Author: José M. Franco Pérez

Date: On 2007. Recoded on December 2^nd 2009

Language: C++

Subject: Simulation of the behaviour of a Turing Machine

Description: I coded this program back at the University. It simulates a Turing Machine (TM), a machine that is formed by different states and a header which can read and write on a tape. A TM, following certain “rules” called transitions,  changes its state when a symbol is read, writing also over the same symbol and moving the header left or right. A TM is said to accept a chain of symbols (word) if, during the process it ends up on the final state. Otherwise , if there are no possible transitions or the word is over the TM does not accept the word.

Notes:

• The program receives two files as parameters. One is the file that specifies the TM, and the other one is the file with all the words.

Source Code: Download here!

Code Snippet:

//Operation loop
//The operation will end when:
// - The TM changes to the Final  State (accepts the word)
// - There are no more possible transitions (not accepts the word)
// - The word ends (not accepts the word)
while (((st.getLabel() != finalState) && (st.isThereTransition(symb)))
        && (!done))  {
    //Evaluating the transition
    trans = st.getTransition(symb);    //Gets the transition
    //Writes the tape if possible
    if ((header >= 0) && (header < (int)chain.size()))
        chain[header] = trans.getWSymbol();
    st = getState(trans.getState());   //Changes to the new state

    //Moves to left or right depending whether or not the header is
    //getting outside the tape
    if (trans.getMovement()) {
        if (header == (int)chain.size())
            done = true;
        else
            header++;
    }
    else {
        if (header < 0)
            done = true;
        else
            header--;
    }

    //Getting the new symbol for the next iteration
    if ((header < 0) || (header >= (int)chain.size()))  symb = '$';
    else  symb = chain[header];
}

Code 1: Part of the code to evaluate a word using the TM already loaded

Screenshots:

Running the program with some words

Which is which, and why? Click image for source.

I haven’t been blogging much recently. This is mainly because I haven’t been able to think about anything to blog about.

But the other day something did pop into my head, so here goes…

Could crowdsourcing help pass the Turing Test?

The Turing Test is basically this: you have a person typing at two screens. One of them is hooked up to a computer, the other is hooked up to a human being. If the person typing at the screens cannot tell which is the computer, then the test has been passed, because the computer’s output is indistinguishable from the human’s.

There have been several attempts at passing the test and while, each year, someone ‘wins’, the results are generally not too great, because, well, it’s fairly obvious that they weren’t generated by real people.

So, how about this: you start crowdsourcing it. You set up a system that enables people to:

• type in specific call/responses
• type in responses to other people’s calls
• type in calls to other people’s responses
• vote the best calls up or down, as per Digg

As the database grows, the system starts being able simply to match patterns and give appropriate responses. And if that doesn’t work, then build in some software in the background that helps it along, so it’s not just straight pattern-matching but uses a bit of semantic nous to choose the right one.

So, this wouldn’t be intelligence. Then again, neither is playing chess, and yet that was once touted as something only humans could do. Turns out it’s just a case of matching sophisticated heuristics to loads of number-crunching. Crowdsourcing the Turing Test would be much the same thing. It would be interesting to see whether something that is unashamedly unintelligent could pass the ultimate intelligence test.

Anyway, that’s what popped into my head. I’m sure someone else has thought of this before – this comes close, with a nice nod to using Twitter to ‘mask’ the inadequacies of such a system (and most of the humans) – but if you think this is a crazy idea, let me know. If you don’t, don’t.

This interesting use of Lego popped up on the mailing list of the University of Bergen. Build by a group of Norwegian Danish students, it’s a simple computer that implements Alan Turing’s design from 1937. Having both read and write functions, it implements its own (somewhat inefficient) medium of non-volatile memory. What we find interesting is that rather than move the ‘tape’ through the machine, the machine rolls over the tape. Thanks to [Thorsten] for the tip.

Saya menyebutnya ghost leader. Istilah yang saya pakai untuk menyebut pimpinan yang tak nampak identitasnya. Meski begitu, dia, sedikit banyak memberikan petunjuk kemana arah yang sebaiknya dituju. Bagi saya, pemimpin hantu ini, bergerak berdasarkan pengalaman.

Contoh sederhana, seperti yang sering saya alami ketika riding lewat tengah malam. Jalanan tentu sudah sepi. Dalam kondisi inilah saya membutuhkan ghost leader: sosok rider, yang tidak saya kenal, namun mampu berperan layaknya road captain.

Dengan berada di belakangnya, saya merasa “aman” merambah jalanan. Karena, berdasar intuisi saya, pemimpin hantu itu, memiliki pengalaman riding yang saya butuhkan. Intinya saya perlu  “racing line” dia. Nggak capek bikin jalur sendiri.

Lalu bagaimana sih memilih ghost leader itu? Tidak ada acuan baku yang dapat saya jelaskan. Semuanya murni berdasar insting di jalan. Hanya saja, sosoknya dapat dikenali dari cara dia berkendara dan riding gear yang dikenakan. Selebihnya, untuk “memilih” ghost leader, terserah naluri brother masing-masing.

Selain di aspal jalanan, adakah ghost leader lain? Share you’re experience.

Whatever its faults, religion is anthropocentric while science isn’t (though, for public relations considerations, it claims to be). Thus, when the Copernican revolution dethroned Earth and Man as the twin centers of God’s Universe it also dispensed with the individual as an organizing principle and exegetic lens. This was only the first step in a long march and it was followed by similar developments in a variety of fields of human knowledge and endeavor.

Consider technology, for instance. Mass industrial production helped rid the world of goods customized by artisans to the idiosyncratic specifications of their clients. It gave rise to impersonal multinationals, rendering their individual employees, suppliers, and customers mere cogs in the machine. These oversized behemoths of finance, manufacturing, and commerce dictated the terms of the marketplace by aggregating demand and supply, trampling over cultural, social, and personal differences, values, and preference. Man was taken out of the economic game, his relationships with other actors irreparably vitiated.

Science provided the justification for such anomic conduct by pitting “objective” facts versus subjective observers. The former were “good” and valuable, the latter to be summarily dispensed with, lest they “contaminate” the data by introducing prejudice and bias into the “scientific method”. The Humanities and Social Sciences felt compelled to follow suit and imitate and emulate the exact sciences because that’s where the money was in research grants and because these branches of human inquiry were more prestigious.

In the dismal science, Economics, real-life Man, replete with emotions and irrational expectations and choices was replaced by a figmentary concoction: “Rational Man”, a bloodless, lifeless, faceless “person” who maximizes profits and optimizes utility and has no feelings, either negative or positive. Man’s behavior, Man’s predilections, Man’s tendency to err, to misjudge, to prejudge, and to distort reality were all ignored, to the detriment of economists and their clients alike.

Similarly, historians switched from the agglomeration and recounting of the stories of individuals to the study of impersonal historical forces, akin to physics’ natural forces. Even individual change agents and leaders were treated as inevitable products of their milieu and, so, completely predictable and replaceable.

In politics, history’s immature sister, mass movements, culminating in ochlocracies, nanny states, authoritarian regimes, or even “democracies“, have rendered the individual invisible and immaterial, a kind of raw material at the service of larger, overwhelming, and more important social, cultural, and political processes.

Finally, psychology stepped in and provided mechanistic models of personality and human behavior that suspiciously resembled the tenets and constructs of reductionism in the natural sciences. From psychoanalysis to behaviorism, Man was transformed into a mere lab statistic or guinea pig. Later on, a variety of personality traits, predispositions, and propensities were pathologized and medicalized in the “science” of psychiatry. Man was reduced to a heap of biochemicals coupled with a list of diagnoses. This followed in the footsteps of modern medicine, which regards its patients not as distinct, unique, holistic entities, but as diffuse bundles of organs and disorders.

The first signs of backlash against the elimination of Man from the West’s worldview appeared in the early 20th century: on the one hand, a revival of the occult and the esoteric and, on the other hand, Quantum Mechanics and its counterintuitive universe. The Copenhagen Interpretation suggested that the Observer actually creates the Universe by making decisions at the micro level of reality. This came close to dispensing with science’s false duality: the distinction between observer and observed.

Still, physicists recoiled and introduced alternative interpretations of the world which, though outlandish (multiverses and strings) and unfalsifiable, had the “advantage” of removing Man from the scientific picture of the world and of restoring scientific “objectivity”.

At the same time, artists throughout the world rebelled and transited from an observer-less, human-free realism or naturalism to highly subjective and personalized modes of expression. In this new environment, the artist’s inner landscape and private language outweighed any need for “scientific” exactitude and authenticity. Impressionism, surrealism, expressionism, and the abstract schools emphasized the individual creator. Art, in all its forms, strove to represent and capture the mind and soul and psyche of the artist.

In Economics, the rise of the behavioral school heralded the Return of Man to the center of attention, concern, and study. The Man of Behavioral Economics is far closer to its namesake in the real world: he is gullible and biased, irrational and greedy, panicky and easily influenced, sinful and altruistic.

Religion has also undergone a change of heart. Evangelical revivalists emphasize the one-on-one personal connection between the faithful and their God even as Islamic militants encourage martyrdom as a form of self-assertion. Religions are gradually shedding institutional rigidities and hyperstructures and leveraging technology to communicate directly with their flocks and parishes and congregations. The individual is once more celebrated.

But, it was technology that gave rise to the greatest hope for the Restoration of Man to his rightful place at the center of creation. The Internet is a manifestation of this rebellious reformation: it empowers its users and allows them to fully express their individuality, in full sight of the entire world; it removes layers of agents, intermediaries, and gatekeepers; and it encourages the Little Man to dream and to act on his or her dreams. The decentralized technology of the Network and the invention of the hyperlink allow users to wield the kind of power hitherto reserved only to those who sought to disenfranchise, neutralize, manipulate, interpellate, and subjugate them.

Soloride Bahagia

“Kenapa sih Rob, lu tuh doyan jalan sendirian? apa sih yang lu mau buktiin?” itu hanya satu kalimat yang mewakili banyak kalimat yang terlontar dari teman2 di klub saya maupun klub tetangga.

Tidak ada satu pembuktian yang ingin saya buat. Memang untuk kasus hardride, itu adalah cara saya untuk mengetahui batas dari tubuh saya. Tapi sekali lagi itu bukan pembuktian, dan saya juga tidak mengharapkan pujian.

Ibarat dengan Istri (yang syah secara Agama dan hukum), kita melakukan suatu kegiatan yg kita sebut sebagai Make Love yang lazim disebut ML (em el-red). Pada saat kita ML, tidak mungkin kan kalo kita melakukannya secara massal. Jangankan massal, dengan ada satu orang aja didalam kamar kita pun pasti tidak akan nyaman. Dan kalau anda cukup waras, anda akan ambil sendal (atau barang keras lainnya, yang bila dilempar tidak akan merugikan finansial anda) dan melemparkannya ke orang-ketiga tersebut supaya keluar dari kamar.

Sama halnya dengan Rollin/Turing, saya sangat cinta hobby yang satu ini. Oleh karena itu saya ingin menikmatinya dengan cara jalan sendiri–hanya saya, motor, dan alam.

Pertanyaan berikutnya-apakah saya berani? Tidak, saya itu penakut. Skill berkendara saya pas-pasan, saya tidak terlalu mengerti mesin, tidak ada kemampuan bela-diri. Kembali lagi ke analogi ML, apakah kita perlu semua skill macho yang ada di dunia untuk melakukan aktivitas tersebut dengan istri tercinta? Tidak perlu.

Patah semangat di perjalanan? Pernah diwaktu pertama kali solo-ride, yaitu tahun 2004 dari palembang menuju bandung. Dana di dompet sisa 100,000 IDR, hujan mulai dari pelabuhan Bakauheni s.d Cisarua. Di Cilegon saya putus asa, ingin rasanya motor saya tinggal trus saya naik Bis ke Bandung.

Saya hanya manusia biasa yang sangat menikmati berkendara dengan sepeda motor, dan Alhamdulillah solo-ride itu sendiri dgn tidak sadar memperbaiki level emosi saya. Mulai dari tidak mudah putus asa, mulai mengikis paranoia, dan tentu saja menambah teman baru ditempat yang saya kunjungi.

Vocab Biker:

Turing/Rollin itu istilah yang sering digunakan para bikers: jalan-jalan dengan motor ke daerah tertentu. Ada beberapa klub yang menyebutkan turing itu bisa disebut turing kalau sudah melewati 3 propinsi–definisi aneh, kalau begitu Tangerang-Bekasi adalah turing? hehee **piss Om**

ps:

Maaf bila ada kata-kata di post ini yang terlalu vulgar, menggunakan kata pengganti ditakutkan akan mengubah konteks kalimat. sekali lagi mohon maaf sebesarnya

The Zen disciple, who had recently seen I, Robot,  asked Roshi Alonzo, “How about a robot? Does a robot have Buddha nature?”

“Lambda!”,

the roshi replied.

En el año 2002 se pregunto a científicos y personalidades de la cultura (que no del cine o música española) de España, qué es lo que debe saber el hombre culto hoy.

Las entrevistas se pueden ver en: Hombre culto

Cada “hombre culto” debía elegir 3 cosas. Es muy difícil elegir sólo 3 cosas, pero a la conclusión que llego es que hay que especializarse en un ámbito sin dejar de lado los demás. Que todo tiende a estar interconectado más de lo que creemos. Qué cada vez tiene más fuerza las sinergías y la unión de ciencias a priori diferentes.

Creo que hay que seguir los avances científicos y que estos deberían tener más repercusión en la vida de la gente. Y creo que esto va increcento (al menos en el ambiente en el que me muevo). Resulta alucinante que la gente hoy en día “no se crea” la evolución de las especies de Darwin, o un escepticismo total a pruebas científicas contrastadas.

En la entrevista se ve claramente que cada científico tira para su propio campo.

Desde mi humilde opinión los 3 más importantes serían:

- Evolución-Darwin. Sigue siendo hoy vigente, incluso hay que seguir investigando por este campo. Junto con las teorías neodarwinianas metería la genética (Mendel) y el descubrimiento del ADN, pues creo que está íntimamente relacionado.

- Relatividad-Einstein. La evolución de la ciencia a partir del Genio. Cómo cambio el modo de ver el mundo. En el mundo de la física nos queda un largo camino por recorrer, y creo que actualmente estamos algo perdidos. El encontrar una Ley unificadora de todo sigue siendo el gran reto.

-Informática-Turing-Von Newman. Probablemente la ciencia que más ha progresado a lo largo del s.XX y XXI sea la computación/informática. Todo es información. No sólo ha progresado ella misma, sino que también ha hecho progresar al resto. No podemos olvidar que internet empezó en el ámbito científico/militar. Cómo procesos lógicos, puertas lógicas, y toda la teoría de la computación nos ha llevado a lo que tenemos hoy en día, y no sólo lo que tenemos, sino el amplio abanico del futuro que nos puede aportar. Un pequeño apunte, la genómica ADN-ARN-Proteína se puede ver también como computación.

De entre todos los científicos encuestados sólo 1 nombra el computador y la revolución que ha traído. Será porque a los informáticos aún no se les considera científicos en este país.

La formalizzazione di questi linguaggi logico-matematici, studiati e implementati anche da altri matematici oltre quelli citati (da Russell a Hilbert a Gödel), portò Turing a costruire la prima macchina calcolatrice che eseguisse queste operazioni logiche.

La grande innovazione di Turing, non fu solo quella di aver progettato una macchina che eseguisse operazioni logiche (detta “Macchina di Turing”, MT), ma soprattutto di aver costruito una “Macchina di Turing Universale” (MTU) capace di simulare le normali MT.

Per la prima volta con la MTU il programma e i dati non coincidevano con la macchina stessa.

Questo tipo particolare di macchina era detta quindi programmabile, ovvero di volta in volta era capace di eseguire una lista di operazioni logiche diversa, ovvero programmi diversi.

Se il pensiero poteva essere realmente formalizzabile in un linguaggio logico per essere calcolato, come avrebbe voluto Leibniz, la MTU avrebbe potuto calcolarlo.

Se la macchina naturale che calcola il pensiero nella sua forma naturale è il cervello, allora possiamo dire che una MTU che calcola il pensiero formalizzato matematicamente simula il cervello.

Making higher order logic fun!

You know their names: Wittgenstein, Turing, Cantor, Gödel and Russell.  But do you know what they did? Or why their achievements (set theory, the incompleteness proof) are still important today?  Neither did I.  But unlike many of you, I work at an office where photos of Turing and Wittgenstein adorn the walls.  Ignorance was getting to be a greater liability than usual.  So when I saw favorable reviews for a new graphic novel called LogiComix (said to explain how this whole cast of characters are connected) I decided to order it.  The text is by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou.  Perhaps anachronistically, when it comes to philosophy, I have an instinctive trust for the Greeks.  This trust was not misplaced.

Maybe the book wouldn’t satisfy a specialist, but several hours in its company will likely increase your knowledge of logic and its history by several orders of magnitude, allow you to see connections you never noticed between intellectual figures you are only dimly aware of, and fill you with a sense of wonder at the kind of collaboration and competition that would eventually lead to computer theory and cybernetics.

The unlikely hero of LogiComix is Bertrand Russell, who, with Alfred North Whitehead, wrote the modestly titled Principia Mathematica in the pre-war years.  The co-authors were so obsessed with the project that they moved in together.  (This was convenient for Russell since he apparently had a thing for Mrs. Whitehead.)  The impetus for the project came after Russell exposed a major problem in logic and set theory—formalized as Russell’s paradox.  It was widely viewed as taking down the “naive set theory” associated with Frege and Cantor.  The paradox highlights the problem of self-reference with respect to sets.  Namely that naive set theory cannot handle the issue.

Russell’s Paradox in a Nutshell

There are many ways that the paradox can be made more intuitive (for non-specialists). Russell himself preferred the barber riddle, but let’s take a look at an example offered by LogiComix, since it makes the problem of self-reference more explicit.  First consider an “unproblematic” set.  Say, the set of all hand-tools (e.g hammer, screwdriver, etc).  You’ll likely agree that the set of all hand-tools is not itself a hand tool.  The set does not reference itself.   But this is not always the case.

Consider the following scenario:  say that you’re publishing a book that catalogues all books that do not refer to themselves.  You’ve excluded books like Sterne’s Tristam Shandy, Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions, LogiComix (its authors show up now and again to talk about how the book is coming along) and all autobiographies where the authors bemoan how long it’s taking them to write the damn thing.  Finally, you think you’ve got a complete list.  You give it to the editor and she notes…that there’s one book missing from the list: your book!

Without mentioning itself the book would not be complete—there would be one non self-referencing book missing.  But, if you include your book as an item, you would thereby introduce into “the set” a book that does reference itself.  You are stuck with the choice of having a set that is either incomplete or in contradiction.  This is Russell’s paradox in a nutshell.

As a paradox, it offers an example of undecideability.  And undecideability in mathematics is very bad, especially when your goal is to try to build an absolutely certain foundation for it.  Team Russell-Whitehead intended their Principia to correct the problem exposed by Russell’s Paradox, by making set theory less “naive.”  Incidentally, Principia does reference itself.

The Logic of the Quest

LogiComix will spare most of us the need of ever consulting this multi-volume tome.  Indeed hardly anyone has read the book.  But don’t let this prejudice you about the book’s influence.  It was said of the low-record selling Velvet Underground that hardly anyone bought a record, but all those who did started a band.  Similiarly, two prominent readers of Principia were Wittgenstein and (perhaps even more importantly) Kurt Gödel, who drew some of its most resonating consequences.

Like most successful graphic novels, LogiComix is essentially the story of a heroic quest—one that is surprisingly under-appreciated, given that this quest leads to the theory undergirding cybernetics and computing.  The early 20th century saw an explosion of interest and advances in the foundation of logic and mathematics unseen since Chryssipus was hanging out on the stoa (Gr. for porch, the Stoics philosophers’ namesake ).  Now the passion for firm foundations is a characteristically philosophical passion (think Descartes), and the discovery by a young Russell that mathematics rested on the epistemological equivalent of quicksand led him in a life-long search for Absolute Certainty.  Apparently this philosophical passion is almost indistinguishable from a certain kind of madness—which is another of the story’s threads.

As in all quests, the quixotic element is not missing here.  The search for absolute foundations (like the search for the smallest bit of matter) leads to the recognition of more (and deeper) hidden presuppositions.  Wittgenstein shows Russell that he assumes without warrant that mathematical objects exists “out there” in some objective way.  Gödel, at the end of the book, is depicted as puzzled as to why Russell allows himself to assume that all logical statements can in principle (that is, given enough time) be proven true or false. This hidden presupposition would prove fateful.

Gödel’s famous “Incompleteness Proofs” shows that any logical system capable of dealing with arithmetic (and therefore more complex mathematics) cannot be both consistent and complete. He demonstrated that it is possible to generate logical statements from within a system that cannot be proven without generating a contradiction. In particular, Gödel was demonstrating the necessary incompleteness of Russell’s Principia.  In doing so, he also shattered the first two pillars of David Hilbert’s “program” (which effectively organized all the activity of early 20th century logic).

Hilbert’s Program challenged logicians and mathematicians to create an axiomatic system (built on proven foundations) that could itself be demonstrated to be consistent (non contradictory), complete (no unproven element) and decidable (determinable by a decision procedure as True or False).  Gödel’s theory shows the system’s necessary incompleteness (to prove its completeness would involve a necessary contradiction).  Recognizing this, Von Neumann is widely quoted as declaring “it’s all over” at the end of the talk.  Well, not quite.

It was Turing who took out Hilbert’s last pillar—decideability—by showing that not every statement that could be formulated in a mathematical language could be decided upon (calculated).  His major contribution (as you can read in our post on Turing) was to show which types of statements were decideable.  This work is the foundation of computer theory.

End-Game

It took Russell and Whitehead over 300 pages to “prove” that 1+1=2, and the better part of a decade to write the Principia, only to see its proofs crumble under pressure from some of the 20th century’s greatest minds.  LogiComix asks its readers the non-negligible question of who is so in need of certainty that they would be willing to go through so much to prove what every child knows. It is finally a form of basic (if extreme) existential insecurity, the authors suggest, that motivated the momentous intellectual achievements of the previous century.

It might seem like this epic search for truth ended in failure (or logical rubble).  But, as is often the case with quests (and science), what you find is not the same thing as what you were looking for.  The “failures” of this foundational search laid the ground for nothing less than the technological infrastructure of modern life.

Alan Mathison Turing (1912-1954) is someone that I only found out about a week ago, but he’s definitely someone that everyone should be familiar with.  He was key in the founding of computer sciences, wrote papers regarding artificial intelligence, and helped design the first computing machine. He also was key in Britain figuring out the German Enigma machine.  Finally, his life is notable for the way the British government persecuted him for his homosexuality.

The Alan Turing memorial statue in Sackville Park. Turing is seen holding an apple, a reference to the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Isaac Newton, forbidden love, and the instrument of Turing's death.

Although the Turing machine was theoretical, it was the basis for the modern computer.

During World War II, Turing started working at Bletchley Park breaking German codes. He was key in breaking the German Enigma code. He designed a machined, called the bombe, which searched for possibly correct settings of an enigma message. The enigma had a possible 10¹⁹ states, which made it impossible to figure out without computing help. The bombe would implement a possible solution to the code and search for contradictions, if a contradiction was rooted out, the solution would be discarded and the machined would search for another possible solution. Even by doing this, one bombe was not fast enough to figure out the enigma code, and by the end of the ware there were over 200 bombe machines in operation.

In 1952 Turing was arrested for gross indecency after admitting to having a homosexual relationship with a Manchester man. Turing was given the choice between hard labor and chemical castration. He chose castration and was given hormone injections.

Following his prosecution, Turing was barred from continuing his cryptographic work for the government and his security clearance was barred. Two years later, on June 7^th 1954, Turing was found dead in his home, a victim of cyanide poisoning. There was a half-eaten apple next to his bed, which is thought to be the method of administration for the poison, though the apple was never tested for the presence of cyanide. While his death was ruled a suicide, numerous other theories exist. One theory is that Turing’s death was accidental due to mishandling of poisonous chemicals during his experiments. Another theory is that he was assassinated.

In September 2009, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, acknowledged a petition started earlier in the year, apologized for Turing’s persecution and treatment, describing it as “appalling”.

To learn more about Turing you can visit these sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/

http://www.alanturing.net/

(Image taken from wikipedia using the GFDL under wikimedia commons)

Developers think twice before making a game for PSP for one reason, and one reason alone. Piracy! Piracy is critical to the PSP as anyone can hack it. It just takes some tools, and your good. Pirating is the reason why there is very few GOOD games made for PSP.

Sony had to do something, decrease piracy on PSP and that is “PSPgo” . PSPgo does not give you ANY access to the battery what so ever, and if you even tampered with the PSPgo battery, rumors say your PSP will break down and if you ask Sony to fix it, there’s a warranty sticker on it to validate if you tampered with it or not.

Now, with that being said that only leaves one thing for developers. Download Only! Since PSN games downloaded from the PSN store are PSP coded, those downloaded games will ONLY work on your PSP, which is a good and bad thing.

Now developers have a viable option to make games for PSP. Put it on the PSN store. There is tons of traffic on it EVERY day, and it will be unlikely for someone to pirate the PSN Store. The company, Q-Games is thinking twice about putting anymore new games for PSP because of piracy.

Conclusion

How can we solve this? Stop pirating. Pirating is like theft. Companies who spend months, or even years work on a one of a kind game, and sell it to the public, it ends up being pirated on DAY 1 and people think it’s “not theft”when you pirate. If someone told you that, there obviously misinformed as pirating is theft and AGAINST the law.

If you hate pirating, or even do pirate games, leave a comment below why you hate pirating, or why you pirate games. We would love to know!

Produk terbaru Tomkins yang diberi label ROAD ini memberikan pilihan bagi bro & sist yang tetap mau safety dan sporty.

Didesain hampir mirip dengan sepatu hiking, dengan pelindung mata kaki lebih tebal dan nyaman berwarna coklat-krem. Dilengkapi dengan tali agar pas di kaki dan lebih berkesan “kets” serta santai, ujung sepatu tetap keras untuk mengurangi resiko kecelakaan dengan pori-pori yang lebar agar kaki bisa “bernafas”. Sentuhan asli dari Tomkins masih terasa di penutup kaki yang menggunakan sistem perekat, supaya makin pas di kaki.

Cocok dipakai untuk touring maupun harian karena lebih lentur daripada type Tourstar ataupun Eazy Boot.

Untuk promo, ROAD yang aslinya dibandrol Rp. 490.000 kami disc sampai 50% sehingga bro & sist cukup mengeluarkan Rp. 247.000 saja (belum termasuk ongkir).

Ukuran yang tersedia: 39 – 43 .

Karena adanya permintaan untuk memperpanjang  promo ini, maka kami buka penawaran sampai akhir November tahun 2009 yaaa..makanya buruan

Pemesanan dapat dilakukan melalui:

telp  : 081321821557 (recommended for faster service)

mail : novi.pus@gmail atau novi_pus@yahoo.com (subject tolong cantumin TOMKINS agar tidak terselip dengan mail lain)

sertakan nama, jenis, ukuran, lokasi.

Ditunggu pesenannya.

1. Electromechanical Heath Robinson, 1949: Alan Turing;
2. Vacuum-tubes based Colossus, 1943: Alan Turing;
3. Programmable Z-3, 1941: Konrad Zuse;
4. Electronic ABC, 1940-42: John Ayanasoff, Clifford Berry;
5. ENIAC : John Mauchly, John Eckert.

Imagina que estás encerrado en un cuarto oscuro con una computadora, y nada más. Y está conectada a Internet. #turingtest.

Mit dieser Anfrage hatte ich nicht gerechnet: Prof. Dr. Ulrike Bergermann von der von der frisch gegründeten Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft bat darum, in ihrer ersten Ausgabe meinen zuerst bei TELEPOLIS erschienenen Artikel Hunch – der Entscheidungsbaum als Soziales Objekt nachdrucken zu dürfen.

Na ja, warum nicht? Dieser Tage fand ich mein Belegexemplar im Briefkasten, danke, und tatsächlich, da findet der Text über Entscheudungsbäume nun auf echten toten Bäumen statt, in ungewohnt akademischem Umfeld. Was ich cool finde, weil in diesem Heft auch ein Interview mit Friedrich Kittler abgedruckt ist. Als ich Mitte der 80er Jahre meinen ersten Computer kaufte, einen 8086er mit MS-DOS 3.1 und fetten 640 KB Arbeitsspeicher, da war Kittler aus meiner Sicht der Einzige im deutschsprachigen Raum, der – in Aufschreibesysteme 1800/1900 und in Grammophon Film Typewriter – eine moderne und ausnahmsweise mal nicht technik-feindliche Beschreibung des Computers und seiner Möglichkeiten lieferte, kompatibel mit den fortschrittlichsten der damaligen Popkultur-Theorien. Er erklärte mir die Turingmaschine und gab 1987, zusammen mit Bernhard Dotzler, einen Band mit deutschen Übersetzungen der wichtigsten Texte Alan Turings heraus, inklusive des alles entscheidenden Über berechenbare Zahlen mit einer Anwendung auf das Entscheidungsproblem (leider steht nur das englische Original im Netz).

Später habe ich ihn dann aus den Augen verloren, weil ich mich vor allem für das interessierte, was mit Turing seinen Anfang nahm, und den Eindruck hatte, Kittler interessiere sich vor allem für das, was mit Turing seinen Abschluss fand. Überhaupt muß ich zugeben, dass ich die letzten 20 Jahre Medientheorie in Deutschland glatt verpasst habe, was wohl daran liegt, dass ich mich stark auf das Geschehen in der internationalen Praxis konzentriert habe. Aber wo ich jetzt schon da gedruckt werde, ist es natürlich höchste Zeit, Versäumtes nachzuholen. Offenbar hat es in der Zwischenzeit einen “Sonderweg deutsche Medienwissenschaft” gegeben, der allerdings, o Wunder, mittlerweile schon wieder für entbehrlich erklärt worden ist. Wenn man nicht ständig aufpasst…