To resolve this dispute, let's do the math, shall we? My father recently introduced me to the concept of "risk exposure". It is the product of the probability of the risk occurring, and the impact of the risk if it occurs.
If a large asteroid were to strike the earth and annihilate humankind, then the impact to us is infinite, for obvious reasons.
Since it is entirely possible for a large asteroid to strike the earth, the probability is greater than zero.
As I'm sure you know, infinity multipled by anything greater than zero is infinity.
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the level of risk here is grossly under-hyped.
AFAICT, Sun wants there to be multiple, competing vendors providing various sorts of products for Java -- such as IDEs and GUI tools. That's why Sun's Java 2 SDK is technically termed a "reference implementation". This does not mean that Sun refuses to be one of those competing vendors, though. Sun has Forte for Java, which is an IDE based on NetBeans, and includes a GUI design tool for AWT/Swing.
Java is not that great that it is not capable of improvement. Sun crippled Java so that it would only work within the area that suited their business objective.
Then why the hell does the JNI exist? Why is there a complete, normative set of specifications for the various components of Java? Why is Sun not suing the Free Software Foundation for making their own implementations of those specifications? Why is Sun not suing the Free Software Foundation over GCJ's CNI (which is an alternative to the JNI that's easier to code to but only works with GCJ)? Why does Sun idly sit by while Java bindings for various GUI toolkits spring up and provide alternatives to the AWT and Swing toolkits?
I was quite upset by the sudden changes in the Java platform. Swing's perf was entirely unacceptable. There were name conflicts like List added to java.util when List was in java.awt.
That's what you get for importing package.*.;) On a lighter note, a JDC RFE for 'package aliasing' is reported as being 'in progress'. By 'package aliasing' I mean doing something like this:
import java.awt = awt; import java.util.*;
And then, when you want to refer to java.awt.List, you would type 'awt.List'; when you want java.util.List you would just type 'List'. Or you could import java.util as 'util' and type 'util.List', or whatever.
I tested the perf of one of my applications (a ray tracer) on Windows (500MHz P3) and on Sun's latest and greatest JVM with perf features. MS: 4 seconds. Sun: 20 seconds.
Do it again on 1.4. Hell, do everything again on 1.4. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised; it's much, much faster.
Yes, Java's "write-once-compile-once-run-everywhere" was overhyped.
It should have been "write once, compile once, run everywhere, just as long as you don't use JDBC.";)
Was Java designed as a cross-platform language? My Java history may be fuzzy, but for some reason, I don't think that was a priority.
I think it was designed as a "network-oriented language", where arbitrary code could be sent back and forth through the network and run predictable in a relatively secure manner, even when data and code sources were not inherently trusted. Common bytecode and a standard VM would then be an implication of the requirement, not a requirement itself.
Any language with that kind of capability really ought to be portable. Hence, I do think that Java was designed with portability in mind.
Does MS really believe in the need for cross-platform compatibility for their.NET initiative? I don't think so. But I think they need to implement a security model at the "language level" that satisfies the same requirements, and reached the same solution: implement the security model on a standard VM running the bytecode.
And if you know Microsoft the way I know Microsoft, it will have been 0wn3d before being released.
That's what special-purpose libraries are for. Java provides a consistent set of semi-basic APIs that gives you a lot of latitude in what you can code up. If, however, you need something beyond that, you use a special library to that effect. If you want to use something beyond that but can live without it, then you check if the special library is installed, use it if it is, and don't use it if it's not. With the JNI, Java handles this beautifully.
Is this really that hard for you people to figure out?
they did not understand that you have to be able to code games (graphics) in it before someone will pick it up
You can. That's what Java 2D, Java 3D, and so forth are for. Java 3D even has support for doing 3D sound, and I think Sun threw some input-related crap in there too. The last big hole in Java's support for coding games was the lack of a direct full-screen graphics mode, which was closed quite elegantly in Java 1.4. (An AWT Frame can now be full-screen, in which case its entire contents are drawn full-screen, setting the display resolution appropriately and even drawing directly to video memory if possible. All in the highly elegant and portable manner we all know and love -- if it can't draw straight to video memory or capture the screen then it'll just make the window the size of the screen, the old-fashioned way. Eat it, DirectDraw!)
SWING is not to bad now only thanks to 2GHz client side machines
Funny, my Pentium II 400 seems to have no trouble with Swing apps, including huge ones like JBuilder and jEdit.
what we need is an open classpath (pun I know) and a gcc that can compile it (which people are doing) so its looking good for java and open source
There are several projects to produce the "open classpath" you speak of -- most notably, GNU Classpath.
frankly SUN should submit the large bulked up version to EMACA and keep the emmbeded versions and swing and JDBC for itself and save a hell of a alot by not haveing to fund all of this via a profit makeing comapny instead have a java Foundation which is Non profit
god why is this so hard for scott and co to do
Simple -- standards organizations are slow. If you think the release cycle for new versions of Java is long, go take a look at how long it takes for a new version of, say, ANSI C++ to be published. Granted, ECMA isn't a huge lumbering monstrosity like ANSI or ISO, but you still have to get changes through committees.
Microsoft would likely have supported standard Java and added lots of proprietary libraries
They did -- cf. J++.
For widespread adoption by the open source community, Java missed its window of opportunity for the most part--Sun's policies still don't make it a good platform.
Java has never delivered on it's client-side promises
Which promises has it not delivered on, exactly?
the "write once / run anywhere" myth doesn't bite them in the ass
The only time I recall being bitten in the ass by WORA violation was JDBC, and that's because the @#(*#^ JDBC-ODBC bridge and/or MS SQL Server ODBC driver was not performing to spec, forcing all manner of inane workarounds.
The situation is the same with Swing these days. Special optimizations can be helpful, but they're not really necessary to make things reasonably fast.
That fscken C-based semi-colon has gotta die *someday*. I never hated a peice of puncuation more in my life. Die semicolon, die die die diiiieeee!!!!. I had to get that out of me.
There are few languages I hate more than those which don't terminate statements with a semicolon or similar. Personal opinion. (Lisp terminates statements with a close-paren, so turn down the flame thrower.)
The break statement for switch/case is also an anacronism.
Please elaborate. As far as I ever knew, the break statement was to break out of a loop or switch statement. What would you prefer? break_out_of_switch?
He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, I'm not certain if he used similar weaponry against Kuwait.
I probably mixed them up. Apologies.
In any event, most chemical weapons aren't properly "weapons of mass destruction" because it's actually quite difficult to kill large numbers of people/property with them.
My recollection is that, each time chemical weapons were used by Hussein, the population of up to a large village or town was wiped out.
probably with overwhelming support from the rest of the world.
I'm not so sure. 9/11 didn't get the US very much support from the various Middle Eastern countries, despite the staggering body count.
He'd be more reluctant to use them against the USA, but I'm certain that he would if the US tries to conquer Iraq.
In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that he would ever publically attack a US territory no matter what.
You are contradicting yourself.
Americans are very prickly about attacks on our territory (see Pearl Harbor and 9/11) and he simply can't whistand a sustained attack by the USA.
Then why does he seem to be actively looking for a fight with us?
Horrible terms of service. Stuff you take for granted on dialup is suddenly impermissible, such as running a Web or email server, or using NAT to connect a wireless access point or even a home LAN behind it.
Poor technical support.
High latency, erratic latency, frequent packet loss, etc.
Bandwidth caps, of both the "you're limited to 300 baud upstream" and "you're limited to 512 KB per month of transfers" varieties.
It's too damned expensive. Broadband providers often have high setup costs, because they insist you use their equipment, and not your own. They also have steep early cancellation fees.
Some broadband providers use strange, proprietary interfaces (usually USB-based) interfaces to the computer, requiring use of Windows.
Some broadband providers even contractually require the use of Windows, forbidding the use of any other operating system.
Wrong - making narcotics legal wouldn't even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Besides, there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
Your entire argument here depends on your ludicrous assumption that prescription drugs are more expensive than narcotics. This is false for two reasons:
Prices for narcotics are grossly inflated. This is because very few people are willing to take the risks involved in dealing drugs, giving drug dealers a near monopoly. Just like with some other monopolies, this gives the drug dealers the ability to charge pretty much whatever they please.
Narcotics are so dangerous that they can't be regulated as heavily as prescription drugs. If they were, they'd be universally banned, and we'd be back to square one.
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner.
Have you got any idea how condescending that statement is? You suggest that everyone other than yourself is a child incapable of making sound decisions about anything, and that you should be deciding everything for everyone. Perhaps that's why
Sure they are; most people don't use drugs at all. I frankly resent your implication that the vast majority of people are children incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. That's an insult to pretty much every human being on the face of this planet.
So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
This argument is based on the ludicrous assumption that making drugs illegal has any effect on their accessibility. I've got news for you: it doesn't. If people want their drugs, they will get them, legal or otherwise. We don't have the "drugged society" you're so deathly afraid of not because drugs are illegal, but because most people don't want to use them.
The likeyhood of the scenario you describe is nil. The primary use of nuclear weapons is deterence, as Bush and Hussien are both well-aware. If Hussien had nuclear arms he would make it known to the US govenment and make threats that if Iraq was invaded he'd nuke Israel. Basically, Hussien wants nuclear arms for defensive purposes.
Supposedly, the primary use of any weapon of mass destruction is deterrence. However, Hussein already used weapons of mass destruction against Kuwait. He didn't bother to make threats; he just did it. What makes you think he's going to change his tune when dealing with the US?
Also, the deterrent effect of weapons of mass destruction is greater if the weapon is already used on some large city (such as New York City). It's basically saying "I have weapons of mass destruction, I had no problem with wiping out one of your major cities, and I will have no problem doing it again if you provoke me."
the US would not be going after Iraq if it was at all likely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
It isn't "at all likely" that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; it's a certainty. There is quite well documented evidence that they used chemical weapons against Kuwait. What makes you think those weapons have suddenly disappeared? That's why Bush and company want to go after them; the longer they wait, the more powerful Iraq's weapons of mass destruction become. Rather than dropping some chemical weapons on a neighboring country, they might become able to drop ICBMs carrying fusion bombs on New York City, for instance.
No, but would drug usage be tremendously higher? Yes.
Not necessarily. A lot of users are users not in spite of but because of drugs being illegal. It's "cool" to be a "rebel" and break the law. What's so cool about uncermoniously strolling to your nearest government-run drug distribution facility and picking up some crack for $1.50 a pound?
The only alternative to a "war on drugs" is to give up and legalize them. Do you want a society with an even greater dependence on welfare and disability because half of the population is so blazed they can't even get to work?
They already can't get to work. They're in jail.
Remember, the prisons are horribly overpopulated, and the most inmates by far are in for non-violent drug crimes. Each and every one of those is financed by the taxpayers. And of course there's building new prisons, making them more secure, and so forth, which is also financed by the taxpayers. IMHO, it'd be cheaper for the users to be on welfare, than for them to be in jail.
Like I said, the lighter stuff (weed, etc.) isn't the problem. But what are you going to do about heroin, crack, and the hundreds of other drugs that will seriously fuck up a person's life? They may be safer manufactured by pharmaceutical company, but many are still extremely addictive and intoxicating. A problem you usually don't have with alcohol or tobacco.
That's bullshit, especially with alcohol. Why do you think Alcoholics Anonymous exists? What kinds of people do you think are members? What kinds of problems do you think they have? To say that alcohol has seriously fucked up their lives is putting it mildly.
Slashdot Mirror
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the level of risk here is grossly under-hyped.
AFAICT, Sun wants there to be multiple, competing vendors providing various sorts of products for Java -- such as IDEs and GUI tools. That's why Sun's Java 2 SDK is technically termed a "reference implementation". This does not mean that Sun refuses to be one of those competing vendors, though. Sun has Forte for Java, which is an IDE based on NetBeans, and includes a GUI design tool for AWT/Swing.
Methinks you haven't done your homework.
Is this really that hard for you people to figure out?
The situation is the same with Swing these days. Special optimizations can be helpful, but they're not really necessary to make things reasonably fast.
For those who don't know why, it's because ST shows use terminology like 'plasmonic' as buzzwords.
- Prices for narcotics are grossly inflated. This is because very few people are willing to take the risks involved in dealing drugs, giving drug dealers a near monopoly. Just like with some other monopolies, this gives the drug dealers the ability to charge pretty much whatever they please.
- Narcotics are so dangerous that they can't be regulated as heavily as prescription drugs. If they were, they'd be universally banned, and we'd be back to square one.
Have you got any idea how condescending that statement is? You suggest that everyone other than yourself is a child incapable of making sound decisions about anything, and that you should be deciding everything for everyone. Perhaps that's why Sure they are; most people don't use drugs at all. I frankly resent your implication that the vast majority of people are children incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. That's an insult to pretty much every human being on the face of this planet. This argument is based on the ludicrous assumption that making drugs illegal has any effect on their accessibility. I've got news for you: it doesn't. If people want their drugs, they will get them, legal or otherwise. We don't have the "drugged society" you're so deathly afraid of not because drugs are illegal, but because most people don't want to use them.Also, the deterrent effect of weapons of mass destruction is greater if the weapon is already used on some large city (such as New York City). It's basically saying "I have weapons of mass destruction, I had no problem with wiping out one of your major cities, and I will have no problem doing it again if you provoke me."
Remember, the prisons are horribly overpopulated, and the most inmates by far are in for non-violent drug crimes. Each and every one of those is financed by the taxpayers. And of course there's building new prisons, making them more secure, and so forth, which is also financed by the taxpayers. IMHO, it'd be cheaper for the users to be on welfare, than for them to be in jail.
That's bullshit, especially with alcohol. Why do you think Alcoholics Anonymous exists? What kinds of people do you think are members? What kinds of problems do you think they have? To say that alcohol has seriously fucked up their lives is putting it mildly.Not to mention that they can't afford lawyers with which to defend themselves.