From: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ernest Hua <Hua@teralogic-inc.com>
Subject: RE: Junger et al.
In-Reply-To: <413AC08141DBD011A58000A0C924A6D52C359C@mvs2.teralogic-inc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980707014557.742b-100000@laser.cps.softex.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote:

>I think we are in violent agreement here ...
>
>Except that it seems odd that speech is no longer 1st amendment
>protected as soon as it can be interpreted by a machine to do something.
>So, then, if I want to deny you first amendment protections for
>something, I can simply write a compiler to turn your words into machine
>executable code, and suddenly, your words are no longer protected
>speech.  How could that be a reasonable interpretation of functional
>versus not?
>

By the same reasoning as in my posting:

>>
>>As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with
>>another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be
>>explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly
>>compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. 
>>

Thus, your instructions to bring together those two one-pound pieces
would be your right to free speech -- maybe it is poetry -- as long
as that is not recognized as a federal crime! After it boooms the
first time... it is a device, and it is immediately recognized to be
an unlawful one. 

>Secondly, Gwin said that encryption is a special class of software which
>is MORE functional.  This is definitely a misunderstanding, to say the  

I could not find that quote -- "more functional".

BTW, I think that Gwin was struggling to express the notion that
source code (syntax) is a device whenever there is a clear binding
between that source code and known semantics, together with proper
pragmatics (the enviroment, as defined in semiotics), in order to
perform the desired function. 

This is called a Just In-Iime Compiler ... and Gwin is 100% right
when he affirms that the difference between source code and compiled
code is null regarding its effects -- its desired function. 

Thus, if the device is unlawful then it must be unlawful both as a
source code and as a compiled code. 


Cheers,

Ed Gerck


______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
    --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---