On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, omd wrote:
>>> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
>>
>> Incidentally, I was planning to have a script send this message at
>> 00:00:00, but failed due to a t
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 21:46, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, omd wrote:
> >> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
> >
> > Incidentally, I was planning to have a script send this message at
> > 00:00:00, but failed due to
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, omd wrote:
>> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
>
> Incidentally, I was planning to have a script send this message at
> 00:00:00, but failed due to a typo.
The Pariah-Registrar's assertions to the contrary, you d
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
Ask us to guess what you intend to do at this time?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
> >> >> Past only. future clearly not included.
> >> >
> >> > The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and futu
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
>> >> Past only. future clearly not included.
>> >
>> > The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and future
>> > behavior".
>>
>> Or, to use your oth
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
> >> Past only. future clearly not included.
> >
> > The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and future
> > behavior".
>
> Or, to use your other quote, it must be in the state if the state
> "describe
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:23 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Or a rule could be enacted that required, say, reading a certain telephone
> directory. You never know. But until said rule is enacted, such a thing
> is IRRELEVANT, which is a nice dividing line.
On that note, an interesting and potential
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
>> Past only. future clearly not included.
>
> The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and future behavior".
Or, to use your other quote, it must be in the state if the state
"describes enough about the system to determine its future be
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > Without definition, gamestate is the whole game as of now. Anything needed
>> > to interpret its current and future behavior is part of that state.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Without definition, gamestate is the whole game as of now. Anything needed
> > to interpret its current and future behavior is part of that state.
>
> If that's true, the state also includes, say, the cont
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Without definition, gamestate is the whole game as of now. Anything needed
> to interpret its current and future behavior is part of that state.
If that's true, the state also includes, say, the content of every
message that will ever be sent
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, John Smith wrote:
> Arguments: A conditional intent to register should still pass the test if the
> condition itself is clearly and unambiguously true. For example:
>
> "I register if I can legally do so" should work as stated, period. The
> person posting it obviously
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I agree that legislative clarification would help here, strongly. There's
> > an interesting history to "gamestate" in reset proposals along with "deem"
> > and other terms of legal fiction that have been
14 matches
Mail list logo
