No, they showed a good example of an astroturfed movement that tricked people into giving the ultra-rich even more wealth and power than they had before.
I don't agree with them either. But they show that a party can be altered.
Before the trial, Microsoft gave no donations to politicians. Today they give millions of dollars. Despite being found guilty, Microsoft suffered no practical consequences. What happened to Microsoft was punishment for them not paying their dues for the service the US government provides to rich corporations.
Microsoft entire competitive structure changed. The were forced to move up market and forced to make their system more open. They were under a much greater degree of scrutiny. That's what regulation looks like.
Most of what I'm talking about has been going on for 30-40 years. Starting with Nixon and really ramping up with Reagan. FDR was almost 70 years ago, a whole other world.
Reagan, etc.. represented a huge shift away from the previous system. Again I might not like the direction, you may not like it. But it does show change is possible. Change away from Reagan towards is going to require the same kind of consistent shift that post civil-rights America had towards the right. I believe we that Obama represents where Nixon was in the cycle in the last cycle.
You mean, by selecting someone who promises "hope" and "change"? And then ends up just being a continuation of the last?
I'm going to be less cynical than you. I think Obama has done quite a lot differently that George Bush would have done. While I would like more change than we got we also had a congress which was reactionary.
I think the data is being used for other intelligence operations directed at semi-friendly to semi-hostile governments. Also businesses with weak ties to the USA that are powerful.
They didn't overturn an election they upheld an election. The State of Florida wanted to allocate its electors to George Bush. The courts of Florida wanted to use a variety of systems outside the law to determine who should have won those electors. The Supreme Court ruled the courts of Florida had no right to make up law because they didn't like elections law.
. If someone makes fun of the party in power, what are people going to do? Vote for the other party?
Yes. Or even change the focus of the party via. primaries. Like or hate the Tea Party movement they showed a good example of 1/6th of the American people getting fed up and changing the structure of a political party on multiple issues.
Those truly in power in the US are not elected. Whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office, the true power is held by the ultra rich. No party that threatens the rich can ever attain power in the US.
Ultra rich people get attacked by the United States all the time. Ask Bill Gates about his relationship with the Clinton administration. And if you mean that no party that threatens the structure of wealth distribution could attain power, such a thing happened under FDR.
The United States is not totalitarian by any means. The government doesn't even attempt to exert control in enough areas to constitute totalitarianism.
How it got there is unknown. But it is an example of a hardware backdoor. If you are looking for an example that is unquestionably from China for spying that hasn't been found yet. As I mentioned there have been similar problems in firmware. At a certain point people draw the conclusion. A country actively engaging in spying, that has used their products for spying, that did so in firmware....
If China wants to stop being singled out this way they need to not use their corporations for spying like this.
Operaration Aurora a few years back. Rackspace, Yahoo, Symantec, Google... all confirmed they were under Chinese attack. I'd say that's proof many companies confirming the accusation. Another one was Ghostnet the analysis came out of Cambridge.
1) You were allowed to write, no criminal penalties were applied. 2) You were informed that if their was a civil lawsuit you would win 3) You were informed that Nimal Baba runs a criminal enterprise that takes revenge on journalists
(1) and (2) is protection of free speech. (3) is protection of civil order. You caved to a private harassment threat. In a despotic government that sort of thing is less likely.
Absolutely. Java was always intended to be a compromise. Try and capture advantages of higher level with speed on par with C's languages. 5x slower not 100-3000x slower. Java today is maybe twice as slow as C++ which ain't bad at all.
I didn't think the basket of compromises in Java was a good idea then (except for applets) and I don't think it is a good idea now. That being said I do believe Gosling is not an idiot, he made reasonable choices for good reasons given this objectives.
The US income tax was a "temporary" measure. US copyrights are supposed to be "temporary".
US Const: I.8.8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
US Const Am 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The constitution is about as non-temporary as you can get.
I meant Oracle DB not Oracle Inc in that sentence. Certainly Oracle is a player to some extent down market though that's not really the focus of the sales team per the GP's point.
What planet do you live on? Oracle's sales people kinda suck and they are often underfunded to boot. Oracle sells because of features and depth. You can make a very good case,, that the areas where Oracle is ahead in 2013 are areas that 98% of the databases don't need and thus many companies should explore moving down market. But at least understand what you are arguing against. Oracle sells databases because they arguably make the best database for companies that have a dedicated staff of whose full time job is administering the database, with no application authoring responsibility.
My main critic on Java is that whenever the investors of Java encountered a difficult to implement possible feature; instead of thinking it through; finding the proper solution; the investors of Java shied away and declared it “unnecessary” or “dangerous”. I don't blame them. AFAIK Sun what breathing down there Necks telling them to finish by X.
Yes. Java was not born from a user community naturally, unless you count Oak and the people who made television cable boxes. It was constructed and there was very limited time. But that being said this was difficult not simple. Difficult means complex tradeoffs. Complex tradeoffs mean there isn't an obvious solution. Java is reflecting the reality of what exists on CPUs.
Most of this I think goes back to me not really seeing "primitive" as mattering much once you aren't going for mimicking the CPU anyway.
y * x * y => x*y^2 that assumes that * operation is commutative which isn't true for matrices. Compilers generally don't optimize overloaded arithmetic for that reason.
MAC_FOO+4 there is no reason that shouldn't be evaluated at compile time in a pure language. If the compiler sees function (const A, const B) why not evaluate that under all circumstances? The problem is that this might have a side effect. If you want those sorts of computations to happen, at compile time you really want a pure language so again not Java.
The 3rd example makes sense but that's best handled in a language with type classes, which again Java doesn't have.
In general most of what you are looking for goes against the spirit of OO and Java.
Well if you object to long winded notation for obvious stuff you have many other problems with Java. For the purpose of argument since this is "what should Java do" I think I can assume that people don't object to writing fifty characters when one would do.:)
As for ADA's treatment that's just like C's. And I think it is a good one. More or less that's Java's, the Java primitives are stuff that runs fast.
Yes. That's true. There are CPUs that handle it worse but you are correct about the carry flag. I assume Java could have just used the flag, and then the result being non-standard wouldn't matter. And that's arguably cleaner anyway. It is probably 1/3 the speed to keep checking that flag.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with them either. But they show that a party can be altered.
Microsoft entire competitive structure changed. The were forced to move up market and forced to make their system more open. They were under a much greater degree of scrutiny. That's what regulation looks like.
Reagan, etc.. represented a huge shift away from the previous system. Again I might not like the direction, you may not like it. But it does show change is possible. Change away from Reagan towards is going to require the same kind of consistent shift that post civil-rights America had towards the right. I believe we that Obama represents where Nixon was in the cycle in the last cycle.
I'm going to be less cynical than you. I think Obama has done quite a lot differently that George Bush would have done. While I would like more change than we got we also had a congress which was reactionary.
To get to the Supreme Court a case has to be very tough. 5-4, 6-3 expresses who wins the coin toss on these tough cases. Elections matter.
I think the data is being used for other intelligence operations directed at semi-friendly to semi-hostile governments. Also businesses with weak ties to the USA that are powerful.
They didn't overturn an election they upheld an election. The State of Florida wanted to allocate its electors to George Bush. The courts of Florida wanted to use a variety of systems outside the law to determine who should have won those electors. The Supreme Court ruled the courts of Florida had no right to make up law because they didn't like elections law.
The people of West Texas vote for pro corporate government. The people of Boston don't vote for pro terrorist government. Elections matter.
Yes. Or even change the focus of the party via. primaries. Like or hate the Tea Party movement they showed a good example of 1/6th of the American people getting fed up and changing the structure of a political party on multiple issues.
Ultra rich people get attacked by the United States all the time. Ask Bill Gates about his relationship with the Clinton administration. And if you mean that no party that threatens the structure of wealth distribution could attain power, such a thing happened under FDR.
The United States is not totalitarian by any means. The government doesn't even attempt to exert control in enough areas to constitute totalitarianism.
OK I agree Microsemi took the blame themselves: http://www.scribd.com/doc/149683384/Microsemi-Response-Security-Claims-With-Respect-to-ProASIC3-053112
So I'll withdraw this example.
It wasn't found to be. That was an alternative explanation for it. No one knows which explanation is true.
How it got there is unknown. But it is an example of a hardware backdoor. If you are looking for an example that is unquestionably from China for spying that hasn't been found yet. As I mentioned there have been similar problems in firmware. At a certain point people draw the conclusion. A country actively engaging in spying, that has used their products for spying, that did so in firmware ....
If China wants to stop being singled out this way they need to not use their corporations for spying like this.
Well there have been tons of examples of backdoors loaded into firmware then sold with hardware. The Actel/Microsemi ProASIC3 was found last year to have a backdoor in the chip. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95282643/Backdoors-Embedded-in-DoD-Microchips-From-China
This is a very heavily used chip that got into western weapon systems, western power control system....
Operaration Aurora a few years back. Rackspace, Yahoo, Symantec, Google... all confirmed they were under Chinese attack. I'd say that's proof many companies confirming the accusation. Another one was Ghostnet the analysis came out of Cambridge.
Whee exactly is the crime against democracy here?
1) You were allowed to write, no criminal penalties were applied.
2) You were informed that if their was a civil lawsuit you would win
3) You were informed that Nimal Baba runs a criminal enterprise that takes revenge on journalists
(1) and (2) is protection of free speech. (3) is protection of civil order. You caved to a private harassment threat. In a despotic government that sort of thing is less likely.
I agree with you. But GP was saying something about income tax as a temporary measure and that was the context on the copyright post.
I agree with you. But the speed costs of abstracting away machine primitives are immense. Things can easily be 100x slower or more.
Fast requires machine dependent
People wanted machine independent
People wanted fast
That ain't easy.
Absolutely. Java was always intended to be a compromise. Try and capture advantages of higher level with speed on par with C's languages. 5x slower not 100-3000x slower. Java today is maybe twice as slow as C++ which ain't bad at all.
I didn't think the basket of compromises in Java was a good idea then (except for applets) and I don't think it is a good idea now. That being said I do believe Gosling is not an idiot, he made reasonable choices for good reasons given this objectives.
The existence of copyright law is meant to be permanent. Copyrights themselves on each particular iten are meant to be of limited duration.
US Const: I.8.8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
US Const Am 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The constitution is about as non-temporary as you can get.
I meant Oracle DB not Oracle Inc in that sentence. Certainly Oracle is a player to some extent down market though that's not really the focus of the sales team per the GP's point.
What planet do you live on? Oracle's sales people kinda suck and they are often underfunded to boot. Oracle sells because of features and depth. You can make a very good case,, that the areas where Oracle is ahead in 2013 are areas that 98% of the databases don't need and thus many companies should explore moving down market. But at least understand what you are arguing against. Oracle sells databases because they arguably make the best database for companies that have a dedicated staff of whose full time job is administering the database, with no application authoring responsibility.
IBM's sales people are amazing absolutely.
Yes. Java was not born from a user community naturally, unless you count Oak and the people who made television cable boxes. It was constructed and there was very limited time. But that being said this was difficult not simple. Difficult means complex tradeoffs. Complex tradeoffs mean there isn't an obvious solution. Java is reflecting the reality of what exists on CPUs.
Most of this I think goes back to me not really seeing "primitive" as mattering much once you aren't going for mimicking the CPU anyway.
Take another example:
y * x * y => x*y^2 that assumes that * operation is commutative which isn't true for matrices. Compilers generally don't optimize overloaded arithmetic for that reason.
MAC_FOO+4 there is no reason that shouldn't be evaluated at compile time in a pure language. If the compiler sees function (const A, const B) why not evaluate that under all circumstances? The problem is that this might have a side effect. If you want those sorts of computations to happen, at compile time you really want a pure language so again not Java.
The 3rd example makes sense but that's best handled in a language with type classes, which again Java doesn't have.
In general most of what you are looking for goes against the spirit of OO and Java.
Well if you object to long winded notation for obvious stuff you have many other problems with Java. For the purpose of argument since this is "what should Java do" I think I can assume that people don't object to writing fifty characters when one would do. :)
As for ADA's treatment that's just like C's. And I think it is a good one. More or less that's Java's, the Java primitives are stuff that runs fast.
Yes. That's true. There are CPUs that handle it worse but you are correct about the carry flag. I assume Java could have just used the flag, and then the result being non-standard wouldn't matter. And that's arguably cleaner anyway. It is probably 1/3 the speed to keep checking that flag.