroutines, I don't know - I find structured programming very natural. But it's surprising how few people really "get" it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zj7r5hee.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #57917 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:59:39 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming >> languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history >> (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). >> > An imperative list of instructions is very basic to human psychology. "do > this, then do this, then do this" is the way we work. I should not have been so brief. The class of languages I was referring to are low-level ones that make some nod to a linear address space. C does that in several ways, and whilst this limits its flexibility, it has a huge payoff in efficiency on conventional machines. It's quite likely that "do this, do that" languages would emerge in my alternate history, but there would be no reason to make them look like C. They would, for example, have lists as basic types and there would be no reason to have null-terminated sequentially addressed strings. Allocated storage would be automatically tracked, and it would look like a step backwards to have only one stack and no closures. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 09:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mdbq5d$e8e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57917 |
On 05/03/15 20:43, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:59:39 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> It seems perfectly possible that the whole class of programming >> languages to which C belongs might not exist in an alternative history >> (or alien planet if you prefer that form of speculation). >> > An imperative list of instructions is very basic to human psychology. "do > this, then do this, then do this" is the way we work. > > Subroutines, I don't know - I find structured programming very natural. > But it's surprising how few people really "get" it. > Subroutines are also very natural. Think of cooking - to make the dinner, you put the roast in the oven, boil the potatoes, set the table. To boil potatoes, you heat the water, chop up the potatoes, put them in the water, boil for a while. And so on - it's all subroutines. Arguably template programming, multi-tasking, interrupts, object oriented coding (a "ball" is something that is round and you can throw about - a "football" is a ball that you can also kick), co-routines, and many other aspects of programming are common in normal life. Even functional programming is standard (sometimes you specify what to do - that's imperative - sometimes you specify what you want, and that is basically functional programming).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web