[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- To: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:01:13 -0500 (EST)
- cc: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>, steve bryan <steve_bryan(at)mac.com>
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D6879@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
>
> The standard "non-functional" format would be pseudo-code.
>
Actually, I heard that algol *was* pseudo-code, at least in the beginning
and until a compiler/interpreter was later designed to run it.
> But ... what happens when somebody creates an interpreter
> for pseudo-code?
>
> I'm sorry. The definition of "functional format" is too
> fluid to be codified into law.
>
If congress only passed reasonable non-fluid laws, we wouldn't have the
DMCA and the chilling effect it has on scientific research. :)
Scott