A snap reaction I had to reading the introduction:
Detractors say that the kids are wasting too much time online browsing dangerous sites, instant messaging friends and posting to Myspace. Parents are worried that serious learning is being neglected in the quest to 'dazzle up presentations with fancy fonts instead of digging through library books.'
In other words, school should be "serious" instead of fun. What's wrong with fun? We try to create a society in which people promote positive emotions, like joy, in themselves and others. I believe positive emotions provide enormous benefits if they're used correctly. There's a reason they're called positive emotions.
The kids in school might go overboard with surfing and messaging if you give them laptops but it's going to be a connected world in the future. The kids having fun doing that kind of stuff has a meaning. It means they the patterns of actions they're performing are being accepted as actions in the future. Just like laughter indicates that a human accepts a pattern of thought. If you can somehow slip in some teachings into the dayly routine of them having fun in the school buildings, my guess is that they'll more easily accept the new information in their good mood.
If, on the other hand, you make the kids do things that mean that they won't enjoy their time in the school building. You'll automatically link the school building and the situation of "going to school to learn" to negative emotions.
One counter-argument in favor of doing it the old-fashioned way, that I can think of, is that restricting the way kids do their learning and getting them down is that it'll prepare them for the harsh realities of their later lives. I would think there would be enough other harsh realities in school without the restrictive ways of teaching. Like the socio-political games of "who is the coolest". I bet slashdotter would know something about that.
Maybe you can start off with the looser kind of learning linked with hard targets to work towards (test driven development) in the beginning to link learning with joy in their young minds, and later add more restrictions as a preparation for later life. My guess is, that a society is better off with smart kids who are a bit unprepared for harshness than jaded stupid ones.
However, I'm not a social psychologist (or whatever it's called).
What if the GPLv3 said that it's not allowed for ANYONE to install or run GPLv3 code on hardware that is crippled/put together in a certain way (DRM). That way the company that tells people to install their software on the crippled hardware is breaking the law by advocating license infringement.
It's impossible to enforce this "don't install/run on crippled hardware" for every private user but you don't HAVE to enforce it. You just enforce the GPLv3 if a hardware manufacturer or a "hardware software combination seller" breaks the license.
If you sell hardware that is damaged by design in certain ways (DRM) then you're not allowed to install/use/sell GPLv3 software on it.
Or
If the hardware doesn't support software freedom like intended in the GPLv3, then you're not allowed to use/put GPLv3 software on it at all. Accept all or nothing of the philosophy of the GPL, not just the parts that you want to.
Is that a good summary? If it is, I see nothing wrong with GPLv3.
I somehow feel there are situations where you are better off sacrificing Kolmogorov efficiency for a program structure that better interfaces with the human brain.
An analogy, I read that every Rubic's cube is solvable in N steps (24 moves or something) but that humans have to use more elaborate chains of steps so they can get their heads around the solution.
Even though a smaller program is better just because there's less to comprehend for the human brain. Sometimes smallness creates its own complexity from the perspective of the human mind. There's simpler from the standpoint of a smaller structure and simpler from the standpoint of simpler model/structure information transfer from reality to the human mind.
Maybe gravity is a pushing force and maybe this energy this article is talking about is the one that's pushing. They're both pretty weak forces/energies right?
Big slabs of matter like planets could act like filters that filter out the pushing force. More pushing from the space side means humans stick to planets etc.
Can a mathematician check this please? do the angles etc. work out? I'm too busy handling my rent to learn enough geometry to test it myself.
If it's a valid theory, you can call it the Louis Tan theory of gravity.
Yes, that's what I mean. But the way I understand it, only visual feedback is real-time. The body trains it's muscles so they know that a certain amount of muscle activation for a certain amount of time will place the arm into a certain position. If you take away the visual feedback and you paralyze the arm, the same muscle activation will do nothing for the arm, but the human will still feel/think, kinesthetically, that her arm is in a certain position.
That's why I said that human limb movement is not exactly in category 3, absolute movement, but something close to it.
Movement of a prosthetic limb will therefore also not be completely in category 3, absolute movement, but it'll be more like a snapshot in Counter-Strike, you train your brain/spine that a certain amount of activation of the prosthesis' "muscle" for a certain amount of time will yield a certain position. Human limb movement is somewhere inbetween category 2 and 3. If you have visual feedback it's almost completely in category 3. Otherwise it's like a very precise/high-resolution analog control method.
Is there something like that out there for prosthetic limbs? Are you guys working on it?
What I'm interested in is if there's already been a third kind of prosthetic movement control system invented.
My personal categorization of the different kinds of movement of prosthetic limbs: 1. On/off movement in any direction, like your limb was controlled by the digital joypad of a console. 2. Variable speed movement in any given direction, like your prosthetic limb was controlled by an analog joystick of a console. 3. Absolute positioning of your limb, like the new Nintendo Wii controller or a mouse.
Is there anything like my third category available? Together with this new grafting technology it would mean almost complete recovery for amputees.
I know that the human body doesn't track it's own limb positions in real-time, even in normal mammals, but human movement is still more like category 3 than the other two.
Is there something similar out already? I read an article about a guy who's arm prosthesis was directly attached to an arm nerve. Paraphrased: "I could move it as if it was real, I just had to think about moving my arm".
So any info on category 3 movement controls will be appreciated, interesting stuff.
Complexity acts like a barrier. A barrier is meant to prevent you from going places you want to go and doing things you want to do. It limits your freedom.
"I for one don't need a free-will, since the system is so complex that I can't predict its outcome anyway."
Exactly, that's the key point in your post for people who are somehow saddened by the absence of free will. The system that the mind inhabits (the body, the world) is unpredictable enough to resemble choise.
You can't predict the choise of someone with a (hypothetical) truely free will. And in our reality you can't predict the predetermined choises of people either (people do strange shit), so the complexity of the process of the universe resembles choise closely enough to feel like it.
I don't like this tactic either, it appeals to the cognitive dissonance of the voters which promotes bad thinking, in my opinion.
The people who don't want to speak up against manipulation are afraid their names will be linked to child pornography so they won't speak up either. This is ALSO a form of appeasement towards the illogical thinking of voters. Which is also wrong.
However, I do think both parties are just reacting to reality. Irrational voting because of child pornography is just something which is real and something that you have to deal with as if it is real. The fear of being stigmatized because you voted against the law is real.
And let's not forget that child pornography is also real.
However, all the advantages are in the hands of the Bush Administration at the moment, and I like a fair fight so I'll see if I can balance the power equation a little.
A counter-tactic you can use is this: The fear of the democrats is that they'll be linked to child pornography if they speak up against laws which don't prevent it, but mention it in their rationale.
What you CAN do is to applaud the efforts of the BUSH administration for their efforts against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY as often as possible in as many publications as possible. You could say, for example, that you really hope that the law that is being drafted by PRESIDENT BUSH will be successful against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
That the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws that PRESIDENT BUSH is drafting have their hearts in the right place but need some adjustments.
That the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws of PRESIDENT BUSH should be replaced by laws that REALLY PREVENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY and that PRESIDENT BUSH should think them over but that you agree with them in principle.
It's about fucking time. Everyone can see that this will improve adoption. There comes a time when you have to stop experimenting for a little while, tone it down a bit, just long enough to produce something which combines the best of all the experiments.
Trust me, I know this because I'm also guilty of overthinking and not doing, for far too long.
I'd also like to see appfolders as that is another thing that's obviously right in my eyes.
Think about it this way: if you lock a bunch of people in a room toegther and have them come up with an answer, the "strong" personalities in the room are likely to have a heavy influence on the "weaker" ones. People who aren't really firm in their opinions are going to influenced -- whether they realize it or not -- by people who sound confident.
If you also think: Polls make people vote for either the party that leads in the polls or the biggest polled opponent party.
or, to say it in another way.
If you think polls act as a sort of "strong personality" influence that lead voters with "weaker personalities".
We received the following from a young man who we will call "Mr. Smith."
(CW)TB
Hey guys,
I interviewed for a guerilla marketing business in San Francisco that targeted web forums.
I was told that if I accepted the job, I was to have at LEAST 50 identities on as many forums as I could muster (they wanted 100 eventually), with a goal of 5 posts an hour. The posts had to be well thought out, and the idea was that I was to establish multiple identities with a history on the forums, so that when the timing was right a well written but subtly placed marketing post could be finessed in. And regular visitors would recognize the post as coming from a long time poster.
They had 12 people working there full time, and were hiring 10 more. You do the math. No wait, I'll do it for you: that's 880 posts a day (if minimum was met). However he said the better ones could do around 8 or 10 an hour. And they had different "verticals" so there was the sports guy, and the games guy, the hentai, excuse me I mean anime guy, etc.
But the most critical point was this: develop and integrate the identity. No random "HEY EB GAMES IS AWESOME BUY THIS" stuff.
Kinda spooky.
Didn't take the job. It was a fucking mill.
Should I just blame the Bush administration or should I, INSTEAD, blame the "poor American citizens" that let themselves be fooled into ignoring the horrific things America does?
I mean, dictator type guys are among the population of every country. Why is it that they are stopped by most European countries but aren't stopped by U.S.-ians?
On the other hand, maybe my opinion on U.S. slashdotters shouldn't be that bad. Maybe the consensus against opression is stronger than it looks. Maybe it just LOOKS like people are closing their eyes on this forum because a lot of the bad posts are from a "Guerilla Marketing" mill.
Who knows, we'll see how it goes. It's your fight, not mine.
If Steve Jobs is not on record saying that Apple doesn't save private information, if it was only a rumor, then he can't be sued if it turns out that Apple did indeed save private information.
If the people decide to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have a reasonable reputation. These kinds of actions (it's spyware wether or not the info is saved) are eroding that reputation however. In the past, corporations could both do bad things and use spin to keep their reputations on a high level. Nowadays that doesn't work nearly as well.
It's simple, just do the right thing and your precious reputation (Apple rep = $) will stay intact.
Don't say that "we don't save the info", just don't send it to Apple's servers in the first place.
Then your clients will have proof that nothing bad's happening, now we'll have to trust some rumor.
Same principle applies to the TPM / DRM / Root chip in the new Intel Macs, I won't be buying one.
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Let's ask someone who created a fascist government shall we?
Mr. Mussolini, how do you define fascism?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
A friend of mine says Counter-Strike saved his life. He was driving along when, from the edge of his vision, he saw someone throw something from the overpass onto the road.
Because of all the CS playing he was more perceptive of movement and he was trained in how to react to dangerous objects moving your way (grenade dodging). CS will also teach you to do all this quickly, otherwise you die.
He judged the trajectory of the stone and "decided" to break hard, the stone smashed into the road just ahead of him. The stone broke and the fragments cracked his windshield but at least he was alive.
He says he would have headbutted the stone at 100 Km/H if he hadn't been a games player.
Is it multitasking? Maybe, he didn't have a good description of the psycho who threw the stone. It was fast task-switching or maybe his brain put all it's multitasking power into the stone evasion stuff and didn't bother with the guy on the bridge because of that.
There are three ways to implement concurrency in a programming language: - Shared-state concurrency - Message-passing concurrency - Declarative concurrency (synchronization on logic variables)
Peter Van Roy - Concurrency-oriented programming blueArrow 10/21/2003; 5:06:42 AM (reads: 1765, responses: 20) Concurrency-oriented programming is a phrase invented by Joe Armstrong, the main designer of Erlang. Basically, we would like to write applications where the concurrency follows the concurrency of the problem. This should be easy (language support) and cheap (implementation support). As far as I know, there are only two languages that support COP: Oz and Erlang (I would love to be proven wrong here--please give me evidence for others, if they exist! I mean good implementations, not paper designs.)
The majority of existing languages are sequential; concurrency was added as an afterthought. This makes concurrent programming difficult for them. A typical example is Java: it has monitors (shared-state concurrency) and expensive threads. Two years ago, when I told the head of our department I wanted to teach concurrent programming in a second-year course, he exploded "That's impossible!".
The reaction of our department head is understandable: shared-state concurrency, the kind that Java has, is the hardest to program in. There are two other kinds of concurrency that are just as practical, but much easier to program: message-passing concurrency (asynchronous messages between sequential objects) and declarative concurrency (threads and dataflow synchronization added to functional programming).
The easiest is declarative concurrency (see chapter 4 of CTM). This seems to have been forgotten by almost everybody. Yet it is not new: the first article on it I found was by Gilles Kahn in 1974.
Declarative concurrency is so nice that I believe it should be the baseline execution model for functional programming. (Not strict or lazy evaluation, which are both sequential.) This leads to many good things, for example here are two. (1) All the usual functional building blocks become concurrency patterns. For example, Map is a broadcast that collects results, and FoldL is the heart of a concurrent object with internal state (it accumulates an internal state from a stream of messages). (2) I/O becomes very simple: program input is a stream and program output is a stream. This is a perfectly good solution to the problem of declarative I/O.
When you compare the three ways of concurrency programming, shared-state is the worst and declarative concurrency is the best. Declarative concurrency prevents the most bugs and makes you waste the least amount of thought effort on concurrency. There are implementations of the different kinds of concurrency:
- Message-passing concurrency:
Erlang Developed by Ericsson for their realtime telephone servers. Is mature and has concurrent communications and database libraries among other things.
Oz was made as an implementation of the ideas in the book: "Peter van Roy (2004). Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. MIT Press" Where the idea was that different kinds of programming (concurrency, OO, Logic) could be implemented and cooperate in the same language. Not as mature as Erlang.
- Declarative concurrency (synchronization on logical variables):
Curry is a extension of the language Haskell and, like Oz, combines different kinds of programming in one language. Unlike Oz, Curry uses declarative concurrecy. Curry is in an even earlier stage of development than Oz.
All these languages are open source and free but they are functional programming languages. The difference betwee
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're right.
But I also think we should do everything we can to lure students to school and into an open state of mind.
A snap reaction I had to reading the introduction:
Detractors say that the kids are wasting too much time online browsing dangerous sites, instant messaging friends and posting to Myspace. Parents are worried that serious learning is being neglected in the quest to 'dazzle up presentations with fancy fonts instead of digging through library books.'
In other words, school should be "serious" instead of fun. What's wrong with fun? We try to create a society in which people promote positive emotions, like joy, in themselves and others. I believe positive emotions provide enormous benefits if they're used correctly. There's a reason they're called positive emotions.
The kids in school might go overboard with surfing and messaging if you give them laptops but it's going to be a connected world in the future. The kids having fun doing that kind of stuff has a meaning. It means they the patterns of actions they're performing are being accepted as actions in the future. Just like laughter indicates that a human accepts a pattern of thought. If you can somehow slip in some teachings into the dayly routine of them having fun in the school buildings, my guess is that they'll more easily accept the new information in their good mood.
If, on the other hand, you make the kids do things that mean that they won't enjoy their time in the school building. You'll automatically link the school building and the situation of "going to school to learn" to negative emotions.
One counter-argument in favor of doing it the old-fashioned way, that I can think of, is that restricting the way kids do their learning and getting them down is that it'll prepare them for the harsh realities of their later lives. I would think there would be enough other harsh realities in school without the restrictive ways of teaching. Like the socio-political games of "who is the coolest". I bet slashdotter would know something about that.
Maybe you can start off with the looser kind of learning linked with hard targets to work towards (test driven development) in the beginning to link learning with joy in their young minds, and later add more restrictions as a preparation for later life. My guess is, that a society is better off with smart kids who are a bit unprepared for harshness than jaded stupid ones.
However, I'm not a social psychologist (or whatever it's called).
I feel the same way, good luck.
What if the GPLv3 said that it's not allowed for ANYONE to install or run GPLv3 code on hardware that is crippled/put together in a certain way (DRM). That way the company that tells people to install their software on the crippled hardware is breaking the law by advocating license infringement.
It's impossible to enforce this "don't install/run on crippled hardware" for every private user but you don't HAVE to enforce it. You just enforce the GPLv3 if a hardware manufacturer or a "hardware software combination seller" breaks the license.
The GPLv3 is intent on saying legally:
If you sell hardware that is damaged by design in certain ways (DRM) then you're not allowed to install/use/sell GPLv3 software on it.
Or
If the hardware doesn't support software freedom like intended in the GPLv3, then you're not allowed to use/put GPLv3 software on it at all. Accept all or nothing of the philosophy of the GPL, not just the parts that you want to.
Is that a good summary? If it is, I see nothing wrong with GPLv3.
I somehow feel there are situations where you are better off sacrificing Kolmogorov efficiency for a program structure that better interfaces with the human brain.
An analogy, I read that every Rubic's cube is solvable in N steps (24 moves or something) but that humans have to use more elaborate chains of steps so they can get their heads around the solution.
Even though a smaller program is better just because there's less to comprehend for the human brain. Sometimes smallness creates its own complexity from the perspective of the human mind. There's simpler from the standpoint of a smaller structure and simpler from the standpoint of simpler model/structure information transfer from reality to the human mind.
Maybe gravity is a pushing force and maybe this energy this article is talking about is the one that's pushing. They're both pretty weak forces/energies right?
Big slabs of matter like planets could act like filters that filter out the pushing force. More pushing from the space side means humans stick to planets etc.
Can a mathematician check this please? do the angles etc. work out? I'm too busy handling my rent to learn enough geometry to test it myself.
If it's a valid theory, you can call it the Louis Tan theory of gravity.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, that's what I mean. But the way I understand it, only visual feedback is real-time. The body trains it's muscles so they know that a certain amount of muscle activation for a certain amount of time will place the arm into a certain position. If you take away the visual feedback and you paralyze the arm, the same muscle activation will do nothing for the arm, but the human will still feel/think, kinesthetically, that her arm is in a certain position.
That's why I said that human limb movement is not exactly in category 3, absolute movement, but something close to it.
Movement of a prosthetic limb will therefore also not be completely in category 3, absolute movement, but it'll be more like a snapshot in Counter-Strike, you train your brain/spine that a certain amount of activation of the prosthesis' "muscle" for a certain amount of time will yield a certain position. Human limb movement is somewhere inbetween category 2 and 3. If you have visual feedback it's almost completely in category 3. Otherwise it's like a very precise/high-resolution analog control method.
Is there something like that out there for prosthetic limbs? Are you guys working on it?
What I'm interested in is if there's already been a third kind of prosthetic movement control system invented.
My personal categorization of the different kinds of movement of prosthetic limbs:
1. On/off movement in any direction, like your limb was controlled by the digital joypad of a console.
2. Variable speed movement in any given direction, like your prosthetic limb was controlled by an analog joystick of a console.
3. Absolute positioning of your limb, like the new Nintendo Wii controller or a mouse.
Is there anything like my third category available? Together with this new grafting technology it would mean almost complete recovery for amputees.
I know that the human body doesn't track it's own limb positions in real-time, even in normal mammals, but human movement is still more like category 3 than the other two.
Is there something similar out already? I read an article about a guy who's arm prosthesis was directly attached to an arm nerve. Paraphrased: "I could move it as if it was real, I just had to think about moving my arm".
So any info on category 3 movement controls will be appreciated, interesting stuff.
Complexity acts like a barrier. A barrier is meant to prevent you from going places you want to go and doing things you want to do. It limits your freedom.
So complexity makes software less free.
"I for one don't need a free-will, since the system is so complex that I can't predict its outcome anyway."
Exactly, that's the key point in your post for people who are somehow saddened by the absence of free will. The system that the mind inhabits (the body, the world) is unpredictable enough to resemble choise.
You can't predict the choise of someone with a (hypothetical) truely free will. And in our reality you can't predict the predetermined choises of people either (people do strange shit), so the complexity of the process of the universe resembles choise closely enough to feel like it.
I'd like it if someone used a mod point on the parent post. Do it for public edumacation.
I don't like this tactic either, it appeals to the cognitive dissonance of the voters which promotes bad thinking, in my opinion.
The people who don't want to speak up against manipulation are afraid their names will be linked to child pornography so they won't speak up either. This is ALSO a form of appeasement towards the illogical thinking of voters. Which is also wrong.
However, I do think both parties are just reacting to reality. Irrational voting because of child pornography is just something which is real and something that you have to deal with as if it is real. The fear of being stigmatized because you voted against the law is real.
And let's not forget that child pornography is also real.
However, all the advantages are in the hands of the Bush Administration at the moment, and I like a fair fight so I'll see if I can balance the power equation a little.
A counter-tactic you can use is this:
The fear of the democrats is that they'll be linked to child pornography if they speak up against laws which don't prevent it, but mention it in their rationale.
What you CAN do is to applaud the efforts of the BUSH administration for their efforts against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY as often as possible in as many publications as possible. You could say, for example, that you really hope that the law that is being drafted by PRESIDENT BUSH will be successful against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
That the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws that PRESIDENT BUSH is drafting have their hearts in the right place but need some adjustments.
That the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws of PRESIDENT BUSH should be replaced by laws that REALLY PREVENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY and that PRESIDENT BUSH should think them over but that you agree with them in principle.
And the trick here is quantity, not quality.
It's about fucking time. Everyone can see that this will improve adoption. There comes a time when you have to stop experimenting for a little while, tone it down a bit, just long enough to produce something which combines the best of all the experiments.
Trust me, I know this because I'm also guilty of overthinking and not doing, for far too long.
I'd also like to see appfolders as that is another thing that's obviously right in my eyes.
Look at this directory structure for just a minute, it's interesting:
GoboLinux' directory tree
Excellent post, it was a good read.
Unfortunately, I think people need drama. Drama is needed for change and drama is therefore needed to feel alive. Or something like that.
Think about it this way: if you lock a bunch of people in a room toegther and have them come up with an answer, the "strong" personalities in the room are likely to have a heavy influence on the "weaker" ones. People who aren't really firm in their opinions are going to influenced -- whether they realize it or not -- by people who sound confident.
If you also think:
Polls make people vote for either the party that leads in the polls or the biggest polled opponent party.
or, to say it in another way.
If you think polls act as a sort of "strong personality" influence that lead voters with "weaker personalities".
Mod my post up.
This just adds to the body of evidence that Google is the way you build a good group of people. Taking everything into account.
This is from a letter sent to penny-arcade.com
We received the following from a young man who we will call "Mr. Smith."
(CW)TB
Hey guys,
I interviewed for a guerilla marketing business in San Francisco that targeted web forums.
I was told that if I accepted the job, I was to have at LEAST 50 identities on as many forums as I could muster (they wanted 100 eventually), with a goal of 5 posts an hour. The posts had to be well thought out, and the idea was that I was to establish multiple identities with a history on the forums, so that when the timing was right a well written but subtly placed marketing post could be finessed in. And regular visitors would recognize the post as coming from a long time poster.
They had 12 people working there full time, and were hiring 10 more. You do the math. No wait, I'll do it for you: that's 880 posts a day (if minimum was met). However he said the better ones could do around 8 or 10 an hour. And they had different "verticals" so there was the sports guy, and the games guy, the hentai, excuse me I mean anime guy, etc.
But the most critical point was this: develop and integrate the identity. No random "HEY EB GAMES IS AWESOME BUY THIS" stuff.
Kinda spooky.
Didn't take the job. It was a fucking mill.
Should I just blame the Bush administration or should I, INSTEAD, blame the "poor American citizens" that let themselves be fooled into ignoring the horrific things America does?
I mean, dictator type guys are among the population of every country. Why is it that they are stopped by most European countries but aren't stopped by U.S.-ians?
On the other hand, maybe my opinion on U.S. slashdotters shouldn't be that bad. Maybe the consensus against opression is stronger than it looks. Maybe it just LOOKS like people are closing their eyes on this forum because a lot of the bad posts are from a "Guerilla Marketing" mill.
Who knows, we'll see how it goes. It's your fight, not mine.
[Offtopic]
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
I love your sig, and I agree.
[/Offtopic]
Mod parent up please.
And let's make his post a self-fulfilling prophesy just to be on the safe side.
The reason is called CYA (Cover Your Ass).
If Steve Jobs is not on record saying that Apple doesn't save private information, if it was only a rumor, then he can't be sued if it turns out that Apple did indeed save private information.
If the people decide to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have a reasonable reputation. These kinds of actions (it's spyware wether or not the info is saved) are eroding that reputation however. In the past, corporations could both do bad things and use spin to keep their reputations on a high level. Nowadays that doesn't work nearly as well.
It's simple, just do the right thing and your precious reputation (Apple rep = $) will stay intact.
Don't say that "we don't save the info", just don't send it to Apple's servers in the first place.
Then your clients will have proof that nothing bad's happening, now we'll have to trust some rumor.
Same principle applies to the TPM / DRM / Root chip in the new Intel Macs, I won't be buying one.
http://reddit.com/
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Let's ask someone who created a fascist government shall we?
Mr. Mussolini, how do you define fascism?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
A friend of mine says Counter-Strike saved his life. He was driving along when, from the edge of his vision, he saw someone throw something from the overpass onto the road.
Because of all the CS playing he was more perceptive of movement and he was trained in how to react to dangerous objects moving your way (grenade dodging). CS will also teach you to do all this quickly, otherwise you die.
He judged the trajectory of the stone and "decided" to break hard, the stone smashed into the road just ahead of him. The stone broke and the fragments cracked his windshield but at least he was alive.
He says he would have headbutted the stone at 100 Km/H if he hadn't been a games player.
Is it multitasking? Maybe, he didn't have a good description of the psycho who threw the stone. It was fast task-switching or maybe his brain put all it's multitasking power into the stone evasion stuff and didn't bother with the guy on the bridge because of that.
- Shared-state concurrency
- Message-passing concurrency
- Declarative concurrency (synchronization on logic variables)
A post from this mailing list: Lambda the Ultimate
Peter Van Roy - Concurrency-oriented programming blueArrow
10/21/2003; 5:06:42 AM (reads: 1765, responses: 20)
Concurrency-oriented programming is a phrase invented by Joe Armstrong, the main designer of Erlang. Basically, we would like to write applications where the concurrency follows the concurrency of the problem. This should be easy (language support) and cheap (implementation support). As far as I know, there are only two languages that support COP: Oz and Erlang (I would love to be proven wrong here--please give me evidence for others, if they exist! I mean good implementations, not paper designs.)
The majority of existing languages are sequential; concurrency was added as an afterthought. This makes concurrent programming difficult for them. A typical example is Java: it has monitors (shared-state concurrency) and expensive threads. Two years ago, when I told the head of our department I wanted to teach concurrent programming in a second-year course, he exploded "That's impossible!".
The reaction of our department head is understandable: shared-state concurrency, the kind that Java has, is the hardest to program in. There are two other kinds of concurrency that are just as practical, but much easier to program: message-passing concurrency (asynchronous messages between sequential objects) and declarative concurrency (threads and dataflow synchronization added to functional programming).
The easiest is declarative concurrency (see chapter 4 of CTM). This seems to have been forgotten by almost everybody. Yet it is not new: the first article on it I found was by Gilles Kahn in 1974.
Declarative concurrency is so nice that I believe it should be the baseline execution model for functional programming. (Not strict or lazy evaluation, which are both sequential.) This leads to many good things, for example here are two. (1) All the usual functional building blocks become concurrency patterns. For example, Map is a broadcast that collects results, and FoldL is the heart of a concurrent object with internal state (it accumulates an internal state from a stream of messages). (2) I/O becomes very simple: program input is a stream and program output is a stream. This is a perfectly good solution to the problem of declarative I/O.
When you compare the three ways of concurrency programming, shared-state is the worst and declarative concurrency is the best. Declarative concurrency prevents the most bugs and makes you waste the least amount of thought effort on concurrency. There are implementations of the different kinds of concurrency:
- Message-passing concurrency:
- Declarative concurrency (synchronization on logical variables):
All these languages are open source and free but they are functional programming languages. The difference betwee