Re:Java Data Objects are nice but Hibernate is Bet
on
Java Data Objects
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hibernate [bluemars.net] is a lot better. There is 1 config file that defines your whole object model and it requires no special class file enhancer.
That is precisely the problem with the majority of non-JDO persistence architectures that use standard reflection (Toplink, Hibernate, CocoBase, Castor). While people tend to get nervous about bytecode enhancement, it is just an additional step in the compilation process.
Bytecode enhancement allows JDO to perform change tracking without intruding on the application. Reading 1000 objects in a transaction and changing a single one, a reflection based framework will need to perform comparisons on each and every field of each of the instances. JDO will just need to do a single one. Reflection-based persistence frameworks are fine for "hello world" applications, or if you do not mind intruding persistence details into the application, but for true transparent and scalable persistence, JDO is the way to go.
Of course, there are many other comparison points between persistence frameworks, such as the degree to which JDO is datastore-agnostic, the number of JDO vendors vs. non-JDO vendors, the issue of JDO being based on an increasingly important standard, the lack of vendor lock-in, etc. Many of these issues are discussed on JDOcentral.com
And it wasn't pleasant. The switch-over went fine, but:
1. I couldn't send any e-mail, because MSN blocks outgoing connections to port 25 anywhere except their own SMTP server, which, you guessed it, has a proprietary authentication mechanism.
2. I couldn't read Usenet anymore becuase the MSN NNTP server uses a proprietary authentication mechanism.
I got around #1 because I am lucky to have access to an outside machine whose SMTP port I could change to 26 so I could connect. I got around #2 by hacking SPA authenitcation from the SAMBA project into the Pan NNTP client. But jeez, it sure would have been much easier to switch to Windows and run Outlook for everything.
I am shocked that Microsoft is already confident enough to configure their ISP so that you are locked into using MS software.
Shouldn't we, as a community, be concentrating our efforts on ways to make the computer world a better and happier place, rather than trying to emulate the big companies that are constantly oppressing the minority Operating Systems
Why don't you try asking the employees of BE, Inc that question?
In short, unless there is a minimum level of compatability with the 800 lb gorillas of the world, any efforts to make the computer world a "better and happier place" will arrive stillborn.
Don't listen to me, go out there and look up the OPPOSIE [sic] of what youve [sic] been told, and see if there is more information and if their side makes more sense.
Moderated to +5 without a single link? Ford must have some fantastic mod points...
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 1
They can be ignored quite easily, by choosing not to buy their products.
The original poster's point was that there is no government regulation that forces GM food to be clearly labeled as such. One wonders how sales would do if it were immediately obvious to consumers that what they were buying was GM or not.
Personally, I am not all that against GM foods. However, when people start arguing against any legislation that allows the consumer to be informed of what may turn out to be a dangerous product, I start to seriously distrust that person's motives.
FDISK won't help at all against forensic analysis. Or did they rewrite it recently to overwrite every sector with random garbage 10 times over in the 1 second it takes for it to wipe a partition?
I perodically hear about sites that get screwed over by these banner-ad companies. The reaction always seems to post a complaint letter on the web site and stop using the service.
I always thought that a better solution would be to have whatever perl/php/etc. script that serves the banners continue to show the banner, but modify the gif so it has a huge red line through it with overlaid text that says "advertiser www.banneradcompany.com does not pay out for ads". Then send e-mail to all the people whose ads you are showing and tell them to take a look at how their ad looks on your page.
One of the advantages I see to this is that it will help legitimize the internet for bill-paying, and thus reduce the amount of dead tree bills I receive. Once the system is up and running, the USPS can offer incentives to companies to send bills electronically to customers who have registered that they want to receive them that way (via their centralized database).
Even if it just starts out as huge PDF attachments for credit card bills, it will go a long way towards reducing the amount to junk I get in my mailbox every day.
I don't know if such a thing currently exists, but I've been thinking about it for a while, and it seems like it should work: why not have a scheme where every piece of data you encrypt must be accompanied by a piece of bogus data. The resulting encrypted data would then contain both the original pieces, and would yield only one of them depending on which key was used to unlock it.
For example: I encrypt message A ("the Russians attack at dawn") together with message B ("the weather is beautiful in Moscow, wish you were here") into encoded message C. The receiver can then decrypt it with key A' (yielding correct A) or B' (yielding bogus B). If anyone (such as UK authorities) ever coerced me or the recipient to reveal the key, you would just give them B' and noone would be the wiser.
Thus, while Big Brother would be able to determine you are sending encrypted communcations, they would not be wise to the real content if they manages to get one of the keys from you.
Which raises an interesting question: if SGI is dropping IRIX and switching to Linux, won't everyone who make IRIX software need to port it over, and thus make it much easier to port from SGI-Linux to other Linux distributions?
Everyone is mentioning using steganography, gpg, etc, but those have the problem of being fairly easily detectable as being encrypted (resutling in torture or whatnot to obtain the keys).
Am I missing something, or can't your friend use a webmail site in the UK that supports SSL? That way, the Chinese government would never even have any message to analyze to see if it is encrypted or not. Its not like they can ban or track all SSL traffic going out of the country.
Of course, your friend could be extra paranoid and use steganography in the messages sent via the webmail interface, as well as keep an extra spam account on the server in case the Men in Black come by and say, "We see you have been going to superencryptedwebmail.co.uk alot. Care to give us your password so we can see what you are doing there?". Also, a low-technology solution like a browser would require a bit of maintenance: always cleaning out cookies, caches, and whatever else junk it keeps around.
Microsoft Internet Explorer browser is now used by 86 percent of Web surfers worldwide, up 32 percent from 16 months ago and an all-time high, an online study found.
They don't exactly quote any source at all.
I'm not saying the statistic is wrong, I've just never seen anyone back up the numbers by saying how they came by it. Did they poll the weblogs at www.microsoft.com, or www.yahoo.com?
Personally, I very rarely read a book just because it has a full page ad in the New York Times. I read a book for one of three reasons:
1. I am familiar with the author, and I like what they have written in the past. 2. I read a good review of the book from a source that I have had success with in the past. 3. A friend or some I respect vouches for the book.
Aside from possibly #2, publishers do not have any effect on the sources for my desire to read a book. All that is required for online publishing to be successful is for a good source of reviews of online works to become popular. After that, it will snowball to the point where I think most books will at least be available online, if not exclusively online.
Slashdot Mirror
FUD. The specification was released only one year ago.
and everyone I know who has experience with it feels the same.FUD. See JDOCentral.com and TheServerSide for real-world discussions.
That is precisely the problem with the majority of non-JDO persistence architectures that use standard reflection (Toplink, Hibernate, CocoBase, Castor). While people tend to get nervous about bytecode enhancement, it is just an additional step in the compilation process.
Bytecode enhancement allows JDO to perform change tracking without intruding on the application. Reading 1000 objects in a transaction and changing a single one, a reflection based framework will need to perform comparisons on each and every field of each of the instances. JDO will just need to do a single one. Reflection-based persistence frameworks are fine for "hello world" applications, or if you do not mind intruding persistence details into the application, but for true transparent and scalable persistence, JDO is the way to go.
Of course, there are many other comparison points between persistence frameworks, such as the degree to which JDO is datastore-agnostic, the number of JDO vendors vs. non-JDO vendors, the issue of JDO being based on an increasingly important standard, the lack of vendor lock-in, etc. Many of these issues are discussed on JDOcentral.com
And it wasn't pleasant. The switch-over went fine, but:
1. I couldn't send any e-mail, because MSN blocks outgoing connections to port 25 anywhere except their own SMTP server, which, you guessed it, has a proprietary authentication mechanism.
2. I couldn't read Usenet anymore becuase the MSN NNTP server uses a proprietary authentication mechanism.
I got around #1 because I am lucky to have access to an outside machine whose SMTP port I could change to 26 so I could connect. I got around #2 by hacking SPA authenitcation from the SAMBA project into the Pan NNTP client. But jeez, it sure would have been much easier to switch to Windows and run Outlook for everything.
I am shocked that Microsoft is already confident enough to configure their ISP so that you are locked into using MS software.
Oh the irony. http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1025.e rrorhandling.html yields:
/site-stories/2001/1025.errorhandling.html.
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET
Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Connection refused
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
$ lynx -source -useragent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)"
http://www.msn.com | tidy
Tidy (vers 4th August 2000) Parsing console input (stdin)
line 1 column 2156 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 2401 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 2660 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&url"
line 1 column 2947 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 3241 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 4753 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 5111 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 5820 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 5985 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 1 column 6117 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 1 column 6479 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 1 column 11241 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 11351 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 12021 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 14012 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 15526 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 16920 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 1 column 17360 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 361 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 561 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 4 column 615 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 4 column 914 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 1228 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 2740 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 4421 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 4660 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 6046 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
line 4 column 6234 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 4 column 6288 - Warning: discarding unexpected </input>
line 4 column 6518 - Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute
stdin: Doctype given is "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
stdin: Document content looks like XHTML 1.0 Transitional
30 warnings/errors were found!
Yeah, great. Start another ground war against guerellas. That worked great in the past.
And while you are at it, Mountain Boy, deploy land mines, which 99% of the world community considers to be a crime against humanity.
Your techie toys won't work in mountains
Any your archaic methods didn't work for the US in Vietnam, nor did they work for the USSR in Afganistan.
Shouldn't we, as a community, be concentrating our efforts on ways to make the computer world a better and happier place, rather than trying to emulate the big companies that are constantly oppressing the minority Operating Systems
Why don't you try asking the employees of BE, Inc that question?
In short, unless there is a minimum level of compatability with the 800 lb gorillas of the world, any efforts to make the computer world a "better and happier place" will arrive stillborn.
Don't listen to me, go out there and look up the OPPOSIE [sic] of what youve [sic] been told, and see if there is more information and if their side makes more sense.
Moderated to +5 without a single link? Ford must have some fantastic mod points...
The original poster's point was that there is no government regulation that forces GM food to be clearly labeled as such. One wonders how sales would do if it were immediately obvious to consumers that what they were buying was GM or not.
Personally, I am not all that against GM foods. However, when people start arguing against any legislation that allows the consumer to be informed of what may turn out to be a dangerous product, I start to seriously distrust that person's motives.
unless of course they faked the whole thing (not unlikely, where can I get those interesting dockapps? I don't think they exist)
It looks like gkrellm, not any dockapps.
FDISK won't help at all against forensic analysis. Or did they rewrite it recently to overwrite every sector with random garbage 10 times over in the 1 second it takes for it to wipe a partition?
I perodically hear about sites that get screwed over by these banner-ad companies. The reaction always seems to post a complaint letter on the web site and stop using the service.
I always thought that a better solution would be to have whatever perl/php/etc. script that serves the banners continue to show the banner, but modify the gif so it has a huge red line through it with overlaid text that says "advertiser www.banneradcompany.com does not pay out for ads". Then send e-mail to all the people whose ads you are showing and tell them to take a look at how their ad looks on your page.
Bad PR goes a long way in advertising.
One of the advantages I see to this is that it will help legitimize the internet for bill-paying, and thus reduce the amount of dead tree bills I receive. Once the system is up and running, the USPS can offer incentives to companies to send bills electronically to customers who have registered that they want to receive them that way (via their centralized database).
Even if it just starts out as huge PDF attachments for credit card bills, it will go a long way towards reducing the amount to junk I get in my mailbox every day.
For example: I encrypt message A ("the Russians attack at dawn") together with message B ("the weather is beautiful in Moscow, wish you were here") into encoded message C. The receiver can then decrypt it with key A' (yielding correct A) or B' (yielding bogus B). If anyone (such as UK authorities) ever coerced me or the recipient to reveal the key, you would just give them B' and noone would be the wiser.
Thus, while Big Brother would be able to determine you are sending encrypted communcations, they would not be wise to the real content if they manages to get one of the keys from you.
Which raises an interesting question: if SGI is dropping IRIX and switching to Linux, won't everyone who make IRIX software need to port it over, and thus make it much easier to port from SGI-Linux to other Linux distributions?
Or am I missing something?
And this is a bad thing?
Am I missing something, or can't your friend use a webmail site in the UK that supports SSL? That way, the Chinese government would never even have any message to analyze to see if it is encrypted or not. Its not like they can ban or track all SSL traffic going out of the country.
Of course, your friend could be extra paranoid and use steganography in the messages sent via the webmail interface, as well as keep an extra spam account on the server in case the Men in Black come by and say, "We see you have been going to superencryptedwebmail.co.uk alot. Care to give us your password so we can see what you are doing there?". Also, a low-technology solution like a browser would require a bit of maintenance: always cleaning out cookies, caches, and whatever else junk it keeps around.
Microsoft Internet Explorer browser is now used by 86 percent of Web surfers worldwide, up 32 percent from 16 months ago and an all-time high, an online study found.
They don't exactly quote any source at all.
I'm not saying the statistic is wrong, I've just never seen anyone back up the numbers by saying how they came by it. Did they poll the weblogs at www.microsoft.com, or www.yahoo.com?
Where does 86% come from? The only site that I know of that tracks usage is browserwatch, which claims that IE has 59.3% market share...
Personally, I very rarely read a book just because it has a full page ad in the New York Times. I read a book for one of three reasons:
1. I am familiar with the author, and I like what they have written in the past.
2. I read a good review of the book from a source that I have had success with in the past.
3. A friend or some I respect vouches for the book.
Aside from possibly #2, publishers do not have any effect on the sources for my desire to read a book. All that is required for online publishing to be successful is for a good source of reviews of online works to become popular. After that, it will snowball to the point where I think most books will at least be available online, if not exclusively online.
Use libungif: it does not use LZW compression, so there are no patent issues.
I've heard that the resulting GIF files are a bit larger than usual, but it beats paying $5K.