<mathematics> {radix}.

<theory> (glb, meet, infimum) The greatest lower bound of two
	elements, a and b is an element c such that c <= a and c <= b
	and if there is any other lower bound c' then c' <= c.

	The greatest lower bound of a set S is the greatest element b
	such that for all s in S, b <= s.  The glb of mutually
	comparable elements is their minimum but in the presence of
	incomparable elements, if the glb exists, it will be some
	other element less than all of them.

	glb is the dual to {least upper bound}.

	(In {LaTeX} "<=" is written as {\sqsubseteq}, the glb of two
	elements a and b is written as a {\sqcap} b and the glb of set
	S as \bigsqcap S).

	(1995-02-03)

1. <storage> {Main memory} or {RAM}.  This term dates from the
	days of {ferrite core memory}; now archaic most places outside
	{IBM}, but also still used in the {Unix} community and by
	old-time {hackers} or those who would sound like them.

	Some derived idioms are quite current; "in core", for example,
	means "in memory" ({paged in}, as opposed to "on disk", {paged
	out}), and both {core dump} and the "core image" or "core
	file" produced by one are terms in favour.  Some varieties of
	Commonwealth hackish prefer {store}.

	[{Jargon File}]

	(1995-03-03)

	2. <processor> An {integrated circuit} design, usually for a
	{microprocessor}, which includes only the {CPU} and which is
	intended to form part of a complete circuit design which
	incorporates other circuits on the same chip such as {cache},
	{memory management unit}, I/O ports and timers.

	The {ARM6}, {ARM7} and {ARM8} are examples.

	3. <language> A varient on {kernel} as used to describe
	features built into a language as opposed to those provided by
	{libraries}.

	(1995-03-03)

<philosophy> Ethics is the field of study that is concerned
	with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human
	behaviour is "good" or "bad".  Ethical judgments are no
	different in the area of computing from those in any other
	area.  Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft,
	and power, to name but a few.

	Computer ethics can be grounded in one of four basic
	world-views: Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, or Existentialism.
	Idealists believe that reality is basically ideas and that
	ethics therefore involves conforming to ideals.  Realists
	believe that reality is basically nature and that ethics
	therefore involves acting according to what is natural.
	Pragmatists believe that reality is not fixed but is in
	process and that ethics therefore is practical (that is,
	concerned with what will produce socially-desired results).
	Existentialists believe reality is self-defined and that
	ethics therefore is individual (that is, concerned only with
	one's own conscience).  Idealism and Realism can be considered
	ABSOLUTIST worldviews because they are based on something
	fixed (that is, ideas or nature, respectively).  Pragmatism
	and Existentialism can be considered RELATIVIST worldviews
	because they are based or something relational (that is,
	society or the individual, respectively).

	Thus ethical judgments will vary, depending on the judge's
	world-view.  Some examples:

	First consider theft.  Suppose a university's computer is used
	for sending an e-mail message to a friend or for conducting a
	full-blown private business (billing, payroll, inventory,
	etc.).  The absolutist would say that both activities are
	unethical (while recognising a difference in the amount of
	wrong being done).  A relativist might say that the latter
	activities were wrong because they tied up too much memory and
	slowed down the machine, but the e-mail message wasn't wrong
	because it had no significant effect on operations.

	Next consider privacy.  An instructor uses her account to
	acquire the cumulative grade point average of a student who is
	in a class which she instructs.  She obtained the password for
	this restricted information from someone in the Records Office
	who erroneously thought that she was the student's advisor.
	The absolutist would probably say that the instructor acted
	wrongly, since the only person who is entitled to this
	information is the student and his or her advisor.  The
	relativist would probably ask why the instructor wanted the
	information.  If she replied that she wanted it to be sure
	that her grading of the student was consistent with the
	student's overall academic performance record, the relativist
	might agree that such use was acceptable.

	Finally, consider power.  At a particular university, if a
	professor wants a computer account, all she or he need do is
	request one but a student must obtain faculty sponsorship in
	order to receive an account.  An absolutist (because of a
	proclivity for hierarchical thinking) might not have a problem
	with this divergence in procedure.  A relativist, on the other
	hand, might question what makes the two situations essentially
	different (e.g. are faculty assumed to have more need for
	computers than students?  Are students more likely to cause
	problems than faculty?  Is this a hold-over from the days of
	"in loco parentis"?).

	{"Philosophical Bases of Computer Ethics", Professor Robert
	N. Barger (http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/metaethics.html)}.

	{Usenet} newsgroups: {news:bit.listserv.ethics-l},
	{news:alt.soc.ethics}.

	(1995-10-25)

<programming> Storing the value of an expression in a
	{variable}.  This is commonly written in the form "v = e".  In
	{Algol} the assignment operator was ":=" (pronounced
	"becomes") to avoid mathematicians qualms about writing
	statements like x = x+1.

	Assignment is not allowed in {functional languages}, where an
	{identifier} always has the same value.

	See also {referential transparency}, {single assignment},
	{zero assignment}.

	(1996-08-19)

In {object-oriented programming} sending a message to an
	{object} (to invoke a {method}) is equivalent to calling a
	{procedure} in traditional programming languages, except that
	the actual code executed may only be selected at run time
	depending on the {class} of the object.  Thus, in response to
	the message "drawSelf", the method code invoked would be
	different if the target object were a circle or a square.

	(1995-02-16)

Not working properly (of programs).