On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: This sounds like a job for the Rulekeepor
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Cleanliness" with Power 3 and this text:
>
> The Rulekeepor CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying
> one or m
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: But what is truth?
> (AI = 2, please)
Bravo. A well-thought-out balance.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An
> biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in
An -> A
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-
I wrote:
>I ran it by hand and it output "Pikhq\n". Debug mode of the villes page
>reveals a bug in that interpreter:
I reported the bug, and the interpreter is now repaired. It gives the
correct output on the Pikhq program.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Mrphl? I ran this through http://koti.mbnet.fi/villes/php/bf.php
>and http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Ha_bf_online.html and neither one gave
>any coherent output.
I ran it by hand and it output "Pikhq\n". Debug mode of the villes page
reveals a bug in that interpreter:
1 (0): > | a
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>As a Brainfuck programmer,
Ah yes, a much nicer language than it is given credit for. Unreadable,
but easy to write in.
On the subject of unreadable programs, may I draw your attention to my
own efforts in write-only Perl:
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/eht/eht
http://www.
pikhq wrote:
>-[<->+++]<-.>+[<+>-]<.++.---.+.>---[<->+]<.
Mrphl? I ran this through http://koti.mbnet.fi/villes/php/bf.php
and http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Ha_bf_online.html and neither one gave
any coherent output.
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:01:26 Zefram wrote:
> Surely you're aware that brevity is not an untrammelled virtue? The
> RSA algorithm can be expressed in three lines of Perl, but that
> doesn't mean that doing so is a good idea.
>
> -zefram
>
As a Brainfuck programmer, anything worth doing i
On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> You're not a programmer, are you. *google* Oh, actually you are.
If you google me, you'll find a lot of crap, much of it really old. Well,
I suppose rudeness is the best response to "No, I disagree.", but I wasn't
really expecting it.
A Python list c
On 10/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're not a programmer, are you. *google* Oh, actually you are.
> Surely you're aware that brevity is not an untrammelled virtue? The RSA
> algorithm can be expressed in three lines of Perl, but that doesn't mean
> that doing so is a good idea.
comex wrote:
>By the way, you could have said as much when I protoed.
Sorry, not sure why I didn't comment specifically on that revision.
Probably I'd just given up on it as irretrievably broken, and thought
that the comments on the first version were sufficient to express that.
>> Bad style for
comex wrote:
>I did not mean precedent necessarily. Having a continuous archive of the
>game is its own end, is it not?
Yes, and the SD list is crap for that. You included the provision for
deletion of "irrelevant" CFJs, which is at odds with the historical usage.
Even without deletions, the SD
On Monday 22 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I agree with Zefram. Even assuming that you succeed in finding the
> case that you're looking for, and that the statement is clearer than
> average, the result generally can't be applied to whatever the current
> situation may be without the context of
On 10/22/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Stare Decisis document was never really useful.
> I disagree. It serves as a good record of CFJs that is nevertheless short
> enough to post in its entirety to the list, which could be useful if, say,
> the CotC database fails someday.
I agree
On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Makes a pig's ear of it.
You're right. The terminology concerning the suspended state is somewhat
confusing (at least to me), as I didn't realize the rule implied
suspended-removes-existing-judgement until just now.
By the way, you could have said as m
comex wrote:
>[[Switchifies status, thereby removing the annoying evaluated clauses.
Makes a pig's ear of it. In the current system, a question being
suspended is definitively mutually exclusive with it having a judgement or
being open. You've separated one status item into two, allowing combi
Zefram wrote:
H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled "hoopy":
---
Be it therefore resolved that a Rule be created with title "Sass That
Hoopy" and text:
When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Judgement as required
by Rule 591, e must accompany the publi
17 matches
Mail list logo
