Considering Mono is at release 0.29 and DotGNU is at 0.1, that's the way it will be for a long time. I certainly hope they get to the point where they are comparable and compatible with.Net 1.1 on Windows, but not today and not soon. So, for all practical purposes,.Net is Windows only.
Now, you can get production versions of the J2SE runtime and development kit for almost any platform and, despite what some people here say, really is "write once run anywhere" - much more so than any other language or platform.
Even C/C++, when writing properly to standards with a separation of concerns so that cross-platform toolkits can be used or swapped out is more cross-platform than.Net is right now.
So enough with the.Net propoganda. When Mono and DotGNU mature to production levels (2 years maybe?) or at least have Windows.Forms implemented, only then will.Net cease to be a Windows only platform.
Line for line porting of C++ to Java is a very common mistake C++ developers do (of which I was one back in the day). Because the syntax of the language is so similar, they end up changing the original program just enough to "become" Java, recompile and run. Then they wonder why it runs so slow, or slower than the original. Or they wonder why it take more memory (although 2 megs to 80 is a bit steep, even when you include the JVM). Often they write their own versions of various data structures, I/O routines, sort routines and the like instead of using the built-in, optimized routines provided by the Java platform because that's what they had to do in C++.
Now, what should be done is a functional port to Java. That is, writing from scratch, create a Java program that reproduces the program functionality exactly. You could (and maybe should) do this without looking at the original C++ source.
If that is what you mean by "explicit deconstruction", then more detail is needed. You simply cannot say "we ported a C++ to Java and it ran really slow. Therefore Java is slower than C++ and thus is a bad language" without explaining what the original program did, the kind of porting that was done, the quality of the code and the ability of the programmers that ported the code and when you did this alleged port.
Did you by any chance run this code through a profiler to see WHY it was so slow and see where the bottle necks were? Did you do this in 2002 or 1997?
Funny, I seem to remember the SAME arguments being levelled at C++ by the C zealots, with the same fallacies and FUD. Now, was any of that true of C++ then? Why should it be true of Java now, just because you say so with vague, specious evidence that can be explained in a hundred ways that have nothing to do with the Java platform?
Of course the other question to ask is why do the port at all. Did you need access to Java's cross platform capabilities? Did you need access to some of the libraries? Did you need Java's vastly superior security model (which these days can outweigh speed and RAM considerably - a small fast program that can be hacked brough down by a buffer overflow is not much use is it)?Or were you sucked into the marketing hype? Right tool for the job. If Java is that tool use it. If it can be done with C/C++ or Java, use the language you are most comfortable in. Any other reason they you get what you deserve.
You don't need 4 Gigs. Sound like a bunch of C++ guys ported over to Java writing it like it was C++. I think you simply proved that you might need to know a thing or 2 about writing Java code before you do something like this.
I have been writing Java since 1996 and I have never, even in the bad ole days of 1.0 or 1.14 jdk, seen THAT kind of RAM increase during a port.
Don't blame your tools. Perhaps you should look at the architecture and coding practices of the system first before you go saying that it's Java 's fault. I seem to be able to run java ok on my cell phone without issues.
Oh yes, next time try signing in and giving more details if you want to be taken seriously.
"I once worked on a C++ project" is not evidence of anything but FUD.
While I will agree that a jvm running a poorly written and optimized program will use quite a lot of memory, for most applications running in a production environment it isn't an issue - add more RAM.
All this talk of hogging memory and I had a look at the memory usage on my box. Which application always takes up the most memory and/or CPU time when running normally? Netbeans 3.5? TogetherJ? DBVisualizer?
Here here! An excellent post in a sea of xenophobia. I for one would like to congratulate Bangalore on this triumph. I think this kind of thing should be spread to other places around the world, to raise the standard of living and make the more empoverished peoples of the world self-sufficient. It doesn't matter where you are from as long as you do good work. We are all humans, perhaps we should be happy that our brothers and sisters in India (and China and Russia) have been able to find this kind of economic boost that doesn't involve bending over so the IMF can screw them.
The CLR is not an open standard. It is run by Microsoft. Parts ofr the C# language are open but not everything.
I'll beleive it's open when it can run on Linux, Solaris, *BSD, VMS, OS/390, QNX etc.
Until then a window's only runtime is definitely not an open standard.
And if it is no more risk than the others, I'll stick with the one that does run on all those paltforms...
Another good book on the subject...
on
J2EE Security
·
· Score: 4, Informative
...is "Hacking Exposed - J2EE and Java" from Osborne by Art Taylor, Brian Buege and Randy Layman. It's a really good overview of security in Java, from cryptography, code-signing, sealing jar files, byte code obfuscation etc. It runs the gambit from standalone code hacking, through the client-server tier and on to the J2EE and Web tiers. It has lots of good, reusable code samples too.
I highly reccomend it and it's a great "how to" companion to O'Reilly's Java Security by Scott Oaks.
I agree with you and there already is a Java sub-culture doing just that - the Jini and JavaSpaces community. Highly distributed, self-healing, self-forming federations of services and distributed shared memory realms. Combine it with say Java WebStart for distribution and/or RIO for dynamic provisioning and you have one hell of a powerful distributed computing platform. And, because of the Java sandbox and the new Jini 2.0 security features, on that can be make sharing mobile code relatively safe. Throw in the Jini Surrogate Architecture and perhaps JXTA and you have services that can be accesses by any client in any language....
Sounds intriguing, no?
As for you speed issues, try using the j2sdk 1.4.x (currently 1.4.2_03). Not only to do get peppy speed, but the latest version allows for full screen mode, so yes, you can make screen savers....
Can you be more specific? Which known terrorist are you talking about? Which known terrorist groups? What kind of transactions? What masterials that are banned by international treaty are you talking about?
You can't throw out those kind of accusations without being soecific....
Uhm...good troll but a few blatant errors give you away.
1. Iraq != Persia...Persia is actually present day Iran...unless you know something about GWB's plans the rest of us don't.
2. The airplane is a tool. It is morally neutral and under the control of human decision. Use it to bomb people from the air, and it is evil. Use it to drop food and medical supplies and it is good.
From that day 100 years ago (and ok maybe sooner but the proof is sketchy at best) we have gone from using twisting wings and the equivelent of "lawnmower" engins to supersonic flights, humans landing on the moon and in about 8 days, we will have the first of 3 landers touch down on Mars, looking for extra terrestrial life.
I'd say those are pretty good achievements.
But following your logic, are ships evil too, since, in you own words, naval bombardment can be used against people?
Things aren't evil, actions are evil. Anything can be used for good or evil, depending on what the human using it decides to do....
Ok, sorry for the tone of that last post...it was a little preachy and angry.
I am truly glad that Saddam is now captured and that he can no longer oppress the people of Iraq.
What's done in the past is done and cannot be changed. I do hope that while the Bush administration and the people of the US are celebrating his capture, that they consider what got us here.
I watched GWB's comments with my 2 year old son. I hope, for his sake, that the US, with all it's might and potential, will back away from backing dictators and hired thugs for short term gain and think down the road. I don't like Ronald Reagan for his politics, but as a person and a father, I'm quite sure if he knew (or thought) in 1986 that supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan would start a chain of events that would lead to bombings, the September 11 terrorist attacks and the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers in 2 wars, he would NOT have approved the sale of those stinger missles to the Mujahadeen. He would not have been such a friend to Saddam during the Iran Iraq war.
I hope the US takes this chance to see the long-term consequences of its actions in the world. I hope the government stops to think of the long-term consequences before it acts from now on.
So that my little boy isn't sent back to me in a body bag in 20 years, because it was more immediately convenient to choose one action in the interest of the US government rather than do what was best for everyone...
That's so disingenuous. If the anti-war people had their way, this wouldn't have happened at all.
BS. Most people that were in the anti-war movement do not like Saddam or support dictators. As a matter of fact, they were against Saddam back in the days when Rummy was happily shaking his hand, when the Reagan administration was defeating UN resolutions and US legislation that would have punished him for gassing his own people. Instead Ronny and his gang, many of whom are now working for the Shrub, allowed the chemicals that did the deed to be sold to him. Saddam being toppled and captured is a positive side effect of a very wrong action. Maybe if the US had been active in NOT supporting Saddam for years, he would have gone the way of the likes of Nicholae Caucescu (sorry I can't spell it) a long time ago.
Wrong. We did have international support. Just because it wasn't suppport from the countries you liked doesn't mean it didn't exist. Britain, Spain, Australia were certainly part of the coalition.
And no support from almost all of the UN and the UN security council and most other internatioal organizations (the Commonwealth of Nations, OAS etc). And even in the countries were the US had the support of the government, they had NO support from the people - just ask a few citizens of Britain, Spain and Australia wat they think of GWB and his war policy. It's easy to buy support from a bunch of 3rd world nations and former eastern bloc countries with promises of friendship and "support"....just because you got support form countries you liked, doesn't make it "international."
How shortsighted that is. We've accomplished something that no doubt has made the world just a little better. The entire record of Saddam is still coming out, the fact that we ended him is going to be one of the biggest stories in the modern history.
Good. I'm glad. So if that's how the US really feels about dictatorships and freedom and liberty then I say Good. So I can now expect that the US will be sending troops to the various parts of Africa, where brutal dicators and genocides that make Saddam look like a pussy cat are going on right now. You know, like in the Congo and the Ivory Coast. Stuff like what happend in Rawanda or in Bosnia in the 90's - genocide, rape camps, mass graves. I can expect to see the Marines charging into Kinchasa soon, eh? Or how about going into the Sudan, which almost advertises it's support for terrorist in general and Al-Queda in particular - no need to look for a maybe link to terrorist (as is the case with Iraq), it's pretty well known. So next we can go after North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China - you know all those other places in the world with brutal dicators who regularly violate their citizen's human rights and freedoms...
Ah but I guess many of them aren't in the "US national interests". Over the last 20 years, the "US national interests" have had more to do with Oil and other resources rather than the freedom and liberty of the people.
At the risk of revealing my religious and philisophical background, the US is now paying for it's past short-sighted decisions to support brutal dicators for convenience and expedience during the cold war rather than supporting the rights and needs of the people - you know, so long as the Shah of Iran (as an example) is buying our weapons and playing nice with us against the Soviets, he can torture and murder as many of his own people as he wants. The same can be said for the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Burma, South Africa, Egypt and others. The US is now almost uniformly despised by most of the common people in most of these poor countries. Gee, I wonder why many of them then get sucked into religious fanaticism and join the likes of Al-Queda and then commit terrorist acts against the US and it's interests.
Gee, I'm sure glad they captured Saddam after bombing the hell out of Iraq killing countless innocent civilians...I sure feel a lot safer now....
Well, according to the Sun Java Bug parade, this "bug" was fixed in release 1.4.2_x. It was also only a bug on Windows 200 and XP boxes with ATI cards using DirectX/DirectDraw. Using the -dcom.java2d.noddraw=true flag fixes it in affected boxes
Since the new Java Desktop System is in fact a Linux distribution and therefore does not use DirectDraw, this bug does not affect it! This is further proof of the absolute FUD the the article was spreading.
There is a huge difference between a so-called "IT manager" saying " Java on the desktop crashes the system" and "Java on a Windows box with an ATI video card, with the incorrect version of the JVM and the wrong version of the ATI drivers sometimes, unpredictably, crashes these boxes".
And since the bug was fixed from release 1.4.1 to 1.4.2, I'd say Sun does a pretty good job of fixing their bugs...
Have you actually seen the BSOD error message on this?
Well I have. And it's not doing things on the fringe. It's a call to a published function for a DirectX (specifically DirectDraw) call. It only happens (ocassionaly, not with any predicability) with ATI cards and older versions of ATI drivers.
I have an ATI card in my laptop and it happens sometimes. A co-worker has an Nvidia card and it never happens. Ever.
So tell me again how it's Java's fault when their JVM implementation calls a published, common function of a widely published standard (DirectX) and ATI's drivers don't implement them or implement them properly causing the system to crash?
That's like blaming my C code for crashing the system when some library vendor doesn't implement fprinf properly....
Yeah, that caught my eye too. Here's the text of a letter I just sent eWeek, to express my disgust at their quality of journalism:
"I am writing you to point out some inaccuracies in your article, posted on your site today:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1406463,00. as p
More specifically, these paragraphs:
"At the same time, some users are painting Sun with the same proprietary brush they say applies to Microsoft and its products. An IT manager, who asked not to be named, said he could not understand why a user would trade one proprietary desktop for another.
"I personally keep Java off my computer because it crashes the system," he said. "If Sun had the interests of the customer in mind, then the Sun desktop would be written in C and donated to Linux. Sun is no better than Microsoft."
This is clearly FUD by this so-called IT manager, who does not want to be identified, likely because he works for Microsoft.
Firstly, equating this as a "proprietary solution" and "no better than Microsoft" is absolutely false. The Sun Java Desktop is essentially Suse Linux with the latest version of GNOME desktop and Evolution and the latest J2SE environment included. All free, both as in beer and as in speech. All open source. Most certainly NOT a proprietary solution. Since I have the know-how, I could put this exact desktop system together for nothing, and it would work exactly like Sun's offering. The Sun Java Desktop system in Wal-Mart is aimed at people like my mom. But that doesn't make it proprietary. I can still add all of the various opensource libraries and programs to it as if it were just a stock Suse or RedHat or Debian install.
This so-called IT manager keeps Java off his desktop because it crashes the system. This is a blatant lie. As Java runs in it's own sandbox, if a Java program crashes, it cannot possibly take down a system. I have only seen this happen when using the Java Native Interface, which is RARELY used by most Java desktop applications. But saying that also seems to indicate that the desktop it self is unstable and written in Java. Guess what? Calling it the 'Java Desktop System' is a marketing ploy by Sun for this because it goes along with it's Java Enterprise System (which does use quite a bit of Java and certainly doesn't "crash the system"). The Java Desktop Sustem is written 99% in C with an embedded JVM so you can run various Java - based desktop programs as if they were native. This is exactly what Apple does on the Mac OSX. And Sun already donates many of their projects and code to open source projects (like Open Office, the free version of Star Office). So I guess then Sun does have the interests of it's customers in mind!
These errors are GLARING for developer and managers that actually work with Java and Linux/Unix on a daily basis. Actually, it's GLARING for anybody that works in IT - most of the.Net developers I work with know this. So glaring that I can only think of 2 reasons this made into this article: you were duped or you are actively involved in a campaign to discredit the system.
The so-called IT manager, is not in fact a manager. He's one of your hacks - you needed a bit of controversy so you got someone to say this, and used the anonymity to cover it up. Or worse, he's a shill for Microsoft, trying to discredit what is clearly a technological and marketing threat to Microsoft's supremacy on the desktop. The whole section essentially says "Why bother, it's unstable, it's not free. I 'm a professional at this and I wouldn't do it so you shouldn't too." and it's aimed at people who wouldn't know better - people who shop at Wal-Mart. So, did you check this guy's allegations with other "IT Managers"? Did you check his background and credentials? Is that why he would prefer not to be named - because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. I suspect he's the "IT manager" (read office administrator) at your office, so he knows about Windows but nothing else.
Yes like a set of Sun Ray station like at Java One this year or the kind they use internally in all their offices world wide. It allows the user to migrate their desktop and even their desktop session from one machine to another even across geopgraphic locations. And they log in with a JavaCard.
The Sun Ray is dead quiet since it has no fan and no hard disk...very sweet set up. this would be perfect for a Hospital setting where staff are constantly changing locations.
Next, if they can synch up to PDA's or Tablets, they would have a truely portable system.
I really think Sun is onto something here. Good for them.
While I agree with everything you have said, I must take issue with your contention that most biometrics are hard to fake.
Subscribe to Cryptogram from Bruce Schneier. Read some of the news, widely diseminated here on Slashdot and other tech sites. Systems like most finger print scanners and facial recognition systems are easy to fool.
For instance, while there are fingerprint systems that act as you indicate, the vast majority do not. They are the cheap readers in my iPaq or on some smart-card readers or those you can buy at Radio Shack. And since the famous gelatin exploit has the hacker wearing the stolen fingerprint gelatin mold over their own finger , even advanced machines will see 'normal temperature differences and gradients' or 'capilary blood flow' since it is seeing a real fingers. These systems are also prohibitively expensive, which means they can only be used for securing VERY sensitive assets. No use spending $10K on a fingerprint scanner to secure my $1k bank account, when this can be demonstably defeated for about $100 in materials and a few hours of work.
The same with facial recognition systems. In the new recently, one of the most widely used systems was fooled by a person holding up a picture or wearing a picture over a face like a mask nearly 100% of the time (I don't have the link handy, but I'm sure I read it on Cryptogram and here at \.). Again, while it may be possible to overcome these technical issues, the cost of such a system would restict it to acting as part of an authentication system for military bases and very large organizations with sensitive data, but no the general public. Most facial recognition systems CAN be fooled by holding up a picture.
However, if you are correct in your original assumption, that even using these easily foolable systems as one step in the authentication process is a much better way than relying on them alone.
And using them as part of an authentication system, not as an identification system, as some US airports have tried... There is a vast difference between comparing a person standing at the right distance from the camera or pressing the right digit into the read with re-tries allowed, that to pick a face out of a crowd of unknowns nad try to say "Unknown identified as Osama bin Looben, please arrest"...
That would not do one thing to stop the terrorists. Osama and his henchman have been rather rich and could afford this on their own.
Osama and his henchmen number in the 10s perhaps hundreds. Osama didn't fly the plane into the twin towers. Osama didn't personally blow up the embassies in Africa. Osama and his ilk get their foot soldiers and cannon fodder from the poor and ignorant and exploit hatred they have for the US to get them to commit these acts. Remove the hatred for the US, and Osama and his henchment will have a MUCH harder time recruiting people to carry out terrorist attacks. And you know none of these foot soldiers ever see any of that money. Osam himself is a coward. he would NEVER commit one of these acts himself. Without his soldiers he is a powerless kook, albeit a rich one.
It's the difference between:
"My house was bombed by the Americans. They say they want freedom but the support the dictator that killed my faminly, even shake hands with him on TV. I hate them. they are the reason I'm in poverty. Osama says if I do what he wants, my family will be taken care of, I will enjoy paradise (which is better than the hell I live in now) AND I will be able to strike ther very people responsible for my plight. Let's GO!"
and:
"The Americans send in doctors and nurses to help my kids when they are sick. They saved my little one when she had TB. And they give my dicator a hard time, never giving him a break. Life is hard, but the US is trying to help. I heard the sent in peace keepers to the country next door when the people rose up. Osama says we should hate them. He want's to do terrible things to them. That guy is nuts. Why would I wanna hurt my friends? Screw him, the harvest is coming in. I wonder what's on TV tonight?"
Admittedly a little simplistic, but I think you get the idea. Certainly can't hurt to try, since the current way of doing things has probably created more Osamas than it ever destroyed.
This would also do nothing, as the terrorists are rich (aside from the fact that the IMF had nothing to do with ruining economies).
Well again, see above about recruiting the poor slobs who actually do the killing or blow thmeselves up. As for the IMF, most of the residents of places like Equador or Peru might disagree. Servicing an outrageous debt versus providing basic services to your populace is not condusive to democracies, freedom or good economies.
No, it has everything to do with that. Those who know the facts about it believe it, since it is true. After all, there is no other reason. The US leaders came clean long ago.
Hmmm. Haven't been watching CNN or Fox news or 60 minutes lately, eh? Too bad. Your missing some interesting stuff.
Only the stupid and ignorant. Sit back and think about what you are saying. Stopping bullies is not being a bully. Upset when someone strikes back? 9-11 was unprovoked aggression. Question why? Do so, but do so in an informed fashion.
While I wasn't specifically referring to 9/11, I'll bite. You are right 9/11 was "unprovoked". "Unprovoked" in an an immediate sense, like that the US had not just bombed or invaded some foreign country, or assasinated some leader, or shot down a commercial passenger jet over the Persian Gulf...
Most certainly it was completely "unprovoked" for the people involved.
But instead of thinking of provocation, think of reaction, think of cause and effect. For 30 years or more, because of the "Cold War" or for economic reasons or some other justification that seemed right at the time, the US government (not the people of course) has done some pretty nasty things. Sold arms and weapons of mass destruction (mustard gas and nerve agents) to a brutal dicator (Saddam) because he was our buddy against Islamic fundementalist and the Commies. Turned a blind eye when this guy gassed his own people for the same reason. About the same time they thought is was a good idea to sell arms to those same Islamic fundeme
Slashdot Mirror
WTF,
Moz 1.3 is like less than a year old and you calling it ancient ?
Since when is this ancient:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
We'll excuse me for sticking with something that works. Not everyone feels the need to upgrade ever time a new point version comes out...
Touching words. I applaud you. As you can see by some of your responses, saying nice things can be quite difficult, especially on slashdot.
I hope some people read this and it can change them for the better. If more people took you veiw point, we would live in a better world indeed.
Good to see this at +5. I'm not the only one that thinks this is worthy of reading.
Imagemap that can't be rendered in Moz 1.3?
Move along, nothing to see here, not worth the effort.
The only production version of .Net is on Windows.
.Net 1.1 on Windows, but not today and not soon. So, for all practical purposes, .Net is Windows only.
.Net is right now.
.Net propoganda. When Mono and DotGNU mature to production levels (2 years maybe?) or at least have Windows.Forms implemented, only then will .Net cease to be a Windows only platform.
Considering Mono is at release 0.29 and DotGNU is at 0.1, that's the way it will be for a long time. I certainly hope they get to the point where they are comparable and compatible with
Now, you can get production versions of the J2SE runtime and development kit for almost any platform and, despite what some people here say, really is "write once run anywhere" - much more so than any other language or platform.
Even C/C++, when writing properly to standards with a separation of concerns so that cross-platform toolkits can be used or swapped out is more cross-platform than
So enough with the
Line for line porting of C++ to Java is a very common mistake C++ developers do (of which I was one back in the day). Because the syntax of the language is so similar, they end up changing the original program just enough to "become" Java, recompile and run. Then they wonder why it runs so slow, or slower than the original. Or they wonder why it take more memory (although 2 megs to 80 is a bit steep, even when you include the JVM). Often they write their own versions of various data structures, I/O routines, sort routines and the like instead of using the built-in, optimized routines provided by the Java platform because that's what they had to do in C++.
Now, what should be done is a functional port to Java. That is, writing from scratch, create a Java program that reproduces the program functionality exactly. You could (and maybe should) do this without looking at the original C++ source.
If that is what you mean by "explicit deconstruction", then more detail is needed. You simply cannot say "we ported a C++ to Java and it ran really slow. Therefore Java is slower than C++ and thus is a bad language" without explaining what the original program did, the kind of porting that was done, the quality of the code and the ability of the programmers that ported the code and when you did this alleged port.
Did you by any chance run this code through a profiler to see WHY it was so slow and see where the bottle necks were? Did you do this in 2002 or 1997?
Funny, I seem to remember the SAME arguments being levelled at C++ by the C zealots, with the same fallacies and FUD. Now, was any of that true of C++ then? Why should it be true of Java now, just because you say so with vague, specious evidence that can be explained in a hundred ways that have nothing to do with the Java platform?
Of course the other question to ask is why do the port at all. Did you need access to Java's cross platform capabilities? Did you need access to some of the libraries? Did you need Java's vastly superior security model (which these days can outweigh speed and RAM considerably - a small fast program that can be hacked brough down by a buffer overflow is not much use is it)?Or were you sucked into the marketing hype? Right tool for the job. If Java is that tool use it. If it can be done with C/C++ or Java, use the language you are most comfortable in. Any other reason they you get what you deserve.
You don't need 4 Gigs. Sound like a bunch of C++ guys ported over to Java writing it like it was C++. I think you simply proved that you might need to know a thing or 2 about writing Java code before you do something like this.
I have been writing Java since 1996 and I have never, even in the bad ole days of 1.0 or 1.14 jdk, seen THAT kind of RAM increase during a port.
Don't blame your tools. Perhaps you should look at the architecture and coding practices of the system first before you go saying that it's Java
's fault. I seem to be able to run java ok on my cell phone without issues.
Oh yes, next time try signing in and giving more details if you want to be taken seriously.
"I once worked on a C++ project" is not evidence of anything but FUD.
While I will agree that a jvm running a poorly written and optimized program will use quite a lot of memory, for most applications running in a production environment it isn't an issue - add more RAM.
All this talk of hogging memory and I had a look at the memory usage on my box. Which application always takes up the most memory and/or CPU time when running normally? Netbeans 3.5? TogetherJ? DBVisualizer?
Nope.
Mozilla, hands down.
And no java code to be found.
Funny, I thought of the Daggits from Battlestar Galactica (original of course, we didn't get the horrendous re-make up here in Canada)....
Here here!
An excellent post in a sea of xenophobia. I for one would like to congratulate Bangalore on this triumph. I think this kind of thing should be spread to other places around the world, to raise the standard of living and make the more empoverished peoples of the world self-sufficient. It doesn't matter where you are from as long as you do good work. We are all humans, perhaps we should be happy that our brothers and sisters in India (and China and Russia) have been able to find this kind of economic boost that doesn't involve bending over so the IMF can screw them.
Keep it up India!
Only if your from Alberta and are a supporter of the Consevatives (Alliance-PC bastard child).
:-)
Those of us who have had to go to the hospital in the US realize that private health care only works for those who can afford it.
But I guess that's just a difference of opinion...
Go Jack Layton!
The CLR is not an open standard. It is run by Microsoft. Parts ofr the C# language are open but not everything.
I'll beleive it's open when it can run on Linux, Solaris, *BSD, VMS, OS/390, QNX etc.
Until then a window's only runtime is definitely not an open standard.
And if it is no more risk than the others, I'll stick with the one that does run on all those paltforms...
...is "Hacking Exposed - J2EE and Java" from Osborne by Art Taylor, Brian Buege and Randy Layman. It's a really good overview of security in Java, from cryptography, code-signing, sealing jar files, byte code obfuscation etc. It runs the gambit from standalone code hacking, through the client-server tier and on to the J2EE and Web tiers. It has lots of good, reusable code samples too.
I highly reccomend it and it's a great "how to" companion to O'Reilly's Java Security by Scott Oaks.
I agree with you and there already is a Java sub-culture doing just that - the Jini and JavaSpaces community. Highly distributed, self-healing, self-forming federations of services and distributed shared memory realms. Combine it with say Java WebStart for distribution and/or RIO for dynamic provisioning and you have one hell of a powerful distributed computing platform. And, because of the Java sandbox and the new Jini 2.0 security features, on that can be make sharing mobile code relatively safe. Throw in the Jini Surrogate Architecture and perhaps JXTA and you have services that can be accesses by any client in any language....
Sounds intriguing, no?
As for you speed issues, try using the j2sdk 1.4.x (currently 1.4.2_03). Not only to do get peppy speed, but the latest version allows for full screen mode, so yes, you can make screen savers....
I find that very interesting...
Can you be more specific? Which known terrorist are you talking about? Which known terrorist groups? What kind of transactions? What masterials that are banned by international treaty are you talking about?
You can't throw out those kind of accusations without being soecific....
You have to go directly to the story page, where they couple the mp3 and ogg together...check this out,
but couldn't you create this with JXTA? I mean, It's a neat idea but doesn't JXTA already do all this? Except the bit about the ants...
Uhm...good troll but a few blatant errors give you away.
1. Iraq != Persia...Persia is actually present day Iran...unless you know something about GWB's plans the rest of us don't.
2. The airplane is a tool. It is morally neutral and under the control of human decision. Use it to bomb people from the air, and it is evil. Use it to drop food and medical supplies and it is good.
From that day 100 years ago (and ok maybe sooner but the proof is sketchy at best) we have gone from using twisting wings and the equivelent of "lawnmower" engins to supersonic flights, humans landing on the moon and in about 8 days, we will have the first of 3 landers touch down on Mars, looking for extra terrestrial life.
I'd say those are pretty good achievements.
But following your logic, are ships evil too, since, in you own words, naval bombardment can be used against people?
Things aren't evil, actions are evil. Anything can be used for good or evil, depending on what the human using it decides to do....
Ok, sorry for the tone of that last post...it was a little preachy and angry.
I am truly glad that Saddam is now captured and that he can no longer oppress the people of Iraq.
What's done in the past is done and cannot be changed. I do hope that while the Bush administration and the people of the US are celebrating his capture, that they consider what got us here.
I watched GWB's comments with my 2 year old son. I hope, for his sake, that the US, with all it's might and potential, will back away from backing dictators and hired thugs for short term gain and think down the road. I don't like Ronald Reagan for his politics, but as a person and a father, I'm quite sure if he knew (or thought) in 1986 that supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan would start a chain of events that would lead to bombings, the September 11 terrorist attacks and the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers in 2 wars, he would NOT have approved the sale of those stinger missles to the Mujahadeen. He would not have been such a friend to Saddam during the Iran Iraq war.
I hope the US takes this chance to see the long-term consequences of its actions in the world. I hope the government stops to think of the long-term consequences before it acts from now on.
So that my little boy isn't sent back to me in a body bag in 20 years, because it was more immediately convenient to choose one action in the interest of the US government rather than do what was best for everyone...
That's so disingenuous. If the anti-war people had their way, this wouldn't have happened at all.
BS. Most people that were in the anti-war movement do not like Saddam or support dictators. As a matter of fact, they were against Saddam back in the days when Rummy was happily shaking his hand, when the Reagan administration was defeating UN resolutions and US legislation that would have punished him for gassing his own people. Instead Ronny and his gang, many of whom are now working for the Shrub, allowed the chemicals that did the deed to be sold to him. Saddam being toppled and captured is a positive side effect of a very wrong action. Maybe if the US had been active in NOT supporting Saddam for years, he would have gone the way of the likes of Nicholae Caucescu (sorry I can't spell it) a long time ago.
Wrong. We did have international support. Just because it wasn't suppport from the countries you liked doesn't mean it didn't exist. Britain, Spain, Australia were certainly part of the coalition.
And no support from almost all of the UN and the UN security council and most other internatioal organizations (the Commonwealth of Nations, OAS etc). And even in the countries were the US had the support of the government, they had NO support from the people - just ask a few citizens of Britain, Spain and Australia wat they think of GWB and his war policy. It's easy to buy support from a bunch of 3rd world nations and former eastern bloc countries with promises of friendship and "support"....just because you got support form countries you liked, doesn't make it "international."
How shortsighted that is. We've accomplished something that no doubt has made the world just a little better. The entire record of Saddam is still coming out, the fact that we ended him is going to be one of the biggest stories in the modern history.
Good. I'm glad. So if that's how the US really feels about dictatorships and freedom and liberty then I say Good. So I can now expect that the US will be sending troops to the various parts of Africa, where brutal dicators and genocides that make Saddam look like a pussy cat are going on right now. You know, like in the Congo and the Ivory Coast. Stuff like what happend in Rawanda or in Bosnia in the 90's - genocide, rape camps, mass graves. I can expect to see the Marines charging into Kinchasa soon, eh? Or how about going into the Sudan, which almost advertises it's support for terrorist in general and Al-Queda in particular - no need to look for a maybe link to terrorist (as is the case with Iraq), it's pretty well known. So next we can go after North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China - you know all those other places in the world with brutal dicators who regularly violate their citizen's human rights and freedoms...
Ah but I guess many of them aren't in the "US national interests". Over the last 20 years, the "US national interests" have had more to do with Oil and other resources rather than the freedom and liberty of the people.
At the risk of revealing my religious and philisophical background, the US is now paying for it's past short-sighted decisions to support brutal dicators for convenience and expedience during the cold war rather than supporting the rights and needs of the people - you know, so long as the Shah of Iran (as an example) is buying our weapons and playing nice with us against the Soviets, he can torture and murder as many of his own people as he wants. The same can be said for the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Burma, South Africa, Egypt and others. The US is now almost uniformly despised by most of the common people in most of these poor countries. Gee, I wonder why many of them then get sucked into religious fanaticism and join the likes of Al-Queda and then commit terrorist acts against the US and it's interests.
Gee, I'm sure glad they captured Saddam after bombing the hell out of Iraq killing countless innocent civilians...I sure feel a lot safer now....
Well, according to the Sun Java Bug parade, this "bug" was fixed in release 1.4.2_x. It was also only a bug on Windows 200 and XP boxes with ATI cards using DirectX/DirectDraw. Using the -dcom.java2d.noddraw=true flag fixes it in affected boxes
Since the new Java Desktop System is in fact a Linux distribution and therefore does not use DirectDraw, this bug does not affect it! This is further proof of the absolute FUD the the article was spreading.
There is a huge difference between a so-called "IT manager" saying " Java on the desktop crashes the system" and "Java on a Windows box with an ATI video card, with the incorrect version of the JVM and the wrong version of the ATI drivers sometimes, unpredictably, crashes these boxes".
And since the bug was fixed from release 1.4.1 to 1.4.2, I'd say Sun does a pretty good job of fixing their bugs...
Have you actually seen the BSOD error message on this?
Well I have. And it's not doing things on the fringe. It's a call to a published function for a DirectX (specifically DirectDraw) call. It only happens (ocassionaly, not with any predicability) with ATI cards and older versions of ATI drivers.
I have an ATI card in my laptop and it happens sometimes. A co-worker has an Nvidia card and it never happens. Ever.
So tell me again how it's Java's fault when their JVM implementation calls a published, common function of a widely published standard (DirectX) and ATI's drivers don't implement them or implement them properly causing the system to crash?
That's like blaming my C code for crashing the system when some library vendor doesn't implement fprinf properly....
Yeah, that caught my eye too. Here's the text of a letter I just sent eWeek, to express my disgust at their quality of journalism:
.Net developers I work with know this. So glaring that I can only think of 2 reasons this made into this article: you were duped or you are actively involved in a campaign to discredit the system.
"I am writing you to point out some inaccuracies in your article, posted on your site today:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1406463,00. as p
More specifically, these paragraphs:
"At the same time, some users are painting Sun with the same proprietary brush they say applies to Microsoft and its products. An IT manager, who asked not to be named, said he could not understand why a user would trade one proprietary desktop for another.
"I personally keep Java off my computer because it crashes the system," he said. "If Sun had the interests of the customer in mind, then the Sun desktop would be written in C and donated to Linux. Sun is no better than Microsoft."
This is clearly FUD by this so-called IT manager, who does not want to be identified, likely because he works for Microsoft.
Firstly, equating this as a "proprietary solution" and "no better than Microsoft" is absolutely false. The Sun Java Desktop is essentially Suse Linux with the latest version of GNOME desktop and Evolution and the latest J2SE environment included. All free, both as in beer and as in speech. All open source. Most certainly NOT a proprietary solution. Since I have the know-how, I could put this exact desktop system together for nothing, and it would work exactly like Sun's offering. The Sun Java Desktop system in Wal-Mart is aimed at people like my mom. But that doesn't make it proprietary. I can still add all of the various opensource libraries and programs to it as if it were just a stock Suse or RedHat or Debian install.
This so-called IT manager keeps Java off his desktop because it crashes the system. This is a blatant lie. As Java runs in it's own sandbox, if a Java program crashes, it cannot possibly take down a system. I have only seen this happen when using the Java Native Interface, which is RARELY used by most Java desktop applications. But saying that also seems to indicate that the desktop it self is unstable and written in Java. Guess what? Calling it the 'Java Desktop System' is a marketing ploy by Sun for this because it goes along with it's Java Enterprise System (which does use quite a bit of Java and certainly doesn't "crash the system"). The Java Desktop Sustem is written 99% in C with an embedded JVM so you can run various Java - based desktop programs as if they were native. This is exactly what Apple does on the Mac OSX. And Sun already donates many of their projects and code to open source projects (like Open Office, the free version of Star Office). So I guess then Sun does have the interests of it's customers in mind!
These errors are GLARING for developer and managers that actually work with Java and Linux/Unix on a daily basis. Actually, it's GLARING for anybody that works in IT - most of the
The so-called IT manager, is not in fact a manager. He's one of your hacks - you needed a bit of controversy so you got someone to say this, and used the anonymity to cover it up. Or worse, he's a shill for Microsoft, trying to discredit what is clearly a technological and marketing threat to Microsoft's supremacy on the desktop. The whole section essentially says "Why bother, it's unstable, it's not free. I 'm a professional at this and I wouldn't do it so you shouldn't too." and it's aimed at people who wouldn't know better - people who shop at Wal-Mart. So, did you check this guy's allegations with other "IT Managers"? Did you check his background and credentials? Is that why he would prefer not to be named - because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. I suspect he's the "IT manager" (read office administrator) at your office, so he knows about Windows but nothing else.
Yes like a set of Sun Ray station like at Java One this year or the kind they use internally in all their offices world wide. It allows the user to migrate their desktop and even their desktop session from one machine to another even across geopgraphic locations. And they log in with a JavaCard.
The Sun Ray is dead quiet since it has no fan and no hard disk...very sweet set up. this would be perfect for a Hospital setting where staff are constantly changing locations.
Next, if they can synch up to PDA's or Tablets, they would have a truely portable system.
I really think Sun is onto something here. Good for them.
While I agree with everything you have said, I must take issue with your contention that most biometrics are hard to fake.
Subscribe to Cryptogram from Bruce Schneier. Read some of the news, widely diseminated here on Slashdot and other tech sites. Systems like most finger print scanners and facial recognition systems are easy to fool.
For instance, while there are fingerprint systems that act as you indicate, the vast majority do not. They are the cheap readers in my iPaq or on some smart-card readers or those you can buy at Radio Shack. And since the famous gelatin exploit has the hacker wearing the stolen fingerprint gelatin mold over their own finger , even advanced machines will see 'normal temperature differences and gradients' or 'capilary blood flow' since it is seeing a real fingers. These systems are also prohibitively expensive, which means they can only be used for securing VERY sensitive assets. No use spending $10K on a fingerprint scanner to secure my $1k bank account, when this can be demonstably defeated for about $100 in materials and a few hours of work.
The same with facial recognition systems. In the new recently, one of the most widely used systems was fooled by a person holding up a picture or wearing a picture over a face like a mask nearly 100% of the time (I don't have the link handy, but I'm sure I read it on Cryptogram and here at \.). Again, while it may be possible to overcome these technical issues, the cost of such a system would restict it to acting as part of an authentication system for military bases and very large organizations with sensitive data, but no the general public. Most facial recognition systems CAN be fooled by holding up a picture.
However, if you are correct in your original assumption, that even using these easily foolable systems as one step in the authentication process is a much better way than relying on them alone.
And using them as part of an authentication system, not as an identification system, as some US airports have tried... There is a vast difference between comparing a person standing at the right distance from the camera or pressing the right digit into the read with re-tries allowed, that to pick a face out of a crowd of unknowns nad try to say "Unknown identified as Osama bin Looben, please arrest"...
That would not do one thing to stop the terrorists. Osama and his henchman have been rather rich and could afford this on their own.
Osama and his henchmen number in the 10s perhaps hundreds. Osama didn't fly the plane into the twin towers. Osama didn't personally blow up the embassies in Africa. Osama and his ilk get their foot soldiers and cannon fodder from the poor and ignorant and exploit hatred they have for the US to get them to commit these acts. Remove the hatred for the US, and Osama and his henchment will have a MUCH harder time recruiting people to carry out terrorist attacks. And you know none of these foot soldiers ever see any of that money. Osam himself is a coward. he would NEVER commit one of these acts himself. Without his soldiers he is a powerless kook, albeit a rich one.
It's the difference between:
"My house was bombed by the Americans. They say they want freedom but the support the dictator that killed my faminly, even shake hands with him on TV. I hate them. they are the reason I'm in poverty. Osama says if I do what he wants, my family will be taken care of, I will enjoy paradise (which is better than the hell I live in now) AND I will be able to strike ther very people responsible for my plight. Let's GO!"
and:
"The Americans send in doctors and nurses to help my kids when they are sick. They saved my little one when she had TB. And they give my dicator a hard time, never giving him a break. Life is hard, but the US is trying to help. I heard the sent in peace keepers to the country next door when the people rose up. Osama says we should hate them. He want's to do terrible things to them. That guy is nuts. Why would I wanna hurt my friends? Screw him, the harvest is coming in. I wonder what's on TV tonight?"
Admittedly a little simplistic, but I think you get the idea. Certainly can't hurt to try, since the current way of doing things has probably created more Osamas than it ever destroyed.
This would also do nothing, as the terrorists are rich (aside from the fact that the IMF had nothing to do with ruining economies).
Well again, see above about recruiting the poor slobs who actually do the killing or blow thmeselves up. As for the IMF, most of the residents of places like Equador or Peru might disagree. Servicing an outrageous debt versus providing basic services to your populace is not condusive to democracies, freedom or good economies.
No, it has everything to do with that. Those who know the facts about it believe it, since it is true. After all, there is no other reason. The US leaders came clean long ago.
Hmmm. Haven't been watching CNN or Fox news or 60 minutes lately, eh? Too bad. Your missing some interesting stuff.
Only the stupid and ignorant. Sit back and think about what you are saying. Stopping bullies is not being a bully. Upset when someone strikes back? 9-11 was unprovoked aggression. Question why? Do so, but do so in an informed fashion.
While I wasn't specifically referring to 9/11, I'll bite. You are right 9/11 was "unprovoked". "Unprovoked" in an an immediate sense, like that the US had not just bombed or invaded some foreign country, or assasinated some leader, or shot down a commercial passenger jet over the Persian Gulf...
Most certainly it was completely "unprovoked" for the people involved.
But instead of thinking of provocation, think of reaction, think of cause and effect. For 30 years or more, because of the "Cold War" or for economic reasons or some other justification that seemed right at the time, the US government (not the people of course) has done some pretty nasty things. Sold arms and weapons of mass destruction (mustard gas and nerve agents) to a brutal dicator (Saddam) because he was our buddy against Islamic fundementalist and the Commies. Turned a blind eye when this guy gassed his own people for the same reason. About the same time they thought is was a good idea to sell arms to those same Islamic fundeme