.NET (especially C#) is a clone of Java and the Java Virtual Machine (except limited to Windows-only). Some nice C# features have been added but mostly these have been ideas invented in more dynamic languages. This is business as usual as you point out elsewhere in your post.
Exactly. It shows how badly the people analyzing the worm would like it to tie it back to a super-secret Mossad operation. Talk about "confirmation bias"!
Gave ya +1 Insightful. But you might want to look at India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (PhD from Oxford) or Germany's Angela Merkel (PhD quantum chemistry). Both very smart and did/doing great jobs. Maybe it's only the US that can't get it right (too many corporate/miltary hands on the tiller?) or the fact that Jimmy Carter's degree wasn't even a PhD (I say that holding one, and in the spirit of "The Big Bang Theory").
Your knowledge of Java is clearly rather poor. Don't you know ASP is based on an equivalent technology Java had for ages called JSP? Don't you know things like Google Web Toolkit are vastly superior ways of delivering web content, although you can also use applets if you want (which are far richer in functionality than ASp, JSP, GWT but without the attendant security risks of ActiveX etc). Sorry bro, your post is so badly mis-informed I can't even be bothered to go further (clearly you have some kind of mouse-changer/registry-tweaker job at a hosting company for smaller sites, and have no enterprise-level developer experience to speak of). I'd recommend checking your facts before the next time you post so it's not so embarrasing.
> 1. Three: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X
I call BS here. Sure Mono can run on these but it's the *libraries* that matter. The.NET programs I wrote using C# wouldn't run off Windows since some of the Microsoft libraries didn't work right or weren't available on Mono. Good luck getting the general 'Windows' developer to use the Mono alternatives to the MS proprietary libraries. Java does not have this problem even if you feel it is technically inferior (it's not, which is why part of the original terms of using.NET is to not allow benchmarking vs Java).
Plus, there are a shitload more platforms out there than "Windows, Linux, Mac OS X". These are only relevant if you are a desktop-only developer (maybe you are, maybe you aren't, I certainly do a lot of desktop, non-desktop, and embedded work). If you are desktop dev only then C# seems sweet, but unlike Java it isn't a general solution.
> 2. Who gives a shit? We're talking about technical merit here, not who came to market earlier.
If technical merit was the only thing that mattered then Clojure is pretty good. Lisp with the portable goodness of the JVM and libraries. Lisp is clean and simple, rather than adding ad-hoc keywords all over the place like C# etc.
3. Please, there was ONE moderately critical vulnerability in ASP.NET. There are dozens upon dozens of broken Java web frameworks. Surely you don't want to imply that they never had security vulnerabilities?
With Java you at least have a choice. It is simple to chose a web library that doesn't suffer these problems. The Google Web Toolkit destroys ASP, although Microsoft tried to clone the tech with Project Volta they still haven't gotten anywhere. ASP is old-style development based on Java's JSP. Hardly leading-edge tech.
>4. I don't see how this is an advantage. I'm not aware of any language features "deprecated" in C# to date. Try LINQ, closures and reified generics, though. You might like it
Nifty little features for sure. Doesn't make a difference on a huge project (like the one I'm presently engaged on) that will run for decades. The reason you don't see the disadvantage of.NET tech is you are not calculating life-time cost of ownership and "cost to serve" or designing your projects for the very long term. That's why you can't understand how Java is better than.NET from a "strategic" point-of-view.
Don't get me wrong. I liked C# when I used it, and it is the least hideous of the Microsoft development technologies (it ought to be good, it was an extended clone of Java, via an intermediate language called 'Cool'). However, it is a limited solution (kind of, but not really portable in my experience, which is how MS like it) and not a general solution for a vast array of problems in a vast array of environments (I happy billed for work on Windows, Solaris, Linux, Mac OS X, HPUX, IRIX, OSF/1 Android, embedded - I like being able to do work for customers using all my Java investment no matter what they are running).
Except the Eclipse is mind-boggingly awful compared to NetBeans.
Sun did not die because they were bad at technology. They died 'cause they were lousy at business. Trying to buy stuff off them was plain hard, you had to wait for their sales guys - no online purchasing where I was (despite all their competitors doing it) which seems unbelievably retarded in this day and age. Their gear was awesome and priced competitively but waiting for humans was such a slow way of doing things they lost sales.
How many platforms does.NET run on? [answer: 1 - Windows]. If you customer is big (bank, government department, military etc) they simply aren't running their biggest systems on Windows and.NET is not even a contender.
What approximate percentage of the development market (projects, jobsm tools, conferences, books, etc) does C# have relative to Java? [answer: approx 25% according to Tiobe.com; even PHP is a more popular development tool than C#] http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
What development platform has had no epidemics of vulnerabilities when deployed to be the Internet? [Answer: Java; contrast the ASP.Net platform that is was discovered to be *very* badly remotely exploitable in the last few days so much that Microsoft had to issue an emergency out-of-band patch]
Which development platform is conservative adding features (not worrying about 'trendy' features that get deprecated on the next release) so that massive investments on code are not deprecated by the need of a vendor to sell you a new IDE version every two years? [Answer: Java, not.NET]
You can keep your shiny new features that affect 2% of your codebase and survive for two years before something replaces them. I'll stick to saving myself time, my customers money, all the while keeping their systems safe..NET is good for the desktop, it blows in the enterprise (fortunately most enterprise developers know this; only folks with less than a decade of enterprise development experience seem to be under the delusion.NET is a better strategic choice [although it certainly has tactical advantages, but only n00bs get excited about them]).
Agreed. I once was called into to clean up a 1 million dollar Nuclear Magnetic Resonance system (on IRIX) where the software developers had use RPC that ran as root but had no password. Needless to say it was taken over remotely.
I'm sure you're aware Java EE technologies are pretty secure in general. Sun were much better than Microsoft at security - even if Sun were much worse at business.
> Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'.
LOL. You are one paranoid fruitcake. Your rant proves my point about drugs (and their users).
How about you read this (obviously misinformation planted by the Greys out of Area 51, ha!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD
Rebellious youths with try whatever is available. Making marijuana acceptable means more who abstain now will try - with attendant consequences.
I know folks who are big on heroin etc now. They all stated they would never go past pot, but in truth it was the 'gateway' for them. While it sucks for the people that can indulge in a little pot from time to time overall I think making it illegal benefits wider society (although harshly punishing casual use does seem a bit extreme).
Ok, lt's imagine there are no gun laws, after all, "people are better at deciding for themselves". What do you end up with, the USA and its horrific statistics. Now, in most civilized countries (eg. not USA) firearms are permitted but strictly registered and controlled. Result? far fewer firearms deaths. The general populace can't usually be trusted with them except in exceptional cases (eg. Israel where everyone is trained in proper handling and an external threat keeps people focused on killing terrorists and not each other).
I agree with you that the extreme of totalitarianism is extremely bad (and is possibly what you had in mind). But a little bit of control in the interest of wider society is not the same thing.
The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)
Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.
You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.
Works for them tactically. Is a failure strategically as it defeats their image long-term (just ask the Americans about short-term goals undermining their global strategic aims). The Chinese appear incredibly untactful and heavy handed with their response - and the Japanese, American policy wonks, and much of the decision-makers in the rest of the world will sit up and take notice - even if the Chinese feel it is a 'victory' they a heavy price will be extracted later for such an insignificant issue. It is a shame as before this I felt the Chinese government was much smarter than this, now they seem rather clumsy.
I'm afraid the analogy you gave is wrong. The territory is "claimed by China" but "internationally recognized as belong to Japan". This is not the same situation you attempted to outline (seizing citizens on their sovereign territory is not the same as seizing someone else's citizens that are on your sovereign territory). That is why the Japanese had the legal power to do what they did. "Claiming" something is meaningless and doesn't make it yours until all the countries in the world agree with you.
Yes. China has recently claimed a large part of the South China Sea right up to the Exclusive Economic Zones of many of its neighbours (Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Philipines). Such claims are contra to the established territories and make those countries very nervous. The fishing boat was considered to be in Japanese territory (at least according to international rulings on the area). The Chinese may feel they have had a bad deal hstorically when the rulings were made, but unilaterally claiming territory currently internationally belonging to others doesn't make you many friends (eg. witness Russia annexing Abkhazia, which made sense to them but was massively counter-productive in the global scheme of things).
"Not to mention that Japan is militarily defenseless against China"
I suggest you check your facts (no really, please go and look up the JDF and reconsider your position). Japan has a reasonably large and strong military - although placed in a defensive posture. It is arguably far better trained, equipped, and led than the Chinese military. China could not simply walk-over Japan as you seem to think. It would be messy if they ever came to blows.
Yes, the Japanese military is arguably more powerful than the Chinese. The advantages of China are its manpower reserves and nuclear weapons. Japan has the advantage of better equipment and training and the US as its ally (arguably this also means the rest of the world are likely to favour or at least be neutral to the Japanese position). Japan could also easily match China in nuclear weapons if it felt so threatened. If Japan chose to embargo China by disrupting oil going to China (eg. naval detainment and inspections of all oil tankers destined for China) this could cause a lot of trouble for China and result in the worst outcome for everyone, which is social instability in China as workers would lose their jobs.
If China's goal is to show Japan who is boss they seem to have played a bad hand on this one.
For the Chinese the magic words are not "SS and Auschwitz" but "Unit 371 and Harbin". However, today the Chinese are being the aggressors - but only in an economic sense and it's not like they are the first to use the economic leverage they have. What is interesting is that fact that they're using those levers very early on in their ascendancy - which is making everyone else very nervous.
Usually courageous people like that get removed from office pretty quick. Also, his proprietary software opponents (vendors) will probably be very quick to pounce on any delays or missteps while systems transition to Open Source (while delays in proprietary software projects are quietly swept under the carpet due to 'commercial sensitivity'). I hope this guys pulls it off and levels the playing field - which should also save a lot of taxpayer pounds/dollars
Never thought I'd be posting this on Slashdot, but an unbelievable move for good by Microsoft. It's good to see them take a stand against repression. Now, I hope these same ethics get cemented in all their business processes.
Slashdot Mirror
.NET (especially C#) is a clone of Java and the Java Virtual Machine (except limited to Windows-only). Some nice C# features have been added but mostly these have been ideas invented in more dynamic languages. This is business as usual as you point out elsewhere in your post.
I guess most Western folks don't know that the Arabs and Persians are different and are strong rivals, not allies.
Exactly. It shows how badly the people analyzing the worm would like it to tie it back to a super-secret Mossad operation. Talk about "confirmation bias"!
Gave ya +1 Insightful. But you might want to look at India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (PhD from Oxford) or Germany's Angela Merkel (PhD quantum chemistry). Both very smart and did/doing great jobs. Maybe it's only the US that can't get it right (too many corporate/miltary hands on the tiller?) or the fact that Jimmy Carter's degree wasn't even a PhD (I say that holding one, and in the spirit of "The Big Bang Theory").
Your knowledge of Java is clearly rather poor. Don't you know ASP is based on an equivalent technology Java had for ages called JSP? Don't you know things like Google Web Toolkit are vastly superior ways of delivering web content, although you can also use applets if you want (which are far richer in functionality than ASp, JSP, GWT but without the attendant security risks of ActiveX etc). Sorry bro, your post is so badly mis-informed I can't even be bothered to go further (clearly you have some kind of mouse-changer/registry-tweaker job at a hosting company for smaller sites, and have no enterprise-level developer experience to speak of). I'd recommend checking your facts before the next time you post so it's not so embarrasing.
> 1. Three: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X .NET programs I wrote using C# wouldn't run off Windows since some of the Microsoft libraries didn't work right or weren't available on Mono. Good luck getting the general 'Windows' developer to use the Mono alternatives to the MS proprietary libraries. Java does not have this problem even if you feel it is technically inferior (it's not, which is why part of the original terms of using .NET is to not allow benchmarking vs Java).
.NET tech is you are not calculating life-time cost of ownership and "cost to serve" or designing your projects for the very long term. That's why you can't understand how Java is better than .NET from a "strategic" point-of-view.
I call BS here. Sure Mono can run on these but it's the *libraries* that matter. The
Plus, there are a shitload more platforms out there than "Windows, Linux, Mac OS X". These are only relevant if you are a desktop-only developer (maybe you are, maybe you aren't, I certainly do a lot of desktop, non-desktop, and embedded work). If you are desktop dev only then C# seems sweet, but unlike Java it isn't a general solution.
> 2. Who gives a shit? We're talking about technical merit here, not who came to market earlier.
If technical merit was the only thing that mattered then Clojure is pretty good. Lisp with the portable goodness of the JVM and libraries. Lisp is clean and simple, rather than adding ad-hoc keywords all over the place like C# etc.
3. Please, there was ONE moderately critical vulnerability in ASP.NET. There are dozens upon dozens of broken Java web frameworks. Surely you don't want to imply that they never had security vulnerabilities?
With Java you at least have a choice. It is simple to chose a web library that doesn't suffer these problems. The Google Web Toolkit destroys ASP, although Microsoft tried to clone the tech with Project Volta they still haven't gotten anywhere. ASP is old-style development based on Java's JSP. Hardly leading-edge tech.
>4. I don't see how this is an advantage. I'm not aware of any language features "deprecated" in C# to date. Try LINQ, closures and reified generics, though. You might like it
Nifty little features for sure. Doesn't make a difference on a huge project (like the one I'm presently engaged on) that will run for decades. The reason you don't see the disadvantage of
Don't get me wrong. I liked C# when I used it, and it is the least hideous of the Microsoft development technologies (it ought to be good, it was an extended clone of Java, via an intermediate language called 'Cool'). However, it is a limited solution (kind of, but not really portable in my experience, which is how MS like it) and not a general solution for a vast array of problems in a vast array of environments (I happy billed for work on Windows, Solaris, Linux, Mac OS X, HPUX, IRIX, OSF/1 Android, embedded - I like being able to do work for customers using all my Java investment no matter what they are running).
Except the Eclipse is mind-boggingly awful compared to NetBeans.
Sun did not die because they were bad at technology. They died 'cause they were lousy at business. Trying to buy stuff off them was plain hard, you had to wait for their sales guys - no online purchasing where I was (despite all their competitors doing it) which seems unbelievably retarded in this day and age. Their gear was awesome and priced competitively but waiting for humans was such a slow way of doing things they lost sales.
So far ahead?
.NET run on? [answer: 1 - Windows]. If you customer is big (bank, government department, military etc) they simply aren't running their biggest systems on Windows and .NET is not even a contender.
.NET]
.NET is good for the desktop, it blows in the enterprise (fortunately most enterprise developers know this; only folks with less than a decade of enterprise development experience seem to be under the delusion .NET is a better strategic choice [although it certainly has tactical advantages, but only n00bs get excited about them]).
How many platforms does
What approximate percentage of the development market (projects, jobsm tools, conferences, books, etc) does C# have relative to Java? [answer: approx 25% according to Tiobe.com; even PHP is a more popular development tool than C#]
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
What development platform has had no epidemics of vulnerabilities when deployed to be the Internet? [Answer: Java; contrast the ASP.Net platform that is was discovered to be *very* badly remotely exploitable in the last few days so much that Microsoft had to issue an emergency out-of-band patch]
Which development platform is conservative adding features (not worrying about 'trendy' features that get deprecated on the next release) so that massive investments on code are not deprecated by the need of a vendor to sell you a new IDE version every two years? [Answer: Java, not
You can keep your shiny new features that affect 2% of your codebase and survive for two years before something replaces them. I'll stick to saving myself time, my customers money, all the while keeping their systems safe.
Agreed. I once was called into to clean up a 1 million dollar Nuclear Magnetic Resonance system (on IRIX) where the software developers had use RPC that ran as root but had no password. Needless to say it was taken over remotely.
I'm sure you're aware Java EE technologies are pretty secure in general. Sun were much better than Microsoft at security - even if Sun were much worse at business.
How exactly will you distinguish between crimes committed under the influence vs. those not? Mandatory blood samples from every arrested person?
Far too totalitarian and far to expensive to implement. That is why banning is used (even if non-ideal). Simpler and cheaper.
> Drugs were originally prohibited as a tool to control Americans and immigrants of black and mexican persuasion. It than grew into a form of direct control of the population and a great source of funds for the enforcement/detainment industry and government 'Black Ops'. LOL. You are one paranoid fruitcake. Your rant proves my point about drugs (and their users). How about you read this (obviously misinformation planted by the Greys out of Area 51, ha!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD
Rebellious youths with try whatever is available. Making marijuana acceptable means more who abstain now will try - with attendant consequences.
I know folks who are big on heroin etc now. They all stated they would never go past pot, but in truth it was the 'gateway' for them. While it sucks for the people that can indulge in a little pot from time to time overall I think making it illegal benefits wider society (although harshly punishing casual use does seem a bit extreme).
Ok, lt's imagine there are no gun laws, after all, "people are better at deciding for themselves". What do you end up with, the USA and its horrific statistics. Now, in most civilized countries (eg. not USA) firearms are permitted but strictly registered and controlled. Result? far fewer firearms deaths. The general populace can't usually be trusted with them except in exceptional cases (eg. Israel where everyone is trained in proper handling and an external threat keeps people focused on killing terrorists and not each other).
I agree with you that the extreme of totalitarianism is extremely bad (and is possibly what you had in mind). But a little bit of control in the interest of wider society is not the same thing.
The reason drugs are prohibited is because they destroy people physically and mentally.Check the medical research on the subject ('research' I said - not the 'opinion' of some doctors)
Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction. However, my understanding is it can lead to psychosis - sure it doesn't do it to everyone but the people it does it to have permanent mental damage. Even 'harmless' marijuana has psychological effects after prolonged use that outweigh the benefits.
You may already know this stuff, but many proponents of drugs don't. Personally I wouldn't care if people use drugs if it didn't damage themselves so much (and consequently you get methheads and people wasted on P doing all sorts of bad stuff - even worse than drunk driving). If people could be trusted to take recreational drugs responsibly (infrequent low doses, over 18 etc) then it'd be fine - problem is, most people suck at judging these things (hell, most people shouldn't be trusted with a cheque book or credit card) so the Nanny State has to make a blanket ruling to compensate for the suckage of the General Populace.
Works for them tactically. Is a failure strategically as it defeats their image long-term (just ask the Americans about short-term goals undermining their global strategic aims). The Chinese appear incredibly untactful and heavy handed with their response - and the Japanese, American policy wonks, and much of the decision-makers in the rest of the world will sit up and take notice - even if the Chinese feel it is a 'victory' they a heavy price will be extracted later for such an insignificant issue. It is a shame as before this I felt the Chinese government was much smarter than this, now they seem rather clumsy.
I'm afraid the analogy you gave is wrong. The territory is "claimed by China" but "internationally recognized as belong to Japan". This is not the same situation you attempted to outline (seizing citizens on their sovereign territory is not the same as seizing someone else's citizens that are on your sovereign territory). That is why the Japanese had the legal power to do what they did. "Claiming" something is meaningless and doesn't make it yours until all the countries in the world agree with you.
Yes. China has recently claimed a large part of the South China Sea right up to the Exclusive Economic Zones of many of its neighbours (Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Philipines). Such claims are contra to the established territories and make those countries very nervous. The fishing boat was considered to be in Japanese territory (at least according to international rulings on the area). The Chinese may feel they have had a bad deal hstorically when the rulings were made, but unilaterally claiming territory currently internationally belonging to others doesn't make you many friends (eg. witness Russia annexing Abkhazia, which made sense to them but was massively counter-productive in the global scheme of things).
"Not to mention that Japan is militarily defenseless against China" I suggest you check your facts (no really, please go and look up the JDF and reconsider your position). Japan has a reasonably large and strong military - although placed in a defensive posture. It is arguably far better trained, equipped, and led than the Chinese military. China could not simply walk-over Japan as you seem to think. It would be messy if they ever came to blows.
Yes, the Japanese military is arguably more powerful than the Chinese. The advantages of China are its manpower reserves and nuclear weapons. Japan has the advantage of better equipment and training and the US as its ally (arguably this also means the rest of the world are likely to favour or at least be neutral to the Japanese position). Japan could also easily match China in nuclear weapons if it felt so threatened. If Japan chose to embargo China by disrupting oil going to China (eg. naval detainment and inspections of all oil tankers destined for China) this could cause a lot of trouble for China and result in the worst outcome for everyone, which is social instability in China as workers would lose their jobs.
If China's goal is to show Japan who is boss they seem to have played a bad hand on this one.
For the Chinese the magic words are not "SS and Auschwitz" but "Unit 371 and Harbin". However, today the Chinese are being the aggressors - but only in an economic sense and it's not like they are the first to use the economic leverage they have. What is interesting is that fact that they're using those levers very early on in their ascendancy - which is making everyone else very nervous.
Usually courageous people like that get removed from office pretty quick. Also, his proprietary software opponents (vendors) will probably be very quick to pounce on any delays or missteps while systems transition to Open Source (while delays in proprietary software projects are quietly swept under the carpet due to 'commercial sensitivity'). I hope this guys pulls it off and levels the playing field - which should also save a lot of taxpayer pounds/dollars
Mainstream gamers shy away from complex combat flight simulators but the DCS series by Eagle Dynamics is really coming along.
Check out these youtube clips of the high-fidelity modeling of the Ka-50 BlackShark and the imminent A-10C. Plus the medium-fidelity (easier to play) LockOn. Some of the newer aspects of these games were simply not possible with computers five years ago. The state of the art in flight simulators is moving forward at a rapid pace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUu4SV3GjVw&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rev-rn-1r-12-HM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXx_oDKCICg&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rev-rn-1r-9-HM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm8NIBjTDvs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV35B-vfT4U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/wagmatt#p/a/u/1/_MDnglKtcSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK3TDx-QQpY
There there is 1C's successor to IL-2 Sturmovik called Storm of War: Battle of Britain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlk99ENutw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMFFQGryWhk
Enjoy the (free) videos. Combat flight simming is fun!
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Eagle Dynamics or 1C (both based in Russia!), but do enjoy their simulators.
Awesome.
... reminds me a a great Gary Larson cartoon from a while back:
1) Video games.
2) Heightened sensitivity to surroundings and quick accurate decisions.
3) ???
4) Profit!
But wait! there's more
http://gamerinvestments.com/video-game-stocks/index.php/2010/04/20/gary-larson-predicted-the-future-of-video-game-employment/
Never thought I'd be posting this on Slashdot, but an unbelievable move for good by Microsoft. It's good to see them take a stand against repression. Now, I hope these same ethics get cemented in all their business processes.