GWT is good if you want to create a RIA, when the presentation logic is so complex developing it in javascript is a nightmare, but without having to use Flash or silverlight. If the presentation is simple enough however, I would stick to HTML5 + jQuery. In fact the "simple enough" bar in that last statement is gradually pushed forward.
As a rule of thumb I'd say if you have a lot of moving parts on the page and you are basically creating a desktop application inside the browser ala Google docs, then consider GWT. Otherwise it will do more harm than good.
If the US wants to block a given.ru it can do so, it's just a question of forcing ISPs to block it. I don't know what the current legislation in the US is for ISPs and what they are obliged or not to do when the government asks them to. But at the end of the day the traffic has to pass through some medium to reach Russia, and neither you or me or our ISPs laid down network cables across the Atlantic or put communication satellites in orbit.
What's the obsession with.com? Well there is already a lot invested in.com and the US holds all of this power. You can't just tell everyone to "switch to.ru what's the big deal?". That was a good question to ask 10 years ago. Right now it's fact and the question is how to distribute the power of.com.
What I'm suggesting will create anarchy in TLDs, that is true. But in practice nothing really has to change. The registry for.uk becomes authoritive for.com in the UK, the registry for.fr becomes authoritive for.com in France, and so on. Then they just need to agree on a process for change management between them, and a way to resolve disputes. When disputes cannot be resolved there will be fragmentation, which I believe is better then one side, the one that happens to control the TLDs, forces their laws and opinions on the other.
In practice 99.9% there won't be any issues, and the rest of the time it will be around politics or intellectual property. But it is exactly this potential of fragmentation and anarchy that will guarantee the global neutrality of the "global" TLDs.
I think your understanding kinda sucks. The US didn't "build" the internet. US-based researchers developed the initial concepts and protocols that are the foundation of the internet. "The US" didn't build the communication infrastructure in Europe, Canada or the Middle East. "The US" didn't raise ISPs around the world and didn't connect households in Norway to communication hubs.
"The US" can't tell an ISP in Germany or Brazil what IP address to map a given domain name to. If those ISPs decided to map it to something else, there is fuck all "The US" can do about it.
Nobody. As in "I think Nobody should have complete control over the internet".
The internet is a global "region". I don't use the word "resource" here because I don't consider it a resource in this context. I think it's more comparable to international waters. There are globally accepted rules about international waters and the global community enforces them. Any country with a coast also has a portion of the sea which is considered "theirs" and within it their rules apply. But the rest of it belongs to no one.
I think the same thing should happen to the internet. And let's be frank, by "the internet" here we mean control of TLDs, as everything else derives from that. The US government can then block "fuckamerica.com" from within the US, but not completely take it down in the rest of the world. That's the way it should be.
Funny, as an Israeli I often feel that same way about the US.
However if you pulled your head our of your arse for a second and remembered that in politics you have to read in between the lines, you might just realize out that Israel isn't really a factor in the US' desire to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Israel will, on the other hand, probably have to be the executor of everybody's wishes - the US, Europe *and the Arab world* are all terrified of the prospect of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran and the extremists governing it. Iran's ballistic missiles can already reach western Europe and if you think it's just Europe's and the middle east's problem then ask yourself how long will it be before a nuclear bomb developed by the Ayatollah's regime will end up in the hands of extremist terrorist groups and set off in NY or DC? Try to imagine the horror scenario of 9/11 with nuclear bombs instead of crashing airliners. So everybody will condemn us and silently be relieved, and we will eat the Iranian retaliation which will likely be painful and cost Israeli lives. But who gives a fuck when a few Israelis die anyway. The important thing is that European and American lives are spared.
What you are seeing right now is one last desperate attempt by the US and Europe to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through diplomatic and economic means. I wish I had any hope it will succeed because when it fails the shit can really hit the fan. All this BS about Israel being threatened is just part of the politics and propaganda aimed at people who can't see the real reasons behind these events. The US and Europe actually serve their own interests (as they should) and Israel is just a front.
Personally I believe that what we are witnessing is a global economic version of "Communicating Vessesls".
With the sudden availability of shipping of goods on a global scale and outsourcing, the natural thing happens: wealth starts pouring from the fuller rich vessel (the US) to the less full one (poorer countries). Shouting at how this is all the fault of some evil caste of managers is pointless. Humans do what humans do, and markets do what markets do.
One day the system will reach an equilibrium. China and India can't stay poor forever when so much wealth is going their way. Eventually a more educated and wealthy middle class will emerge, the country will develop and eventually transform from that empty vessel to a full one.
When that happens the opposite of what we are witnessing today will happen - when labour costs in China and India will match or almost match those in the US, US companies will not longer have an incentive to outsource and industries will re-emerge in the US. However something else will also happen then - there will be a billion new wealthy people on the other side of the world to sell products to.
What's next? Charging a husband who read his wifes diary. Oh yes there was a lock on it and he broke it. No that wouldn't reach court, but hackers - those smelly dodgy think they are smarter than us geek types - let's lock all of them up and throw away the key! They are terrorists! And they want to give away the fruit of all of hard work for free!
Of course she can change her mind, but saying that the guy who didn't stop when his GF asked him to stop in the middle of sex is exactly the same type of asshole who stalks your GF in a dark alley, hits her over the head, drags her to a corner, strips her and sticks his willy inside her body while she is crying and begging - if we are using the exact same word to describe both guys and we think they both deserve the same punishment, then I'm sorry - but something here is very wrong here!
We could also classify the guy who didn't stop as being rude and insensitive and she shouldn't have sex with him again. There are a lot of rude people out there and they don't go to jail for it.
RE the "media kerfluffle", I'd appreciate if you could support this with something. I'd like to see evidence of this before he started annoying people, not just before this leak. He's been a pain in some governments butts for a long time now.
Got modded Troll for saying this which I'm not sure why.
Anyway I think the chances of these accusations against Assange being completely unrelated to the leak and the timing being coincidental are pretty slim. It's kinda obvious that higher powers have targetted him. It's even more scary because it seems that these days the easiest way to hurt someone is by accusations of sexual assault. Who would dare hint that it might be untrue? I mean even on Slashdot one gets modded down -1 as Troll for raising this option...
Here's a quote from the article:
According to local news reports, the women told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned non-consensual. One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.
I don't understand - the condom broke in the middle so she asked him to stop, he didn't - and that's rape?
I don't see what good all of this would make - so you cleanse sites hosted on US servers from bomb-making info. Stil leaves plenty of them around the rest of the world...
You're absolutely right about the status of the Palestinians. But the Palestinians were never given Israeli citizenship (and now they vote for their own government BTW). Still, I won't argue with anyone saying that their status is in the shits - that's a given.
However, this is besides the point. The argument against Israel here is that it's based on religion and therefore makes non-Jews 2nd class citizens purposely - which is simply not true. There are Israeli citizens who are Arabs, Muslims, Christian and so on and they enjoy the same liberties and opportunities as Jewish Israelis. The status of the Palestinians has aboslutely nothing to do with the fact that Israel is defined as a Jewsih state. It has everything to do with the fact that we are and have been in a violent conflict with them for the past 100 years.
My point is that there is nothing wrong with Israel being a Liberal democracy and a Jewish state - it *can* work, and the status of the Arab Israelis and all other minorities and religions in Israel is proof of that.
RE your comment about neighborhoods again separate the Palestinians from Arab Israelis - any Israeli Citizen can live anywhere they want. In fact there was a case that made the headlines a couple of years back of an Arab family that wanted to live in a Kibutz and were rejected - the high court then overruled the Kibutz's decision and forced it to accept them. I remind you that Kibutzes have entry criteria that all would-be members must comply with (they are basically socialist villages). The situation with the Palestinans is of course different and they can't live outside the territories, but goes back to the my point above. Furthermore, Jewish Israelis can't in practice live in Israeli Arab villages or in most of the Palestinians territories anyway.
The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with the way Israel is defined, or inherently because of it. The problems are all the result of the circumstances, practicalities, the tensions between the different groups in question, etc. When we finally have peace in this corner of the world one day all of these problems will go away and we'll just have a liberal western democracy with a Jewish theme.
So? The state was founded as a potential home for all Jewish communities around the world. There is no argument that being Jewish is a combination of heritage, identity and ethnicity - why should that matter? Is it written anywhere that ancestry rules are only allowed if they are based on enthinicty?
If anything it only makes Israel's ancestry rules less restrictive than those of UK / US / Germany. One cannot convert into being German or English, right? The US ancestry rules BTW are not based on athnicity either.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you are implying that there is a difference then you should look into the ancestry rules of these countries.
The preferential treatment ends with applications for citizenship. All citizens enjoy the same rights.
There is nothing wrong with ancestry rules, they exist in the UK and Germany as well and even the US. Check the rules regarding the eligibility of children and grand-children of ex-US citizens for citizenship and green cards. I'd love to move to the US and live there for a while, work in Silicon valley. I can't. However if I did have an opportunity to do so, I would enjoy the same civil rights and protection as any other US resident. What's wrong with that?
Israel is a liberal democracy with full freedom of worship. It was founded to serve as a home for Jewish people, which during the 1940s turned out to be a VERY GOOD idea.
In Israel you can be whatever you want: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay - even a Slashdot reader. The only implications of the fact that this is a Jewish state are that the official language is Hebrew, the symbols and holidays are based Jewish heritage, and Jews get an automatic citizenship if they apply for one. Nobody is forced to be Jewish. The laws are not based on the Jewish religion but on liberal western principles, with civil rights and protection for minorities.
Explain to me please how any of that is different to Germany, France, Spain or the UK?
If you want to see true Theocraties I suggest you look more to the east than Israel.
That's exactly what I thought, but then I thought: I'm trying to protect myself from the odd "inside an image in the browser" virus here. I'm not trying to protect a publically available server.
So the question is, how likely is it for Win 7 to have escalation vulnarbilities, and how likely is it for viruses to eventually target priv-spe'd win boxes?
Slashdot Mirror
GWT is good if you want to create a RIA, when the presentation logic is so complex developing it in javascript is a nightmare, but without having to use Flash or silverlight. If the presentation is simple enough however, I would stick to HTML5 + jQuery. In fact the "simple enough" bar in that last statement is gradually pushed forward.
As a rule of thumb I'd say if you have a lot of moving parts on the page and you are basically creating a desktop application inside the browser ala Google docs, then consider GWT. Otherwise it will do more harm than good.
If the US wants to block a given .ru it can do so, it's just a question of forcing ISPs to block it. I don't know what the current legislation in the US is for ISPs and what they are obliged or not to do when the government asks them to. But at the end of the day the traffic has to pass through some medium to reach Russia, and neither you or me or our ISPs laid down network cables across the Atlantic or put communication satellites in orbit.
What's the obsession with .com? Well there is already a lot invested in .com and the US holds all of this power. You can't just tell everyone to "switch to .ru what's the big deal?". That was a good question to ask 10 years ago. Right now it's fact and the question is how to distribute the power of .com.
What I'm suggesting will create anarchy in TLDs, that is true. But in practice nothing really has to change. The registry for .uk becomes authoritive for .com in the UK, the registry for .fr becomes authoritive for .com in France, and so on. Then they just need to agree on a process for change management between them, and a way to resolve disputes. When disputes cannot be resolved there will be fragmentation, which I believe is better then one side, the one that happens to control the TLDs, forces their laws and opinions on the other.
In practice 99.9% there won't be any issues, and the rest of the time it will be around politics or intellectual property. But it is exactly this potential of fragmentation and anarchy that will guarantee the global neutrality of the "global" TLDs.
I think your understanding kinda sucks. The US didn't "build" the internet. US-based researchers developed the initial concepts and protocols that are the foundation of the internet. "The US" didn't build the communication infrastructure in Europe, Canada or the Middle East. "The US" didn't raise ISPs around the world and didn't connect households in Norway to communication hubs.
"The US" can't tell an ISP in Germany or Brazil what IP address to map a given domain name to. If those ISPs decided to map it to something else, there is fuck all "The US" can do about it.
I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".
Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
Nobody. As in "I think Nobody should have complete control over the internet".
The internet is a global "region". I don't use the word "resource" here because I don't consider it a resource in this context. I think it's more comparable to international waters. There are globally accepted rules about international waters and the global community enforces them. Any country with a coast also has a portion of the sea which is considered "theirs" and within it their rules apply. But the rest of it belongs to no one.
I think the same thing should happen to the internet. And let's be frank, by "the internet" here we mean control of TLDs, as everything else derives from that. The US government can then block "fuckamerica.com" from within the US, but not completely take it down in the rest of the world. That's the way it should be.
Funny, as an Israeli I often feel that same way about the US.
However if you pulled your head our of your arse for a second and remembered that in politics you have to read in between the lines, you might just realize out that Israel isn't really a factor in the US' desire to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Israel will, on the other hand, probably have to be the executor of everybody's wishes - the US, Europe *and the Arab world* are all terrified of the prospect of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran and the extremists governing it. Iran's ballistic missiles can already reach western Europe and if you think it's just Europe's and the middle east's problem then ask yourself how long will it be before a nuclear bomb developed by the Ayatollah's regime will end up in the hands of extremist terrorist groups and set off in NY or DC? Try to imagine the horror scenario of 9/11 with nuclear bombs instead of crashing airliners. So everybody will condemn us and silently be relieved, and we will eat the Iranian retaliation which will likely be painful and cost Israeli lives. But who gives a fuck when a few Israelis die anyway. The important thing is that European and American lives are spared.
What you are seeing right now is one last desperate attempt by the US and Europe to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through diplomatic and economic means. I wish I had any hope it will succeed because when it fails the shit can really hit the fan. All this BS about Israel being threatened is just part of the politics and propaganda aimed at people who can't see the real reasons behind these events. The US and Europe actually serve their own interests (as they should) and Israel is just a front.
Well it's well known that the Death Star is full of brits...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKfeJ2mw0LU
Because British actors can only play the bad guys in American movies.
It's still a step up from nuclear meltdown isn't it?
You have to see things in perspective...
Java simply doesn't scale. Try running your microbenchmarks with a million objects in memory...
Can you give an example of a managed, cross-platform, enterprise language for which the above statement is incorrect?
Personally I believe that what we are witnessing is a global economic version of "Communicating Vessesls".
With the sudden availability of shipping of goods on a global scale and outsourcing, the natural thing happens: wealth starts pouring from the fuller rich vessel (the US) to the less full one (poorer countries). Shouting at how this is all the fault of some evil caste of managers is pointless. Humans do what humans do, and markets do what markets do.
One day the system will reach an equilibrium. China and India can't stay poor forever when so much wealth is going their way. Eventually a more educated and wealthy middle class will emerge, the country will develop and eventually transform from that empty vessel to a full one.
When that happens the opposite of what we are witnessing today will happen - when labour costs in China and India will match or almost match those in the US, US companies will not longer have an incentive to outsource and industries will re-emerge in the US. However something else will also happen then - there will be a billion new wealthy people on the other side of the world to sell products to.
What's next? Charging a husband who read his wifes diary. Oh yes there was a lock on it and he broke it. No that wouldn't reach court, but hackers - those smelly dodgy think they are smarter than us geek types - let's lock all of them up and throw away the key! They are terrorists! And they want to give away the fruit of all of hard work for free!
What the hell are they putting in your water?
Of course she can change her mind, but saying that the guy who didn't stop when his GF asked him to stop in the middle of sex is exactly the same type of asshole who stalks your GF in a dark alley, hits her over the head, drags her to a corner, strips her and sticks his willy inside her body while she is crying and begging - if we are using the exact same word to describe both guys and we think they both deserve the same punishment, then I'm sorry - but something here is very wrong here!
We could also classify the guy who didn't stop as being rude and insensitive and she shouldn't have sex with him again. There are a lot of rude people out there and they don't go to jail for it.
RE the "media kerfluffle", I'd appreciate if you could support this with something. I'd like to see evidence of this before he started annoying people, not just before this leak. He's been a pain in some governments butts for a long time now.
Got modded Troll for saying this which I'm not sure why.
Anyway I think the chances of these accusations against Assange being completely unrelated to the leak and the timing being coincidental are pretty slim. It's kinda obvious that higher powers have targetted him. It's even more scary because it seems that these days the easiest way to hurt someone is by accusations of sexual assault. Who would dare hint that it might be untrue? I mean even on Slashdot one gets modded down -1 as Troll for raising this option...
Here's a quote from the article:
According to local news reports, the women told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned non-consensual. One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.
I don't understand - the condom broke in the middle so she asked him to stop, he didn't - and that's rape?
I don't see what good all of this would make - so you cleanse sites hosted on US servers from bomb-making info. Stil leaves plenty of them around the rest of the world...
You forgot the exclamation mark.
Israel has both. Check you facts.
You're absolutely right about the status of the Palestinians. But the Palestinians were never given Israeli citizenship (and now they vote for their own government BTW). Still, I won't argue with anyone saying that their status is in the shits - that's a given.
However, this is besides the point. The argument against Israel here is that it's based on religion and therefore makes non-Jews 2nd class citizens purposely - which is simply not true. There are Israeli citizens who are Arabs, Muslims, Christian and so on and they enjoy the same liberties and opportunities as Jewish Israelis. The status of the Palestinians has aboslutely nothing to do with the fact that Israel is defined as a Jewsih state. It has everything to do with the fact that we are and have been in a violent conflict with them for the past 100 years.
My point is that there is nothing wrong with Israel being a Liberal democracy and a Jewish state - it *can* work, and the status of the Arab Israelis and all other minorities and religions in Israel is proof of that.
RE your comment about neighborhoods again separate the Palestinians from Arab Israelis - any Israeli Citizen can live anywhere they want. In fact there was a case that made the headlines a couple of years back of an Arab family that wanted to live in a Kibutz and were rejected - the high court then overruled the Kibutz's decision and forced it to accept them. I remind you that Kibutzes have entry criteria that all would-be members must comply with (they are basically socialist villages). The situation with the Palestinans is of course different and they can't live outside the territories, but goes back to the my point above. Furthermore, Jewish Israelis can't in practice live in Israeli Arab villages or in most of the Palestinians territories anyway.
The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with the way Israel is defined, or inherently because of it. The problems are all the result of the circumstances, practicalities, the tensions between the different groups in question, etc. When we finally have peace in this corner of the world one day all of these problems will go away and we'll just have a liberal western democracy with a Jewish theme.
I've answered this elsewhere in this thread.
So? The state was founded as a potential home for all Jewish communities around the world. There is no argument that being Jewish is a combination of heritage, identity and ethnicity - why should that matter? Is it written anywhere that ancestry rules are only allowed if they are based on enthinicty?
If anything it only makes Israel's ancestry rules less restrictive than those of UK / US / Germany. One cannot convert into being German or English, right? The US ancestry rules BTW are not based on athnicity either.
BTW I believe you are referring to Ethiopia, not India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you are implying that there is a difference then you should look into the ancestry rules of these countries.
Here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Ancestry_Entry_Clearance
The preferential treatment ends with applications for citizenship. All citizens enjoy the same rights.
There is nothing wrong with ancestry rules, they exist in the UK and Germany as well and even the US. Check the rules regarding the eligibility of children and grand-children of ex-US citizens for citizenship and green cards. I'd love to move to the US and live there for a while, work in Silicon valley. I can't. However if I did have an opportunity to do so, I would enjoy the same civil rights and protection as any other US resident. What's wrong with that?
Israel is not "founded using religion". Period.
Israel is a liberal democracy with full freedom of worship. It was founded to serve as a home for Jewish people, which during the 1940s turned out to be a VERY GOOD idea.
In Israel you can be whatever you want: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay - even a Slashdot reader. The only implications of the fact that this is a Jewish state are that the official language is Hebrew, the symbols and holidays are based Jewish heritage, and Jews get an automatic citizenship if they apply for one. Nobody is forced to be Jewish. The laws are not based on the Jewish religion but on liberal western principles, with civil rights and protection for minorities.
Explain to me please how any of that is different to Germany, France, Spain or the UK?
If you want to see true Theocraties I suggest you look more to the east than Israel.
Excuse... excuse... me... I... believe... you... have... my... stapler...
That's exactly what I thought, but then I thought: I'm trying to protect myself from the odd "inside an image in the browser" virus here. I'm not trying to protect a publically available server.
So the question is, how likely is it for Win 7 to have escalation vulnarbilities, and how likely is it for viruses to eventually target priv-spe'd win boxes?