A new "feature" of their expanded GPS network will probably be to tell the police exactly where the user is. It might even end up mandatory. In itself, GPS won't do that, because a GPS receiver is just that -- a receiver, with no backchannel. I suppose the Chinese could build a backchannel into their system (perhaps under the pretext of negotiating the encryption) but there would be bandwidth issues (not insurmountable) and the slightly more significant issue that the government would only know where the receiver was, not where its owner was. I'm about 15 miles from my GPS receiver as I type this...
So it's just as well Literate Programming doesn't do that, isn't it?
I've spent a bit of time looking at Literate Programming, and think it's a good idea in theory, but all the tools are clunky and give ugly results, and I'm suspicious about its scalability and it's applicability to modern design approaches (and by "modern" I'm going back as far as the introduction of OO!). Programming small apps in C or Fortran 77, it would probably be a help, but I don't do that often enough to learn clunky tools. Tools that automatically parse specially formatted comments, such as are built in to C#, Java and Python, give some of the advantages of Literate Programming, and combined with conventional design give me all I need working at the scale where I think Literate Programming would apply.
Ooh yes, lets have different, mutually incompatible systems at every customer I visit. And I'm sure all my customers will be delighted to give me access to their secure VPNs so I can show them a slide show!
Chaotic (in the mathematical sense) in no way implies non-deterministic. Just because step N+1 is completely determined from step N doesn't mean that you can predict where you will end up after a couple of hundred steps. It's not a question of finding "hidden" rules to make chaotic systems predictable. The point about chaotic systems is that even if you do know the rules they're not predictable (beyond the short term).
Essentially, neither chaos nor non-determinism seems to help with the problem of free will. We don't like to think our actions are completely predetermined, but I for one wouldn't consider it much of an improvement to learn that there's a purely random component to my actions too.
Yesterday I couldn't view the comic at all, with or without flash. It just gave me a pile of code errors.
Even when it was working the day before, I hated the interface -- no direct way to navigate to next/previous comic? Er, isn't that pretty basic?
Actually our govt (the US govt) can only do what we give them the permission to do. You don't like it, write your congressman and/or senator. Be vocal, or we can just bitch and complain. Our choice. And don't forget to include a bigger backhander than his/her corporate sponsors can provide. Then they might take notice of your letter.
I wasn't replying to that, I was replying to your posting in which you linked to an irrelevant article, pointing out that it was irrelevant.
There is perhaps an interesting debate about whether all PCs need TV licenses under the existing law (including all PCs at work, because they could be used to receive live TV, which is enough for the law), but none of that is anything to do with iPlayer, which is a complete red herring.
I have no problem understanding the following in the link:
"You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV."
and
"However, you are free to watch archived programmes or downloadable clips without a licence."
I also have no comprehension problems with ahref=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/support/rel=url2html-31969http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/support/>, which says that "With BBC iPlayer you can catch up with the programmes from the past seven days you've missed or want to watch again free of charge by playing them direct or downloading them to your computer."
In other words, iPlayer accesses archived programmes, and so does not (at present) need a licence.
There are very few people who are legally without a TV licence. receiving any form of TV signal (satelite, cable etc.) means you have to pay it Correct.
as does viewing BBC Video clips (either through iPlayer, bbc.co.uk or youtube). Wrong. As has been discussed in another thread, a TV card needs a license, but iPlayer, bbc.co.uk and youtube (at the moment) don't because the program is not viewed as it is broadcast.
The article points out that if you watch something that appears on the TV, whether or not it's through a TV card then you need a licence. iPlayer != TV card.
they do have large pay checks and bonuses. regardless of the statement being incorrect the links are an interesting read. i have noticed many top stories missed by the bbc including anti war demo's the destruction of our civil rights. Odd, as I've noticed all of that stuff being reported in depth. Er, you are listening to the serious news coverage on Radio 4, aren't you, not the bubblegum on the 6 O'Clock news?
what the bbc are good at is the scaremongering of paedophiles, terrorists and pirates, just to make sure we will all give up our rights to protect our children. That seems to be more down to the press -- and the BBC generally points out when they're doing it.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396197.html Hardly the epitome of balanced and fair reporting.
It's not about refusing to work on objectionable technologies, it's not being able to if there are too many distractions. I agree that the lag between the technology and the effect could let the trend go further than I would like, though.
If, as wacky futurists like Ray Kurzweil in his The Singularity is Near human beings will increasingly maintain portions of their conscious in computer networks, is there even a place for introversion in the future? Eventually once all of mankind is networked, it'll be harder and hard to tune out. If things were headed that way then negative feedback would prevent it. It's introverts who are tuned out who actually write the code, work out the science, design the technology to give us things like that. If it became hard for introverts to tune out, the enabling technological innovations would dry up.
Now I think we know. Either that, or it's slashdotted. It comes to the same thing, doesn't it? Anything good on the net either gets an EULA takedown or gets slashdotted...
or made him so uncomfortable that he left of his own accord. And even then there's redress for "constructive dismissal". It can be hard to prove, but it can be done.
All I ask is a little consistency.... Why?/. is not one single person, nor is it one single person's view. There are lots of us in here, and some of us disagree with some of the others. You think that's hypocrisy? I think you don't understand what/. is.
States that either sponsor or ignore domestic terrorist organizations to the point of complicity, perhaps even engage in terrorist acts with national forces.
Terrorism would be roughly defined as 'engaging in violent acts against civilians without declaration of war by said state'.
So it can be done by states.
Actually I'd make a distinction between a state just being brutal and heavy-handed for its own sake, and a being brutal and heavy-handed in order to keep the population in a condition of fear, and reserve "terrorism" for the latter (whoever does it).
Yes, I should have mentioned that I keep the drivers up-to-date -- I checked that they were up-to-date before making that posting (they were). Hope springs eternal...
And the NVIDIA XP drivers -- 100% of the crashes of my system (one every couple of days) are down to the NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT drivers, even though I've cut the settings down to their most basic. Well, at least now I know for next time.
Generally impossible, yes. But in practice it's perfectly possible because software that is written to be proven will avoid constructs that are computationally hard to prove and will include definitions of loop variants and invariants to guide the proof process. You don't need Turing completeness for most practical programming tasks. Sure, the voting software probably hasn't been written that way, but if it's considered in any way "mission critical" then it should have been. It's what's usually required for safety-of-life applications, and I reckon that deciding who should have their finger on the nuclear button is a safety-of-life application.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's just as well Literate Programming doesn't do that, isn't it?
I've spent a bit of time looking at Literate Programming, and think it's a good idea in theory, but all the tools are clunky and give ugly results, and I'm suspicious about its scalability and it's applicability to modern design approaches (and by "modern" I'm going back as far as the introduction of OO!). Programming small apps in C or Fortran 77, it would probably be a help, but I don't do that often enough to learn clunky tools. Tools that automatically parse specially formatted comments, such as are built in to C#, Java and Python, give some of the advantages of Literate Programming, and combined with conventional design give me all I need working at the scale where I think Literate Programming would apply.
Ooh yes, lets have different, mutually incompatible systems at every customer I visit. And I'm sure all my customers will be delighted to give me access to their secure VPNs so I can show them a slide show!
Chaotic (in the mathematical sense) in no way implies non-deterministic. Just because step N+1 is completely determined from step N doesn't mean that you can predict where you will end up after a couple of hundred steps. It's not a question of finding "hidden" rules to make chaotic systems predictable. The point about chaotic systems is that even if you do know the rules they're not predictable (beyond the short term).
Essentially, neither chaos nor non-determinism seems to help with the problem of free will. We don't like to think our actions are completely predetermined, but I for one wouldn't consider it much of an improvement to learn that there's a purely random component to my actions too.
Yesterday I couldn't view the comic at all, with or without flash. It just gave me a pile of code errors. Even when it was working the day before, I hated the interface -- no direct way to navigate to next/previous comic? Er, isn't that pretty basic?
I wasn't replying to that, I was replying to your posting in which you linked to an irrelevant article, pointing out that it was irrelevant.
There is perhaps an interesting debate about whether all PCs need TV licenses under the existing law (including all PCs at work, because they could be used to receive live TV, which is enough for the law), but none of that is anything to do with iPlayer, which is a complete red herring.
I have no problem understanding the following in the link: "You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV."
and
"However, you are free to watch archived programmes or downloadable clips without a licence."
I also have no comprehension problems with ahref=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/support/rel=url2html-31969http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/support/>, which says that "With BBC iPlayer you can catch up with the programmes from the past seven days you've missed or want to watch again free of charge by playing them direct or downloading them to your computer."
In other words, iPlayer accesses archived programmes, and so does not (at present) need a licence.
It's not about refusing to work on objectionable technologies, it's not being able to if there are too many distractions. I agree that the lag between the technology and the effect could let the trend go further than I would like, though.
Now I think we know. Either that, or it's slashdotted. It comes to the same thing, doesn't it? Anything good on the net either gets an EULA takedown or gets slashdotted...
'Nuff said.
Terrorism would be roughly defined as 'engaging in violent acts against civilians without declaration of war by said state'.
So it can be done by states.
Actually I'd make a distinction between a state just being brutal and heavy-handed for its own sake, and a being brutal and heavy-handed in order to keep the population in a condition of fear, and reserve "terrorism" for the latter (whoever does it).
Yes, I should have mentioned that I keep the drivers up-to-date -- I checked that they were up-to-date before making that posting (they were). Hope springs eternal...
And the NVIDIA XP drivers -- 100% of the crashes of my system (one every couple of days) are down to the NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT drivers, even though I've cut the settings down to their most basic. Well, at least now I know for next time.
Generally impossible, yes. But in practice it's perfectly possible because software that is written to be proven will avoid constructs that are computationally hard to prove and will include definitions of loop variants and invariants to guide the proof process. You don't need Turing completeness for most practical programming tasks. Sure, the voting software probably hasn't been written that way, but if it's considered in any way "mission critical" then it should have been. It's what's usually required for safety-of-life applications, and I reckon that deciding who should have their finger on the nuclear button is a safety-of-life application.