On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to
know how to program usually isn't considered
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 +
Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFJ: The PRS is a contest
Arguments:
Wooble neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of
contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a
contest.
Wooble and since the Scorekeepor
On 26 Nov 2008, at 12:12, Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 +
Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFJ: The PRS is a contest
Arguments:
Wooble neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of
contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a
Murphy wrote:
Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings
up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to
delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to
submit it as a proposal.)
Sorry, I've been busy recently. Someone else feel
Elysion wrote:
Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the
context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I
just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.)
It was decontestified by mistake when a Notary's Report listing
it as not a contest was
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:39, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bobthj scammed it as a contest by ratifying scorekeepor's report. Except...
see wooble's quote.
Arguments: The PRS was a contest for quite some time before it ceased
to be one due to a ratification error on the Notary
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context,
please?
That was all of the context, and I was incorrect. The contestmaster
switch is tracked by the Notary, but the list of contestmasters is
part
On 26 Nov 2008, at 04:46, Pavitra wrote:
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him.
Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use
pronouns around here.
I started playing B much after Agora.
I do not
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zotting a CFJ means intending to appeal a CFJ, acting on behalf
of every party to the Z house to support, and appealing it.
FWIW, I won't join because of this bit. Criminal cases may be
underused, but appeal cases are
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started playing B much after Agora.
I do not like Spivak.
Funny, I started playing B much before Agora.
When it used Spivak.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 15:43, comex wrote:
Which is correct is up to ais523
surely it'd be up to the notary?
CFJ: The Vote Market exists
ais523 is the judge of CFJ 2288, a recent case of yours, identical to
the one you just
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think these are big enough cons, you really want round-robin multiple
rounds. I don't think you have to worry too much about assembly, etc.,
you're probably offering enough diversity if you offer a small range of
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:26, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program
written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that
could be run anywhere?
I can in my preferred language of choice.
BobTHJ
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a
program written in essentially any language into some sort of
executable file that could be run anywhere?
llvm, java, etc...
Pick yer poison.
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote:
I can in my preferred language of choice.
VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote:
I can in my preferred language of choice.
VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems?
Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote:
I can in my preferred language of choice.
VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems?
mono
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems.
I could be wrong however.
Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would
damage
the contest, if I understand it.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage
the contest, if I understand it.
Presumably everyone using a scripting language would reveal the source
to the contestmaster anyway.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program
written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that
could be run anywhere?
llvm, java, etc...
Pick
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:15, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems.
I could be wrong however.
Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage
the
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:15, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems.
I could be wrong however.
Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage
the
While we're debating executables for this, I thought I'd raise another
issue: scoring.
One of the features of cooperation experiments is that, rationally,
how well your opponent does shouldn't affect you. For example, if your
opponent offers you $1 and keeps $19, the point of the game is that
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source
submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the
source to a discreet contestmaster.
Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source
submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the
source to a discreet contestmaster.
Concur.
ais523 or others:
Can you point me to latest drafts of infraction reforms and also your
contract reforms (hierarchy of types of enforceable contracts IIRC)?
Happy to take a round as a coauthor for next drafts but I wasn't
following earlier discussions fully...
-Goethe
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source
submissions, probably the best scheme
I agree entirely.
My initial proposal was to score according to totals, not to win
differentials, though I may not have expressed that clearly. i.e. it's
better to cooperate and get minorly exploited than to get locked into a
cycle of retaliation where hardly anyone gets any points in the entire
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Jamie Dallaire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since how my program
interacts with Kerim's program won't have any impact on whether or not
Kerim's program chooses to cooperate with root's,
Allow each script to know the name of the author of the other!
Would be so
My home net access cut out last night, I think due to weather. If
it's still out when I leave the office, then I'll be offline until
it gets fixed.
Billy Pilgrim wrote:
Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that
all these nomic players are running xp/vista...
I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because
it was pre-installed and I dare not risk breaking it).
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Billy Pilgrim wrote:
Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that
all these nomic players are running xp/vista...
I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because
it was
Warrigal wrote:
If a power-1 rule states that a certain person can do something with
0 support or without 100 objections, the power-3 rule 1728 allows
them to do it.
Not if another rule takes precedence over the power-1 rule and says
they can't (or, equivalently, secures the change with a
On 26 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
Yep. Sorry what I said wasn't super clear. Don't construe that to
mean I think everyone here boycotts Windows. Probably some do, but
really I meant that it's unlikely to be EVERYONE's main working
environment. I only recently semi-weaned off
Okay, home access is back up and running again. Latest batch of
judgements are about to be recorded.
comex wrote:
My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I
violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to
register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this
means I intend to initiate the case, then act on behalf of Sgeo and
ehird,
On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Siege wrote:
I would like to register.
Welcome to Agora, Siege!
What brought you to this game? And do you go by Siege anywhere
else? I know a Siege on a certain message board I frequent.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Elliott Hird wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 04:46, Pavitra wrote:
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him.
Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use
pronouns around here.
I started playing B much
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warrigal of Escher
Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship
Bach instead.
--Warrigal
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warrigal of Escher
Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship
Bach instead.
In case you're wondering, by the way, Gödel
On Nov 26, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Warrigal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warrigal of Escher
Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now
worship
Bach
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote:
I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good
gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: they, them etc.
(Nor are these some kind of PC invention of the 20th century; they
occur used in this way in Shakespeare, the King
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:50, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Duly updated. And thanks for the historical note.
I believe the next step is Douglas.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
Friendly without objection..
Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
{{{
A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:04, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote:
I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good
gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: they, them etc. (Nor are
these some kind of PC invention of the
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now can we get rid of Spivak?
I second this motion. It worked for B.
they is fine for unknown referents, but I'm not going to say I
transfer a prop to ais523 because they did a fine job in their
judgement.
We could of
BobTHJ wrote:
In consensus with the arguments that have been presented I rule
UNDETERMINED. I thought I had judged a case similar to this in the
past but I can't seem to find it in the archive.
1860, as noted in woggle's gratuituous arguments.
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 10:19:56 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:04, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote:
I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good
gender-neutral third person singular pronouns:
49 matches
Mail list logo
