User:Nahaj

Against voluntary dual-licensing
I am against voluntary dual-licensing of Wikipedia contributions.

Template:Babel-7 Since the nickname "Nahaj" isn't that informative, and I assume you are reading this to look up who authored some article or other...

Who am I?

Name: John Halleck, Born back in the early 1950's.

Systems' Programmer for the University of Utah (Office of Information Technology)

Webmaster for the Utah Logic Group webpages. *Warning* those pages require a good "tongue in cheek" tolerance.

My home page It is much more likely to be updated and current than this page.

Interests: Needlepoint, surveying, mathmatics, logics (expecially modal logics), cave rescue, computer ethics instruction, SHA, Cryptography, Division free factoring, Block Given's Rotations, Making Arrowheads, "Primitive" rope making, Lava fields, historical "different" bicycle designs that haven't survived, Non-standard arithmetic algorithms, and other similar topics.

Author of an open source government validated SHA-1 implementation. (It was the *only* open source validated SHA-1 from September 2000 until july 2005, when OpenSSL was validated) It was the third implimentation to pass the full validation suite for bit strings, instead of just the tests for byte oriented data.

What am I doing here?

Tentitive Wikipedia "to do" list:

• Irish logician C. A. Meredith (Started stub)
• Logician Hugh MacColl (C.I.Lewis credits the ideas of his early Modal Logic papers to MacColl")
• Meredith's Condensed Detachment (particularly in light of both the historical significance,and the recent new work referencing it) [Google "Condensed Detachment Meredith" for a long list of current applicibility.] (Started stub) Need to update to a formal or at least coherent discription.
• Logician Hugh MacColl (C.I.Lewis credits the ideas of his early Modal Logic papers to MacColl")
• Fix Modal logic history to reflect the context that Lewis' ideas came from.
• The "Beth Salay" effect (A paradoxical result on "independent" verification in an environment of search engines). Hmm... maybe not worth it... wikipedia already has an entry for the bathtub hoax, which deals with an earlier form of the topic. (The fact that it can now get "reprinted" around the world almost immediately, and then attempts to verify see those apparently "independent" pages, is just a change in technology.)
• Fleshing out the Program Verificaton stub with the classic "X by repeated Y" algorithm, or maybe "addition by successive incrementation/decrementation"
• An example set of Balanced Ternary algorithms
• fillin of information on "free piston" Stirling Cycle engines
• Notes and corrections on Cryptology section on Implementation, testing, and validation of cryptographic algorithms

[[Category:Wikipedian logicians|Nahaj] (I need to go to the work to make that category someday.)

Categorized stuff

Programming

Why do I only see "gnu" style option processing in only a very few languages (Usually C and perl) ? I personally ship shell scripts (sh for those that care) that have [syntaticly] type checked options, plus the standard --help, --version, etc.. Could it be that the other languages are that much harder to work in then the shell? :)

Google and wikipedia

It is bizarre to me that anything with a long publication history in the real world, but not appearing significantly in Google, really doesn't appear here either. I look at the discussions of whether pages should be deleted, and they are full of "I google'd this or I google'd that." But they don't have "I checked a reference book", or "I checked the library", or even "I looked through a book on the topic.".

I've seen cases of bogus items being intentionally put onto web pages, crafted in a manner that they are intended to be stolen, that now return LONG lists in Google that appear to verify them. (Many apparently independent sites, in many different countries, and in many languages!) [The network equivalent of the bathtub hoax.] While items of significant historical interest [particularly in the development of technologies], aren't generally written about by current workers [who, understandably, write about their cutting edge work instead].

It is also amusing to me to see how many pages on "obscure" regions and/or history are obviously written by someone with an ax to grind on some local issue. (Which I'm only aware of because I've dealt with students on both sides.) Since the other side is not well represented on the web, it being one half of a debate is invisible to folk Googling the topic. (Since the first side with a significant web presence will be the "majority" view from a Google search, the other side can safely be accused of being a fringe group, even if the local opinion is split 50/50.)

I wonder what the implications are for future historical analysis?

Logic

I maintain an index of Modal Logics that tries to at least document the current mess of names of Modal Logic Systems.