Newsgroups: sci.lang,talk.politics.crypto
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!fox.almaden.ibm.com!garlic.com!news.scruz.net!cruzio.com!cruzio!schlafly
From: schlafly@cruzio.com
Subject: Re: "Speech" vs "Language"
Reply-To: schlafly@cruzio.com
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:19:03 GMT
Message-ID: <DqBuvr.Ipp@cruzio.com>
References: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960422112432.22478C-100000@xdm011>
Sender: schlafly@cruzio.com (Roger Schlafly)
Lines: 22



ISTM that the only significant difference between natural
languages (like English) and computer languages (like C++) is
that the latter are more precise.  Statements in a computer
language can be unambiguously parsed and assigned meaning.
Attempts to similarly process English statements have not been
successful.

It is because languages like Fortran and C++ are more precise
that they are used as computer languages.  Only with precise
languages can interpretation and translation be automated.

Now the ITAR/NSA/Sternlight position seems to be that the 1st
Amendment only protects imprecise speech.  If you write an essay
so precisely that a machine could process it, then the feds can
regulate or prohibit it.

I think Constitutional scholars would find this notion very
bizarre.

Roger
