Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #43
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, April 11 1997        Volume 02 : Number 043

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

> This could be a viable objection, except that there is a longstanding
> game custom that when the rules require a report and do not say when,
> then the Officer is given three days to produce it, with the
> understanding that e should produce it as timely as possible.

... and furthermore, said game custom is also codified by Rule 401.

*embarrassed look*

Thanks, Malenkai.

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:09:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

Vynd wrote:

> > Area 6: I'm sure not *everyone* understood the recent exchanges of
> > 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.  Since I could not understand Bascule's Blather
> > (BB); we have proof by example ;)
> 
> Hrmph.  You've already admitted to your lack of knowledge in the area
> then?  Doesn't seem like a strong case for expertise (sp?) to me...

Good point.  However, I couldn't just say the actual truth though,
that Bascule does not understand *my* BWG.  I was just being polite :)

Malenkai
demonstating his expertese in the area in question

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

>> Hrmph.  You've already admitted to your lack of knowledge in the area
>> then?  Doesn't seem like a strong case for expertise (sp?) to me...
> 
> Good point.  However, I couldn't just say the actual truth though,
> that Bascule does not understand *my* BWG.  I was just being polite :)
> 
> Malenkai
> demonstating his expertese in the area in question

Indeed. Perhaps you could aid this Senator by clarifying exactly
*what* it is about BWG that you are asserting your expertise. Your
production of it? Comprehension of its content? Understanding of how
it waxes and wanes? Its ramifications on the game state? Some
combination of these? None of the above?

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:32:53 +0100 (BDT)
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

> Indeed. Perhaps you could aid this Senator by clarifying exactly
> *what* it is about BWG that you are asserting your expertise. Your
> production of it? Comprehension of its content? Understanding of how
> it waxes and wanes? Its ramifications on the game state? Some
> combination of these? None of the above?
> 
> breadbox

BWG waxes when Malenkai is around, it has no ramifications on the game
state beyond making it hard to find out what is really going on, but what
makes him an expert is his unparalleled ability to produce it :) :)

Bascule
Understands Malenkai's BWG perfectly
If not his own

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:29:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

The Honorable Senator breadbox wrote:

> Indeed. Perhaps you could aid this Senator by clarifying exactly
> *what* it is about BWG that you are asserting your expertise. Your
> production of it? Comprehension of its content? Understanding of how
> it waxes and wanes? Its ramifications on the game state? Some
> combination of these? None of the above?

I understand that it is waxing right now, and I understand that 
Bascule is producing it.  Its ramifications on the game state are
obvious; it is causing a senate vote on the matter of the rule-sanctioned
title of 'Expert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'. Otherwise, I'd have to say
all of the above.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:38:48 +0100 (BDT)
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

> I understand that it is waxing right now, and I understand that 
> Bascule is producing it.  Its ramifications on the game state are
> obvious; it is causing a senate vote on the matter of the rule-sanctioned
> title of 'Expert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'. Otherwise, I'd have to say
> all of the above.
> 
> Malenkai

Oooh! What a disgusting slander! You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

Bascule

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> 
> > I think this is wrong.  The rules do not require you to publicly post
> > your refuting report, for one thing.  Nor do they require the report be
> > submitted within a set time period.
> 
> -From R 401:
> 
> >      (xi) Efficiency 
> 
> >            Officers have 3 days to complete the tasks and duties they
> > are responsible for, not counting any time the officer is on vacation
> > or in Gaol, unless other rules unambiguously specify a different
> > finite amount of time for these things. 
> 
> >            Officers, in good faith, shall do all tasks and duties
> > as quickly as feasible to keep the game moving along.
> 
> Scientists are officers.
> 
> Malenkai
> Expert in Offices
> 

My apologies.  You have to admit my reasoning was good though.  Who cares
about facts anyways?  Certainly not me.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TMBwG

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> breadbox wrote:
> 
> [about Godel's Theorem...]
> 
> I don't remember what this subject line started out
> as, but I rememeber it was quite different than what it
> is heading towards.... :)
> 
> Malenkai
> not part of the conspiracy

I started it, it was originaly a commentary on Narf's CFJ 370.  Feel free
to go back to talking about it whenever you want. =)

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:02:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

> Oooh! What a disgusting slander! You'll be hearing from my lawyer.
> Bascule
	Need a lawyer?  I'll work for you for a A$ 15 retainer.

- -- Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:11:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Bascule wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> > While besides the point, you'd have to accept the unfounded myth that
> > until a few centuries ago educated people believed that the earth was
> > flat.
> 
> I think that before Copernicus (or whichever heretic first said that
> theEarth is round), this is likely to be 'true'. Although I did

No. Early Greek geocentric models clearly repher to spheres, and it was
Aristothanes who measured the circumference of the earth, and that was
several centuries before Copernicus. The heresy of Copernicus had nothing
to do with the shape of the earth but with proposing a heliocentric
system.

> read about a rather lovely theory that the Earth was shaped like a
> bored apple, that when you got to one of the poles, you'd fall over
> the edge, but inside would be lots of beautiful cities and
> enlightened people. 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:30:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financier 

The nomination period for the OotF has ended.  Mohammed was the only
nominee.  In fact, he volunteered several times.  He gets the jobs.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:32:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Customs Officer 

The possible nomination period for Customs Officer is over.  Malenkai and
snowgod volunteers.  Nothing happens.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:35:01 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gamesmaster 

The nomination period for GamesMaster is over.  There are no volunteers.
The new gamesmaster shall be the first person to step foreward and claim
the job.

snowgod
apperanttly acting gamesmaster

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:36:19 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond-Harfer 

The nomination period for Bond-Harfer is over.  Someone may or may not have
volunteered, but it happened while I was in the gaol, so I don't think the
thing was legal.  Sinvce no one volunteered I guess I am acting
bond-harfer.  I would really appreciate it if someone would step up and
take this job.  It's not one I can handle.

snowgod
bondharfer?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:49:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond-Harfer

> The nomination period for Bond-Harfer is over.  Someone may or may not have
> volunteered, but it happened while I was in the gaol, so I don't think the
> thing was legal.  Sinvce no one volunteered I guess I am acting
> bond-harfer.  I would really appreciate it if someone would step up and
> take this job.  It's not one I can handle.

I volunteer to be bond-harfer, at least until Mohammed gets a system together
to do it.  I volunteer for all those other harfers too, except trinket harfer.
Calvin N Hobbes asked me about doing some of this work, and I suggested that
he could help most by keeping the trinket description page when Malenkai
is gone.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

>> >   The rules, however, are the definition of Acka (though I don't recall
>> > anything giving them formal power :), and if we are actually playing with
>> > a modified ruleset, we're not playing Acka.  Of course, the notion of
>> > "game custom" fudges this, too - how much deviance from the rules is still
>> > part of the rules?
>> 
>> Aha! But who decides whether or not we are playing with a modified 
>> ruleset? 

  One different from the rules as they "are".  In the event that we
discover some error in the way we've been adding new rules all this time,
and only rule 101 or something is valid, then we're not actually playing
Acka.  In other words, the ruleset according to the ruleset.

>Whoops! I missed your Bob comment Red Barn.
>
>Being facetious (with 5 vowels in alphabetical order) I could say that a 3
>year old schoolkid was a disinterested party; would you accept their
>judgement?

  ... assuming, of course, all such disinterested parties are perfect
logicians. :)

>More seriously, if we disagree about things here, it is highly likely that
>others would too. I'm trying to say that there is no objective viewpoint,
>only opinions.

  But the fact that we disagree doesn't mean we're both right (though it
could).

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

>	I have gathered from the thread that a Turing Machine is a
>machine whose behavior is determined purely by a set of rules-- in
>which case there is no way to know whether current computers are
>Turing machines.

  How do you figure?  Do you mean that perhaps extraneous electrical
impulses might cause it to behave oddly?  Or that, since we don't know the
entirety of the laws governing the physical universe, we don't *know*
it'll behave as we think it will?

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Translation attempt #2

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

>>Perhaps someone should invest in a JMCL.
>>
>>Malenkai
>>Scholar of Jukkasjarvi
>
>Hey hey!  I have a JMCL!  And having long since removed myself from the
>scandavian treasure hunt thingee (I'm no match for /dev/joe even though the
>clues were intiguing) I hereby agree to give it to the first player to name
>their house after me.
>
>snowgod
>
  I am renaming my house, "Hay Loft", to "Non-Snowgod's Hay Loft".

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Translation attempt #2

>> Hey hey!  I have a JMCL!  And having long since removed myself from the
>> scandavian treasure hunt thingee (I'm no match for /dev/joe even though the
>> clues were intiguing) I hereby agree to give it to the first player to name
>> their house after me.
>
>I re-name my house (currently called /dev/house) to be /dev/snowgod.

  And me mine to "Red Barg".

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

>> And on level 2, where the functions are.. these functions can't act on each
>> other?  This system is NO fun! :)
>	It's at least as "fun" as C, which is this type of system. 
>(Variables and memory are on the first level, code is on the second level,
>and there's really nothing else to speak of.  Manuals on how to program C 
>are on the 3rd or 4th level, I guess.)

  Not so, you can refer to code in C.  Try something like:

>>>>>
void foo(void);

main() {
  printf("%whatever", foo);
}

foo() {
...
<<<<<

  ... and you'll get a bunch of machine code.  Wouldn't the manual be 3rd,
the index 4th?

  Is it possible for a statement like this to refer to the concept of
self-reference without itself being self-referential?  (No, seriously.)

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:56:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

>We're really getting off the track of where I thought you were going with
>this.  Are you just making up these levels as you go?  Why are pi and 0 on
>two different levels?  What is g(g(x))?

  On the other hand, you could have a function g that has a domain
including functions, and thus have g(g).  Actually, that would probably be
g(encoding(g)), and I've no idea how to do this stuff in standard
Algebraic notation - but you get the idea.

- -Red Barn
Foncused

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

>> I think contemporary physics pretty much rules that out.
>
>"contemporaty physics" once said the stars revolved around the earth.

  Whereas NOW we know that they only revolve around the Earth if we want
them to...

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:15:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

>So g is acting on itself?  Uh-oh!  I'll bet I could build some self
>reference in right there!

  The proof of the impossibility of solving the Halting Problem looks like
this, too.  Don't mind me, I'm none too familiar with godel.

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 368 (ThinMan)

>If someone brings the Mad Scientist a part from the rules related to the Fat
>Lady, can they claim that they wish to replace "Fat Lady" with
><monster-name>?
>
>I personally, believe they can, but I'd like something definitive.

  This is useless, due to the wording of the statement, "A capitalized
entity"...  First of all, there are certainly examples of single-word
entites with names beginning with a capital letter.  Second, I don't see
any entity referring to entities as "capitalized".  Try something like
"The name of an entity is a proper noun".

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:08:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

> Call For Judgement 371
>   Subject: Paranormal Paradox
> Initiator: breadbox
>     Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Apr 09, 1997, 21:25h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> If Krycek releases a W-File Case report, AND if there exists more than
> one Scientist to whom the clause requiring the writing of a refuting
> report applies, THEN it is equally legal and illegal for each
> Scientist Scientist to write no such report.
> 
> breadbox's Reasoning:
> 
breadbox's argument comes down to this: R261 requires an action be
taken by at least one member of a group, but provides no other
requirements on who must perform the action; thus, he claims, it is
legal for the group members, individually, to not perform the action,
but illegal for all of the group members to not perform it.  breadbox
asserts a lack of individual culpability in this situation.

R261 puts no time limit on the reports, so only the Speed rule applies
in that area.  It is therefore fully legal for each and every Scientist
to not write a report during any period less than the alotted three days

after the requirement to do so comes into force.  In that breadbox's
statement makes a general claim about ambiguous legality of such action,
his statement is therefore false -- it is not the case that such action
is always equally legal and illegal.

That does not penetrate to the heart of the matter, however.  At the
moment that the three day period expires, the Scientists have
collectively broken the rules if no report has been written.  It is
this potential situation that breadbox is actually addressing.  I claim
that a more reasonable interpretation than the one breadbox suggests
is that each Scientist has then broken the rules.  Each one, by acting
differently, could have caused the rules to not be broken, so each one
is individually culpable if no report is written within the three day
limit.

Summary: No Scientist can have broken the rules at any time before the
three-day "grace period" expires.  When the grace period expires, the
rules will have been broken if no report has been written -- the
Scientists, as a group, would then clearly be culpable.  This group
culpability implies individual culpability for each Scientist.

ThinMan
Expert on Paradox Wins

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer

>The possible nomination period for Customs Officer is over.  Malenkai and
>snowgod volunteers.  Nothing happens.

  You missed my volunteering.

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>
>No. Early Greek geocentric models clearly repher to spheres, and it was
>Aristothanes who measured the circumference of the earth, and that was
>several centuries before Copernicus. The heresy of Copernicus had nothing
>to do with the shape of the earth but with proposing a heliocentric
>system.
>

Not that it matters, but I think that would be Eratosthenes.  I think
Aristothanes was a playwright.  (Or maybe a playwrite. (I just thought of
that.)) :)

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer Nomination

>Shun Red Barn and his selfish interests! Vote for Malenkai! Malenkai: Not A 
>Member Of Any Other Nomic*

  If you vote for me, I promise to do everything I can to shamelessly
exploit the position!

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [none]

  Testing, ignore.

- -------------------------------------------
    Daniel Knapp        Head Programmer
 [email-masked]    FeatherWate Software
    http://www.bergen.org/~dankna/FWS
- -------------------------------------------
      I think that I shall never see,
        A poem as lovely as a joke.
      Indeed - unless the poems fall,
     I may never see a joke - at all.
- -------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:33:05 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond-Harfer 

>> The nomination period for Bond-Harfer is over.  Someone may or may not have
>> volunteered, but it happened while I was in the gaol, so I don't think the
>> thing was legal.  Sinvce no one volunteered I guess I am acting
>> bond-harfer.  I would really appreciate it if someone would step up and
>> take this job.  It's not one I can handle.
>
>I volunteer to be bond-harfer, at least until Mohammed gets a system together
>to do it.  I volunteer for all those other harfers too, except trinket harfer.
>Calvin N Hobbes asked me about doing some of this work, and I suggested that
>he could help most by keeping the trinket description page when Malenkai
>is gone.
>
>/dev/joe

/dev/joe has been appointed Bond-Harfer.  Thanks, /dev/joe.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:36:03 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Translation attempt #2 

>>snowgod
>>
>  I am renaming my house, "Hay Loft", to "Non-Snowgod's Hay Loft".
>
>-Red Barn

Thanks, but /dev/joe already got the JCML.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:38:48 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer 

>>The possible nomination period for Customs Officer is over.  Malenkai and
>>snowgod volunteers.  Nothing happens.
>
>  You missed my volunteering.
>
>-Red Barn

I hgave the message you wrote.  It was in response to Malenkai's
announcement, and  took it as a volunteer for him.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:40:08 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer Nomination 

>>Shun Red Barn and his selfish interests! Vote for Malenkai! Malenkai: Not A
>>Member Of Any Other Nomic*
>
>  If you vote for me, I promise to do everything I can to shamelessly
>exploit the position!
>
>-Red Barn

I'm serious about this office.  If you elect me I promise to use it in a
scam-free respoonsible way.  Who better to know about other nomics than the
Ambassador?

snowgod
who might have missed the message announceing the candidates?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:43:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer

>I hgave the message you wrote.  It was in response to Malenkai's
>announcement, and  took it as a volunteer for him.
>
>snowgod

  In that case, I volunteer you to give me A$100. :) - is it too late?

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Customs Officer Nomination

> I'm serious about this office.  If you elect me I promise to use it in a
> scam-free respoonsible way.  Who better to know about other nomics than  
> the Ambassador?

  There aren't really any scams possible at the moment - it's just a
matter of preventing ambiguity in the rules.  Currently, ExtraNomic
entities can only manipulate others from their own Nomic :( - in Acka, at
least.  But, if you elect me, I promise to get as many of these useless
entities imported as possible!

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:12:24 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duels,  Pseudo. 

>All that being said,  I stand by my statement that created this
>situation.  Anyone doubting that what goes on in RL is not harfier than
>harf;  if no one thinks that people can dream up stranger realities than
>our Rules should give Mr.  Chatham a buzz.  Check out the Nomic Bulletin
>Board run by Doug and check out eir link to "Great Conspiracies".  You'll
>either be ROTFL,  or scared out of your wits at what passes for
>legitimate philosophy out there.

Harf is far more than Ackanomic -- Ackanomic is merely a minuscule portion
of all that is harfy.

Robert Sevin

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:43:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Finance update

Mohammed is financier now, but I'll keep keeping track of all this stuff
for the time being.  I do have to report an error I made recently -- I
forgot to add the officer salaries at noon EDT on April 7th.
They are as follows:

+60 A$ Malenkai: 35 for speaker, 25 for CotC
+100 A$ /dev/joe: 25 each for web-harfer, map-harfer, postmaster, speaker
+50 A$ Mohammed: 25 each for promoter, tabulator
+25 snowgod: registrar
+25 mr cwm: CSRR

Financier, Bond-Harfer, Undead-Harfer, Trinket-Harfer, Entity-Harfer
draw A$25 salaries but were vacant at the time salaries were given out.

Since this happened before CarsesraC joined, it affects his starting A$,
which changes to A$1008 (based on A$21166 among 21 players).

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Finance update

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Mohammed is financier now, but I'll keep keeping track of all this stuff
> for the time being.  I do have to report an error I made recently -- I
> forgot to add the officer salaries at noon EDT on April 7th.
> They are as follows:
> 
> +60 A$ Malenkai: 35 for speaker, 25 for CotC
> +100 A$ /dev/joe: 25 each for web-harfer, map-harfer, postmaster, speaker

Speaker /dev/joe?  Shouldn't you be getting A$35 for that office?

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:46:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: C

>   Not so, you can refer to code in C.  Try something like:
>
> void foo(void);
> main() {
>   printf("%whatever", foo);
> }
> foo() {
> ...
	Or, more usefully (and less attractively):

void graph (double (*)(double));
double foo (double x) { return x*sin(x)+cos(x); }
int main () { graph(foo); return 0; }
void graph(double(*fn)(double)) { ... }

	I thought about function pointers when I wrote the original
message.  I may have been wrong in deciding even that didn't qualify
as self-reference; give me a second.
	But foo as used in graph(foo) or printf("%p",foo) is not a
function; it's a pointer (a first-level object; memory, not action.)
I think where this wrecks the hierarchy is when you see that the
pointer can be used to call the function itself.  First-level objects
aren't supposed to "know about" second-level objects.
	Come to think of it, maybe the fact that one function can call
another function is too self-referential for my theoretical hierarchy.

void B(int y);
void A(int x) { if (x>0) B(x-1); }
void B(int y) { if (x<60) A(x*2/3); }

	Does this violate the hierarchy?  It looks to me like it does.
Rats.  It seems that if this is the case, even the simplest computers
are non-hierarchical and very self-referential, at the microprocessor
level.

>   Is it possible for a statement like this to refer to the concept of
> self-reference without itself being self-referential?  (No, seriously.)
	I think your statement refers to this statement, which refers
to the concept of self-reference indirectly.

- -- Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:20:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Finance update

/dev/joe wrote:

> +60 A$ Malenkai: 35 for speaker, 25 for CotC

I believe that is +85, for count tabula as well.

- -18 for Narf for the Chartreuse Goose
+25 for Niccolo Flychuck for Chess-Umpire.  Chech if he has another
functional office as well.

Malenkai
one time financier

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:52:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Customs Officer

The following volunteered for the office of customs officer.  Reply
to this message to vote.  The election lasts for 3 days:

Malenkai
Red Barn
snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:00:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Finance update

Malenkai wrote:
> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > +60 A$ Malenkai: 35 for speaker, 25 for CotC
> 
> I believe that is +85, for count tabula as well.
> 
> -18 for Narf for the Chartreuse Goose
> +25 for Niccolo Flychuck for Chess-Umpire.  Chech if he has another
> functional office as well.

OK got these -- I missed count tabula (in the financier rule) and
the chess-umpire and gamesmaster in rule suites when I searched the rules
for "functional" and "salary".  The Gamesmaster office was also vacant
when salaries were paid.

This A$32 increase in the amount held by players raises CarsesraC's
starting cash A$2 to A$1010.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: C

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> >   Not so, you can refer to code in C.  Try something like:
> >
> > void foo(void);
> > main() {
> >   printf("%whatever", foo);
> > }
> > foo() {
> > ...
> 	Or, more usefully (and less attractively):
> 
> void graph (double (*)(double));
> double foo (double x) { return x*sin(x)+cos(x); }
> int main () { graph(foo); return 0; }
> void graph(double(*fn)(double)) { ... }
> 
> 	I thought about function pointers when I wrote the original
> message.  I may have been wrong in deciding even that didn't qualify
> as self-reference; give me a second.
> 	But foo as used in graph(foo) or printf("%p",foo) is not a
> function; it's a pointer (a first-level object; memory, not action.)
> I think where this wrecks the hierarchy is when you see that the
> pointer can be used to call the function itself.  First-level objects
> aren't supposed to "know about" second-level objects.
> 	Come to think of it, maybe the fact that one function can call
> another function is too self-referential for my theoretical hierarchy.
> 
> void B(int y);
> void A(int x) { if (x>0) B(x-1); }
> void B(int y) { if (x<60) A(x*2/3); }
> 
> 	Does this violate the hierarchy?  It looks to me like it does.
> Rats.  It seems that if this is the case, even the simplest computers
> are non-hierarchical and very self-referential, at the microprocessor
> level.
> 
> >   Is it possible for a statement like this to refer to the concept of
> > self-reference without itself being self-referential?  (No, seriously.)
> 	I think your statement refers to this statement, which refers
> to the concept of self-reference indirectly.
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

Devils!!  You speak in tongues!  A pox on your email-box!

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:59:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes) 

>Calvin N Hobbes has been chosen.

Would be me. Ok, I'll take it. With tiny tweezers.

I'm going to be away this week-end. The verdict will be sent to the CoC
either tonight or in the middle of next week.

Calvin N Hobbes

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Expert

The Senate has voted three to one in favor of Malenkai's request to be
granted Expert status in the topic of "Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz", with
ThinMan providing the dissenting vote.

In the words of Senator /dev/joe:

> I was going to vote against it on the basis that this wasn't an
> "area of the rules", but then I looked at the 1100 series, and the
> 1300 series past 1303, and 1502, and decided that there is certainly
> a body of Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz in the rules, and with my only
> objection shot down, I can only vote to approve this.

breadbox
Senator

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:39:51 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: C 

>     Does this violate the hierarchy?  It looks to me like it does.
> Rats.  It seems that if this is the case, even the simplest computers
> are non-hierarchical and very self-referential, at the microprocessor
> level.

  I may be wrong, but I think it's not really a computer if it can't "store
and change its own instructions".  Yagh, hierarchies down the drain.  Of
course, this ignores completely all non-universal turing machines (even
though computers are equivalent to them?).

> >   Is it possible for a statement like this to refer to the concept of
> > self-reference without itself being self-referential?  (No, seriously.)
>     I think your statement refers to this statement, which refers
> to the concept of self-reference indirectly.
  Sure, but that wasn't what I asked.  How about, "Self-reference is
harfy."?  One could argue that, since it's referring to self-reference,
it's referring to itself - but, by that logic, "Red Barn is confused." is
self-referential.  Oh, well, easy question after all...

- -Red Barn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:48:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Bascule)

Apr 10 20:48 EDT: -3 Niccolo Flychuck: did not report what Phoebe said

Bascule, not an Expert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz, has found Phoebe's
matchbox.

Malenkai
on IRC

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Duel

Malenkai, understand with this message that you are hereby challenged!
In your smarmy attempt to woo the Senate into granting your specious
Expert status, you casually impugned the reputation of Bascule, and
did so with a cruel disregard for his knowledge and wisdom. Have you
forgotten already that this man once sat next to you on the Supreme
Court? Or do you think to deny that you said the following:

> Good point.  However, I couldn't just say the actual truth though,
> that Bascule does not understand *my* BWG.  I was just being polite :)

> I understand that it is waxing right now, and I understand that
> Bascule is producing it.  Its ramifications on the game state are
> obvious; it is causing a senate vote on the matter of the
> rule-sanctioned title of 'Expert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.
> Otherwise, I'd have to say all of the above.

Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz, indeed!

These insults are a matter of public record, Malenkai, and Bascule
does not intend to stand idle and allow you to trod upon his honor
whenever the zephyr whim takes you. As his Second, I recommend that
you either recant your words, and do so in an expedient and public
manner, or else find someone who would stoop so low as to aid you in
your defense of these calumnies!

breadbox
Second to Bascule

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:29:44 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Duel 

Snowgod!

I have been chosen by Habeous Corpus to be his second in the duel against
the lamentable Robert Sevin, who will soon find the true meaning of the word
"harf" at the hands of my master Habeous Corpus! Ha ha ha ha ha!! I repeat
here his reply to your master's unfathomably ludicrous challenge:

>My formal reply to snowgod is:  "Phssssththth"

Ha! I wipe my bottom at you! Your mother was a hamster and your fa...oh, I'm
getting carried away, you say? Ha! You silly animal-trough wipers! And
Robert Sevin...dare I even SPEAK his name in these hallowed halls where the
sanctity of Harf is respected by all who know there place in the grand
scheme of Ackanomia? I dare NOT! May the glory and sanctity of this place be
upheld by Habeous Corpus' mind-bogglingly rapid and decisive victory in
this, most Harfy of competitions! Ha ha ha ha ha!!

WE ACCEPT.

You can call me HA HA HA HA HA!!
                                     __________
                                    /          \
                                   /            \
                                  |   o     o    |
                                  |    |   |     |
                             ----------|   |----------
                             -----------\_/-----------
                           [email-masked]
                             -------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:22:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Award

P1899 was Niccolo Flychuck's 70th accepted, non-null proposal.
I am hereby awarding him a Silver Stripe.

/dev/joe
Senator

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #43
******************************