I think it is more likely that EJB is oversold by companies that are making EJB products. EJB is useful or even necessary for some applications. However, I would say that using EJB in most applications is not appropriate and could kill the applications faster and better than anything else. Another problem is that nowadays, the IT industry field is dominated by people who don't know anything about technology. A lot of people who I came into contact with does not understand what is EJB or J2EE. I am not saying that I understand it very well, but at least I will not use EJB as a de facto persistent technology like what a lot of other people did.
"Uhmm, yeah, but what exactly would they need a backdoor for, if people already willingly allow an ActiveX component to run Windows update?"
A backdoor would allow them to update computers that does not run windows update. In case that you are unaware, I will tell you now that there are a considerable number of people who never run windows update nor run activex from the net. Surprisingly, most of the people I know who does that are people who had used windows for years.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
If everything has to start somewhere, where do I press start to start the OS. Definitely not in the windows UI. Then if everything has to start somewhere, why not let the start button be the initial point of starting for every application. Having a common button where you can launch your applications are fine. But naming it as start is a bit misleading. While it make a bit of sense after some explanation, I would say that this is definitely not intuitive. Like it is definitely not intuitive that a progam called photoshop should be an image editing software. If you ask a layperson, he will probably think that it is a program where you are buy photos from.
I can find good software from both platform whose names does not indicate what the software does. The naming of a sofwatre is solely determine by its creator. What does it got to do as a platform?
"There is nothing worse than a programmer who can only use an IDE"
An IDE actually helps and speed up the learning process. I would see learning as a n attitude rather than anything else. With eclipse, I learned about String.split (ok. syntaxically wrong) while I would not have known if I have not take the time to go through the methods that the String class has. A lot of my peers who started from notepad are using StringTokenizer. By really going through what the String.split does, I learn about regular expression in java. My peers are also still using StringTokenizer.
You can stay online for a long time provided that you follow certain basic guidelines (1) Have a NAT in front of the computer. That is the most important (2) Do not install unknown programs. For very obvious reasons. (3) Do not use IE. IE was the biggest headache previously. I always get spyware whenever I run it. (4) Do not use Outlook. I prefer webbased email anyway since I have like only 7 computers between work and home.
Following all these, my windows xp sp2 machine had not been patch since... sp2? Of course I upgrade my firefox version time and again, but then it not due to those supposed vulnerabilities which I rate as low importance. I even go without enable my AVG virus scanner for long period of time. I only run it once in a while to make sure that my system are indeed virus free.
How much of these actually interest me? If I only need a small set of functionalities, why do m$ has to shove those useless (at least to me) features down my throat and have the audacity to make me paid for them? On top of that, from past experiences, there are *so many* potential exploit just by looking at the list of functions alone. If I have any complains about open source, it is now getting too bloated. I think OSS should focus on simplity and just provide a means to give advance users only what they actually need.
Management sees dishonesty in a different way. - Straight forward lie => You are too stupid to belong to the company. You deserved to be sacked - White lie => Depending on the situation, but if it turns out to be beneficial to me or the company, you are a great employee. - Lying by Omission => Ok, everyone makes mistake once in a while, as long as the omission does not have negative impact to the company. You probably get the benefit of the doubt unless the management already want to get rid of you. - Represent the fact in a different (usually positive) light => You will become management fav, as long as you are able to present things in a positive light. - Truth => You are too honest and would probably will not go far. Your truth will probably hurt the management or company sometimes. Should be get rid of as soon as possible.
I might be wrong but I am under the impression that exploits are different from vulnerabilities. I am in the opinion that vulnerabilities are possible weakness that crackers/whoever can use to crack into a system while exploits acts that make use of these weaknesses to access the system. There might be no known exploits for some vulnerabilities (especially those discovered through code scanning)?
But it seems that most people seems to equate exploits with vulnerabilities. Am I wrong or what?
I could not understand why the governments should reinforce copyright laws for FREE! Because of the simplicity that copyrighted works could be copied, governments would need to spend a large amount of money reinforcing copyright laws like settle up special law enforcement units and training the law enforcement officers. Companies that depends on copyright protection does not paid more taxes than other companies which do not depends on such protections (and in a lot of cases, less taxes => think microsoft).
A simple solution would be that copyright protection should be provided freely for copyrightable works for a period of time based on the type of work. Once this period has elapsed, the copyright owner should have the options of extending his copyright for a cost. This will ensure that only owners of significant works with commerical values will be able to profit from the work and other works with less significant values will be released into the public domain. If the copyright owner does not want to exercise his right to extend the copyright, the creator of the work should have the option taking over the copyright in the case that the copyright owner and the creator of a work is not the same entity.
To ensure that the copyrighted period is limited, there should be a limit for the copyright extension period. In additional, the cost of extending the copyright should be significant to discourage the extension of copyright for medicore works and this cost should increase with the extension period.
To give an example of how this scheme could work, let consider one type of copyrightable work, music. The nature of these two type of works vary significantly. For music, the free copyright period should be longer, for example, 5 years. After 5 years, the recording company should have the option of whether to extend the copyright at a cost on a song by song basis. To extend the copyright of a song for an additional 5 years, the company would need to pay an upfront fees of say $25,000 (which should be adjusted for inflation). In addition, if at the end of the 5 years, the company needs to pay the differences between this sum and 10% of the profit derived from this song. The cost of the extension should increase as the length of extension increases. If the recording company does not want to extend the copyright, the artists should have the option of extending and thus owning the copyright. After 50 years, the extension of copyright would not be possible and the song would be relased into the public domain.
As there are different type of copyrightable works, each type of works should be handled differently. For example, the initially free copyright period for software should be shorter than for music, like say 3 years and every extension should be only 2 years for a maximum of 21 years.
Note: This is based on the laws in my place of residence. US contract laws should be similar.
Because of existing contract laws. At the point of making the point of "contract", which is when you buy the software, all the terms and conditions have to stated clearly. It is NOT legal to add additional conditions, like the EULA, after the contract had been made, i.e, the purchase had concluded. This is absolately fair if you think about it. For example, if you buy a car, and after you bought it, you see a notice at your steering wheel that state that only you can drive it and no one else. This is what the EULA does.
Secondly, unless in special cases, the contract is only between the buyer and the seller. That is, if you buy a product, the contract is only between you and the person selling you the product. No third party (except the existing laws of course) is able to affect the contract in any case. In this situation, the software company would be a third party and have no legal rights to add in any terms and conditions to the contract.
DAoC currently got normal and roleplay servers. Maybe they need another form of server where they can sell items to players for real money. That way, no sane people would buy from other players. That way, they can get more revenue too.
If Dmitry didn't commit the crime (and I hate to break it to you, but he did), then Dmitry can sue for libel.
Please state what crime did he commit? For being a programmer? From what I know, DMCA is not applicable in Russia. And from last I heard, Russia is not a part of US. And get this in your head, US is just one of the countries in the world where every country has their own sovereign power.
Well, I do used Linux to surf but seriously, it is impossible to surf certain sites without IE. On the other hand, I can do nearly all my desktop stuff in Linux. Except when I am forced into a certain situation that requires me to use only windows, i.e. sites that can be surfed only using IE. Anyway, let us TRY and be positive and not think of unfair practises of others. Let us take this opportunity to examine what more can still be done be make Linux is a better platform for web surfing. Let everybody do our part and let the ideas roll....
In fact software is the most natural monopoly, as the selfcost is practicly Development / No. of users. If there are two competitors they together have more development costs, but the same no. of customers, and thus higher selfcost.
I wonder which school of economics teaches you that. Your arguement sounds logical, only that you ignore the most fundamental aspect of natural monopoly. For natural monopoly to happen, the most basic criteria is that the cost of production of a good by two or more companies is much more than a single company to the extend of the companies not able to recover the cost of production. It is called NATURAL because if the cost of production is not recoupable, the companies will close down one by one until there is a single company left. As long as there are economic profits to be earned, regardless of development cost, there will always be new entries to the market and therefore the software market is not even a monopoly let alone a natural monopoly. Furthermore, software has different features that let them differentiate from their competitors. For example, in the OS market, UNIX and its variants are generally accepted as much more stable than windows. In a natural monopoly, the products from one company must be indistinguishable from the others. The software industry actually belongs to the market structure called monopolistic competition.
Anyway, if we follow your argument that natural monopolies comes around because having two competitors, the total cost of production for the services would be more than 1 single company producing the good, a lot of industries would be a natural monopoly. For example in the current CPU market, AMD and Intel produces CPUs that has the same functionality. However, there are two sets of significant hugh development costs which total amount would decrease if there is only 1 company. So the CPU industry a natural monopoly too?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is more likely that EJB is oversold by companies that are making EJB products. EJB is useful or even necessary for some applications. However, I would say that using EJB in most applications is not appropriate and could kill the applications faster and better than anything else. Another problem is that nowadays, the IT industry field is dominated by people who don't know anything about technology. A lot of people who I came into contact with does not understand what is EJB or J2EE. I am not saying that I understand it very well, but at least I will not use EJB as a de facto persistent technology like what a lot of other people did.
Anyone that design a system where the checksums are verified from a machine where the system get the software from need to be shot
"Uhmm, yeah, but what exactly would they need a backdoor for, if people already willingly allow an ActiveX component to run Windows update?"
A backdoor would allow them to update computers that does not run windows update. In case that you are unaware, I will tell you now that there are a considerable number of people who never run windows update nor run activex from the net. Surprisingly, most of the people I know who does that are people who had used windows for years.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
Where are all the data?
everything has to "Start" somewhere
If everything has to start somewhere, where do I press start to start the OS. Definitely not in the windows UI. Then if everything has to start somewhere, why not let the start button be the initial point of starting for every application. Having a common button where you can launch your applications are fine. But naming it as start is a bit misleading. While it make a bit of sense after some explanation, I would say that this is definitely not intuitive. Like it is definitely not intuitive that a progam called photoshop should be an image editing software. If you ask a layperson, he will probably think that it is a program where you are buy photos from.
I can find good software from both platform whose names does not indicate what the software does. The naming of a sofwatre is solely determine by its creator. What does it got to do as a platform?
"There is nothing worse than a programmer who can only use an IDE"
An IDE actually helps and speed up the learning process. I would see learning as a n attitude rather than anything else. With eclipse, I learned about String.split (ok. syntaxically wrong) while I would not have known if I have not take the time to go through the methods that the String class has. A lot of my peers who started from notepad are using StringTokenizer. By really going through what the String.split does, I learn about regular expression in java. My peers are also still using StringTokenizer.
There is a difference between Eclipse as an IDE and Eclipse as a rich client
You can stay online for a long time provided that you follow certain basic guidelines
(1) Have a NAT in front of the computer. That is the most important
(2) Do not install unknown programs. For very obvious reasons.
(3) Do not use IE. IE was the biggest headache previously. I always get spyware whenever I run it.
(4) Do not use Outlook. I prefer webbased email anyway since I have like only 7 computers between work and home.
Following all these, my windows xp sp2 machine had not been patch since... sp2? Of course I upgrade my firefox version time and again, but then it not due to those supposed vulnerabilities which I rate as low importance. I even go without enable my AVG virus scanner for long period of time. I only run it once in a while to make sure that my system are indeed virus free.
How much of these actually interest me? If I only need a small set of functionalities, why do m$ has to shove those useless (at least to me) features down my throat and have the audacity to make me paid for them? On top of that, from past experiences, there are *so many* potential exploit just by looking at the list of functions alone. If I have any complains about open source, it is now getting too bloated. I think OSS should focus on simplity and just provide a means to give advance users only what they actually need.
Management sees dishonesty in a different way.
- Straight forward lie => You are too stupid to belong to the company. You deserved to be sacked
- White lie => Depending on the situation, but if it turns out to be beneficial to me or the company, you are a great employee.
- Lying by Omission => Ok, everyone makes mistake once in a while, as long as the omission does not have negative impact to the company. You probably get the benefit of the doubt unless the management already want to get rid of you.
- Represent the fact in a different (usually positive) light => You will become management fav, as long as you are able to present things in a positive light.
- Truth => You are too honest and would probably will not go far. Your truth will probably hurt the management or company sometimes. Should be get rid of as soon as possible.
Such mature thoughts. I think Slashdot hencefore be known as "News for Kids. Stuff that does not matters"
while at Microsoft, it HAS to be reliable
You must be new to microsoft software.
I can answer this immediately. The answer is 42!
I guess it will beats Earth and Beyond flat.
I might be wrong but I am under the impression that exploits are different from vulnerabilities. I am in the opinion that vulnerabilities are possible weakness that crackers/whoever can use to crack into a system while exploits acts that make use of these weaknesses to access the system. There might be no known exploits for some vulnerabilities (especially those discovered through code scanning)?
But it seems that most people seems to equate exploits with vulnerabilities. Am I wrong or what?
I could not understand why the governments should reinforce copyright laws for FREE! Because of the simplicity that copyrighted works could be copied, governments would need to spend a large amount of money reinforcing copyright laws like settle up special law enforcement units and training the law enforcement officers. Companies that depends on copyright protection does not paid more taxes than other companies which do not depends on such protections (and in a lot of cases, less taxes => think microsoft).
A simple solution would be that copyright protection should be provided freely for copyrightable works for a period of time based on the type of work. Once this period has elapsed, the copyright owner should have the options of extending his copyright for a cost. This will ensure that only owners of significant works with commerical values will be able to profit from the work and other works with less significant values will be released into the public domain. If the copyright owner does not want to exercise his right to extend the copyright, the creator of the work should have the option taking over the copyright in the case that the copyright owner and the creator of a work is not the same entity.
To ensure that the copyrighted period is limited, there should be a limit for the copyright extension period. In additional, the cost of extending the copyright should be significant to discourage the extension of copyright for medicore works and this cost should increase with the extension period.
To give an example of how this scheme could work, let consider one type of copyrightable work, music. The nature of these two type of works vary significantly. For music, the free copyright period should be longer, for example, 5 years. After 5 years, the recording company should have the option of whether to extend the copyright at a cost on a song by song basis. To extend the copyright of a song for an additional 5 years, the company would need to pay an upfront fees of say $25,000 (which should be adjusted for inflation). In addition, if at the end of the 5 years, the company needs to pay the differences between this sum and 10% of the profit derived from this song. The cost of the extension should increase as the length of extension increases. If the recording company does not want to extend the copyright, the artists should have the option of extending and thus owning the copyright. After 50 years, the extension of copyright would not be possible and the song would be relased into the public domain.
As there are different type of copyrightable works, each type of works should be handled differently. For example, the initially free copyright period for software should be shorter than for music, like say 3 years and every extension should be only 2 years for a maximum of 21 years.
China does not want to invade Taiwan militarily. That's would be a stupid thing to do. All it needs is to "swallow" up taiwan economically.
Note: This is based on the laws in my place of residence. US contract laws should be similar.
Because of existing contract laws. At the point of making the point of "contract", which is when you buy the software, all the terms and conditions have to stated clearly. It is NOT legal to add additional conditions, like the EULA, after the contract had been made, i.e, the purchase had concluded. This is absolately fair if you think about it. For example, if you buy a car, and after you bought it, you see a notice at your steering wheel that state that only you can drive it and no one else. This is what the EULA does.
Secondly, unless in special cases, the contract is only between the buyer and the seller. That is, if you buy a product, the contract is only between you and the person selling you the product. No third party (except the existing laws of course) is able to affect the contract in any case. In this situation, the software company would be a third party and have no legal rights to add in any terms and conditions to the contract.
DAoC currently got normal and roleplay servers. Maybe they need another form of server where they can sell items to players for real money. That way, no sane people would buy from other players. That way, they can get more revenue too.
Let me see... when is the last time I install a program....
If Dmitry didn't commit the crime (and I hate to break it to you, but he did), then Dmitry can sue for libel.
Please state what crime did he commit? For being a programmer? From what I know, DMCA is not applicable in Russia. And from last I heard, Russia is not a part of US. And get this in your head, US is just one of the countries in the world where every country has their own sovereign power.
Now if only plugins installed automatically...
And make it easier for virus/worms writers out there?
Well, I do used Linux to surf but seriously, it is impossible to surf certain sites without IE. On the other hand, I can do nearly all my desktop stuff in Linux. Except when I am forced into a certain situation that requires me to use only windows, i.e. sites that can be surfed only using IE. Anyway, let us TRY and be positive and not think of unfair practises of others. Let us take this opportunity to examine what more can still be done be make Linux is a better platform for web surfing. Let everybody do our part and let the ideas roll....
In fact software is the most natural monopoly, as the selfcost is practicly Development / No. of users. If there are two competitors they together have more development costs, but the same no. of customers, and thus higher selfcost.
I wonder which school of economics teaches you that. Your arguement sounds logical, only that you ignore the most fundamental aspect of natural monopoly. For natural monopoly to happen, the most basic criteria is that the cost of production of a good by two or more companies is much more than a single company to the extend of the companies not able to recover the cost of production. It is called NATURAL because if the cost of production is not recoupable, the companies will close down one by one until there is a single company left. As long as there are economic profits to be earned, regardless of development cost, there will always be new entries to the market and therefore the software market is not even a monopoly let alone a natural monopoly. Furthermore, software has different features that let them differentiate from their competitors. For example, in the OS market, UNIX and its variants are generally accepted as much more stable than windows. In a natural monopoly, the products from one company must be indistinguishable from the others. The software industry actually belongs to the market structure called monopolistic competition.
Anyway, if we follow your argument that natural monopolies comes around because having two competitors, the total cost of production for the services would be more than 1 single company producing the good, a lot of industries would be a natural monopoly. For example in the current CPU market, AMD and Intel produces CPUs that has the same functionality. However, there are two sets of significant hugh development costs which total amount would decrease if there is only 1 company. So the CPU industry a natural monopoly too?