What if there was an OS built around a scripting language.
The main OS would be an interpreter for this scripting language along with librarys for low level access(like HD and the display) all written in asm so it wouldn't be slowasfuck. Then the OS runs a script which would be what the user sees, calling the librarys for display, mouse, keyboard, etc.
What's the advantage of this? You would be able to modify the OS completely to your liking at runtime. No compiling, no rebooting, just right then and there.
The operating system performs many more functions than merely "being an interpreter," which I take to be the equivalent of running binaries from assembly. How would you do scripting environments, advanced data passing/sharing, memory management, etc. etc.?
Congratulations! You have successfully reinvented Lisp machine.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-27 23:32
Eventually everything moderately useful would be distilled into binaries that are called by name. Then we'd need a place to organize such binaries, something like a filesystem or something like that. Better write that in asm too for speed. Oh shit, for safety and speed let's make the interpreter a user mode binary and let the OS be a bunch of binaries accessible as system calls, and make some other binaries that are thin wrappers for these system calls for security. Oh wait, it's done. It's called Unix. Thanks for playing.
All these censor-scripts depend on single assumption,assumption which is:
FrozenVoid is always using his tripcode. But all this filtering is futile when its wrong.
>>24
You just can't adapt to idea of some post being against your worldview so you censor them:
The thing is there is no way to completely censor text on anonymous forum,short of creating a server-side filter
and even then,there is Unicode.
>>35
On the contrary: I know how such categorization algos work, and its not reliable at all.
There will be many false positives,person style can change or they adopt new vocabulary.
And, what's your point? I will `mind-filter', as you call it, your posts because you're full of shit. Just like I `mind-filter' any other shitpost on 4chan.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 11:32
>>56
Thats your problem: The software which you use to "mind-filter" is as bad as your script
>>61
You have to take context into account when speaking with people
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 11:41
Is there a nuance you omit from your words? It seems like a typical contradiction: >>47
This is 4chan, shit posts are everywhere. If I couldn't handle filtering that in my mind, I wouldn't be here. >>50
You are perfectly fine with anonymous post made by me then? >>52
If they were good. But you're too full of shit.
>>64 But you're too full of shit.
This does not imply that I find it necessary to filter (hide) your posts. Just that I doubt that you will ever post anything good.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 11:47
>>65
No, its exactly describe you answer in context : You are not accepting my posts,
but you're fine with such posts on 4chan in general,because you can "mind-filter" them.
Yet,your next posts illustrate that you can't do that at all.
>>78
Its hard to admit you're wrong so now you invent implausible scenarios where you don't lose.
In your imaginary world its just explained away,
but in reality its all fake and full of wishful thinking.
>>91
I think there are exactly to kinds of meaningful ways to conversate on the Internet: true anonymity and forcing everyone to use their IRL identity. Using `screen names' or nicks combines the worst of the two worlds: your online persona is not really you, so you can act like an asshole without any responsibility, but you still have kind of an identity to tie your ego to.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:07
>>92
I'm FrozenVoid and my anonymous posts can be always identified
when i reply with my tripcode. Just ask me.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:11
>>93
What limits you have when you don't have a fixed name which gains its reputation from its posts?
Its seems very little, as /b/ illustrates.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:15
>>95
You're still here, so that proves that fixed names don't deter shitposters either.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:16
If you can use filters on "FrozenVoid" it doesn't mean it filters all my posts.
There is no "Algorithm", "Mind-Filter" or "moderation" which removes singular person from the forum.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:17
>>95
I don't excpect much of you, but would you kindly at least read my fucking post before replying?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:18
I believe your >>96 friends thought that making me anonymous would be somehow 'painful' to me.
It was like...a week ago. They also miserably failed with this "prediction".
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:20
>>98
I show you the other side of the problem, which you briefly touch in your post.
I don't reply to you personally, but to your idea that "Anonymous" is 'one true way' of posting.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:21
>>99
Stop ignoring the facts.
1. You claim fixed names deter shitposters.
2. You are still here, name or not.
3. Ergo, your wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:23
>>101
I'm not a "Shit-poster", But some of your friends post easily fit the description.
Did people who post in the LISP thread get banned?
Did you get banned?
Take a hint.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:29
>>106
>but to your idea that "Anonymous" is 'one true way' of posting.
Quoted directly: >>93
>"I think there are exactly to kinds of meaningful ways to conversate on the Internet: true anonymity and forcing everyone to use their IRL identity."
>true anonymity and forcing everyone to use their IRL identity.
>true anonymity
(obviously forcing everyone to use IRL names is bad idea)
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:30
/prog/ desperately needs a mod to purge such faggotry as FrozenCunt
ip b& him pl0x
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:32
>>108
People posting "LISP" don't get banned, i was banned for posting constructive replies and my posts were deleted once.
this is described here: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1232560520
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:32
>>111
Exactly. So fuck off. You're not welcome here.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 14:34
>>109 (obviously forcing everyone to use IRL names is bad idea)
Your definition of `obvious' differs from mine. I think that forcing people (usually by convention) to use IRL names in online discussions is a good idea, and has worked great for several decades.