This fan was a pre-teen in 1963, and hasn't been pissed off by a single regeneration yet. A few of the crappy scripts, perhaps, but none of the regenerations.
Doesn't a bounds-check on every array access slow things down?
Not much. Ada is quite capable of hard-real-time applications (in some cases it's an advantage for those applications because the B&D nature of the language makes it more straightforward to write programs with a bounded maximum execution time, which can be more valuable than knowing something is usually a bit faster). And most compilers will let you switch it off, which might be sensible if you've proved out-of-range access to be impossible. Of course, if you're determined you can write crummy code and turn off all checking. Ada doesn't stop you shooting yourself in the foot: it just makes damn sure you know you're doing it.
I don't know how many industrial-strength C compilers there are. There are not many industrial-strength Ada compilers because there's not much demand, but there are a few. The main project I've worked on involving Ada for a mission-critical application used AdaCore's GNAT PRO (they'd switched from another compiler - I don't know which one - and found GNAT PRO's built-in static checking to be far superior). AdaCore is cagey about pricing, though. I have a Janus Ada installation set somewhere; that's from US$195 for a single seat. So Ada is quite affordable (there's always the GPL, non-PRO, version of GNAT for getting to know the language).
First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all
As others have said, fake news. Researchers counted the CCTV cameras on a mile of a busy high street and multiplied my the total miles of road in the UK, including rural lanes.
Well, JBS Haldane showed this technique for exposing fraud in 1939, so it's not revealing anything smart fraudsters wouldn't already know. A lot of the anomalies (though not necessarily all) are probably down to carelessness rather than fraud.
Some of the ones that fail the 1 in 10,000 test are quite possibly an effect of randomness, although 82 out of 5015 is a much higher failure rate than would be expected. And 43 of those 5015 having a probability of less than 1 in 10^15 really isn't a plausible random artefact.
If likely diversion airports go the same way, that would have to be factored into the safety case. If I get the contract to do their safety management I'll make sure to take that into account. But although it seems possible Southend might go that way, Stansted, Gatwick and Birmingham are likely to be further down the queue. And considering Birmingham is a possible diversion airport for LCY, that means Le Touquet in France is available, too. I don't expect the French to be delegating their air traffic control to the UK any time soon.
The main reason it hasn't been automated is safety. Humans might make mistakes more often than computers do, but they're far better at realising that they - or someone else - has made a mistake, and will fix things when a computer would just carry on regardless. (They're also much better at working our what to do when things go wrong and the rules and procedures can't cope.) They have a vast amount of computer assistance suggesting how to do things safely and efficiently, and warning when there might be a problem, but nobody has yet worked out a way to make a computerised system that's even close to being as safe as what we have at the moment (though I'm sure they're working on it).
It's not just headcount. If they're just moving LCY control, not merging with another airport, it won't reduce headcount. The purpose will be to reduce the land rental costs. Rental in the Hampshire countryside will be a lot cheaper than at LCY. The current trend is to move as much off airport as possible - I've been involved in the safety management of a few projects to move approach control away from airports, and that's always been the reason. I've also seen quite a few airports where the tower controllers have CCTV to see parts of the airport, but this is the first case I've seen where tower control has been moved off the airport completely.
For what it's worth, I don't think it would be at all difficult to manage the safety of operating that way; it's the business continuity that would be tricky.
It says they do, triplicated with diverse routeing.
If air traffic control loses sight of the airport, things should just grind to a safe halt. Landing aircraft will still be clear to land, but nobody else will be given clearance to do anything until ATC knows what's going on again. Once they know aircraft movements have stopped, they can give ground vehicles to get out on the runway if they need to in order to fix the problem (by cell phone if all else fails). So horribly expensive in lost revenue, but safe.
It doesn't seem to have affected emergency services either. It's stuff like the appointments system that's (necessarily) connected to the Internet - the actual medical equipment tends not to be (at least, not directly - some equipment seems to be on VPNs to distribute results automatically between departments, and then over the internet from the hospital to the patient's GP or another hospital).
viewers are not "forced to watch" the ads. They might be forced to play them if they watch the program, but we old-timers remember that the ads are a great time to go get a beer or take a comfort break - you don't have to watch them.
The Linux functionality is available in Visual Studio Community Edition, which is free (subject to the usual jokes about "provided you don't value your soul...)
Maybe you can do all that stuff yourself, but I no longer have the physical strength to do anything but the easiest jobs. Fortunately here in the UK such services are commonplace, and useful when it's not convenient to drive to a mechanic and either wait around or get public transport back.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing says Timelords are restricted to one gender
Nothing even says they're restricted to one species (in appearance, at least).
This fan was a pre-teen in 1963, and hasn't been pissed off by a single regeneration yet. A few of the crappy scripts, perhaps, but none of the regenerations.
Doesn't a bounds-check on every array access slow things down?
Not much. Ada is quite capable of hard-real-time applications (in some cases it's an advantage for those applications because the B&D nature of the language makes it more straightforward to write programs with a bounded maximum execution time, which can be more valuable than knowing something is usually a bit faster). And most compilers will let you switch it off, which might be sensible if you've proved out-of-range access to be impossible. Of course, if you're determined you can write crummy code and turn off all checking. Ada doesn't stop you shooting yourself in the foot: it just makes damn sure you know you're doing it.
I don't know how many industrial-strength C compilers there are. There are not many industrial-strength Ada compilers because there's not much demand, but there are a few. The main project I've worked on involving Ada for a mission-critical application used AdaCore's GNAT PRO (they'd switched from another compiler - I don't know which one - and found GNAT PRO's built-in static checking to be far superior). AdaCore is cagey about pricing, though. I have a Janus Ada installation set somewhere; that's from US$195 for a single seat. So Ada is quite affordable (there's always the GPL, non-PRO, version of GNAT for getting to know the language).
Quite. "Off-brand" isn't necessarily the issue.
It doesn't guarantee not getting accused. but it sure as hell helps.
3. Don't sexually harass anyone.
First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all
As others have said, fake news. Researchers counted the CCTV cameras on a mile of a busy high street and multiplied my the total miles of road in the UK, including rural lanes.
Well, JBS Haldane showed this technique for exposing fraud in 1939, so it's not revealing anything smart fraudsters wouldn't already know. A lot of the anomalies (though not necessarily all) are probably down to carelessness rather than fraud.
Some of the ones that fail the 1 in 10,000 test are quite possibly an effect of randomness, although 82 out of 5015 is a much higher failure rate than would be expected. And 43 of those 5015 having a probability of less than 1 in 10^15 really isn't a plausible random artefact.
If likely diversion airports go the same way, that would have to be factored into the safety case. If I get the contract to do their safety management I'll make sure to take that into account. But although it seems possible Southend might go that way, Stansted, Gatwick and Birmingham are likely to be further down the queue. And considering Birmingham is a possible diversion airport for LCY, that means Le Touquet in France is available, too. I don't expect the French to be delegating their air traffic control to the UK any time soon.
The main reason it hasn't been automated is safety. Humans might make mistakes more often than computers do, but they're far better at realising that they - or someone else - has made a mistake, and will fix things when a computer would just carry on regardless. (They're also much better at working our what to do when things go wrong and the rules and procedures can't cope.) They have a vast amount of computer assistance suggesting how to do things safely and efficiently, and warning when there might be a problem, but nobody has yet worked out a way to make a computerised system that's even close to being as safe as what we have at the moment (though I'm sure they're working on it).
It's not just headcount. If they're just moving LCY control, not merging with another airport, it won't reduce headcount. The purpose will be to reduce the land rental costs. Rental in the Hampshire countryside will be a lot cheaper than at LCY. The current trend is to move as much off airport as possible - I've been involved in the safety management of a few projects to move approach control away from airports, and that's always been the reason. I've also seen quite a few airports where the tower controllers have CCTV to see parts of the airport, but this is the first case I've seen where tower control has been moved off the airport completely.
For what it's worth, I don't think it would be at all difficult to manage the safety of operating that way; it's the business continuity that would be tricky.
It says they do, triplicated with diverse routeing.
If air traffic control loses sight of the airport, things should just grind to a safe halt. Landing aircraft will still be clear to land, but nobody else will be given clearance to do anything until ATC knows what's going on again. Once they know aircraft movements have stopped, they can give ground vehicles to get out on the runway if they need to in order to fix the problem (by cell phone if all else fails). So horribly expensive in lost revenue, but safe.
Well, as soon as you get your phone back, anyway. Which will be after security services will have slurped as much data as they can from it.
And if the update breaks expensive vertical applications, it won't be Microsoft that foots the bill...
It doesn't seem to have affected emergency services either. It's stuff like the appointments system that's (necessarily) connected to the Internet - the actual medical equipment tends not to be (at least, not directly - some equipment seems to be on VPNs to distribute results automatically between departments, and then over the internet from the hospital to the patient's GP or another hospital).
Tricky for the NHS - it's part of the job of healthcare professionals to look at people's naughty bits.
Gosh, you must really hate hate.
"It looks like you're writing a letter!"
Thanks, but no thanks.
No, it was a parity error. That wasn't his wife, it was his bit on the side.
(Old Verity Stob joke)
viewers are not "forced to watch" the ads. They might be forced to play them if they watch the program, but we old-timers remember that the ads are a great time to go get a beer or take a comfort break - you don't have to watch them.
The Linux functionality is available in Visual Studio Community Edition, which is free (subject to the usual jokes about "provided you don't value your soul...)
Maybe you can do all that stuff yourself, but I no longer have the physical strength to do anything but the easiest jobs. Fortunately here in the UK such services are commonplace, and useful when it's not convenient to drive to a mechanic and either wait around or get public transport back.
Maybe most of those 6 weren't checking their AIM messages any more.