Re: Logic And Politics #6: Introducing Computational Marxism

"Kingbarry2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Jeff Rubard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Kingbarry2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > Introducing Computational Marxism: The Art Of Losing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LEAPS!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What long winded nonsence, how the hell did you write all this
>  drivel?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, I used to feel that way about computational linguistics
>  too,
> > > > > > but there's really something to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean other than bilking tons of research money from useful
>  research
>  and
> > > > > squandering it on a waste of space.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you want to talk about bilking tons of research money I'm an
> > > > interested but not a knowledgeable party; and the results of academic
> > > > computational linguistics to date are none too impressive.  But my
> > > > point here is that "punching while rap" may be an inescapable reality
> > > > of meaning (both in the sense of constituting some fragment of meaning
> > > > in all cases and all meaning in some cases), and although I'm no great
> > > > admirer of Lenin this is actually the tendency of the *Philosophical
> > > > Notebooks*.  That's I how I wrote all this "drive-vel", and I am
> > > > putting more in than I'm used to (though contentful criticism would be
> > > > appreciated).
> > >
> > > I have two words for you :
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > May your signals all trap
> > >     May your references be bounded
> > > All memory aligned
> > >     Floats to ints rounded
> > >
> > > Remember ...
> > >
> > > Non-zero is true
> > >     ++ adds one
> > > Arrays start with zero
> > >     and, NULL is for none
> > >
> > > For octal, use zero
> > >     0x means hex
> > > = will set
> > >     == means test
> > >
> > > use -> for a pointer
> > >     a dot if its not
> > > ? : is confusing
> > >     use them a lot
> > >
> > > a.out is your program
> > > there's no U in foobar
> > > and, char (*(*x())[])() is
> > > a function returning a pointer
> > > to an array of pointers to
> > > functions returning char
> >
> > I have someone else's words for you: That's a good idea.
> > But I'm personally not sure the demonstration of arcane
> > symbolism improves things, and in between lies a tale.
> 
> Personally, my tail is my tail, and where I keep it is no concern of yourin.
> Please look after yer own tail.

Indeed it is your tale, and perhaps a very fine one for C programmers.
 But where you keep is my concern, because it is frankly in this
context inarticulate and not "literate"; if the two words were
supposed to be "my tail", that clearly meant something to you.  And
the point of the essay generally is that computational linguistics is
not "that portion of language function you can program a computer to
do", but computational dynamics in language at large - you and writing
back and forth to each other (some of which you may be able to
simulate very haltingly).  So clearly "literate programming" is part
but not all of this, and I'm afraid techies sometimes bite off more
than they can chew in this regard.