OWASP = Open Web Applications Security Project. He didn't review any C or Perl because he reviews web projects (J2EE, etc.). Honestly, there are about 10 people that still use Perl for enterprise web projects (e.g. slashdot) and basically none that use C.
P.S. I like the Java upper/lower case - makes it easier to read and name length doesn't mean much when you have autocomplete.
I won't argue that Java doesn't have its development problems - there are many things I hate about java development. However, in performance I'm afraid you're a little outdated: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
C is still faster, but not by an order of magnitude, which is what matters. On the other hand, you missed an element of "Powerful" - C is the only viable language if you need direct access to the hardware. That doesn't mean Java doesn't have its place, though.
Parent is correct. What some people don't like about python isn't whether or not its strongly typed, but if it's statically typed. The advantage of Java and C in their type system is that errors in typing will be caught immediately by the compiler and there are no tests required. It's true that duck typing can help write good code, but it also requires careful unit tests because python is so polymorphic. Some programmers (me included) don't mind the option for dynamic typing, but feel that an optional static typing system would provide different functionality for those who like it.
Uh.... you got me... I love python, but whats so great about PHP, Ruby, Bash or Lisp. Java is well organized and, with JIT, is faster than an interpreted language. Sure, its libraries are kinda large, but 512 MB of RAM is like $38 now. That doesn't mean its right for everything, but I honestly don't see what "any other really-high level language" does to beat it. I can't imagine writing a large application in Scheme...
Irregardless of religion, the Bible is one, if not the most, important book in all of western literature. I pity he who attempts to read T.S. Eliot or even something as standard as Catch-22 without a fairly elementary knowledge of the Bible and its stories. In addition, a well-rounded person would be versed in multicultural works of literature, such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana of ancient India.
I, too, am atheist, however that does not make me smarter than anyone else, nor does it give me an excuse to not be well-read. That said, these questions do not make an IQ test, but merely a test of general knowledge.
True, but isn't joining a prerequisite for any P2P network? A darknet is completely decentralized, but its not as useful as the others because it essentially requires an already established trust system.
The thing is, that's not how antibiotics or antiviral medication usually work. A cure is simply a successful treatment. The other thing that you forget is that there are a lot of genuinely good people working at this for the good of humanity. My father and a number of his colleagues in academia started a company which works on both cancer drugs and cancer detection and they have have made considerable progress and have multiple patents. I know Slashdot gets its kicks from being blindly cynical, but the truth is that academia plays a huge roll in medical development and curing cancer is a big prize (and raise) for any researcher.
I see no evidence of non-profit infringement "steadily" killing anything
Since then, several high-profile busts have been trumpeted in the official Chinese press. In early July, authorities in Shanghai shut down a DVD export ring, arresting six people, including two Americans, while seizing more than $83,000 in cash and more than 200,000 DVDs, according to state press accounts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A535-2004Sep6_2.html
Software copyrights and patents I have never made a case against, to bring up FOSS is without merit. As a FOSS programmer who also makes his living in IT, I believe copyright and patents need to be drastically cut on software, if not removed altogether.
I believe I have cited an example that proves that copyright, patent, and trademark are needed because this is happening in China:
Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work. In addition, my father founded a company that develops new methods of cancer treatment and diagnosis. The equipment needed to do this testing is very expensive and he only has two employees. However, his success in the area has developed a number of revolutionary treatments, which he patented and then licensed rights to large pharmaceutical corporations. These licenses and patents are the company's only source of income, because it trades in knowledge, which is often equally as valuable as a solid product. However, I do not believe that Slashdot is the correct forum for this debate, so I will end this here.
I will concede that the music industry may be just fine without copyright - there is simply not enough data. While it appears that money can still be made with rampant piracy, there are still laws in place preventing some people from pirating music. In addition, without copyright, companies could simply download the music and sell it to you on CD without giving anything to the artist. It's a tricky problem and one that I really was not debating. What I was debating was that the concept of intellectual property is needed in today's world, maybe not for music, but for other things.
To which point are you referring? If I in any way gave the impression that I was debating music I apologize, I believe I said "Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property." While a lack of copyright would certainly change the music industry as we know it, I am fairly certain that musicians could still make a living with live concerts. That does not affect my previous comments about the need for intellectual property or the fact that copyright infringement violates the law, though.
No, once again you focus only on the digital music side of intellectual property. You obviously don't understand the ramifications of the intellectual property theory - a simple look at wikipedia could have told you that all of the following fall under the heading of intellectual property: Primary rights Copyright Patents Trademarks Industrial design rights Utility models Geographical indication Trade secrets Related rights Trade names Domain names Sui generis rights Database rights Mask work Plant breeders' rights Supplementary protection certificate Indigenous intellectual property
To use an example that I gave previously
Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.
You are mistaking a lack of one piece of copyright for the lack of intellectual property. You see, if there is no copyright, what's stopping someone from taking your book (bestselling, perhaps) and publishing it themselves. Exact same book, indistinguishable from the other, just a different publisher. Now, your publicity makes you no money. Now, imagine this on the large scale. Harry Potter is sold by a thousand different publishers for nothing. Books as a medium are free and if you try and sell it, who knows how much money you are going to make - it might be nothing. Extend this to products.
Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.
Once again, reform the laws, I am all for it. However, if you violate US law, prepare to be prosecuted to the full extent of it, because you have broken it.
Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I disagree with large portions of copyright, especially software copyright. However, I think elements of intellectual property are necessary in our world.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. No copyright means that no one will ever be able to make money from their intellectual property because there will never be any intellectual property. Thus, you destroy 1) books 2) scientific invention (no patents) 3) music 4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart. Obviously you have not thought this through, and if you have, I'm afraid you have to "get over yourself" and realize that thousands of people over the past 300 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662)who are smarter than you have all thought that some form of intellectual property was necessary.
It occurs to me that it is highly likely that whatever you do for a job depends on intellectual property somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
C\C++, then if you want to be pedantic. Your system drivers are written in C, so you will be using the C elements of the language anyway.
OWASP = Open Web Applications Security Project. He didn't review any C or Perl because he reviews web projects (J2EE, etc.). Honestly, there are about 10 people that still use Perl for enterprise web projects (e.g. slashdot) and basically none that use C.
P.S. I like the Java upper/lower case - makes it easier to read and name length doesn't mean much when you have autocomplete.
I won't argue that Java doesn't have its development problems - there are many things I hate about java development. However, in performance I'm afraid you're a little outdated: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
C is still faster, but not by an order of magnitude, which is what matters. On the other hand, you missed an element of "Powerful" - C is the only viable language if you need direct access to the hardware. That doesn't mean Java doesn't have its place, though.
Parent is correct. What some people don't like about python isn't whether or not its strongly typed, but if it's statically typed. The advantage of Java and C in their type system is that errors in typing will be caught immediately by the compiler and there are no tests required. It's true that duck typing can help write good code, but it also requires careful unit tests because python is so polymorphic. Some programmers (me included) don't mind the option for dynamic typing, but feel that an optional static typing system would provide different functionality for those who like it.
Uh.... you got me... I love python, but whats so great about PHP, Ruby, Bash or Lisp. Java is well organized and, with JIT, is faster than an interpreted language. Sure, its libraries are kinda large, but 512 MB of RAM is like $38 now. That doesn't mean its right for everything, but I honestly don't see what "any other really-high level language" does to beat it. I can't imagine writing a large application in Scheme...
fair enough :)
You are right. I can never see this as being a Bittorrent replacement, but you are correct that a completely decentralized P2P system.
:)
I would still like it if someone came up with a useable but better decentralized version of BT, though.
Irregardless of religion, the Bible is one, if not the most, important book in all of western literature. I pity he who attempts to read T.S. Eliot or even something as standard as Catch-22 without a fairly elementary knowledge of the Bible and its stories. In addition, a well-rounded person would be versed in multicultural works of literature, such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana of ancient India.
I, too, am atheist, however that does not make me smarter than anyone else, nor does it give me an excuse to not be well-read. That said, these questions do not make an IQ test, but merely a test of general knowledge.
True, but isn't joining a prerequisite for any P2P network? A darknet is completely decentralized, but its not as useful as the others because it essentially requires an already established trust system.
I was being facetious, sorry ;)
The thing is, that's not how antibiotics or antiviral medication usually work. A cure is simply a successful treatment. The other thing that you forget is that there are a lot of genuinely good people working at this for the good of humanity. My father and a number of his colleagues in academia started a company which works on both cancer drugs and cancer detection and they have have made considerable progress and have multiple patents. I know Slashdot gets its kicks from being blindly cynical, but the truth is that academia plays a huge roll in medical development and curing cancer is a big prize (and raise) for any researcher.
IE, maybe, but when you compare it to a real browser like Opera...
Software copyrights and patents I have never made a case against, to bring up FOSS is without merit. As a FOSS programmer who also makes his living in IT, I believe copyright and patents need to be drastically cut on software, if not removed altogether.
I believe I have cited an example that proves that copyright, patent, and trademark are needed because this is happening in China: Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work. In addition, my father founded a company that develops new methods of cancer treatment and diagnosis. The equipment needed to do this testing is very expensive and he only has two employees. However, his success in the area has developed a number of revolutionary treatments, which he patented and then licensed rights to large pharmaceutical corporations. These licenses and patents are the company's only source of income, because it trades in knowledge, which is often equally as valuable as a solid product. However, I do not believe that Slashdot is the correct forum for this debate, so I will end this here.
I will concede that the music industry may be just fine without copyright - there is simply not enough data. While it appears that money can still be made with rampant piracy, there are still laws in place preventing some people from pirating music. In addition, without copyright, companies could simply download the music and sell it to you on CD without giving anything to the artist. It's a tricky problem and one that I really was not debating. What I was debating was that the concept of intellectual property is needed in today's world, maybe not for music, but for other things.
To which point are you referring? If I in any way gave the impression that I was debating music I apologize, I believe I said "Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property." While a lack of copyright would certainly change the music industry as we know it, I am fairly certain that musicians could still make a living with live concerts. That does not affect my previous comments about the need for intellectual property or the fact that copyright infringement violates the law, though.
Primary rights
Copyright
Patents
Trademarks
Industrial design rights
Utility models
Geographical indication
Trade secrets
Related rights
Trade names
Domain names
Sui generis rights
Database rights
Mask work
Plant breeders' rights
Supplementary protection certificate
Indigenous intellectual property
To use an example that I gave previously Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.
You are mistaking a lack of one piece of copyright for the lack of intellectual property. You see, if there is no copyright, what's stopping someone from taking your book (bestselling, perhaps) and publishing it themselves. Exact same book, indistinguishable from the other, just a different publisher. Now, your publicity makes you no money. Now, imagine this on the large scale. Harry Potter is sold by a thousand different publishers for nothing. Books as a medium are free and if you try and sell it, who knows how much money you are going to make - it might be nothing. Extend this to products.
Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.
Once again, reform the laws, I am all for it. However, if you violate US law, prepare to be prosecuted to the full extent of it, because you have broken it.
You misunderstand - I am not for current copyright legislation, I am only opposed to the parents proposal of no intellectual property.
Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I disagree with large portions of copyright, especially software copyright. However, I think elements of intellectual property are necessary in our world.
No one could copy it easily before 1662... did you even read the link i posted about the printing press?
I don't seem to see any evidence for that. Until there is, I'm going to say you're making this up.
You're forgetting the "terror" part of terrorism. It doesn't work if its not scary.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. No copyright means that no one will ever be able to make money from their intellectual property because there will never be any intellectual property. Thus, you destroy
1) books
2) scientific invention (no patents)
3) music
4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart.
Obviously you have not thought this through, and if you have, I'm afraid you have to "get over yourself" and realize that thousands of people over the past 300 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662)who are smarter than you have all thought that some form of intellectual property was necessary.
It occurs to me that it is highly likely that whatever you do for a job depends on intellectual property somewhere.