>> Do you think I do that for a new language?
Josh> I'm pretty sure that I at least do it one word at a time. Last
Josh> year I drove all the way across Austria and halfway back before
Josh> I finally realized that those signs I kept seeing: "Einbahn",
Josh> meant "One Way."
Josh> Eric Drexler
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:53, Eric Baum wrote:
> Are you suggesting that there is in no sense a decision made that
> there is a new font to be learned (and possibly reserving physical space).
Definitely not reserving space. I'm not even sure that the new capability
would be in a physically dif
Josh> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:26, Eric Baum wrote:
>> Is there some reason why it is not the most natural thing to look
>> at the Helevetica Reader (as with pretty much any proper noun) as
>> an instance in the class of font readers? It inherits pretty much
>> everything from existing font rea
"Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only
have originated in California."
- Edsger Dijkstra
Eh, the old arguments ... let's at least give a voice to the defense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521
- lk
-
This list is sponsored
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:26, Eric Baum wrote:
> Is there some reason why it is not the most natural thing
> to look at the Helevetica Reader (as with pretty much any proper
> noun) as an instance in the
> class of font readers? It inherits pretty much everything from
> existing font readers, exc
Josh> On Monday 12 March 2007 09:01, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>> The word "module" has implications, some of which I don't think you
>> really want to buy. If the helvetica-reading module is completely
>> different from the roman-reading module, why do I find it so easy
>> to accommodate to a new
On Monday 12 March 2007 13:27, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Well, I have no problem now, but then it has to be the "concept" level
> that is where the modules live, because they are the Lego blocks.
>
> I thought Minsky was saying they were higher up than that, but maybe I
> was mistaken.
Minsky is
J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 10:42, Richard Loosemore wrote:
... Overlooking the practical deficiencies of actual Lego as
a material for dealing with food, one could imagine a kind of neoLego
that really was adequate for making all the tools in my kitchen. Grant
me that
On Monday 12 March 2007 10:42, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> ... Overlooking the practical deficiencies of actual Lego as
> a material for dealing with food, one could imagine a kind of neoLego
> that really was adequate for making all the tools in my kitchen. Grant
> me that as a presupposition.
>
H I am not sure I am conveying the level at which my concern
about "modules" is operating.
If I go to my kitchen, then what I find are many tools, each of which is
specialized for a particular job -- they are modules. I have, among
other things, a food mixer and a (lousy) salad spin
On Monday 12 March 2007 09:01, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The word "module" has implications, some of which I don't think you
> really want to buy. If the helvetica-reading module is completely
> different from the roman-reading module, why do I find it so easy to
> accommodate to a new typeface
11 matches
Mail list logo
