TV Licensing cannot enter your place without a warrant. If they can see or hear a TV, though, you're basically busted. If you ask them if they have a warrant they'll leave, and sometimes they'll come back with a warrant.
I have a TV license, but it's good to make them jump through loops when their records get cocked up.
Never used to happen to me, but has happened more frequently recently. I think it's dependent on how quickly the page loads, as well as just the way the page is coded.
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Well, XML Schemas are theoretically turing-complete (as is XML, interestingly), so they're not exactly less "flexible" as such. The actual representation they spit out is restricted to XML, but since this is a representation of data, it's not really a restriction at all. Grammars are excellent at representing complicated languages and so on, but data representation does not usually need such complicated syntactical rules. XML is a format more tailored to data representation, as opposed to language specification, and that's the distinction here. Theoretically, most standard, sensible data representations are easier to deal with in XML, and complex representations can be made if required. Obviously for simpler things, like a small mapping, writing one's own grammar is probably easier, but once you start getting into nested data types and so on, it quickly gets more complex, particularly if you want to ensure you can extend the representation at some later date.
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
XML Tagging is tedious and stupidly top heavy in overhead. Contrary to being human friendly it isn't. XML Tagging should be shortened to a simple set of defined tag names and then type definitions. After that each name would be addressed by an index. Typing of data should be contained in a process to extract that is associated with either the tagging index or an over the top wrapper which is similar in function to the DTD. But frankly the whole process is currently a mess.
XML's biggest failing, and arguably greatest strength, is its lack of typing. Any kind of data can be represented, since we have functions to represent any type of data as text. However this can get space-heavy, yes. XML Schema can provide restrictions on data types and so forth like you seem to want, as for defined tag names, that defies the polymorphic nature of XML. If you want to simplify the process like this, it's completely possible (a restricted version of XML like this is RDF), but XML seeks to provide a generic data-representation language, and if you restrict the tag names, they may as well not be there, and you may as well be using flat files.
Once the file is retreived it should be crunched into something like MySQL or such if any real processing is going to happen.
As I'm sure you know, this is a complex process. There are a number of existing generic approaches to doing this, such as ATGs and Silkroute, but you need to bear in mind that relational databases are not designed to hold data as structured as XML can be, and that designing schema to show how information is to be inserted into the relational systems is fairly critical if effective use is to be made of the data. Papers like this one attempt to automate the process of translating data types in a standardised way.
Nothing really is gained by such a markup system over just a series of hashed tags that are indexed. Such tagging and indexing is a lot less of a tax on band width.
And it's more of a tax on manpower and time, as parsers for custom types need to be written and tested, along with the fact that it makes interpretation of data between non-homogenous datasets far more open to interpretation.
This having been said, XML works and is OK for many uses. I am not sure it really has any advantage over flat files or such. It drinks band width and program operations time. I think in time it will turn out to be a fun toy but not much else. Of course someone else might find a good way to tell me why I should use 40 characters to transmit what should have taken 10 characters and how it should have been faster or more efficient some way to use it. The whole concept was definitely good for a lot of programmer payroll time.
Because, at the moment, in the tasks that we use XML for, we have bandwidth and processor cycles to burn, and it's quicker to have a generic data representation which can be parsed and interpreted by generic tools, than to hand-roll a new data format and parser every time we wish to represent another file. It might be quicker and less bandwidth-heavy, but does that really matter in the context of today's - and the future's - technology?
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Oh, it can. But with XML, it's done already. There's no need to create a new format, just a new subset tailored to the information you're sending. Hell, we could write SQL-like languages which query over tailor-made relational representations of data, but we generally don't, since we have SQL already.
Yeah, most people at my University are of that opinion too. It's fairly obvious why it's such a difficult thing to decide when you look at what you're actually trying to prove in that case.
For what it's worth, I've done two courses (well, one and a half) on this, but Quantum Computers haven't been mentioned, I just wondered how they fit in.
Here's a question -- does this "solve" P = NP (or P =/= NP) in any sense? I guess not since they aren't defined as "physical" models of computation, but I think it's an interesting angle on this (I'd been thinking about quantum = NP before, but I'm really not qualified enough to make a real comment).
Yes. Couldn't agree more. If your algorithm is sound, you're sorted - random systematic "optimisations" will be done by the compiler. Making your code unreadable or unsafe in the name of "efficiency" is crazy - 9999 times out of 10000, it won't make a damned difference to runtimes, it'll just make your code unreadable or unsafe. Algorithmic efficiency is where almost all efficiency that will still matter after compilation lies.
As the sibling post points out, you've mistaken Salon.com with the "Mandatory Free Registration" sites of the likes that bugmenot complains about. Salon.com is a pay-for-content service and the only free option is to watch a small animated ad for a free "day pass". This is not the same at all. There's no personal information needed (at least not the last time I was there).
Never mind "put up or shut up", your asking for a browser/httpd example is retarded. If you think that google maps could not be done better using a custom protocol and dedicated network client... well...
It couldn't. Its major advantage is that it works in a webbrowser. There's no need to develop a network client when a browser-embedded one will work. This is zero-install software at its finest - providing rich, feature-heavy applications that work using only that which is available in a cross-platform web-browser.
If one wants to look up addresses every single day, and requires advanced features of some form to do so, I'm sure your solution would be a "better" one. But since I just need to find directions now and again, Google Maps is the perfect solution - minimal, yet extremely user friendly and intuitive.
As for "custom protocol" and "dedicated network client"... Why? We have technologies like XML so that we don't need to write a new format or parser for every task we have. Who knows, though, if you're quick developing such a system the hardware developments in the meantime might not make your efficiency gains negligable. But I doubt it.
There are things that custom client/server models are good for. This is unlikely to be one of them for its user-base. And the people who need a faster network map system probably already have one.
Your link is specifically about gaming performance - that's not the issue here. People were discussing the disparity between an X-backed desktop and XP's desktop, where both do similar things. If Linux is so much faster on principle, then that points at some larger problem in X or Window Managers, surely? Or is there something else at work here?
I'm all for a UN-controlled system replacing ICANN in theory, it's probably a more fair solution for all involved, but I'm worried about the practicalities. I just can't see a large transfer like this going down "without a hitch" -- something will mess up, despite the best intentions on both sides. And when even the tiniest thing messes up, the UN's detractors will leap upon it like rabid hounds, and it'll become just another "scandal" that's blown out of proportion.
That's exactly what they were saying -- a few of these programs have names with ".NET" (or, more frequently, a capitalised "NET"). They were pointing out that not only is this incorrect, it sets them up for potential legal trouble.
You do know that using university networks to play games is almost invariably against university policy right? I don't see how you can bitch about something like that when you are the one who is breaking the rules. That being said, Steam seems like some kind of a scam but I haven't had any problems with it on the rare occasion that I actually play HL2 or such.
The connection was one into a residential block, and since the contract forbade any other type of connection, it's not really like that. We were not allowed internet access other than http access, but various things were allowed within the University. We were allowed to play games within the residential network, but not into the wider world -- however, with Steam we couldn't play private servers without first authenticating somewhere else. I believe the University is now allowing a lot more traffic out -- they got a SOCKS proxy, but the network wasn't allowed to access it (the last time I checked) because the contract specifically stated "by http proxy only", but they did plan to update it with SOCKS access.
Replacing the Kernel on Windows with a bootable disk (hell, Knoppix will do it:)) with backups of the necessary files on it is no more difficult than that, surely?
There's any number of system files (in both *nix and Windows) that could be affected to cause this sort of problem, however. Not just the kernel.
Just working on web standards should work, however. The bottom line is that it doesn't. This particular system doesn't work because it uses elements of JavaScript which have not been introduced ito IE. However, with any luck, when IE7 is released (beta due in summer, as reported here recently) it should support newer standars. With any luck.
The problem is that there's a lot of things that just aren't possible when being both standards compliant and IE compliant - if you look around for CSS examples on the web, you'll often find that they use bugs in IE's comment parsing to fix CSS problems (there's some strings that should be interpreted as comments but aren't in IE, so putting the hack inside such a block works).
Even then, the channels are worthless. BBC3 and BBC4, absolutely no content whatsoever.
BBC3 is dross programming of the type that people just want to see for some reason. But do not speak ill of BBC4 - it's home to many interesting, cultural, insightful, and above-all excellent programming. It's one of the few channels which has more good shows than bad on it.
And while on the subject of set-top boxes, it's not economically viable to continue an analogue signal when digital ones exist. The government has a deadline of 2006-2010 to turn off analogue broadcasts altogether. Sky TV already did.
In other words, Brits grabbing US broadcasts mean that advertisers get more exposure for their ads (even if they're often skipped).
I'd be very surprised to find out that there was any TV programs available on a Bittorrent site which hadn't had the adverts removed. It's really not a good argument (especially with skippable media).
London's not the same as the rest of the UK in terms of climate, you have to remember that you've got northern England and Scotland which are less than beautiful climates (although, just to defy me, the weather out of the window here in Edinburgh is beautiful).
As for British food, since the UK has such a deep history, it's very regional. I love haggis, I think everyone should try it. But it's not a national food of the UK, just a part of it. Sausages and various other things are local food in other areas, I've never been that southerly in England for long enough to really take in the local food, though. In London, though, you'll be really lucky to find any local food.
As for the women thing, I personally much prefer the looks of general British women to "1.80m (and over) women with Sclenarikova-like body, legs and faces", although, yes, this seems to be the "classical" view of beauty (although how classical it is is beyond me).
Exactly right. People who download things from the internet have a much higher chance of having friends they talk to over the internet in the US. When one talks to people in the US about television shows, there's the serious problem that the UK is a couple of months behind. Many people aren't willing to wait that long to avoid the episode being "spoiled" for them. So they download it. And from then the same principles apply to one's UK friends - they stand to have the episode spoiled for them too.
Slashdot Mirror
TV Licensing cannot enter your place without a warrant. If they can see or hear a TV, though, you're basically busted. If you ask them if they have a warrant they'll leave, and sometimes they'll come back with a warrant.
I have a TV license, but it's good to make them jump through loops when their records get cocked up.
Never used to happen to me, but has happened more frequently recently. I think it's dependent on how quickly the page loads, as well as just the way the page is coded.
Well, XML Schemas are theoretically turing-complete (as is XML, interestingly), so they're not exactly less "flexible" as such. The actual representation they spit out is restricted to XML, but since this is a representation of data, it's not really a restriction at all. Grammars are excellent at representing complicated languages and so on, but data representation does not usually need such complicated syntactical rules. XML is a format more tailored to data representation, as opposed to language specification, and that's the distinction here. Theoretically, most standard, sensible data representations are easier to deal with in XML, and complex representations can be made if required. Obviously for simpler things, like a small mapping, writing one's own grammar is probably easier, but once you start getting into nested data types and so on, it quickly gets more complex, particularly if you want to ensure you can extend the representation at some later date.
As I'm sure you know, this is a complex process. There are a number of existing generic approaches to doing this, such as ATGs and Silkroute, but you need to bear in mind that relational databases are not designed to hold data as structured as XML can be, and that designing schema to show how information is to be inserted into the relational systems is fairly critical if effective use is to be made of the data. Papers like this one attempt to automate the process of translating data types in a standardised way. And it's more of a tax on manpower and time, as parsers for custom types need to be written and tested, along with the fact that it makes interpretation of data between non-homogenous datasets far more open to interpretation. Because, at the moment, in the tasks that we use XML for, we have bandwidth and processor cycles to burn, and it's quicker to have a generic data representation which can be parsed and interpreted by generic tools, than to hand-roll a new data format and parser every time we wish to represent another file. It might be quicker and less bandwidth-heavy, but does that really matter in the context of today's - and the future's - technology?
Oh, it can. But with XML, it's done already. There's no need to create a new format, just a new subset tailored to the information you're sending. Hell, we could write SQL-like languages which query over tailor-made relational representations of data, but we generally don't, since we have SQL already.
Yeah, most people at my University are of that opinion too. It's fairly obvious why it's such a difficult thing to decide when you look at what you're actually trying to prove in that case.
For what it's worth, I've done two courses (well, one and a half) on this, but Quantum Computers haven't been mentioned, I just wondered how they fit in.
Just because Blink 182 split up doesn't mean you can rip off their lyrics, man :D
Yes, but the parent mentioned non-deterministic Turing Machines (I think...), which is how NP systems are defined.
Here's a question -- does this "solve" P = NP (or P =/= NP) in any sense? I guess not since they aren't defined as "physical" models of computation, but I think it's an interesting angle on this (I'd been thinking about quantum = NP before, but I'm really not qualified enough to make a real comment).
Yes. Couldn't agree more. If your algorithm is sound, you're sorted - random systematic "optimisations" will be done by the compiler. Making your code unreadable or unsafe in the name of "efficiency" is crazy - 9999 times out of 10000, it won't make a damned difference to runtimes, it'll just make your code unreadable or unsafe. Algorithmic efficiency is where almost all efficiency that will still matter after compilation lies.
As the sibling post points out, you've mistaken Salon.com with the "Mandatory Free Registration" sites of the likes that bugmenot complains about. Salon.com is a pay-for-content service and the only free option is to watch a small animated ad for a free "day pass". This is not the same at all. There's no personal information needed (at least not the last time I was there).
If one wants to look up addresses every single day, and requires advanced features of some form to do so, I'm sure your solution would be a "better" one. But since I just need to find directions now and again, Google Maps is the perfect solution - minimal, yet extremely user friendly and intuitive.
As for "custom protocol" and "dedicated network client"... Why? We have technologies like XML so that we don't need to write a new format or parser for every task we have. Who knows, though, if you're quick developing such a system the hardware developments in the meantime might not make your efficiency gains negligable. But I doubt it.
There are things that custom client/server models are good for. This is unlikely to be one of them for its user-base. And the people who need a faster network map system probably already have one.
Your link is specifically about gaming performance - that's not the issue here. People were discussing the disparity between an X-backed desktop and XP's desktop, where both do similar things. If Linux is so much faster on principle, then that points at some larger problem in X or Window Managers, surely? Or is there something else at work here?
But none of that money went towards those causes. That's the money they literally lost track of.
I'm all for a UN-controlled system replacing ICANN in theory, it's probably a more fair solution for all involved, but I'm worried about the practicalities. I just can't see a large transfer like this going down "without a hitch" -- something will mess up, despite the best intentions on both sides. And when even the tiniest thing messes up, the UN's detractors will leap upon it like rabid hounds, and it'll become just another "scandal" that's blown out of proportion.
Works here. It's using the Coral caching service so it can take a while to load.
That's exactly what they were saying -- a few of these programs have names with ".NET" (or, more frequently, a capitalised "NET"). They were pointing out that not only is this incorrect, it sets them up for potential legal trouble.
Replacing the Kernel on Windows with a bootable disk (hell, Knoppix will do it :)) with backups of the necessary files on it is no more difficult than that, surely?
There's any number of system files (in both *nix and Windows) that could be affected to cause this sort of problem, however. Not just the kernel.
Just working on web standards should work, however. The bottom line is that it doesn't. This particular system doesn't work because it uses elements of JavaScript which have not been introduced ito IE. However, with any luck, when IE7 is released (beta due in summer, as reported here recently) it should support newer standars. With any luck.
The problem is that there's a lot of things that just aren't possible when being both standards compliant and IE compliant - if you look around for CSS examples on the web, you'll often find that they use bugs in IE's comment parsing to fix CSS problems (there's some strings that should be interpreted as comments but aren't in IE, so putting the hack inside such a block works).
And while on the subject of set-top boxes, it's not economically viable to continue an analogue signal when digital ones exist. The government has a deadline of 2006-2010 to turn off analogue broadcasts altogether. Sky TV already did.
London's not the same as the rest of the UK in terms of climate, you have to remember that you've got northern England and Scotland which are less than beautiful climates (although, just to defy me, the weather out of the window here in Edinburgh is beautiful).
As for British food, since the UK has such a deep history, it's very regional. I love haggis, I think everyone should try it. But it's not a national food of the UK, just a part of it. Sausages and various other things are local food in other areas, I've never been that southerly in England for long enough to really take in the local food, though. In London, though, you'll be really lucky to find any local food.
As for the women thing, I personally much prefer the looks of general British women to "1.80m (and over) women with Sclenarikova-like body, legs and faces", although, yes, this seems to be the "classical" view of beauty (although how classical it is is beyond me).
All matters of opinion I guess!
Exactly right. People who download things from the internet have a much higher chance of having friends they talk to over the internet in the US. When one talks to people in the US about television shows, there's the serious problem that the UK is a couple of months behind. Many people aren't willing to wait that long to avoid the episode being "spoiled" for them. So they download it. And from then the same principles apply to one's UK friends - they stand to have the episode spoiled for them too.