posted 04-18-2001 07:41            

The message board has hit new heights! Over 100 posts in 24 hours!

posted 04-18-2001 10:42            

I thought it was "31337".

posted 04-18-2001 19:49            

quote:

---

zippy the code monkey said:
i also use x0r a lot, as do some other code monkeys.

---

Dude that looked like you were saying "code monkeys use Exclusive Or a lot." It cracked me up, in a seriously geeky sorta way...

posted 04-18-2001 19:53            

also, how do you do a quote? tell me jimbo-san, tell me!

posted 04-18-2001 20:02            

I think we get to be Uber Pen's until we either impress or piss off eod enough to get a new tag. I'm just happy to not be a penisite anymore.

To quote, instead of hitting "add reply", use the last icon in the top line of the message you want to quote. The one called "reply w/ quote".

Jimbo, you are SUCH a nerd. But in a good way. I think.

posted 04-18-2001 20:02            

quote:

---

Originally posted by zippy:
i would have to say that XOR (not the same as x0r) is the third most useful boolean operator after AND and OR, but i've never used it myself.

---

I've used it. Hmmm... yeah, I guess I'll have to agree on it being the third most useful, just because it's a lot harder to simulate an XOR operator using multiple iterations of AND an OR than it is to simulate a NAND or NOR operator using the NOT operator on each side.

posted 04-18-2001 20:30            

BTW Jimbo what class ham license do you have? I still own my modded cb radio which produces 7 watts not the legal 5, upper and lower sideband, etc..

posted 04-18-2001 20:37            

Jim = { porn, geek, gay mustache }
zippy = { porn, japscat, geek, linkwhore }

jim AND zippy = { porn, geek }
Jim OR zippy = { porn, geek, gay mustache, japscat, linkwhore }
jim XOR zippy = { gay mustache, japscat, linkwhore }

that clear?

fen

posted 04-18-2001 22:07            

quote:

---

zippy said:
jimbo, are we talking about code, or circuitry? NAND and NOR are trivial in code (in circuitry as well, i suppose) because of the ! operator ( or ~ or # or "NOT", take your pick). i've never even encountered anyone who thinks in terms of NAND and NOR in terms of code.

---

Didn't I just get done saying that the NOT operator made NAND and NOR trivial to replicate?

I was talking about code, though I have built a few logic circuits for school and for fun. Thing is, see, I was talking about pure Boolean stuff - you're right, a lot of complex programming environments don't even have NAND or NOR operators because it's easy enough to just put NOTs on both sides of the operator...

... but if j00r ass is writing ASSEMBLER code, then you're damn well gonna find yourself using NANDs and NORs when appropriate. When all you can perform is a single operation per line of code, it's MUCH fucking easier to run a NAND or NOR on two values than to add completely separate steps modifying the values themselves (which you may then have to revert to original status for some other comparison or alteration op later) before running an AND or OR op. MUCH easier.

posted 04-18-2001 22:56            

fen - when i saw your binary operator example, i couldnt help noticing that you used set theory notation. in that case, { japscat } is a subset of { porn }, so saying { porn, japscat } isnt really necessary. instead, it would probably be more proper to assume "porn" means all porn, which would then include { a.b.p.g porn, non-a.b.p.g porn }, don't you think? or rather, in the canadian style... eh?

edit: we didnt even cover unary or trinary operators yet. trinary operators are optional i guess, since they're not really a part of traditional boolean logic and are more of a C operator

posted 04-19-2001 01:26            

I disagree. My set notation would read more like porn = member of { things that make me happy } while japscat = member of {things whic, while not actually making me feel ill, make me uncomfortable }. Other members of this latter group include rotten.com, the riaa, and running.