Sorry for being potentially rude. It's fairly ironic that I would talk about this stuff given that I'm by no means authoritative for what is and isn't appropriate here.
It's my understanding, however, that "just anything" isn't an appropriate topic for conversation relating to what would be the fundamentals of new computing. Game engines - unless they somehow exhibit some form of underutilized or little-understood abstracted understanding codified in a programming artifact that is pervasive in requirement but rare in actual implementation - are most likely going to simply be the general run of the mill computing, not something that is in some way foundational to what may be a new form of computation. This requirement of appropriateness can't readily be codified or rigidified unfortunately. Ironically if it could it most likely wouldn't be the precursor to the foundations of a new computing... because intelligence - in the form of involving not just the mind but incorporating the entire human being - multidisciplinary approaches and involving the emotions and bod as well - is indubitably one of the requirements for this new computing. It needs to spring from deep understanding and not just a surface level attention. J On 24/08/2011, at 3:37 PM, BGB <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/23/2011 9:54 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: >> I usually just leave off commenting, but I personally don't think this is >> appropriate for this list. > > fair enough, mostly just trying to find where the lines of appropriateness > are... > sorry for any inconvenience. > > > so, I guess what I have determined so far: > programming languages are ok; > hardware is sometimes ok (provided it does not run x86 or ARM, like > alternative HW only); > physics and biology are ok; > FOSS game engines are not ok (unless the topic is voxels or metaverse or > similar? like a few weeks ago); > internet is maybe ok (browsers/... seem ok); > ... > > hmm... > > well, maybe the pattern will be understood eventually?... > > > maybe some sort of description of what is and is not ok would make sense, > like a description of the bounds of appropriateness or what constitutes a > valid topic or similar?... > > >> Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/random8r >> Learn: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ >> New video up now at http://sensei.zenunit.com/ >> real fastcgi rails deploy process! Check it out now! > > links: errm... these don't make sense, I am not sure I get the intention here. > > the first 2 links seem to just contain assorted comments with little apparent > relation between them. > > > >> >> On 24/08/2011, at 2:38 PM, BGB<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> sorry, I don't know if anyone here will find any of this interesting. >>> >>> > > removed, as apparently it was not interesting. > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
