It makes netscape instantly come back with a broken link. This is cause if you then tri "telnet ad.doubleclick.net", it will instantly come back with a routing error.
While CP is not censoring in the definition of the word, the legal action by Microsystems/Mattel, by also trying to prohibit publication of material which they own no copyright, is indeed censorship
Only in the same way that "protection of trade secrets" is censorship.
Not if the LIBRARIES weren't told by Mattel that the filtering software would be censoring (proper usage of word) sites critical of their software.
Mattel is selling a product that is designedto block certain information, reliably. Okay, it's impossible for 100% reliability,but they are doing what they can to maximize it.
How useful is it, if you can use the tool, to find out information on how to disable the tool? They HAVE to filter that stuff. It's the resposible thing to do as a software vendor, otherwise they are selling a flawed product.
Anything less, would be the microsoft bob of filtering software. They are doing the right thing for their customers.
90% of respondants to this thread are "Rebels without a cause".
You are NOT "fighting censorship". Censorship is a process of stopping material from being published. In no way does Cyberpatrol, or any of the other stuff stop material from being published.
What it does is allow people to FILTER content. THIS IS NOT "Censorship"!!
How many of you readers have spam-filter programs on your email? I bet quite a few. Any argument that applies to "stop mattel/cyberpatrol/whatever", can be applied to that as well. Specifically, any argument you make that cyberpatrol should be bypassed, can be made for "spammers should have access to methods to bypass spam-filtering programs".
Or USENET-spam filter-bots. Perhaps that is a better parallel.
More reliable? I don't know what logic you're using for that, but umm... no. just no.
What he MEANS to say, is that is easier to crank out reliable code in java.
Plus, depending on your coding style in java, instead of the whole thing blowing up with a SEGFAULT!, the current thing you just tried to do will fail.. but the rest of it will keep running. So yes, in that situation, it IS more reliable
You completely missed the point, and at the same time helped support the viewpoint that linux programmers in general are sloppy,desktop programmers.
The issue is, which has *BETTER* threads,not "which is faster?" You are equating yourself with a windows game programmer,when you assume "faster==better"
Whereas professional people like the folks at IBM equate "better" with actually WORKING CORRECTLY under all conditions.
So I wonder how manual "incremental linking" fairs in comparison, speed-wise?
See, [for the enlightenment of newbie programmers out there] UNIX has these things called static libraries, which any programmer can use.
So, instead of
cc -o myprog {fiftythousandfiles}.o
you can use
cc -o myprog libpart1.a libpart2.a
So, assuming you only worked in one "part" at a time, only the library for that "part" would get updated, and then you have in theory a smaller final linking phase.
But I haven't done benchmarks on this. Has anyone else?
The problem with this article is that it talks a lot about "reverse proxy". It even gives examples of some software that specifically does CACHING proxies. But this can just shift the problem from one server to another.
There should be more examples of solutions that do transparent load balancing, vs proxies.
Hint: "proxies" are almost expected to cache. "load balancing [boxes]" are not.
The "answer" should be obvious. newspapers cannot "compete" with online news.
50 years ago, I'm sure radio stations were wondering: "How can we best compete with television?". Then, just as now, the answer is: "you cannot".
If you are at home, you turn on the television. If you are in a car,or train, or whereever, you turn on the radio.
Similarly, if you are at home, or incredibly well-connected, you will go to the net for news. Otherwise, if you are on vacation to hicksville, or on the train, or wherever else; you might pick up a newspaper.
Just as with television, it is inevitable that all but the poorest people will gravitate towards this behaviour.
Actually, coding improves dramatically after 1am, because the gubmint mind control radio waves are turned down at that time. They used to have them going all the time, but they found that it stopped people gettting proper restful sleep.
Then the factory bosses complained that the workers were getting restless due to hallucinations from sleep depravation, so the capitalist regime re-optimized the mind control schedule.
I dont think anyone is arguing that perl is not a very useful language. But, like java, the thing that makes it the most useful, are its extensive collection of functions and libraries.
The *language itself* is what most people detest. The most ugly thing in my mind being the
while(<>)
type of construct. It is synonymous with all that is bad about perl syntax. Saving a few characters does not in anyway make it a more powerful language. It just caters to people who are too lazy to write readable code. THIS is the problem with perl.
Yes, "a bad programmer can write bad code in any language". But with perl, a moderate programmer is likely to write unreadable code too, because it seems to be common practice to write perl to be with as few chars as possible.
Perl seems to encourage that behaviour, from a presumably mistaken assumption, "short code, is efficient code". However,
for(i=0;i < 19;i++) doit(i);
is NOT MORE EFFICIENT THAN
/* This is where we handle evaluation of args*/ for(acount=0;acount < MAXARGS;acount++){ evaluate_arguments(acount); }
[sigh. what am I thinking... posting about clean coding practice on slashdot? oh well...]
What this means, is that there is a large vacancy for a "New distribution of Linux", which would consist of X, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla, Opera, apache, zeus, sendmail,.....
But running on FreeBSD:-)
Anyone with too much time on their hands, a CD burner, and good BSD setup skills?
Jeez, you guys are as bad as MSNBC sometimes. They filter out all MS anti-trust news. You guys filter out all "non free" UNIX stuff.
Half the UNIX jobs are BSD, and half are Solaris. If you actually read the link, you'll see that they are also looking to fill some "high end" positions, which (not surprisingly) are all Sun.
> I've also written a few hundred K lines of >[ C++, and] over 100K lines of Perl.
Oh, well there ya go, that explains your warped perspective right there. I suggest you find a local perl detox program, and you'll be right as rain in a month or two:-)
This is why "miningco" was started.(now called "about.com" ?)
the concept being that you get actual people acting as a cache maintainer for useful data, under specific categories. Sort of like a distributed yahoo, the way they used to be before they sold out.
IF there is an existing category for something you are looking for, then you have a good chance of finding pre-"mined" information there. Only trouble is, you are relying on the expertise of the "guide" on that particular subject.
Java is an object-oriented language, that has tie-ins to be able to run "safely" in a browser. It is NOT just "a web applet language". So saying "java is a bad idea, because I dont like applets", just shows you dont understand java.
I've written approximately 30,000 lines of java code, that thousands of people use, and none of it is in an applet. How much java code have YOU written?
Slashdot Mirror
blooop...
:-)
Rather than fiddling with the hosts file, I use
route add ad.doubleclick.net localhost 1
in a startup script.
It makes netscape instantly come back with a
broken link. This is cause if you then tri
"telnet ad.doubleclick.net", it will instantly
come back with a routing error.
Only in the same way that "protection of trade secrets" is censorship.
Mattel is selling a product that is designedto block certain information, reliably. Okay, it's impossible for 100% reliability,but they are doing what they can to maximize it.
How useful is it, if you can use the tool, to find out information on how to disable the tool? They HAVE to filter that stuff. It's the resposible thing to do as a software vendor, otherwise they are selling a flawed product.
Anything less, would be the microsoft bob of filtering software. They are doing the right thing for their customers.
90% of respondants to this thread are "Rebels without a cause".
You are NOT "fighting censorship".
Censorship is a process of stopping material from being published. In no way does Cyberpatrol, or any of the other stuff stop material from being published.
What it does is allow people to FILTER content.
THIS IS NOT "Censorship"!!
How many of you readers have spam-filter programs on your email? I bet quite a few. Any argument that applies to "stop mattel/cyberpatrol/whatever", can be applied to that as well. Specifically, any argument you make that cyberpatrol should be bypassed, can be
made for "spammers should have access to methods to bypass spam-filtering programs".
Or USENET-spam filter-bots. Perhaps that is a better parallel.
What he MEANS to say, is that is easier to crank out reliable code in java.
Plus, depending on your coding style in java, instead of the whole thing blowing up with a SEGFAULT!, the current thing you just tried to do will fail.. but the rest of it will keep running. So yes, in that situation, it IS more reliable
You completely missed the point, and at the same time helped support the viewpoint that linux programmers in general are sloppy,desktop programmers.
The issue is, which has *BETTER* threads,not
"which is faster?"
You are equating yourself with a windows game
programmer,when you assume "faster==better"
Whereas professional people like the folks at IBM
equate "better" with actually WORKING CORRECTLY
under all conditions.
See the other posts in this thread.
Wait..what guy from microsoft was he talking about?
So I wonder how manual "incremental linking" fairs in comparison, speed-wise?
See, [for the enlightenment of newbie programmers out there] UNIX has these things called static libraries, which any programmer can use.
So, instead of
cc -o myprog {fiftythousandfiles}.o
you can use
cc -o myprog libpart1.a libpart2.a
So, assuming you only worked in one "part" at a
time, only the library for that "part" would
get updated, and then you have in theory a
smaller final linking phase.
But I haven't done benchmarks on this. Has anyone
else?
The problem with this article is that it talks
a lot about "reverse proxy".
It even gives examples of some software that
specifically does CACHING proxies.
But this can just shift the problem from one server to another.
There should be more examples of solutions that
do transparent load balancing, vs proxies.
Hint: "proxies" are almost expected to cache.
"load balancing [boxes]" are not.
neither x86 nor sparc binaries available.
I thought they were supposed to auto-build all
this stuff. What's going on?
grumblegrumble...
The "answer" should be obvious. newspapers cannot
"compete" with online news.
50 years ago, I'm sure radio stations were wondering: "How can we best compete with television?". Then, just as now, the answer is: "you cannot".
If you are at home, you turn on the television.
If you are in a car,or train, or whereever, you turn on the radio.
Similarly, if you are at home, or incredibly well-connected, you will go to the net for news.
Otherwise, if you are on vacation to hicksville, or on the train, or wherever else; you might pick up a newspaper.
Just as with television, it is inevitable that all but the poorest people will gravitate towards this behaviour.
Actually, coding improves dramatically after 1am,
because the gubmint mind control radio waves
are turned down at that time. They used to have
them going all the time, but they found that
it stopped people gettting proper restful sleep.
Then the factory bosses complained that the workers were getting restless due to hallucinations from sleep depravation, so the capitalist regime re-optimized the mind control schedule.
[Now how many ECHELON points is THAT?]
I dont think anyone is arguing that perl is not a very useful language.
But, like java, the thing that makes it the most useful, are its extensive collection of functions and libraries.
The *language itself* is what most people detest.
The most ugly thing in my mind being the
while(<>)
type of construct. It is synonymous with all that is bad about perl syntax. Saving a few characters does not in anyway make it a more powerful language. It just caters to people who are too lazy to write readable code.
THIS is the problem with perl.
Yes, "a bad programmer can write bad code in any language".
But with perl, a moderate programmer is likely to write unreadable code too, because it seems to be common practice to write perl to be with as few chars as possible.
Perl seems to encourage that behaviour, from a presumably mistaken assumption, "short code, is efficient code".
However,
for(i=0;i < 19;i++) doit(i);
is NOT MORE EFFICIENT THAN
/* This is where we handle evaluation of args*/
for(acount=0;acount < MAXARGS;acount++){
evaluate_arguments(acount);
}
[sigh. what am I thinking... posting about clean coding practice on slashdot? oh well...]
What this means, is that there is a large vacancy for a "New distribution of Linux", which would consist of X, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla, Opera, apache, zeus, sendmail, .....
:-)
But running on FreeBSD
Anyone with too much time on their hands, a CD burner, and good BSD setup skills?
Jeez, you guys are as bad as MSNBC sometimes.
They filter out all MS anti-trust news. You guys filter out all "non free" UNIX stuff.
Half the UNIX jobs are BSD, and half are Solaris. If you actually read the link, you'll see that they are also looking to fill some "high end" positions, which (not surprisingly) are all Sun.
> I've also written a few hundred K lines of
:-)
>[ C++, and] over 100K lines of Perl.
Oh, well there ya go, that explains your warped perspective right there. I suggest you find a local perl detox program, and you'll be right as rain in a month or two
This is why "miningco" was started.(now called "about.com" ?)
the concept being that you get actual people acting as a cache maintainer for useful data, under specific categories. Sort of like a distributed yahoo, the way they used to be before they sold out.
IF there is an existing category for something you are looking for, then you have a good chance of finding pre-"mined" information there.
Only trouble is, you are relying on the expertise of the "guide" on that particular subject.
Huh?
There's no such thing as an "Open Source Language".
"open source" applies to binaries, and
source code thereof. Hence "source", in
"Open source".
A programming language is a specification.
What you probably mean to say is, "we need an
open source JVM".
Oh, wait a minite, there's already one or two
for java. Guess you dont have anything to worry
about then.
Java is an object-oriented language, that has
tie-ins to be able to run "safely" in a browser.
It is NOT just "a web applet language".
So saying "java is a bad idea, because I dont
like applets", just shows you dont understand java.
I've written approximately 30,000 lines of
java code, that thousands of people use, and none
of it is in an applet.
How much java code have YOU written?