Nowhere have I been proven wrong. My point was that Java combined the strengths of these languages with performance.
You're so dishonest. I said your argument was invalid, which it was. You said these "safe languages" didn't exist before Java, but that is patently wrong. By all means, keep being disingeuous and changing what you've said retroactively.
Yeah - single click downloads. Big deal.
Only in windows, retard. Have you installed it on anything other than windows? The fact that you think it's about clicking doesn't bode well for you.
Well, BSD are going to ship Java.
Speak proper English; you're not making sense. Java is available for *BSD, but it's a pain to set up. If you want to run java servlets, it's even more painful. Why don't you limit your comments to things you ahve experience with; it's obvious that you have none beyond the pointing and clicking of windows.
I agree with you there - but they aren't Java - that is the point of certification.
Yes, this is what happens you rely on a closed standard like Java.
Yes, but that does still now allow binary portability, or remove the problems of pointer errors, does it?
Keep moving the goal posts and adding extra criteria. We already discussed that 'binary portability' was something you tacked on after you were losing. I've already discussed how it doesn't matter and that Java isn't portable to embedded systems anyway. Oh I love how you insert "pointer errors," which makes me think you're just inexperienced and don't understand pointers. That's ok, most amateur programmers struggle with them.
Please point out a single way in which my argument was invalid. I never said that these were unique memory management features.
Here's a quote from you, liar: "Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management, and no-one with any experience of modern Java runtimes would state that there is a performance price."
That is clearly invalid since there are languages which use automated memory management.
My point was that Java has provided them for mass use. Try and point to millions of developers using Lisp or Smalltalk.
Keep moving those goal posts! What the hell does "mass use" mean? LISP has been around since the 60s. Unlike with Java, Lisp is from an open standard and can be compiled with open source compilers. Any idiot and his grandmother can easily download LISP and this was true before Java existed.
Also, it seems that you're committing another logical fallacy. "Try and point to the millions of developers..." Thats an argument from popularity... "I'm right because it's popular." Guess what, bucko: c/c++ beats the pants off of Java in terms of popularity. If only we could reverse the rules of logic and make "it's good because it's popular" arguments. That way we'd have Windows as the #1 supreme desktop operating system.
No, actually. It is in the microbenchmarks that Java does not show performance. It is generally in substantial programs that run for reasonable lengths of time that Java picks up speed, due to the heavy run-time optimisation.
Right, I bow to your speculation! If you say it, it must be true! By all means, ignore benchmarks. You should check them by the way, Java only comes close in the most trivial benchmarks.
No, they really haven't. Please name a single alternative language that was OOP, garbage collected, binary cross-platform, and high performance and was available from multiple vendors.
He moves the goal posts again, amazing! I like how you slipped "binary cross-platform" in there. I can add arbitrary features too: "Java sucks...after all it doesn't provide functional programming features which resemble lambada calculus." Java loses! Nevermind that you need to use platform specific packaging to install it anyway.
Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.
So failing to find a flaw in his point, you just point out that one of his listed examples was out of place? You can conveniently ignore the very ancient LISP if you like, but it doesn't help your argument. His point was that the oh-so-special memory management features have existed for a long time, so your "for example" statement is just a red herring to distract away from the fact that you've been proven wrong.
Oh yeah and garbage collection has been available for C for a long time.
After that argument failed, you disingenuously "moved the goal posts," so to speak. Your original argument was about these supposedly great and unique memory management features, now you're adding on other constraints retroactively. Learn to be a good sport and admit when your argument is invalid.
Furthermore, you keep on towing that old line "but java is just as fast...really...trust me...I say so! Look, I have a few microbenchmarks (ignore the others) that showing it perform almost as good!"
Java contribution is huge, in that it took what these other (excellent) languages offered and finally packed it together into a single system that was practical.
People who are wrong tend to use vague speech like this. What is it that it packed together? A less functional version of C++? If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree. They were so backwards, that it took them many years and a lot of persuasian to get any equivalent to templates added. 1.5 isn't even prevalent enough to safely expect it to deploy on the majority of machines.
I expect an argument where you fall back to the API, which is nothing more than an library issue. *yawn*
None of these languages combined high performance, multi-vendor support for the same dialect, good performance and cross-platform portability at the binary level (and with a cross-platform gui) and also being free (as in beer).
Java isn't high performance. And quite frankly, you're full of shit. When was the last time you even tried using a LISP compiler? I like how you've also moved the goal posts here from "portability" to "portability at the binary level." BWAHAHAHA. You lost that one, so you're changing your argument.
And free as in beer? Funny how you didn't say "free as in free speech," because that's what LISP has been for along time. FYI: it's not a good idea to brag about how Java is such a closed standard.
Let's face it, no one gives two shits about "binary compatability." That's only matters to a) java sycophants and b) client-side web apps. The rest of the world doesn't care, because they can get all that portability (including GUI portability) WITHOUT the need for PITA java.
(By the way, Java's GUI support is a joke, both programmatically and in terms of performance.)
Oh yeah, did I mention that java isn't really portable? You lied in your response. Java for embedded and pervasive systems isn't is JavaME. It's a very tiny, broken subset of the standard. You're *lucky* if it runs on mroe than one embedded platform. This is from someone who has actually programmed embedded system. Apart from assembly/machine code, C is the most widely available language, hence why it's the choice for embedded systems.
I had been waiting for a language like that for literally decades.
I hope you're just lying, because your criteria has been met for decades. Idiot.
As a past C/C++ developer, I had to deal with such issues all the time.
Translation: you write horrible code. Endian issues are trivially easy to deal with, as any network programmer will tell you. THere are standard functions for dealing with exactly that, how convenient! Java has them too, because it's necessary to communicate with standard internet protocols.
Writing truly portable binary data formats with C or C++ (or other widely used languages such as Pascal or Fortran)
You sir, are an idiot. Almost all DOS viruses and most Windows viruses require you to manually execute the infected program to spread it. So I guess 99% of what has been called 'viruses' are just trojans, according to your "expert" opinion. Remember the Melissa virus? That required you to manually run the e-mail attachment. These kinds of viruses are VERY COMMMON.
1. Please find me a reputable definition of a virus that says it can't require you to enter a password. 2. Please find me a reputable definition of a virus that says you can't manually run it.
Virus: A program that infects other programs in order to spread. Worm: A program that spreads itself over an internet connection. Some definitions require it to directly open an internet connection (use sockets) rather than piggy backing on some other service. Trojan: Malicious program disguised as a legitimate one. Does not spread.
In the case of the recent OS X malware, it was both a worm and a virus. It attempts to infect local executables. It also attempts to send itself via iChat.
I wish Apple apologists doing damage control after a bonafide virus/worm has shown up for their platform. Just admit your error. Please, mod the other posts down into oblivion. I'm sick of them saying that "it's not a virus" when it fits the DE FACTO standard definitions that hackers, security experts and virus writers use.
Uh, did you read what you just pasted? They just stated the pulses were up to 10 Watts. That's where my 10 watts came from. Again, what kind of crack are you smoking?
The researchers admit that their sample size for that study is small. And it's not a matter of whether or not it's been challenged; that's not how science works. Science is skeptical by nature, not gullible. As of 2003, there has not been a single reproduction of that experiment. Reproduction is a basic requirement for results like that to be considered valid in this amazing thing called science.
There are OSS tools that let you read/write MS Word files, what's your point? Yes, they have documented PDF to an extent, but what about all the crap they keep tacking on? Where's the DRM documentation? What about all the other 7.x additions (along with full scripting crap)?
I'll note that I've used the OSS tools. Just now I tried converting the latest official spec for PDF to another format with an OSS tool, they were all giving errors that they couldn't recognize certain parts of it. Sounds a lot like.doc.
So where's the latest speficiation for the 7.0 format? Where's their documentation on how to implement the DRM of features? Oh yeah! Someone had to reverse engineer those.
I think you need to emphasize a bit more how much XPCOM destroys the "rapid" aspect. XPCOM is one of the ugliest, most hacked-together APIs I've seen. Worse than the Windows API you criticize. What is Windows "Visual" code anyway?
Your original post suggested that more regulation caused a decrease in crime.
Nope, quote me where I did that.
If I was implying a causal connection, you were doing the same to a greater degree.
Nice backpedal.
And this: "DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty." is clearly suggesting causation. Pot, kettle.
Of course it's causation, but it's well established that poverty causes increased crime rates so I'm pretty damn safe there.
You didn't argue against the part of the OP that suggested that regulation had been increasing, but you did point out one thing that is getting better.
No, I argued that if America was an example of regulation (i.e. there is an increase in regulation now) causing an increase in crime, then the reduction of crime would contradict his point.
The only reasonable conclusion is that you think that you believe that increased regulation has made things better (or left them the same).
Oh false dichotommies, how do I love thee. I was operating on his assumption that there was an increase in regulation to show that if that were true, then evidence would suggest a reduction.
I had to assume sarcasm, so that you (probably) had changed your mind about regulation increasing, but that you hadn't changed you mind about the relationship between regulation and things getting better/worse.
I was being sarcastic. Since you don't actually know my stance on the issue, it's bad to assume what I think the relationship was.
Either you're messing with me or your writing style is so ambiguous that I can't divine your meaning. If you want to continue this, why don't you just restate your original point in full, rather than using vage implications.
My original point is that "America is a perfect example of this" is incorrect. This does not necessitate me presenting my stance on the issue of whether or not regulation increases crime. It necessitates me pointing out the evidence surrounding America not actually supporting his point.
I'll ignore the fact that I was mirroring your fallacies in order to make a point, but mocking you for missing that would be too easy.
People generally say this when they've lost an argument and can't couldn't argue their way out of it if their life depended on it. I'm still waiting for evidence of the OP's claim that "America is the perfect example"; none has been provided.
I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of possible reasons for things getting better/worse other than changes in the legal system.
Wow, really?! That's why you didn't do that at all, but instead implied a causal effect? You are only reinforcing my original point, which was that the OP had nothing in terms of valid evidence to substantiate his point.
Besides it's too much fun to laugh at your inability to make a consistant argument: first it's getting better because of increased regulation, then it's getting worse because of decreased regulation.
Find where I said either of those, then you get a cookie.
This is a textbook example of rationlization - change the facts to fit a pet theory.
The court stated in its opinion "A BUSINESS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON PRIMARILY FOR THE PROFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS"
You missed 'primarily' (NOTE:not exclusively) there. By your own evidence, you are wrong. You also missed that it's an opinion of the court and not part of what Ford was ruled to do. In addition to that, you missed the part of this not being a similar type of case. Where's the precedent regarding interference with foreign law?
And do you honestly think that GOOG investors tend to be pro-censorship? They exist to serve their shareholders and if their vast majority shareholders are okay with their actions, then the ones suing will be laughed out of court.
The existence of corporations which donate heavily to charities contradicts your hypothesis. It is important to note that such corporations exist as they do because that's what their investors WANT.
Stop moving the goalposts, you're wrong, take the opportunity to learn something.
I'll admit that I'm wrong when I actually am. Maybe you should stop moving the goal posts. I asked for precedent for similar cases; you failed to provide it. It was more of a trick question anyway, as no precedent exists for a case like this. What's funny is that you'ved only provided evidence to strengthen my own case.
Nice try; not comparable. That's about paying special dividends on a surplus they had because they were going against the will of the shareholders. The judge did not decided that Ford must forever maximize profits or any such thing and this doesn't deal with matters of intervention with foreign law.
1. No I wouldn't, because he said nothing to indicate that. 2. I seriously doubt that, because it would double the amount of irrationality needed to make that comparison. You need to both ignore what happened to you and to be able to make a ridiculous comparison involving the traumatizing thing that happened to you. 3. Really old people tend not to use Slashdot. He'd be well over 70. 4. What you're engaging in is ad hominem. I suggest that you look up that term to find out what it actually means before complaining to me that it's not. 5. Again, the irrationality thing.
Show precedent for a case like this. None of the laws actually say they have to actually "maximize profits," just that they have to make money and act in the best interest of the shareholders. You can make money AND be ethical at the same time.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
Right, through their anti-capitalistic measures they are trying to regulate business. If the businesses had their way, they'd overturn those censorship laws. And of course, gassing Jews is totally like choosing to provide a limited earch engine. FUCKING MORON.
Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes
True, being forced to choose between doing a disservice by not providing them with a great search engine AT ALL or providing it in a limited capacity is totally qualitatively similar to turning over information that could get people arrested and murdered.
Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Just as it always been, Slashdot is the bastion of stupidity and the typical psychology Godwin's law rings true.
Why isn't there a MOD (-1 million, Retarded) option? Seriously, the burning anti-American hatred and piss poor analogies get moderated up so easily despite being devoid of reason.
"Wow, a search engine censored their results somewhere...that's like killing Jews in gas chambers!"
Offensive. Trvializing of serious crimes. Racist. Retarded. A+ Slashdot.
Concealed gun permits, older population, higher abortion rates, take your pick. The point is that every one of those is a result of less regulation of people's lives.
Amazing, so America is regulating things less then? Interesting. I change my mind, you're right; America IS the perfect example of how more regulations make things worse given how it's constantly regulating things less. Perfect case study.
I'm ignoring your little causation fallacy, of course.
If you want to see a re results of a highly regulated society, look at DC's crime rates.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty.
Yes, we have. Less regulation is more freedom.
Yes and this is why I changed my view to support yours that America is the perfect case for this, given how regulating things less shows exactly how bad regulating things more does. Because, you know, regulating more is actually the same as regulating less.
Other browsers warn too, though not for compressed files, but that means this isn't an OS X virus or trojan but a user-run program.
Wrong. DO NOT SPEAK IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERMS 'VIRUS' AND 'TROJAN' MEAN. My comment here refutes all of these ridiculous allegations. Most windows worms/viruses require the user to initially run it. That doesn't change the fact that it tries to infect applications (virus) and spread itself via the internet (worm).
A program written "inside of the user's space" as you put it wouldn't have much to do and wouldn't propagate
Aside from spread! It has full internet access, moron. It can reek havoc on all of your work (which is stored with user privileges). PLUS, because this is a wetware flaw, it obivously works on ignorance of usrs, thus requiring the user to do a routine aciton of entering a password is meaningless. They'll type in the password just like u sers blindly click through windows. Of course, it's not even necessary.
I can't believe they updated to say it wasn't one. A virus is just a program that infects other files with itself. A worm is a program that spreads itself using internt connections directly. This program does both of those. Just because it requires the user to run it, doesn't mean it isn't one.
I'm sick of people who don't know what these terms mean flashing them around. It's a trojan if it doesn't try to spread itself, this does.
Most windows viruses/worms require the user to execute it manually. In fact, that's 99% of DOS viruses, are you saying most past viruses are just trojans? How do you think those spread? Someone inserts a disk with an infected program, runs it and it injects itself into other programs on the computer. Those other programs are then spread MANUALLY by the user not knowing that they're infected.
REQUIRING IT TO BE MANUALLY RUN INITIALLY doesn't make it just a trojan.
McAfee and Sophos have both classified this as a worm/virus. STOP BEING MORONS. It's funny that even the people who read the analysis still managed to talk out of their ass about this and deem it just a trojan.
Don't be a hypocrite. They've been whining about implementing this functionality for windows forever. I'm not even talking about proper sandboxing/privilege separation (restricted to running as the current user isn't sufficient since that's all you need to spread and cause havoc--plus most users blindly type in prompts).
I'm talking about how Outlook Express, years ago, disabled the ability to run executables from e-mails by default. IT EXPLICITS WARNS YOU. In fact, MSIE and other windows programs have added big warning windows saying stuff like 'this is an executable, it may be harmful, blah blah blah blah.' It prevents the users from doing it by default. It's trivial to add a warning for this and enable it by default. Hello, with the right policy settings on the computer, you can just flat out prevent the user from doing it (ideal for computers at an organization). Just because it's a wetware vulnerability doesn't mean you can't compensate for it.
Don't generalize about the "windows scenario." There are far more virus/trojans of the form.jpg.exe than actual jpegs that use a buffer overflow. This uses a simple and dumb wetware vulnerability that is extremely common for windows viruses/trojans.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere have I been proven wrong. My point was that Java combined the strengths of these languages with performance.
You're so dishonest. I said your argument was invalid, which it was. You said these "safe languages" didn't exist before Java, but that is patently wrong. By all means, keep being disingeuous and changing what you've said retroactively.
Yeah - single click downloads. Big deal.
Only in windows, retard. Have you installed it on anything other than windows? The fact that you think it's about clicking doesn't bode well for you.
Well, BSD are going to ship Java.
Speak proper English; you're not making sense. Java is available for *BSD, but it's a pain to set up. If you want to run java servlets, it's even more painful. Why don't you limit your comments to things you ahve experience with; it's obvious that you have none beyond the pointing and clicking of windows.
I agree with you there - but they aren't Java - that is the point of certification.
Yes, this is what happens you rely on a closed standard like Java.
Yes, but that does still now allow binary portability, or remove the problems of pointer errors, does it?
Keep moving the goal posts and adding extra criteria. We already discussed that 'binary portability' was something you tacked on after you were losing. I've already discussed how it doesn't matter and that Java isn't portable to embedded systems anyway. Oh I love how you insert "pointer errors," which makes me think you're just inexperienced and don't understand pointers. That's ok, most amateur programmers struggle with them.
Please point out a single way in which my argument was invalid. I never said that these were unique memory management features.
Here's a quote from you, liar: "Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management, and no-one with any experience of modern Java runtimes would state that there is a performance price."
That is clearly invalid since there are languages which use automated memory management.
My point was that Java has provided them for mass use. Try and point to millions of developers using Lisp or Smalltalk.
Keep moving those goal posts! What the hell does "mass use" mean? LISP has been around since the 60s. Unlike with Java, Lisp is from an open standard and can be compiled with open source compilers. Any idiot and his grandmother can easily download LISP and this was true before Java existed.
Also, it seems that you're committing another logical fallacy. "Try and point to the millions of developers..." Thats an argument from popularity... "I'm right because it's popular." Guess what, bucko: c/c++ beats the pants off of Java in terms of popularity. If only we could reverse the rules of logic and make "it's good because it's popular" arguments. That way we'd have Windows as the #1 supreme desktop operating system.
No, actually. It is in the microbenchmarks that Java does not show performance. It is generally in substantial programs that run for reasonable lengths of time that Java picks up speed, due to the heavy run-time optimisation.
Right, I bow to your speculation! If you say it, it must be true! By all means, ignore benchmarks. You should check them by the way, Java only comes close in the most trivial benchmarks.
No, they really haven't. Please name a single alternative language that was OOP, garbage collected, binary cross-platform, and high performance and was available from multiple vendors.
He moves the goal posts again, amazing! I like how you slipped "binary cross-platform" in there. I can add arbitrary features too: "Java sucks...after all it doesn't provide functional programming features which resemble lambada calculus." Java loses! Nevermind that you need to use platform specific packaging to install it anyway.
The only one Java doesn't meet is b
Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.
So failing to find a flaw in his point, you just point out that one of his listed examples was out of place? You can conveniently ignore the very ancient LISP if you like, but it doesn't help your argument. His point was that the oh-so-special memory management features have existed for a long time, so your "for example" statement is just a red herring to distract away from the fact that you've been proven wrong.
Oh yeah and garbage collection has been available for C for a long time.
After that argument failed, you disingenuously "moved the goal posts," so to speak. Your original argument was about these supposedly great and unique memory management features, now you're adding on other constraints retroactively. Learn to be a good sport and admit when your argument is invalid.
Furthermore, you keep on towing that old line "but java is just as fast...really...trust me...I say so! Look, I have a few microbenchmarks (ignore the others) that showing it perform almost as good!"
Java contribution is huge, in that it took what these other (excellent) languages offered and finally packed it together into a single system that was practical.
People who are wrong tend to use vague speech like this. What is it that it packed together? A less functional version of C++? If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree. They were so backwards, that it took them many years and a lot of persuasian to get any equivalent to templates added. 1.5 isn't even prevalent enough to safely expect it to deploy on the majority of machines.
I expect an argument where you fall back to the API, which is nothing more than an library issue. *yawn*
None of these languages combined high performance, multi-vendor support for the same dialect, good performance and cross-platform portability at the binary level (and with a cross-platform gui) and also being free (as in beer).
Java isn't high performance. And quite frankly, you're full of shit. When was the last time you even tried using a LISP compiler? I like how you've also moved the goal posts here from "portability" to "portability at the binary level." BWAHAHAHA. You lost that one, so you're changing your argument.
And free as in beer? Funny how you didn't say "free as in free speech," because that's what LISP has been for along time. FYI: it's not a good idea to brag about how Java is such a closed standard.
Let's face it, no one gives two shits about "binary compatability." That's only matters to a) java sycophants and b) client-side web apps. The rest of the world doesn't care, because they can get all that portability (including GUI portability) WITHOUT the need for PITA java.
(By the way, Java's GUI support is a joke, both programmatically and in terms of performance.)
Oh yeah, did I mention that java isn't really portable? You lied in your response. Java for embedded and pervasive systems isn't is JavaME. It's a very tiny, broken subset of the standard. You're *lucky* if it runs on mroe than one embedded platform. This is from someone who has actually programmed embedded system. Apart from assembly/machine code, C is the most widely available language, hence why it's the choice for embedded systems.
I had been waiting for a language like that for literally decades.
I hope you're just lying, because your criteria has been met for decades. Idiot.
As a past C/C++ developer, I had to deal with such issues all the time.
Translation: you write horrible code. Endian issues are trivially easy to deal with, as any network programmer will tell you. THere are standard functions for dealing with exactly that, how convenient! Java has them too, because it's necessary to communicate with standard internet protocols.
Writing truly portable binary data formats with C or C++ (or other widely used languages such as Pascal or Fortran)
You sir, are an idiot. Almost all DOS viruses and most Windows viruses require you to manually execute the infected program to spread it. So I guess 99% of what has been called 'viruses' are just trojans, according to your "expert" opinion. Remember the Melissa virus? That required you to manually run the e-mail attachment. These kinds of viruses are VERY COMMMON.
1. Please find me a reputable definition of a virus that says it can't require you to enter a password.
2. Please find me a reputable definition of a virus that says you can't manually run it.
Virus: A program that infects other programs in order to spread.
Worm: A program that spreads itself over an internet connection. Some definitions require it to directly open an internet connection (use sockets) rather than piggy backing on some other service.
Trojan: Malicious program disguised as a legitimate one. Does not spread.
In the case of the recent OS X malware, it was both a worm and a virus. It attempts to infect local executables. It also attempts to send itself via iChat.
I wish Apple apologists doing damage control after a bonafide virus/worm has shown up for their platform. Just admit your error. Please, mod the other posts down into oblivion. I'm sick of them saying that "it's not a virus" when it fits the DE FACTO standard definitions that hackers, security experts and virus writers use.
Uh, did you read what you just pasted? They just stated the pulses were up to 10 Watts. That's where my 10 watts came from. Again, what kind of crack are you smoking?
You consider 5-10 Watts of power over several hours to be 'minimal amounts'? What kind of crack are you smoking?
Next time, paste a link to an actual study. I don't want you pasting another search and claim that 'oh you just missed the ones that supported me.'
What studies? I just did the search, and I just get multiple references to the same Swedish study.
The researchers admit that their sample size for that study is small. And it's not a matter of whether or not it's been challenged; that's not how science works. Science is skeptical by nature, not gullible. As of 2003, there has not been a single reproduction of that experiment. Reproduction is a basic requirement for results like that to be considered valid in this amazing thing called science.
There are OSS tools that let you read/write MS Word files, what's your point? Yes, they have documented PDF to an extent, but what about all the crap they keep tacking on? Where's the DRM documentation? What about all the other 7.x additions (along with full scripting crap)?
.doc.
I'll note that I've used the OSS tools. Just now I tried converting the latest official spec for PDF to another format with an OSS tool, they were all giving errors that they couldn't recognize certain parts of it. Sounds a lot like
So where's the latest speficiation for the 7.0 format? Where's their documentation on how to implement the DRM of features? Oh yeah! Someone had to reverse engineer those.
I think you need to emphasize a bit more how much XPCOM destroys the "rapid" aspect. XPCOM is one of the ugliest, most hacked-together APIs I've seen. Worse than the Windows API you criticize. What is Windows "Visual" code anyway?
Your original post suggested that more regulation caused a decrease in crime.
Nope, quote me where I did that.
If I was implying a causal connection, you were doing the same to a greater degree.
Nice backpedal.
And this: "DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty." is clearly suggesting causation. Pot, kettle.
Of course it's causation, but it's well established that poverty causes increased crime rates so I'm pretty damn safe there.
You didn't argue against the part of the OP that suggested that regulation had been increasing, but you did point out one thing that is getting better.
No, I argued that if America was an example of regulation (i.e. there is an increase in regulation now) causing an increase in crime, then the reduction of crime would contradict his point.
The only reasonable conclusion is that you think that you believe that increased regulation has made things better (or left them the same).
Oh false dichotommies, how do I love thee. I was operating on his assumption that there was an increase in regulation to show that if that were true, then evidence would suggest a reduction.
I had to assume sarcasm, so that you (probably) had changed your mind about regulation increasing, but that you hadn't changed you mind about the relationship between regulation and things getting better/worse.
I was being sarcastic. Since you don't actually know my stance on the issue, it's bad to assume what I think the relationship was.
Either you're messing with me or your writing style is so ambiguous that I can't divine your meaning. If you want to continue this, why don't you just restate your original point in full, rather than using vage implications.
My original point is that "America is a perfect example of this" is incorrect. This does not necessitate me presenting my stance on the issue of whether or not regulation increases crime. It necessitates me pointing out the evidence surrounding America not actually supporting his point.
I'll ignore the fact that I was mirroring your fallacies in order to make a point, but mocking you for missing that would be too easy.
People generally say this when they've lost an argument and can't couldn't argue their way out of it if their life depended on it. I'm still waiting for evidence of the OP's claim that "America is the perfect example"; none has been provided.
I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of possible reasons for things getting better/worse other than changes in the legal system.
Wow, really?! That's why you didn't do that at all, but instead implied a causal effect? You are only reinforcing my original point, which was that the OP had nothing in terms of valid evidence to substantiate his point.
Besides it's too much fun to laugh at your inability to make a consistant argument: first it's getting better because of increased regulation, then it's getting worse because of decreased regulation.
Find where I said either of those, then you get a cookie.
This is a textbook example of rationlization - change the facts to fit a pet theory.
Projection for the win!
The court stated in its opinion "A BUSINESS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON PRIMARILY FOR THE PROFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS"
You missed 'primarily' (NOTE:not exclusively) there. By your own evidence, you are wrong. You also missed that it's an opinion of the court and not part of what Ford was ruled to do. In addition to that, you missed the part of this not being a similar type of case. Where's the precedent regarding interference with foreign law?
And do you honestly think that GOOG investors tend to be pro-censorship? They exist to serve their shareholders and if their vast majority shareholders are okay with their actions, then the ones suing will be laughed out of court.
The existence of corporations which donate heavily to charities contradicts your hypothesis. It is important to note that such corporations exist as they do because that's what their investors WANT.
Stop moving the goalposts, you're wrong, take the opportunity to learn something.
I'll admit that I'm wrong when I actually am. Maybe you should stop moving the goal posts. I asked for precedent for similar cases; you failed to provide it. It was more of a trick question anyway, as no precedent exists for a case like this. What's funny is that you'ved only provided evidence to strengthen my own case.
He gets one step for being a holocaust survivor; I get 100 steps for actually being right.
Nice try; not comparable. That's about paying special dividends on a surplus they had because they were going against the will of the shareholders. The judge did not decided that Ford must forever maximize profits or any such thing and this doesn't deal with matters of intervention with foreign law.
1. No I wouldn't, because he said nothing to indicate that.
2. I seriously doubt that, because it would double the amount of irrationality needed to make that comparison. You need to both ignore what happened to you and to be able to make a ridiculous comparison involving the traumatizing thing that happened to you.
3. Really old people tend not to use Slashdot. He'd be well over 70.
4. What you're engaging in is ad hominem. I suggest that you look up that term to find out what it actually means before complaining to me that it's not.
5. Again, the irrationality thing.
Show precedent for a case like this. None of the laws actually say they have to actually "maximize profits," just that they have to make money and act in the best interest of the shareholders. You can make money AND be ethical at the same time.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
Right, through their anti-capitalistic measures they are trying to regulate business. If the businesses had their way, they'd overturn those censorship laws. And of course, gassing Jews is totally like choosing to provide a limited earch engine. FUCKING MORON.
Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes
True, being forced to choose between doing a disservice by not providing them with a great search engine AT ALL or providing it in a limited capacity is totally qualitatively similar to turning over information that could get people arrested and murdered.
Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Just as it always been, Slashdot is the bastion of stupidity and the typical psychology Godwin's law rings true.
Why isn't there a MOD (-1 million, Retarded) option? Seriously, the burning anti-American hatred and piss poor analogies get moderated up so easily despite being devoid of reason.
"Wow, a search engine censored their results somewhere...that's like killing Jews in gas chambers!"
Offensive. Trvializing of serious crimes. Racist. Retarded. A+ Slashdot.
Concealed gun permits, older population, higher abortion rates, take your pick. The point is that every one of those is a result of less regulation of people's lives.
Amazing, so America is regulating things less then? Interesting. I change my mind, you're right; America IS the perfect example of how more regulations make things worse given how it's constantly regulating things less. Perfect case study.
I'm ignoring your little causation fallacy, of course.
If you want to see a re results of a highly regulated society, look at DC's crime rates.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty.
Yes, we have. Less regulation is more freedom.
Yes and this is why I changed my view to support yours that America is the perfect case for this, given how regulating things less shows exactly how bad regulating things more does. Because, you know, regulating more is actually the same as regulating less.
Other browsers warn too, though not for compressed files, but that means this isn't an OS X virus or trojan but a user-run program.
Wrong. DO NOT SPEAK IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERMS 'VIRUS' AND 'TROJAN' MEAN. My comment here refutes all of these ridiculous allegations. Most windows worms/viruses require the user to initially run it. That doesn't change the fact that it tries to infect applications (virus) and spread itself via the internet (worm).
A program written "inside of the user's space" as you put it wouldn't have much to do and wouldn't propagate
Aside from spread! It has full internet access, moron. It can reek havoc on all of your work (which is stored with user privileges). PLUS, because this is a wetware flaw, it obivously works on ignorance of usrs, thus requiring the user to do a routine aciton of entering a password is meaningless. They'll type in the password just like u sers blindly click through windows. Of course, it's not even necessary.
I can't believe they updated to say it wasn't one. A virus is just a program that infects other files with itself. A worm is a program that spreads itself using internt connections directly. This program does both of those. Just because it requires the user to run it, doesn't mean it isn't one.
I'm sick of people who don't know what these terms mean flashing them around. It's a trojan if it doesn't try to spread itself, this does.
Most windows viruses/worms require the user to execute it manually. In fact, that's 99% of DOS viruses, are you saying most past viruses are just trojans? How do you think those spread? Someone inserts a disk with an infected program, runs it and it injects itself into other programs on the computer. Those other programs are then spread MANUALLY by the user not knowing that they're infected.
REQUIRING IT TO BE MANUALLY RUN INITIALLY doesn't make it just a trojan.
McAfee and Sophos have both classified this as a worm/virus. STOP BEING MORONS. It's funny that even the people who read the analysis still managed to talk out of their ass about this and deem it just a trojan.
1) Are somehow sent (via email, iChat, etc.) or download the "latestpics.tgz" file
...and then for most users, you must also enter your Admin password.
This is automated by the virus/worm itself.
3) Double-click on the resulting file to "open" it
Nope, it doesn't need admin privileges to spread. Besides, how is this different from most windows viruses/worms?
Don't be a hypocrite. They've been whining about implementing this functionality for windows forever. I'm not even talking about proper sandboxing/privilege separation (restricted to running as the current user isn't sufficient since that's all you need to spread and cause havoc--plus most users blindly type in prompts).
I'm talking about how Outlook Express, years ago, disabled the ability to run executables from e-mails by default. IT EXPLICITS WARNS YOU. In fact, MSIE and other windows programs have added big warning windows saying stuff like 'this is an executable, it may be harmful, blah blah blah blah.' It prevents the users from doing it by default. It's trivial to add a warning for this and enable it by default. Hello, with the right policy settings on the computer, you can just flat out prevent the user from doing it (ideal for computers at an organization). Just because it's a wetware vulnerability doesn't mean you can't compensate for it.
Don't generalize about the "windows scenario." There are far more virus/trojans of the form .jpg.exe than actual jpegs that use a buffer overflow. This uses a simple and dumb wetware vulnerability that is extremely common for windows viruses/trojans.