Certainly different revisions (for different missions). Also remember that surface missions required two different versions of the code: One for the CM and one for the LM.
I think the primary reason may have been that before the advent of stored-program digital computers, vast arrays of people with mechanical calculators were used for computational tasks. When the first digital computers came, the job was still sufficiently easy that the skills were easily transferable - the first electronic digital machines were glorified calculators. Everyone thought that making programs would be trivial so "clerical" people were used. Only when the complexity of software started increasing the scale of the problem became apparent, and a new field was born. And the newly-trained young people who came into a booming field came with a different demographics. The job description changed significantly, it's not (only!) that the same job was suddenly usurped by male applicants.
There was a whole conference dealing with the same topic at about the same time, organized by the military (http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/NATOReports...) and attended by dozens of people from many institutions. Clearly, it had already been considered a problem by then. Also remember that the mid-1960s were when the OS/360 effort took place, inspiring Fred Brooks' famous book.
I have to wonder why a relation algebra language isn't actually algebraic. What about projections in the form of something like c := a x b etc? Nooo, they had to make it look like COBOL.
You only pay 32% of average income tax if your income is approaching infinity. So your post-tax income is approaching infinity as well, you have more money than you could ever need, and so does everyone else, because your taxes sponsor other people. Welcome to utopia! :D
Maybe it's also about what it buys you? Also, https://www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=files/suo/eng/i07.a... claims it's at worst 31.75%, not 60%, and that's not even the average. Plus if you're rich, not all or even most of your wealth comes from personal income anyway, so there's that. And ~20% VAT or equivalent seems quite common over the developed world.
The one thing the web should have had from the beginning: flexibility of what happens to the contents on the client. Somehow this "feels right", given the original Alan Kay's vision of what should be happening on a personal device. Users should always be able to tweak things the way they like them.
Regulations don't prevent you from inventing new things, only from inflicting them onto the whole of the society. But they didn't invent anything useful in the first place, so arguing that regulations were what stopped them is silly.
Depends on what you consider innovation. It's not straight invention when you put useful pieces together, but then again, that describes a lot of useful engineering these days. The inventive parts are already coming, though.
Perhaps if you reinvented the web well enough, it would become the Internet. Everything would be just some communicating components, only some of them would be graphical, for example.
"tsunamifury is absolutely right that the relatively static, document-centric model of the web is an extension of Western academic culture. TBL's project was originally shaped by the need for researchers to share papers."
Wasn't the original WWW editable? I mean the thing that ran on NeXT boxes.
Anyway, the DynaBook idea is still alive for me. And it's probably close to the thing we actually need.
If you can migrate, you don't have to be anything in particular. Otherwise, the place of birth is perhaps the strongest "macroscopic" predictor of your income.
Then again, is a system that works 99.5% of the time and delegates stuff to humans 0.5% of the time more or less reliable than a system that relies 100% on humans, with their microsleeps, inattention, mistakes etc.? Has air travel, e.g., become mostly less or mostly more reliable by means of automation?
I mostly meant the fact that if you can decode a message that you have with a key and algorithm that you have, you can do it later again, with the same result. Of course, HDCP is an also example of this, since you still have the message and you still have the key, even after some time (as long as you still have both).
However, this sounds like wishing to violate the known laws of physics (specifically, their time invariance). Unless some of the information available at the time T is unavailable at some time T'>T, how could you delete something already shared with another party?
> and showed the world that you could make a fast ARM.
My memory may be a bit hazy, but wasn't one of the demonstrations of the original ARM a program in interpreted BASIC that did in twenty seconds something for which a compiled C program on a 80386 needed thirty seconds? Or something like that?