[fonc] The world's biggest exporter of crazy talk? Meme engineering?
http://thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler I have to admit that I had not previously encountered such focused criticism of O'Reilly. With passing mentions of Engelbart and Postman, the essay may be of some interest to the list. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] How it is
On 03/10/2012 10:39, Loup Vaillant wrote: An example of a killer-something might be a Raspberry-Pi shipped with a self-documented Frank-like image. By self-documented, I mean something more than emacs. I mean something filled with tutorials about how to implement, re-implement, and customise every part of the system. And it must be aimed at children. Unlike most adults, they can get past C-like syntax. Can I also add my vote for this idea? Another comment - I have decided that I learned the most as a child by typing in program listings from books / magazines. I know this probably sounds ridiculous - especially given the attraction of a self-documenting, dynamic, inspectable system. However, I think the process and tedium gave a real feeling for syntax, allowing one's mind to work in the background and mull over the ideas being presented. I think the idea of a build your own computer, magazine partwork style - with both hardware and software being built up piece by piece - is possibly the way to go. Ryan ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Publish/subscribe vs. send
Has anyone done any work regarding debugging of these kinds of architectures? I imagine that large systems could break in pretty subtle and elusive ways (slightly mismatched expectations between subscribers and publishers; also, the asynchrony could be both a bug and a feature). I think that some tools to visualise normal patterns of interaction, distinguishing them from abnormal, could be useful. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] [IAEP] Barbarians at the gate! (Project Nell)
I wonder if micro-PROLOG isn't worth revisiting by someone: ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/games-info/m/Micro-PROLOGPrimer.pdf You get pattern matching, backtracking and a nicer syntax than Prolog. It's easy enough to extend with IsA and notions of classes of objects. It still doesn't fit well with a procedural model, in common with Prolog, though. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] [IAEP] Barbarians at the gate! (Project Nell)
On 15/03/2012 13:01, Ryan Mitchley wrote: It still doesn't fit well with a procedural model, in common with Prolog, though. Although, it has to be said that a procedural approach can be faked with a combination of assertion and forward chaining. e.g. IsASquare(X, Y) iff line(X, blah), angle(blahblah) etc. assert IsASquare(100, 200). (System goes ahead and forward chains all of the subgoals, asserting facts and creating a square as specified. Excuse the made-up syntax.) Forward chaining doesn't come standard with micro-PROLOG (or Prolog), but can be added. Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] OT: Hypertext and the e-book
May be of interest to some readers of the list: http://nplusonemag.com/bones-of-the-book ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Raspberry Pi
On 07/02/2012 13:14, Reuben Thomas wrote: No worse or better than any other system; the point is precisely that it's a pretty standard Linux system (if rather low-powered). Why do you think specifically it's a good target? I think the limited capabilities would be a great visceral demonstration of the efficiencies learned during the FONC research. I was thinking in terms of replacing the GNU software, using it as a cheap hardware target... some FONC-based system should blow the GNU stack out of the water when resources are restricted. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Outreach activities: videos?
Are there any videos of the Outreach Activities mentioned in the 2010 STEPS report available for download? Regards, Ryan ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] On inventing the computing microscope/telescope for the dynamic semantic web
It seems that a logic programming inspired take on types might be useful: e.g. ForAll X such that X DoThis is defined, X DoThis or maybe, ForAll X such that X HasMethodReturning Y and Y DoThis is defined, Y DoThis Or, how about, pattern matching on message reception? Allow free variables in the method prototype so that inexact matching is possible? Send a message to a field of objects, and all interpret the message as it binds to their receptors... On 09/10/2010 04:57, Casey Ransberger wrote: I think type is a foundationaly bad idea. What matters is that the object in question can respond intelligently to the message you're passing it. Or at least, that's what I think right now, anyway. It seems like type specification (and as such, early binding) have a very limited real use in the domain of really-actually-for-real-and-seriously mission critical systems, like those that guide missiles or passenger planes. Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] automation
Julian Leviston wrote: This is essentially what I refer to when I talk about planck size of algorithms. You can't get any simpler than a certain size and therefore not only is it incredibly understandable, it simply won't break. Say we have a Maximum Length Sequence constructed using a shift register of length N and a series of XOR gates. The MLS has a series of 2^N-1 states. Imagine, now, that the states are interpreted as byte code in some language. As an inverse problem, it may be possible to find a shift register factorisation for a given algorithm implemented in byte code. I would argue that the reduced information size (N + XOR gate encoding) is not understandable, although it would be very small. This is, of course, analogous to symbol representation and compression in information theory. A very information dense (compressed) communication becomes indistinguishable from noise. How do you determine that a very dense program is, in fact, understandable? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
I would imagine that the goals align with the task of augmenting human intellect, to borrow Engelbart's phrase. The STEPS project, in particular, seems concerned with compact representations that approach the entropies of the systems being simulated. Computing, to me, anyway, is very closely linked to simulation. A compact representation is (hopefully) easier understand, thus making it suitable for educational purposes. However, it should also be more computationally efficient, as well as enabling greater productivity. I think it's also about regaining control of our technology. A modern computer system is composed of layer upon layer of ad hoc mechanics, short on architecture and long on details. There are few people who have a truly good understanding of the complete system from firmware to UI, including all the details in between, and it's not because the details are fundamentally complex - they simply involve huge amounts of rote learning. Something like Linux has grown somewhat organically, without any of the robustness that organic growth might imply. Given concerns about security and privacy - not to mention demonstrable correctness of operation - an easily decomposable, understandable system is hugely desirable. There should be bonus side effects, such as running well on lightweight mobile devices. I hope to see computing systems becoming vehicles for training intelligent agents that assist human endeavours - by automating menial tasks, freeing humans to concentrate on more interesting problems, while also leveraging the abilities that are trivial for computers, but hard for humans (large scale data processing, correlation and statistical analysis, particle simulation, etc.). I also hope to see more of the abilities that have traditionally been described as A.I. entering mainstream computation (goal-seeking behaviour, probabilistic reasoning). Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
Alan Kay wrote: McLuhan: We become what we behold. We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. - Anais Nin (just to add some recursive futility to the mix) Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
