emacs: Alan, lsl-mode


Xah wrote:
> 〈Xah's Linden Scripting Language (LSL) Tutorial〉
> http://xahlee.org/sl/ls.html
> if you take a survey, i think 99% professional programers wouldn't
> know what the shit ^L is.

Alan wrote:
> I'm sure a much greater proportion of professional programmers, my colleagues,
> know this.

emacs cult victim Alan, i'm so prescient, i anticipated ur idiocy. See this sentence in my previous post:

Xah wrote:
> (Xah's edu corner: professional programer means those who
> makes a living mostly by coding; it doesn't mean your
> hacker buddies or those who slave in comp.lang
> newsgroup).


Xah wrote:
> here's my LSL tutorial Alan. You might browse it sometimes.
> 〈Xah's Linden Scripting Language (LSL) Tutorial〉
> http://xahlee.org/sl/ls.html

Alan wrote:
> Then again, perhaps not. I've no interest in Second Life.

remember you asked what's the problem being old? The above is a example.

> Have you written an Emacs mode for LSL?

i dunno if you really don't know, or just trying to get me to post my links.
Any idiot who spent 30 secs on the above link will see this link:

〈Emacs LSL Mode (xlsl-mode) for Linden Scripting Language〉

and it's written from scratch baby, not based on some other mode.



map F5 to emacs's C-x while ignore cua-mode

if i want to set F5 to emacs's C-x and F6 to emacs's C-c, how to do that?

i know i can use key-translation-map or function-key-map, something like
(define-key key-translation-map (kbd "") "")

but i also want it so that if cua-mode is on, it unconditionally do emacs's C-x, not cut.

i thought it's something like this

(defun f5-Cx ()
(let (cuaModeState cua-mode)
(cua-mode 0)
;; type C-x here
(if cuaModeState (cua-mode 1) (cua-mode 0))

but not sure how to do the “type C-x” there. Even so, not sure the whole would work.




autism, schizoid, artificial intelligence

On Apr 11, 4:04?am, "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:
> Don Geddis writes:
> > Xah Lee wrote on Sun, 10 Apr 2011:
> >> my parents are abusive fuckheads.
> > [...]
> >> Perhaps, it's also why i'm this way.
> > Ah! ?An explanation, at last.
> But not an excuse. ?He has a brain to compensate.

intelligence does not compensate for mental “illness”, personality disorder, trauma, or the like.

you can look at people with High IQ, and suicide rate, or psychological problems. They don't correlate.

as a human animal, there is certain psychological need, just as food is a physical need. Intelligence helps thinking, but that does little to grow or mend psychologically oriented problems.

i've put tremendous effort in my 20s and 30s to become a pure emotionless and logical being, pretty much as Mr Data or Spock in Star Trek. And as a person with mild so-called schizoid personality, i'm already far more emotionally removed than the general populace, even more so than most hard core programers, engineers, scientist types. (some say i have autism or Asperger syndrome, but between these and schizoid i'm not quite sure which or both)

in my interest in these things, one realization is that human animal isn't just a machine albeit made of meat, but psychological issues changes/damages your brain's wiring or chemical makeup in physics ways that even with intact high IQ your thinking pattern or emotional response will be changed in irreparable ways. e.g. easy way to see this is to imagine trauma victims. (or, you can think of the fictional Joker & Batman for illustration. Both are highly intelligent, but got psy problems. lol)

so, for much of my life, my quest of becoming a pure emotionless thinking machine using intelligence and logic is misguided and ultimately doomed to fail. In summary, the human animal, its behavior, thinking, is not and can not be controlled by pure will out of thinking.

related article:

〈Reading Notes on “Intimate Behavior”〉

〈Are You Schizoid or Autistic?〉

back to computer science... you know there's theories that when a computer gets sufficiently complex to approach Strong AI, it will develop emotion (which we perceive as negative), e.g. fear, love, incisiveness, etc, that these are so-called emergent phenomenon.

as to the question of whether machines will ever become sentient or achieve strong AI... i kinda think yes, because i think that if you don't believe some concept of soul or inherent spirit with a human animal, then it's just a machine, albeit made of meat, governed by physics. As such, artificial machines may one day be made in ways like the meat machine of human animal. (and then we have cloning tech on the horizon... which gets equally interesting on the question of sentience, identity, soul.)



emacs, richard stallman, disruptive leaders



hi Louis Wen,

thanks for the thoughts. Here's some response as discussion.

On Apr 8, 9:25 pm, "Louis.Wen" wrote:
> Xah, I read all you article and some other else.  You are a interesting
> person but I don't agree with you completely.  I think you are doing
> good in your way(write articles on these and release ErgoEmacs).  And I
> want to make comments and give suggestions.


> Although I am not much interested in politics (and actually not good at
> it), in my opinion it is somewhat radical to ask for dropping the word
> "free software" and replace it with "FSF ideal software", to advocate
> the abandonment of all traditional way of doing things in emacs (that is
> what you call "emacs cult", do I understand you exactly right?).  As
> emacs is developed in more than three decades, due to the compatible or
> historical reason there is something, e.g. the "undo" issue,  is not so
> easy to use comparing to some other more modern editors.  If you want to
> change this, I think you could easily get the source code and do it as
> you want. (actually you have built another branch of emacs, ErgoEmacs.)

it's not easy. People say one of the main power of emacs is customization. Yes, for small dosages. But to change keybinding (such as C-c & C-x for copy/cut), or adding the redo, really takes a lisp coder with several years of coding experience. Such is the case with ErgoEmacs as well as AquaMacs, Carbon Emacs, or the grandaddy XEmacs which took several elite pro programers several years full times in a day job to produce. Some of these core UI issues can't be fixed unless you hack emacs's C. At which point, you pretty much ends up as XEmacs, a complete incompatible fork, unless you kiss Richard Stallman's ass and dedicate your years of work under his design and name.

> That is exactly what FSF does, to make the software source code
> available to everyone and the provide the freedom to you to modify and
> redistribute the software.  There is 4 different levels of freedom that
> GPL provides. Yes, it is just some points of view (and actually put down
> in GPL as law text). It seems you have different thought in you article
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ2/Richard_Stallman_abuse_freed...
> I think it's easy to see that you take thinking on it, however I don't
> agree with part of you points in this article.  By the way, the
> "entrepreneurs and businesses" example in this article is not good to
> support you point of view. It says you have the freedom to write
> software and release no matter in what license, but what GPL asks (for
> the entrepreneurs) and provides (to the user) is much more than this.

it should be noted that i was a dedicated FSF/GNU advocate, from late 1990s when i learned it to early 2000s. This can be seen in these essays:

〈On Microsoft Hatred〉

〈The Unix Pestilence: GNU〉


Of the Open Source, which is one of the most paltry idea of humanity, of dolts' musing, paupers' plead, a offshoot and outright turncoat of Stallman's vision & hardship, dressing itself as the mediator between FSF and business men, fiddling and hawking a pipe dream of its own; a pot calling the kettle black; thieves and slouch's back seat. And in the end, it's just another fantastic fad pest of the world that is lingering. A sucker of programer's blood. A ruse for the enterprising corps. A disparate incongruous splash of vaporing nothingness that we shall see. —Xah Lee, 2002-05

that was when in ~1997 the Open Source started and there's a big war going on between it and FSF. (remember KDE, anyone?) I have also been called a Richard Stallman fanboy in mac fanatic mailing (which subsequently i was ban'd). Remember in late 1990s, there's a unix history page that was hugely popular on the web. The fuckhead guy, put Steve Jobs as one of the important unix people, yet does not include Richard Stallman. I criticized, nay, motherfucked the page in public. Eventually, the author put Richard Stallman there, but of course i don't get any credit. Those unix supposedly ethical hacker MOTHERFUCKING scumbags — GO FUCK YOURSELF.

am too lazy to search the links, but if anyone wants to doubt, i'll get the link, the Wikipedia history page on unix history that links to it, and the mac os x mailing list where i discussed this. (it was running on omniweb... one bunch of Mac fucking fanatics cheerleaders)

am ban'd in quite few places btw. It's funny that hacker news ban'd my site xahlee.org from submitting. (btw, i NEVER submitted my articles to any of those hip hop slashdot reddit hackernews motherfucking fashion FUCKS for the tech geekers) This page gives a summary:

〈Ban Xah Lee〉

in my past unix/gnu history sniffing, i've noticed there are quite a few prominent people who had problems with Richard Stallman. XEmacs people being one of the famous example, but there's also KDE camp, BSD camp (early 1990s or even 1980s), and lots others. Richard Stallman is to be admired 100% until this happened to you personally.

btw, i still fully respect Richard Stallman as a person, as i think most coder who have come to unfortunate dislike of him. Though, he's like attacking Linus, and quite few others. In recent years, i think he's getting old. Attacking cell phones and Google and Miguel de Icaza ect. In mid 2000s as far as i sniffed, he's been voted out in several rather leet hacker open source communities...

and there's one thing i never quite understood. Debian was the most free, but seems since mid 2000s there's lots of complex controversies and is not today considerd free... (there are lots of lots of these internal factions among FSF/Open Source communities)

I think FSF is going downhill fast.

> About the "paperwork issue", I think you have and good view of it and
> get the point.  The requirement of paperwork is for protecting GPL, but
> it would slow down the process, probably we could find solution for this.
> Anyway, I think it is good to speak it out if you have different
> opinions and find some other guys who have the same though to figure out
> the problem, to improve things.  BUT, ALWAYS REMEMBER TO WATCH YOUR
> LANGUAGE.  It is much easier for others to accept your point if you
> speak in a good manner, isn't it?

In the end, there's a choice to make. It is not true that one should never go foul. Quite a few historical philosophers, and i think politicians, who made a change to the world, went full foul. Was ban'd, jailed, and so on. Their foul language or disruptive behavior varies in degrees.

to name a few from top of my head: Socrates, Hypathia, Bertrand Russell, Li Ao, Marquis de Sade. (and no, am not including common idiot's heros such as Ghandi, Martin Lurther King Junior fucks, etc.) Here's some related articles:

〈Justine by Marquis de Sade (Hardcore Sadomasochism)〉

〈Li Ao on Tibet and Dalai Lama〉

〈Li Ao on Tiananmen Square Protests Of 1989〉

i don't give a flying fuck to social norms. Kill me, then we'll talk.


xah lee abusive parents; the free lunch of morality


On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Xah Lee writes:
> > G*****n m+++++++++++g emacs undo.
> Xah, didn't your mom ever wash your mouth out with soap?
> Everyone should experience that at least once, the world
> would be a better place.

my parents are abusive fuckheads. In today's USA, it is legally a crime, especially in California. I wish them both dead. (rather rhetorically speaking, because they dead doesn't do me any good. Rather, i wish my story be known, and any of those moral or kind fuckheads who keep insistiing the notion of “you should always love your parents”, or “parents are always good”, should be tortured. (can't blame them, because abusive parents are rather rare. However, there's a minority of ignorant fuckheads who think themselves as “good or loving” people, who perpetuate the harm. Typically the rich and fat and comfortable who never suffered or understood pain, hunger, war) It is these kinda fuckheads, do society bad.

Perhaps, it's also why i'm this way.



what skills self taught programer lack??


the collected answer in the summary is garbage.

i doubt programers with a CS degree understand half of those in the list.
And i doubt there are programers who really understand all of it, in particular: implementing language, compiler, machine learning, finite state machines, lambda calculus, category theory... the answer is totally garbage. Some of the items, such as machine learning, lambda calculus, category theory, really is something phd might understand, and most just barely. (they “understand” it as in “i've read a book”, “i've taken a class”.)

further, self-taught in programing is probably not much different than auto-didact in other fields, with respect to this question. What one may lack really depends on interest. Possibly, perhaps there might be something that all self-taught programers collectively lack statistically speaking, but this list is just garbage.

the alternative phrasing “Or, to put it another way: What should a self-taught programmer study to get up to speed with his/her formally-educated peers?” makes more sense. Here, i'd say typically it's more computer science subjects. I presume most self-taught programers here refers to those picked up programing and are making a living coding.

i'm self-taught. I'm trying now to make some constructive answer based on the list, but the list is so bad it's hard. For example, if you don't understand data structures, can you even code?? Compiler i might say is something self-taught ones normally wouldn't understand, because most programer don't need to know it to make a living coding. But there are hobbyist who study compilers as a subject of interest. Similar can be said of other items. For example, even though i'm self-taught, but my main interest in math, and my first lang is Mathematica, so i'm well familiar with functional programing and math related CS subjects (such as recursion, machine learning) before i even understood the concept of OOP. Another example, the last item says “Common vocabulary, jargon, and conventions”. If you work in the industry as a coder, that's really the first thing you learn, so i can't possible see why that item is on the list...