> We'll get there, I have no doubt, but at what cost?
The cost is X-1 lives, where X is the human population of the planet. OK, maybe X-10 or so, if they are spread out.
Perhaps I'm a bit (extremely) cynical, but conflict will always exist in some form, and the easier one has it, the easier it is to get worked up about extremely minor things.
> you can now quote, directly, the majority of known terrorist leaders giving an ironclad statement that they have perpetrated X Y and Z attacks simply over religious intolerance? Right?
And you, I assume, can now quote, directly, the majority of Bush's cabinet giving ironclad statements about... ANYTHING? And these are people that are on TV all the time, as opposed to the Al-Qaeda leaders in caves. Yeah, they sure get a lot of TV exposure...
> Have some common decency, not even 12 hours have passed.
A person should not change what they think or feel just because of one event. If a person is saying something other than what they think or feel, they are being dishonest. I suppose an 'answer' to that is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all," but that would leave Washington D.C. in complete silence. Come to think of it, maybe that's NOT bad advice...
Anyway, my point is that the amount of time that has passed since something ocurred should not affect a person's viewpoint about it; with the exception of reconsidering due to new information, of course.
So I lied, your post had no new content, but I'm replying anyway... You trolls need to eat too. This is the last chance you get to get this through your thick fucking skull:
Your assertion: "You did not note I said 'ONE OF THE FIRST, IF NOT THE FIRST'" The second line of text from my first post: "what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, 'RAD' development tool!"
It doesn't get any clearer than that. QED
You truly are one of the dumbest persons I have ever come across on Slashdot. I quoted you exactly, then you proceed to whine, ad nauseum, that I didn't point out the very thing that I had quoted. Simply amazing that anyone could be so dense. Are you perhaps a non-english speaker? That's the only way I can consider you anything but mentally handicapped. You may call it "name calling," but it is an accurate portrayal, as you have consistently shown an inability to comprehend the simplest statements. Oh, I suppose you could have serious ADD, preventing you from finishing a train of thought when it is spelled out for you as plain as can be. Either way, you might not want to pursue a career in law, or anything else requiring logic or competence.
> If you don't follow compliance, you are saying disabled users aren't good enough to see your page
I realize you're trolling, but it's not that they aren't good enough, it's that they aren't equipped to look at it. I mean, that's like saying people who don't have Flash installed aren't "good enough" to look at my site (actually, I don't use flash... not the point). If I don't have a working nose, can I sue perfume makers for not catering to my special needs?
Are you even reading my posts? THE ONLY FUCKING THING I AM TALKING ABOUT IS "RAD." Not VB, not Delphi, nothing about the uses, features, or abilities of the languages, JUST WHETHER OR NOT CanDo WOULD BE CONSIDERED A "RAD." It would. That is the ONE SINGLE POINT I was trying to make. CAN YOU GROK THAT? Stop trying to debate me on things that I am not trying to argue. Is VB a billion times more powerful than CanDo? Yes. Is it more flexible? Yes. Does it have tons of stuff CanDo does not? Yes. Does it have a more powerful IDE? Yes. Was it first? NO. Was it one of the first? Quite possibly, I never said that it was not one of the first.
> Don't twist my words
That's like the kettle calling the water black.
> You did not note I said "ONE OF THE FIRST, IF NOT THE FIRST"
What I quoted: > > > > > > what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
So obviously, you are wrong on that one.
> Changing the topic
SINCE MY FIRST POST, THE TOPIC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OS. YOU are the one that changed the topic. Perhaps you are attributing posts to me that were not made by me; I don't know, but I never said anything about Windows, Linux, AmigaOS, whether they were dead or not. You made one assertion, which was not qualified with any particular PC architecture, I showed you were incorrect, then you started asking me all kinds of unrelated things. You may be correct that VB was absolutely the first RAD tool on an x86 platform. That was not your original assertion..
Calling you names? Haha, you say I'm not too intelligent because of my use of such a simple and common thing as sarcasm? There is a difference between sarcasm and name-calling, however subtle it may be at times. And I hadn't mentioned your horrible grammar because I don't care. As long as the point gets across, I don't care if you have no punctuation or capitalization at all, it doesn't affect my ability to read.
> WRONG on Amiga CanDo being like VB I never said it was, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
> Switching to a COMPLETELY diff. platform? There was no agreed-upon platform, you made a generalized statement that excluded platform.
> On X86, afaik though? VB was the first RAD tool, & thus? I never said it wasn't. And it's not pertinent to the topic, but just because it was the first for a particular architecture does not mean it was innovative. That's like saying if I made a doom-like game on a cellphone that previously had no games, I would be innovating. I would not, unless it did something no other program did before, regardless of platform.
> we'll play your game & compare + contrast your Amiga CanDo vs. VB! What? Quote me. Show me a single line from any of my posts that asked you to compare anything about the two.
> You told me not to change criteria and yet... what are YOU doing?
I'm trying to prevent you from putting words in my mouth, yet you keep doing so. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARCHITECTURE, IT NEVER DID. --------- Evidently, I have to explain my original post: > To use an extremely old example, the Amiga had the CanDo language, which is a little different, but basically a RAD as well.
That was the first post I made in this thread. I stated quite plainly that it was on the Amiga, I said nothing about any other platform. The parent post to that stated that it was one of the first (if not THE first) RAD tools. I never said it wasn't ONE OF THE FIRST, only that it was not the first.
When I said "which is a little different," I admitted that CanDo is different from VB. They are different languages with different features. I did not say that CanDo was different from "RAD" tools in general. After understanding better exactly what RAD means, I know that it is not "basically a RAD," it "truly is a RAD."
--------- In the end, you are either not reading what I am actually saying, or you are trolling. Therefore, unless you write something that remotely pertains to what I have actually said and not what you imagine I am saying, I am done responding.
> I'm THAT confident I can show how DISSIMILAR your tool you used as an example is vs. the others already
The dissimilarity is NOT what is in question. Of course they are dissimilar, they are different things! VB and Delphi are different from each other as well. They may be more similar than VB & CanDo, but again, that is not what is in question.
> Cocky/Arrogant on my part?
...in addition to ignorant. That is because you keep insisting on ignoring what the point is. Here is the original (and frankly, ONLY) statement I was arguing against: > > > > > what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
Since this is the Internet I can't speak any slower, so I'll have to use bold: There is no question that they are different. My only point, initially, was to show that VB was not the first RAD tool, as this other RAD tool existed in the 80s. Then you started saying completely unrelated shit, like CanDo doesn't have database manipulation built-in. I know that. A language development tool, however, does not require any "database machinery" to be considered a RAD. Don't believe me or something? Here is a definition of RAD: A software development technique for quickly creating applications. It involves working sessions between Information Systems groups and users, who jointly define application requirements and prototype the application to be developed. Such applications are usually graphically oriented and visual, to make coding easy.
Don't see any references to databases in there, do you?
To summarize, Mr. "Master Debater," you might want to try understanding the point of what's being discussed before you start spouting arguments.
I did, in fact, read every word of your post. I didn't conveniently ignore anything in it.
> judges who are corrupt/inept, in which case the court order *would not* have been obtained legally,
Wouldn't the warrant still have been obtained "legally," even though it happened due to someone's incompetence? I think that's where the confusion lays.
> because the ability to carry out a wiretap obtained legally via due process in the courts within a useful timeframe is definitely an awful, horrible infringement upon my liberty
If they can do it under false pretenses (basically just saying "He's a terrorism suspect," whether he is or is not) then it is a problem. We don't want people blowing stuff up, and we would like the FBI to be able to stop them, but if it means they can infringe my Constitutional rights, they need to find another way to do their job.
That said, I don't personally have a problem with Internet access being monitored if it is publicly available. The access on planes that have it, AFAIK, is available to everyone on the plane, and therefore semi-public. It was not paid-for by the passenger (I'm assuming?) so the passenger should have little to no expectation of privacy.
With or without the ability to 'wiretap,' I wouldn't be checking sensitive EMail from the plane.
Changing the criteria after someone defeats your assertation is NOT the way to win logical debates.
Not only that, but have you ever actually used CanDo? SEEN IT? DO YOU HAVE A CLUE WHAT IT IS???
> I don't recall your example having database engine machinery in it,
At the time, NONE OF THEM DID. That's like me saying PHP sucks because it doesn't have a 3D rendering engine. IT'S TOTALLY NOT THE FREAKING POINT.
But more importantly, you didn't say shit about DB machinery being required. In fact, "Rapid Application Deployment" was your only qualifier, and CanDo fits that bill quite nicely.
Isn't SmallTalk is a scripting language that ties other applications together? I've never used it myself, although I used to work at a place that used it exclusively. First & last job that used Macs. Oh, and I don't believe it existed at the time, although I can't find an initial release date for it, so cannot be sure about that.
I think you missed his point, although I am not him, so I cannot say for sure. I think his point was that these things are installed per-user, so even if one user account is compromised, it will not spread to other parts of the machine. It will be just THAT ACCOUNT that is infected. Assuming that account isn't root (which would be the result of poor security to begin with), you could just create another account on the machine and use it without being infected. Like an automatic per-user quarantine.
(Quotes in reverse order) > You talk with slogans, but don't have the facts @ this level to back them up it seems like! > what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
You say others talk without facts to back them up after doing the same thing yourself. To use an extremely old example, the Amiga had the CanDo language, which is a little different, but basically a RAD as well. And that's from the 80s (or maybe very early 90s)
> User checks email, launches attachment, gets exploited. Same for both SuSE or Windows.
AFAIK, the +x permission MUST be set for a program to launch inside Linux. An EMail attachment would not have the execute bit set, so no, I don't believe it is the same in both systems.
Are you seriously insinuating that would make any difference at all? The 3-yr old SuSE machine would still FAR outlast the Windows machine, in terms if time-to-infection. And none of us can say anything definitive about Longhorn until it is actually released.
> Do you really think present-day Catholics should be blamed for the Crusades, and so on?
Do you think present-day Americans should be blamed for slavery? Many Americans feel guilt over it even though their grandparents hadn't been born at the time.
Do you think present-day Germans should feel guilty about the Holocaust? The very large majority of them were not alive (or at least of a responsible age) at the time, yet they have expressed shame over it
Sure, these are MUCH more recent, but at what point does someone no longer feel responsible for the past actions of their country or group? Or should it be remembered forever? Perhaps "remembered" is the wrong word, as it should always be remembered...
(I'm not fishing for any particular answers on those questions)
> I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam > I've read parts of the Korean > The Korean is full of
Really... You've read the Korean? Which one? North or South? There are quite a few. Did he have words tattooed on himself or something? Maybe the Korean had the Koran (Quran) printed on his back in very small letters.
Hahaha, whoah, that was a good one. Gotta wipe the laughter from my eyes. You had a great, reasonable post, and to sneak an amazingly funny joke like that right into the middle is just classic..
Slashdot Mirror
> We'll get there, I have no doubt, but at what cost?
The cost is X-1 lives, where X is the human population of the planet. OK, maybe X-10 or so, if they are spread out.
Perhaps I'm a bit (extremely) cynical, but conflict will always exist in some form, and the easier one has it, the easier it is to get worked up about extremely minor things.
> It's better to be a live chump who's email was intercepted by the feds than a dead one who's viagra spam remained a secret.
Guess you don't live in New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live free or die."
> you can now quote, directly, the majority of known terrorist leaders giving an ironclad statement that they have perpetrated X Y and Z attacks simply over religious intolerance? Right?
And you, I assume, can now quote, directly, the majority of Bush's cabinet giving ironclad statements about... ANYTHING? And these are people that are on TV all the time, as opposed to the Al-Qaeda leaders in caves. Yeah, they sure get a lot of TV exposure...
> OT: Wow - /. IDs break 900,000 mark
> I'll be darned.
Just wait till it hits 1,000,000 and the universe collapses into itself!
> Have some common decency, not even 12 hours have passed.
A person should not change what they think or feel just because of one event. If a person is saying something other than what they think or feel, they are being dishonest. I suppose an 'answer' to that is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all," but that would leave Washington D.C. in complete silence. Come to think of it, maybe that's NOT bad advice...
Anyway, my point is that the amount of time that has passed since something ocurred should not affect a person's viewpoint about it; with the exception of reconsidering due to new information, of course.
> Read about one dating back as far as the 60/70's... RAD tool & object oriented with screenshots & histories, predating your Amiga CanDo tool!
Congratulations, you proved yourself wronger.
So I lied, your post had no new content, but I'm replying anyway... You trolls need to eat too. This is the last chance you get to get this through your thick fucking skull:
Your assertion: "You did not note I said 'ONE OF THE FIRST, IF NOT THE FIRST'"
The second line of text from my first post: "what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, 'RAD' development tool!"
It doesn't get any clearer than that. QED
You truly are one of the dumbest persons I have ever come across on Slashdot. I quoted you exactly, then you proceed to whine, ad nauseum, that I didn't point out the very thing that I had quoted. Simply amazing that anyone could be so dense. Are you perhaps a non-english speaker? That's the only way I can consider you anything but mentally handicapped. You may call it "name calling," but it is an accurate portrayal, as you have consistently shown an inability to comprehend the simplest statements. Oh, I suppose you could have serious ADD, preventing you from finishing a train of thought when it is spelled out for you as plain as can be. Either way, you might not want to pursue a career in law, or anything else requiring logic or competence.
> If you don't follow compliance, you are saying disabled users aren't good enough to see your page
I realize you're trolling, but it's not that they aren't good enough, it's that they aren't equipped to look at it. I mean, that's like saying people who don't have Flash installed aren't "good enough" to look at my site (actually, I don't use flash... not the point). If I don't have a working nose, can I sue perfume makers for not catering to my special needs?
Are you even reading my posts? THE ONLY FUCKING THING I AM TALKING ABOUT IS "RAD." Not VB, not Delphi, nothing about the uses, features, or abilities of the languages, JUST WHETHER OR NOT CanDo WOULD BE CONSIDERED A "RAD." It would. That is the ONE SINGLE POINT I was trying to make. CAN YOU GROK THAT? Stop trying to debate me on things that I am not trying to argue. Is VB a billion times more powerful than CanDo? Yes. Is it more flexible? Yes. Does it have tons of stuff CanDo does not? Yes. Does it have a more powerful IDE? Yes. Was it first? NO . Was it one of the first? Quite possibly, I never said that it was not one of the first.
> Don't twist my words
That's like the kettle calling the water black.
> You did not note I said "ONE OF THE FIRST, IF NOT THE FIRST"
What I quoted:
> > > > > > what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
So obviously, you are wrong on that one.
> Changing the topic
SINCE MY FIRST POST, THE TOPIC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OS. YOU are the one that changed the topic. Perhaps you are attributing posts to me that were not made by me; I don't know, but I never said anything about Windows, Linux, AmigaOS, whether they were dead or not. You made one assertion, which was not qualified with any particular PC architecture, I showed you were incorrect, then you started asking me all kinds of unrelated things. You may be correct that VB was absolutely the first RAD tool on an x86 platform. That was not your original assertion..
Calling you names? Haha, you say I'm not too intelligent because of my use of such a simple and common thing as sarcasm? There is a difference between sarcasm and name-calling, however subtle it may be at times. And I hadn't mentioned your horrible grammar because I don't care. As long as the point gets across, I don't care if you have no punctuation or capitalization at all, it doesn't affect my ability to read.
> WRONG on Amiga CanDo being like VB
I never said it was, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
> Switching to a COMPLETELY diff. platform?
There was no agreed-upon platform, you made a generalized statement that excluded platform.
> On X86, afaik though? VB was the first RAD tool, & thus?
I never said it wasn't. And it's not pertinent to the topic, but just because it was the first for a particular architecture does not mean it was innovative. That's like saying if I made a doom-like game on a cellphone that previously had no games, I would be innovating. I would not, unless it did something no other program did before, regardless of platform.
> we'll play your game & compare + contrast your Amiga CanDo vs. VB!
What? Quote me. Show me a single line from any of my posts that asked you to compare anything about the two.
> You told me not to change criteria and yet... what are YOU doing?
I'm trying to prevent you from putting words in my mouth, yet you keep doing so. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARCHITECTURE, IT NEVER DID.
---------
Evidently, I have to explain my original post:
> To use an extremely old example, the Amiga had the CanDo language, which is a little different, but basically a RAD as well.
That was the first post I made in this thread. I stated quite plainly that it was on the Amiga, I said nothing about any other platform. The parent post to that stated that it was one of the first (if not THE first) RAD tools. I never said it wasn't ONE OF THE FIRST, only that it was not the first.
When I said "which is a little different," I admitted that CanDo is different from VB. They are different languages with different features. I did not say that CanDo was different from "RAD" tools in general. After understanding better exactly what RAD means, I know that it is not "basically a RAD," it "truly is a RAD."
---------
In the end, you are either not reading what I am actually saying, or you are trolling. Therefore, unless you write something that remotely pertains to what I have actually said and not what you imagine I am saying, I am done responding.
> I'm THAT confident I can show how DISSIMILAR your tool you used as an example is vs. the others already
...in addition to ignorant. That is because you keep insisting on ignoring what the point is. Here is the original (and frankly, ONLY) statement I was arguing against:
The dissimilarity is NOT what is in question. Of course they are dissimilar, they are different things! VB and Delphi are different from each other as well. They may be more similar than VB & CanDo, but again, that is not what is in question.
> Cocky/Arrogant on my part?
> > > > > what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
Since this is the Internet I can't speak any slower, so I'll have to use bold: There is no question that they are different. My only point, initially, was to show that VB was not the first RAD tool, as this other RAD tool existed in the 80s. Then you started saying completely unrelated shit, like CanDo doesn't have database manipulation built-in. I know that. A language development tool, however, does not require any "database machinery" to be considered a RAD. Don't believe me or something? Here is a definition of RAD:
A software development technique for quickly creating applications. It involves working sessions between Information Systems groups and users, who jointly define application requirements and prototype the application to be developed. Such applications are usually graphically oriented and visual, to make coding easy.
Don't see any references to databases in there, do you?
To summarize, Mr. "Master Debater," you might want to try understanding the point of what's being discussed before you start spouting arguments.
I did, in fact, read every word of your post. I didn't conveniently ignore anything in it.
> judges who are corrupt/inept, in which case the court order *would not* have been obtained legally,
Wouldn't the warrant still have been obtained "legally," even though it happened due to someone's incompetence? I think that's where the confusion lays.
> And when people rush, they make mistakes.
Or when they are incompetent. I bring that up because even when they are not rushing, they make a lot of mistakes.
> because the ability to carry out a wiretap obtained legally via due process in the courts within a useful timeframe is definitely an awful, horrible infringement upon my liberty
If they can do it under false pretenses (basically just saying "He's a terrorism suspect," whether he is or is not) then it is a problem. We don't want people blowing stuff up, and we would like the FBI to be able to stop them, but if it means they can infringe my Constitutional rights, they need to find another way to do their job.
That said, I don't personally have a problem with Internet access being monitored if it is publicly available. The access on planes that have it, AFAIK, is available to everyone on the plane, and therefore semi-public. It was not paid-for by the passenger (I'm assuming?) so the passenger should have little to no expectation of privacy.
With or without the ability to 'wiretap,' I wouldn't be checking sensitive EMail from the plane.
Changing the criteria after someone defeats your assertation is NOT the way to win logical debates.
Not only that, but have you ever actually used CanDo? SEEN IT? DO YOU HAVE A CLUE WHAT IT IS???
> I don't recall your example having database engine machinery in it,
At the time, NONE OF THEM DID. That's like me saying PHP sucks because it doesn't have a 3D rendering engine. IT'S TOTALLY NOT THE FREAKING POINT.
But more importantly, you didn't say shit about DB machinery being required. In fact, "Rapid Application Deployment" was your only qualifier, and CanDo fits that bill quite nicely.
Isn't SmallTalk is a scripting language that ties other applications together? I've never used it myself, although I used to work at a place that used it exclusively. First & last job that used Macs. Oh, and I don't believe it existed at the time, although I can't find an initial release date for it, so cannot be sure about that.
> And he thinks that means "Linux" is more secure
I think you missed his point, although I am not him, so I cannot say for sure. I think his point was that these things are installed per-user, so even if one user account is compromised, it will not spread to other parts of the machine. It will be just THAT ACCOUNT that is infected. Assuming that account isn't root (which would be the result of poor security to begin with), you could just create another account on the machine and use it without being infected. Like an automatic per-user quarantine.
> This could be as simple as combining some pre-existing technologies in a novel new way.
:)
George Carlin quote: "You nail two things together that have never been nailed together before, and some schmuck will buy it from you."
Innovation, laid out bare
Wrong again, WorldWideWeb by Tim Berners-Lee.
(Quotes in reverse order)
> You talk with slogans, but don't have the facts @ this level to back them up it seems like!
> what was VB? One of, if not the FIRST, "RAD" development tool!
You say others talk without facts to back them up after doing the same thing yourself. To use an extremely old example, the Amiga had the CanDo language, which is a little different, but basically a RAD as well. And that's from the 80s (or maybe very early 90s)
> User checks email, launches attachment, gets exploited. Same for both SuSE or Windows.
AFAIK, the +x permission MUST be set for a program to launch inside Linux. An EMail attachment would not have the execute bit set, so no, I don't believe it is the same in both systems.
Are you seriously insinuating that would make any difference at all? The 3-yr old SuSE machine would still FAR outlast the Windows machine, in terms if time-to-infection. And none of us can say anything definitive about Longhorn until it is actually released.
> I've [...] interfaced with a couple hundred employees
No, you haven't, unless you know some strange brain-connecting devices. (I just got finished reading the "weasel words" article...)
Unless, of course, MS really IS the Borg...
> Do you really think present-day Catholics should be blamed for the Crusades, and so on?
Do you think present-day Americans should be blamed for slavery? Many Americans feel guilt over it even though their grandparents hadn't been born at the time.
Do you think present-day Germans should feel guilty about the Holocaust? The very large majority of them were not alive (or at least of a responsible age) at the time, yet they have expressed shame over it
Sure, these are MUCH more recent, but at what point does someone no longer feel responsible for the past actions of their country or group? Or should it be remembered forever? Perhaps "remembered" is the wrong word, as it should always be remembered...
(I'm not fishing for any particular answers on those questions)
> I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam
> I've read parts of the Korean
> The Korean is full of
Really... You've read the Korean? Which one? North or South? There are quite a few. Did he have words tattooed on himself or something? Maybe the Korean had the Koran (Quran) printed on his back in very small letters.
> The main part of the morman church is non-violent today and should be left alone.
The main part of Islam today is non-violent, you jackass.
> Police are just too eager and effective
Hahaha, whoah, that was a good one. Gotta wipe the laughter from my eyes. You had a great, reasonable post, and to sneak an amazingly funny joke like that right into the middle is just classic..