Did you seriously use the phrases "good execution speed" and "multi-platform" in the same paragraph as "Java"?
Seriously?
What a joke. Java is a performance dog and never delivered on the portability promises. If it dies tomorrow, all the better.
What are you talking about? I've developed and deployed very large applications and deploy them without a single code change on Windows, Linux, Solaris and HP-UX. As for speed of execution, Jesus man, large banks runs shitloads of transactions on top of JVMs. The JIT technology is capable of profiling the most commonly use routines, transforming it from JVM bytecode to native code on the fly. And this is just in commodity x86 or Sparc hardware. When you talk about high-end hardware like Azul boxes, you can get good enough to do hard real-time engineering (yes, hard real-time.)
Most of the people I've seen through the years complaining that Java is a slow-dog seem to have a very superficial experience that boils down to little desktop apps, complaining about the long startup time (not knowing that the JVM is doing the necessary profiling to get the JIT going, for technology meant to run weeks/months on end, as opposed to desktop apps that come and go.)
Do they have a component model and architecture? Remote debugging out of the box? Ability to step through back and forth a stack call while on debugging mode? Management extensions? An similarly sizable application ecosystem?
Don't get me wrong, I think Go is a far superior language than Java, but it does not have anything of the sort mentioned above (whereas Java does). And as Google itself has said it, Go is a systems programming language intended to replace C and C++, not Java.
There is a lot more to development of applications and systems than language and language syntax. There is also run-time factors to take into account. Ergo, a good alternative for Java must provide everything that the JVM (and the ecosystem around it) provides (because people don't just use Java technology for the language, but for the JVM, the ecosystem and the extensive body of knowledge around it.)
Looking at languages alone is very narrow-minded if you ask me.
Why do we even need corporations to be involved and in control of our programming languages. Is it not time to rid ourselves as programmers from the tyranny of these greedy organizations by simply choosing to not use proprietary programming languages?
This is a clueless post. This is not fine arts where you choose to paint oil on canvas or watercolor. Rarely do you, as a programmer, choose the implementation language, even for new development. Rarely, rarely, rarely, only if you are in a small shop, or you are entrepreneur or your own business dealing with small clients or small contracts.
Again, to reiterate, this was a clueless post, full of rhetoric at the expense of everything else.
Java is verbose because it's a statically typed language without type inference, duh! ( You know, like C or C++ or C# )
Uh, from someone who does both Java and C++. These two are almost equally verbose. Also, the primary culprit behind Java verbosity (and which makes it more verbose than C++) has nothing to do with type inference. The blame falls squarely in:
1) checked exceptions,
2) checked exceptions in the throws declarations of almost all the APIs for IO/networking and threading,
3) a lack of function handlers at the JVM level which forces you to create these nastily verbose object functors (at least in C++ you can create a functor object with a "()" operator, or pass a pointer to a function.)
C# is less verbose, but still (it's more elegant than Java, though, it has lambdas and delegates.)
Scala would have been a better example of a compiled-time statically typed with succinct syntax due to very advanced and sophisticated type inference.
What landed on your head to make you switch to....... java?*shutters*
If I'm honest it was money. But I don't miss pointers, references, destructors, the pre-processor and many other things in c++
Same here. Actually not but... anyways. For me it was from C/C++ (from the days of C++ without anything resembling the STL) to Java (for the money), and like you, I didn't miss the segfaults and the "ooops, I forgot to define my function args as references, causing accidental pass-by-values" or the stupidity of the throws clause (which fortunately it is being deprecated in C++0x). With the Java standard library, productivity went off the roof.
But 12 years later, now I'm back to C++... also for the money (good C++ + embedded software = moolah), but also because I got fed up of the crappy Java developers out there. There used to be a time that to be a Java developer you were among the leading edge sh*t dudes. Now, bleh. The JVM work landscape is only interesting and challenging if one is done Scala, Groovy, or Clojure.
But now that I'm in C++, there are also shitty programmers there. And oh man, do I miss the Java standard library (no, Boost doesn't match it), and more than that, oh, I do miss the JVM's clear exception semantics, the JVM enums (and their semantics and capabilities), the ability rewind a call on the call stack when debugging, remote debugging right off the box, arguments passed by values where all arguments (sans primitives) are references.
I have my grips with some of the design decisions in the Java language, but man, there is some really good advanced shit in there, superior than what is in C++. C++ is a convoluted, everything-and-the-kitchen sink programming language.
If I had my say, I would work with plain C instead. Don't anyone get me wrong, I enjoy working with C++, not because of the language, but because of the technical challenges of doing object-oriented systems development as opposed to object-oriented application development. But if you are really objective, C++ has a horrendous numbers of warts. Syntactically, sometimes it makes refactoring a bit harder than what one would naturally do in Java.
That's my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
As opposed to what? Buying them from a US manufacturer and being able to afford about half of the effect due to price difference? "Buy from us, we're more expensive" doesn't work, no matter which country you're from, sorry.
At least not when the "Buy from us, we're cheaper" types give nothing back to the communities they extract their billions from.
Because this general statement apply to all... what exactly are you referring to? And what do you mean by "extracting" from the community?
> How could he have seriously expected the WebOS tablet thing to be successful.
It is a gamble. If it is a success, he gets all the glory and a huge bonus. If it fails, he gets a golden parachute. There is no way to lose for him, no risk, and he does not bet his own money.
It was a poorly run gamble. Sometimes, companies must run things at a cost to establish a presence in the market. Had HP sold the TouchPad at half the price (I know, there would be no profit in it), I'm sure the thing would have taken off. I'm biased of course, I just bought a Vizio Tablet for less than $300. Yes, I don't have 3/4G or even any type of coverage other that what I can get from a wifi spot, BUT, I saved another $300, and as it is, the Vizio Tablet fits my need. This is a compromise a lot of people would be willing to make.
Pretty much $200 to $300 is a margin many people think twice before crossing. It's almost no different from the *sweet spot* one needs to find when renting a property. Rent it too high, no one calls, but just drop $10/$20 bucks off the monthly rent, and you get your tenant.
Obviously I'm talking out of my ass, but from what I've seen (and my own biases), I do believe a $200-something TouchPad would have set the shelves on fire.
And that would have had the potential to create a presence, a following, a market. Other models, maybe of a cheaper make, or *upgraded* with *services* to recover the cost could have followed.
That they overpriced the TouchPad was a major mistake. To have killed it before even giving it a chance to take off, that's something that makes me question the business acumen of not just Apotheker but of the entire HP board.
In the first place -- what was this WebOS thing that HP paid 1.2 bln $ for?
Do I miss something when I say that it is just a thin JavaScript layer on top of Linux, possibly not more complicated than an average JavaScript framework?
A quick google (something one would expect the average techie would do to validate or refute his/her preconceptions) would show you that WebOS is not just a thin JavaScript layer on top of Linux... just sayin'
Maybe instead of sitting around in their underwear, eating cheetos, and waiting for someone to hire them, they should take some initiative and start their own business.
Thank you, generic Google-defender. I love me some Google, too. But this is criticism straight from RMS, you know, someone who actually *cares* passionately about "openness" (as opposed to MSFT, AAPL, etc)
Appeal to authority much? Passion thumps objectivity? So what if it comes from RMS. Just because he cares, that doesn't mean his opinion magically becomes a fact. RMS' contributions to open source have been great, and credit goes to him. But there is no denying that he's also a subjective ideologist, many of whose opinions are actually shunned by a large sector of the open source community. So before you go again appealing to RMS authority, get your idelogical head out of your subjective ass. Objectivity, try it.
Problem is, unless the device manufacturer gives a key to the device owner, it can also be used to keep the PC's owner from wiping out the current OS and installing another option, such as Linux.
I have a hard time believing that a PC manufacturer will not give an unlock key to a savvy tech user (which is the type that installs Linux). Unless I'm missing something here, this would not be different from me calling t-mobile to give me the unlock my Android phone and change SIM cards whenever I go to Japan (or anywhere else outside the US.)
Now, consider the typical Linux usage out there. There are plenty of trusty workhorses out there build with PCs and with Linux on them doing their job in different business settings (yes, not every Enterprisey Linux install runs on a mega-quad X-number core Dell box.) It would be very unlikely (I didn't say impossible, just unlikely) for OEM's to actually carry out a complete lock out of new hardware without providing any means beyond a phone call and a fill-form for a hardware owner to get an unlock key.
It would be another piece of red tape, an inconvenience of course. But I highly doubt that this will be a complete stopping roadblock to for installing a non-MS operating system in new hardware.
Padme Amidala going at with Seven of Nine and Uhura (the Zoe Saldana one) in a Bacta tank filled up to the reams with jell-o shots. That will be teh match to watch.
It's a nice gesture, but it really won't do anything to address the root of the wealth disparity in this country: the military industrial complex that runs our government.
I always though that the military industrial complex was *one* of the factors in this seemingly complex problem we are facing. But why bother with the details when we can simply single out one of its many factors and make it up as it is the only thing that counts in the whole picture. No one solves complex problems by dealing with its important details, no one I tell ya! </shakes facist fist in the air>
Did you miss the part that these "cuts" are over 10 years?
There's nothing binding here if the next President -- or even the next seated Congress -- decides it is going to change things.
More bread and circuses, with a nice class warfare frosting.
Because cutting half a trillion as a whole this immediate fiscal year (or even in the next 2-3) starting tomorrow is absolutely possible and practical. You can't have it now so having in 10 years is just impractical. Totally zero-sum. </sarcasm>
I love how people call this idea "class warfare" when it's been heralded not just by one billionaire (Buffett) but several. Ideology trumps logic.
It's a service which is offered over the web. Isn't that the very definition of a web service?
However, what this is not is a mashup. It doesn't recombine content, but offers functionality across services.
No. There are several (not necessarily equivalent) definitions of what a web service is, but they have, at their core, define a web service as a function or functionality that one can invoke programmatically (and that was designed with this in mind) over an IP-based protocol in general, and over HTTP in particular, either way exploiting, relying and/or being affected by the characteristics, positive and negative, of the so-called Internet architecture.
What it is being reported here is a web-based application (not a web service) that aggregates information from other web-based applications using web services provided by the later. So RightSaidFred99 is pretty much correct in voicing his objection for calling a web application a web service.
One can understand a non-tech reporter making such a confusion. But, in a supposedly tech-savvy site such as slashdot, I can only think what the fuck? We are not in the eras that preceded the widespread adoption of Internet technology, and it's not like web services are something new either.
Some would suggest that by taking down Mexican government websites, Anonymous is doing its part to fight the drug cartels, because if you take even a cursory look into the financial situation of a Mexican policeman, you're probably going to find somebody on a cartel payroll.
Why do you think the US government resolutely refuses to supply intelligence to the Mexican government? They know perfectly well they might just as well hand the information directly to a drug lord.
This war will only be won when the US legalizes drugs and the black market collapses.
That's what is called wishful thinking. That the Mexican government is mired with corruption is one thing. To argue from that than an attack on the government is an attack on the drug cartels, that is quite another (a non-sequitur of bestial size.) If Anonymous were doing the right fight against drug-related corruption in the government, they could have use this opportunity to say so, to condemn the corruption.
What did they do instead? They just took the sites down followed by a tweet saying "ZOMG, we are legion"? Talking about being a fucking attention whore if you ask me.
Oh, I may be a little slow but from your numbers it looks like the CA government is 3x more efficient than NH. Why on earth will Californians want to spend 3 times more to service the same population???
Indeed, that was a major arithmetic what-the-fuck moment.
Similar hypotheses have been suggested based on genetic evidence which suggested that humans and neanderthals interbred. See http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2010/may/first-genetic-code-of-neanderthal-reveals-inbreeding66724.html. In both cases, the work has been done by Chris Stringer who seems to focus a lot on this hypothesis. Stringer is a very respected anthropologist who was responsible for formulating a lot of the now accepted ideas about how homonids spread from Africa in successive waves of migrations.
I find it extremely telling that the majority of posts in this thread relate to whether the war on drugs is on tracks or not (I believe it is not mind you), but almost no posts exists highlighting the pettiness of Anonymous in this matter in the midst of the atrocities committed by the drug cartels (as if defacing the sites of an incompetent government outgunned by the drug cartels would amount to some gesture of actual moral value.)
Slashdot Mirror
Did you seriously use the phrases "good execution speed" and "multi-platform" in the same paragraph as "Java"?
Seriously?
What a joke. Java is a performance dog and never delivered on the portability promises. If it dies tomorrow, all the better.
What are you talking about? I've developed and deployed very large applications and deploy them without a single code change on Windows, Linux, Solaris and HP-UX. As for speed of execution, Jesus man, large banks runs shitloads of transactions on top of JVMs. The JIT technology is capable of profiling the most commonly use routines, transforming it from JVM bytecode to native code on the fly. And this is just in commodity x86 or Sparc hardware. When you talk about high-end hardware like Azul boxes, you can get good enough to do hard real-time engineering (yes, hard real-time.)
Most of the people I've seen through the years complaining that Java is a slow-dog seem to have a very superficial experience that boils down to little desktop apps, complaining about the long startup time (not knowing that the JVM is doing the necessary profiling to get the JIT going, for technology meant to run weeks/months on end, as opposed to desktop apps that come and go.)
inability to break type safety
They removed casts and NULLs from Java?
By the way, Go and D seem decent alternatives.
Do they have a component model and architecture? Remote debugging out of the box? Ability to step through back and forth a stack call while on debugging mode? Management extensions? An similarly sizable application ecosystem?
Don't get me wrong, I think Go is a far superior language than Java, but it does not have anything of the sort mentioned above (whereas Java does). And as Google itself has said it, Go is a systems programming language intended to replace C and C++, not Java.
There is a lot more to development of applications and systems than language and language syntax. There is also run-time factors to take into account. Ergo, a good alternative for Java must provide everything that the JVM (and the ecosystem around it) provides (because people don't just use Java technology for the language, but for the JVM, the ecosystem and the extensive body of knowledge around it.)
Looking at languages alone is very narrow-minded if you ask me.
Why do we even need corporations to be involved and in control of our programming languages. Is it not time to rid ourselves as programmers from the tyranny of these greedy organizations by simply choosing to not use proprietary programming languages?
This is a clueless post. This is not fine arts where you choose to paint oil on canvas or watercolor. Rarely do you, as a programmer, choose the implementation language, even for new development. Rarely, rarely, rarely, only if you are in a small shop, or you are entrepreneur or your own business dealing with small clients or small contracts.
Again, to reiterate, this was a clueless post, full of rhetoric at the expense of everything else.
Or C programmers doing C++ without understanding OOP concepts (there are a shitload of those out there.)
Java is verbose because it's a statically typed language without type inference, duh! ( You know, like C or C++ or C# )
Uh, from someone who does both Java and C++. These two are almost equally verbose. Also, the primary culprit behind Java verbosity (and which makes it more verbose than C++) has nothing to do with type inference. The blame falls squarely in :
1) checked exceptions,
2) checked exceptions in the throws declarations of almost all the APIs for IO/networking and threading,
3) a lack of function handlers at the JVM level which forces you to create these nastily verbose object functors (at least in C++ you can create a functor object with a "()" operator, or pass a pointer to a function.)
C# is less verbose, but still (it's more elegant than Java, though, it has lambdas and delegates.)
Scala would have been a better example of a compiled-time statically typed with succinct syntax due to very advanced and sophisticated type inference.
What landed on your head to make you switch to ....... java?*shutters*
If I'm honest it was money. But I don't miss pointers, references, destructors, the pre-processor and many other things in c++
Same here. Actually not but... anyways. For me it was from C/C++ (from the days of C++ without anything resembling the STL) to Java (for the money), and like you, I didn't miss the segfaults and the "ooops, I forgot to define my function args as references, causing accidental pass-by-values" or the stupidity of the throws clause (which fortunately it is being deprecated in C++0x). With the Java standard library, productivity went off the roof.
But 12 years later, now I'm back to C++ ... also for the money (good C++ + embedded software = moolah), but also because I got fed up of the crappy Java developers out there. There used to be a time that to be a Java developer you were among the leading edge sh*t dudes. Now, bleh. The JVM work landscape is only interesting and challenging if one is done Scala, Groovy, or Clojure.
But now that I'm in C++, there are also shitty programmers there. And oh man, do I miss the Java standard library (no, Boost doesn't match it), and more than that, oh, I do miss the JVM's clear exception semantics, the JVM enums (and their semantics and capabilities), the ability rewind a call on the call stack when debugging, remote debugging right off the box, arguments passed by values where all arguments (sans primitives) are references.
I have my grips with some of the design decisions in the Java language, but man, there is some really good advanced shit in there, superior than what is in C++. C++ is a convoluted, everything-and-the-kitchen sink programming language.
If I had my say, I would work with plain C instead. Don't anyone get me wrong, I enjoy working with C++, not because of the language, but because of the technical challenges of doing object-oriented systems development as opposed to object-oriented application development. But if you are really objective, C++ has a horrendous numbers of warts. Syntactically, sometimes it makes refactoring a bit harder than what one would naturally do in Java.
That's my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
As opposed to what? Buying them from a US manufacturer and being able to afford about half of the effect due to price difference? "Buy from us, we're more expensive" doesn't work, no matter which country you're from, sorry.
At least not when the "Buy from us, we're cheaper" types give nothing back to the communities they extract their billions from.
Because this general statement apply to all... what exactly are you referring to? And what do you mean by "extracting" from the community?
> How could he have seriously expected the WebOS tablet thing to be successful.
It is a gamble. If it is a success, he gets all the glory and a huge bonus. If it fails, he gets a golden parachute. There is no way to lose for him, no risk, and he does not bet his own money.
It was a poorly run gamble. Sometimes, companies must run things at a cost to establish a presence in the market. Had HP sold the TouchPad at half the price (I know, there would be no profit in it), I'm sure the thing would have taken off. I'm biased of course, I just bought a Vizio Tablet for less than $300. Yes, I don't have 3/4G or even any type of coverage other that what I can get from a wifi spot, BUT, I saved another $300, and as it is, the Vizio Tablet fits my need. This is a compromise a lot of people would be willing to make.
Pretty much $200 to $300 is a margin many people think twice before crossing. It's almost no different from the *sweet spot* one needs to find when renting a property. Rent it too high, no one calls, but just drop $10/$20 bucks off the monthly rent, and you get your tenant.
Obviously I'm talking out of my ass, but from what I've seen (and my own biases), I do believe a $200-something TouchPad would have set the shelves on fire.
And that would have had the potential to create a presence, a following, a market. Other models, maybe of a cheaper make, or *upgraded* with *services* to recover the cost could have followed.
That they overpriced the TouchPad was a major mistake. To have killed it before even giving it a chance to take off, that's something that makes me question the business acumen of not just Apotheker but of the entire HP board.
In the first place -- what was this WebOS thing that HP paid 1.2 bln $ for?
Do I miss something when I say that it is just a thin JavaScript layer on top of Linux, possibly not more complicated than an average JavaScript framework?
A quick google (something one would expect the average techie would do to validate or refute his/her preconceptions) would show you that WebOS is not just a thin JavaScript layer on top of Linux... just sayin'
Maybe instead of sitting around in their underwear, eating cheetos, and waiting for someone to hire them, they should take some initiative and start their own business.
This is a clueless post.
Thank you, generic Google-defender. I love me some Google, too. But this is criticism straight from RMS, you know, someone who actually *cares* passionately about "openness" (as opposed to MSFT, AAPL, etc)
Appeal to authority much? Passion thumps objectivity? So what if it comes from RMS. Just because he cares, that doesn't mean his opinion magically becomes a fact. RMS' contributions to open source have been great, and credit goes to him. But there is no denying that he's also a subjective ideologist, many of whose opinions are actually shunned by a large sector of the open source community. So before you go again appealing to RMS authority, get your idelogical head out of your subjective ass. Objectivity, try it.
Problem is, unless the device manufacturer gives a key to the device owner, it can also be used to keep the PC's owner from wiping out the current OS and installing another option, such as Linux.
I have a hard time believing that a PC manufacturer will not give an unlock key to a savvy tech user (which is the type that installs Linux). Unless I'm missing something here, this would not be different from me calling t-mobile to give me the unlock my Android phone and change SIM cards whenever I go to Japan (or anywhere else outside the US.)
Now, consider the typical Linux usage out there. There are plenty of trusty workhorses out there build with PCs and with Linux on them doing their job in different business settings (yes, not every Enterprisey Linux install runs on a mega-quad X-number core Dell box.) It would be very unlikely (I didn't say impossible, just unlikely) for OEM's to actually carry out a complete lock out of new hardware without providing any means beyond a phone call and a fill-form for a hardware owner to get an unlock key.
It would be another piece of red tape, an inconvenience of course. But I highly doubt that this will be a complete stopping roadblock to for installing a non-MS operating system in new hardware.
... can you spell it?
Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.
Padme Amidala going at with Seven of Nine and Uhura (the Zoe Saldana one) in a Bacta tank filled up to the reams with jell-o shots. That will be teh match to watch.
It's a nice gesture, but it really won't do anything to address the root of the wealth disparity in this country: the military industrial complex that runs our government.
I always though that the military industrial complex was *one* of the factors in this seemingly complex problem we are facing. But why bother with the details when we can simply single out one of its many factors and make it up as it is the only thing that counts in the whole picture. No one solves complex problems by dealing with its important details, no one I tell ya! </shakes facist fist in the air>
Did you miss the part that these "cuts" are over 10 years?
There's nothing binding here if the next President -- or even the next seated Congress -- decides it is going to change things.
More bread and circuses, with a nice class warfare frosting.
Because cutting half a trillion as a whole this immediate fiscal year (or even in the next 2-3) starting tomorrow is absolutely possible and practical. You can't have it now so having in 10 years is just impractical. Totally zero-sum. </sarcasm>
I love how people call this idea "class warfare" when it's been heralded not just by one billionaire (Buffett) but several. Ideology trumps logic.
It's a service which is offered over the web. Isn't that the very definition of a web service? However, what this is not is a mashup. It doesn't recombine content, but offers functionality across services.
No. There are several (not necessarily equivalent) definitions of what a web service is, but they have, at their core, define a web service as a function or functionality that one can invoke programmatically (and that was designed with this in mind) over an IP-based protocol in general, and over HTTP in particular, either way exploiting, relying and/or being affected by the characteristics, positive and negative, of the so-called Internet architecture.
What it is being reported here is a web-based application (not a web service) that aggregates information from other web-based applications using web services provided by the later. So RightSaidFred99 is pretty much correct in voicing his objection for calling a web application a web service.
One can understand a non-tech reporter making such a confusion. But, in a supposedly tech-savvy site such as slashdot, I can only think what the fuck? We are not in the eras that preceded the widespread adoption of Internet technology, and it's not like web services are something new either.
Some would suggest that by taking down Mexican government websites, Anonymous is doing its part to fight the drug cartels, because if you take even a cursory look into the financial situation of a Mexican policeman, you're probably going to find somebody on a cartel payroll.
Why do you think the US government resolutely refuses to supply intelligence to the Mexican government? They know perfectly well they might just as well hand the information directly to a drug lord.
This war will only be won when the US legalizes drugs and the black market collapses.
That's what is called wishful thinking. That the Mexican government is mired with corruption is one thing. To argue from that than an attack on the government is an attack on the drug cartels, that is quite another (a non-sequitur of bestial size.) If Anonymous were doing the right fight against drug-related corruption in the government, they could have use this opportunity to say so, to condemn the corruption.
What did they do instead? They just took the sites down followed by a tweet saying "ZOMG, we are legion"? Talking about being a fucking attention whore if you ask me.
Oh, I may be a little slow but from your numbers it looks like the CA government is 3x more efficient than NH. Why on earth will Californians want to spend 3 times more to service the same population???
Indeed, that was a major arithmetic what-the-fuck moment.
Similar hypotheses have been suggested based on genetic evidence which suggested that humans and neanderthals interbred. See http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2010/may/first-genetic-code-of-neanderthal-reveals-inbreeding66724.html. In both cases, the work has been done by Chris Stringer who seems to focus a lot on this hypothesis. Stringer is a very respected anthropologist who was responsible for formulating a lot of the now accepted ideas about how homonids spread from Africa in successive waves of migrations.
In addition to that, we know that the ancestors of the Melanesian population interbred with the Denisovan hominids. To add more interesting stuff to the cauldron, it appears that the Neanderthals not only interbred with H. Sapiens but with the Denisovans as well. Stone-age interspecial threesome man!
Who's to say we didn't have sex with animals and other 'human-like' apes???
I don't know about you, but that "we" doesn't include me dawg :)
At least now we know where the Kardashians came from.
That might explain Kim Kardashian's bestially humongous ass!
I've got an evolutionary ancestor IN MY PANTS!
H. Erectus?
That's whom we get our erections from.
I find it extremely telling that the majority of posts in this thread relate to whether the war on drugs is on tracks or not (I believe it is not mind you), but almost no posts exists highlighting the pettiness of Anonymous in this matter in the midst of the atrocities committed by the drug cartels (as if defacing the sites of an incompetent government outgunned by the drug cartels would amount to some gesture of actual moral value.)