Let me tell you how good you have it in Toronto. The Star may be left wing, but at least it provides a balance to the other right-wing, psuedo-facist rags run by Conrad Black or Issy Asper the city has(Globe an Mail, National Post or the Toronto Sun).
In Ottawa, we have a "choice" between the neo-conservative tripe dished out by the Ottawa Citizen (Can-West Global/ Issy Asper), the same tripe but written for six year olds with lots of pictures in the Ottawa Sun (same company that owns the Toronto Sun) or the Globe and Mail (quite literally the same version as in Toronto). In other words, no choice in opinion or variety in view points at all.
If I didn't need my local news, I would subscribe to the Star. But since I have no choice, and my IQ is higher than my age (thus ruling out any version of the Sun), I must stick with the Citizen.
Disagree with their editorial stance if you wish but at least enjoy the fact that you can choose. Most of the rest of Canada does not enjoy the same freedom you do.
It's at very low power because the FCC said to put it at low power. The Pulse Position Modualtion (PPM)nature means it is not likely to interfier with other transmissions - it will look like regular background noise.
So, to get bigger distances, TURN UP THE POWER! I'd be willing to bet it works;). That's why its part of the IEEE 802.15 standard for Personal Area Networks (PAN).
Yeah except 30 countries like Cameroon and Portugal don't count when they don't contribute troops. GW can only convice one other NATO country to join him.
That's coalition builing for you. If you can't convince your friends, brow-beat, bride and threaten a bunch of 3rd world countries desparate for money and then claim you have a broad "coalition".
As for Yugoslavia, perhaps you have a different definition of "led" than I do. Being finally forced to do something by your NATO allies after years and years of human rights abuses and atrocities (remember Bosnia?) does not constitute "leading". I guess if Bosnia or Kosovo had an abundance of oil under the ground it would have been a different story.
Hey remember Rawanda? 1 million people killed in an ethinic genocide, live on TV. Canada (under the UN but with no real help), Belgium and France (yes France, remember them?) sent troops (too little too late unfortunatly). The people of Rawanda suffered far more than the people of Iraq. Where was the 3rd of the 7th then? The 101? The marines? Oh yeah, no oil.
Even today in parts of the Sudan, children are sold into slavery and forced to fight for warlords. If they refuse they are killed. Special Ops going there after Iraq? How about a few tomohawks? Oh wait, the US government can only spend the millions on a war if it gets something back....like oil.
Don't try to pretend that this is a broad coalition fighting in Iraq. It isn't. It's the US and Britain, with token help from the Aussies and a few other countries. And don't try to pretend the war is being fought to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam and to find weapons of mass destruction. The US government only seems to be interested in human rights when it's oil supply is threatened.
Liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator is a noble effort and a good reason to go to war. How come the US doesn't apply the same standard when oil is not involved? Hell, last time the put the Amir of Kuwait back in power. Try looking up his record at Amnesty International and see if the US is really interested in "freedom and democracy" in the middle east.
"We want you to build the next generation software alternative to the Microsoft architecture"
It then goes on to say
He said the desktop with a smart card reader capability would have Mad Hatter, Linux, Gnome, Evolution and Java's star office products (emphasis mine)
It seems to be saying to me that the alternative to Windows is Linux, Gnome etc, not something new. Sounds like all those developers will be contributing to Linux and Gnome etc, adding software and capabilities that will make it compete with Windows.
Sounds good to me...
Now maybe I'm wrong. If so, could someone point out where in the 7 paragraphs (6 really sine one "paragraph" is a single line) it says that Sun will be making its "own" desktop environment and not use what they already support (Gnome)?
Or did some of the whiners not bother to read the article and just spout off because of a headline?
Read this and try forming opinions other than "Sun sucks" or "Go JBoss, you rock".
I love JBoss. I use it daily. I even contributed some patches to it back in the 2.4.4 days. I like Sun stuff. I use it daily. The company I work for is a Sun iForce Partner (we're also and MS partner, in case you think I'm realy biased). I look at this issue, and read the above article (which I was pointed to on the JBoss forums, ironically) and I see two sets of people acting incredibly childish. I won't say the two companies or organizations, because I know there are people on both sides of this issue that don't share these opinions. So Sun won't certify JBoss? Big woop. I'll still use it. So will most of the developers I work with. And we'll still use it for dev and then port to BEA or OC4J because it's easy to do (Websphere bites and is incredibly hard to port to...yet certified!). If JBoss "goes beyoind J2EE" and doesn't support the standard anymore (J2EE 1.4 in the future, it complies to 1.3 as far as I can see), I will stop using it.
Period. End of story. I'll use OC4J...not open source but free for development and certified. It's also easy to use.
I don't give a rat's ass about AOP, or even JMX or micro-kernel crap. I care about writing EJB's (Session not entity...we've discovered Apache OJB),JSP's and servlets to the J2EE standard that are easily moved from one app server to another. I care about using the latest features of the spec. As soon as I can't do that, I'll stop using that server. If JBoss goes to far beyond J2EE they will lose. If they don't like the current spec, maybe they should get involved with the JCP to affect some change, like Apache.
As for Sun folks thumbing their nose at JBoss, perhaps they should remember that without JBoss, there would be hundreds of thousands less J2EE developers out there and likely.Not would be much more prevelant. They should also thank JBoss for technical innovations like drag and drop deploy of.ear's and hot deploy (is anyone at IBM reading this?), which has been picked up BEA and Oracle to varying degrees because of the competition.
Given that, and the exchange in the above article, maybe I'll switch to Jonas or OpenEJB (or another Open Source server if it exists).
This whole thing is ridiculous. Stop whining and start working to beat out.Net
...our American cousins are complaining about this "afront to civil liberties" while thousands of their own citizens are being detained, without trial or charge, in undisclosed locations across the US?
One would think that with Ireland's experience with terrorism, the Yanks would be applauding this!
I think some other posters have made the point quite well. Just because a government collects the information, doesn't mean they can do anything with it without a court order. I can tell you with some confidence that virutally all governments collect this information,it just that getting at it is hard (as is sifting through it - how many phone , cell, fax transmissions are there in your city or town in one day? Try picking out specific information out of that!).
Collecting information is morally neutral. Use that information to catch the Omagh bombers, and collecting it is good. Use it to track citizens arbitrarily and to detain them without trial or charge and it is evil. I'd be less worried about the collecting and more about how it is used.
Every source I have read (CNN, major newspapers) or seen (CNN again, CBC Newsworld, Discovery/TLC and PBS) has stated that the total collapse of the towers was not expected by anyone, not the designers or even Osama Bin Laden - he thought there would be mass casualties but never thought the buildings would fall (remember that little "smoking gun" video of him at the dinner party that was broadcast non-stop about a year ago?).
There is no evidence that any of the 9/11 attackers ever studied the plans of the towers. They followed the logic that if the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 727 (as was "common knowledge" as a strength and not a known weakness), then a 767 loaded with fuel should probably cause lots of damage.
Simple as that.
9/11 actually revealled a previously unknown weakness in the design. Without public access to the plans etc, experts and documentarians may not have found out why the towers fell, and engineers may be planning buildings with the same techniques today.
Instead of apollo style capsules perhaps a new version of the Delta Clipper to act as a "tug boat" or life boat from space. Seems to me that Columbia could have been avoided had it been a "powered" reentry instead of glider. The pilots could come in slower and more in control. This is what the both the Delta Clipper and the X-33/Venture Star were meant to do. Who says you have to have One kind of orbiter? That's like telling early explorers they could only use ships like the Pinta (as opposed to Viking Longboats, Chiniese Junks or English Man o Wars)
I hope this is a wake up call to the US Government on the dangers of underfunding the space program and of a too narrow focus because of maney.
Re:Java has it's place, but it has problems
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
However for me Java has not delivered on it's promises. Performance generally is poor, compared to say Perl, and is dire when compared to C.
FUD, FUD and more FUD.
Starting with the jdk1.3.1_x series Java has been pretty peppy. JDK 1.4.1_x is downright speedy. Do a google search. On the server, Java is very fast and even some Swing apps can beat native code. Java in 1998 was slow. Java today is not. Get over it and stop living in the past.
Java also failed to deliver it's platform independence - you just get so many problems running on different platforms and different VMs. Compare this to say Perl - if you avoid platform specifics, Perl just works. Even compare to C when using a library to abstract platform independence (e.g. things like in Gnome/Gtk or Qt), it's not so hard and at least the mistakes are usually yours. I know it's not the fault of Java as a language, but if it can't be implemented well, it won't be much good.
Well I don't know what your experience is but I have never run into any issues with Java being cross-platform. I have literaly just finished doing some bug fixes to a J2EE app for one of our clients. I develop on Win2K, test deploy on Solaris (Sparc) and will deploy it tommorow on HP-UX. All I do is redeploy the.ear file...no compiling involved. Any issues I have ever run into have been when the have code makes JNI calls or when environmental differences in the OS are not taken into account during a JDK install (think.so vs.sa). Sometimes poor programming, like hard coding "/" vs "\" in path names, but that is hardly the fault of the language. Even with a few warts, the fact still remains that I cannot compile C or C++ on a linus box and just run it on Windows box. With Java I can.
The final major reason Java has not delivered is because it's not made programming any easier or error prone - and much has been made of this promise. Yes, gc does save some bugs (it does cause some more, but on the whole it's good). Java does not save you from uneducated developers or people who simply suck as a programmer. I've seen some steaming piles of turds writted in Java by people who really should be better. This can be said of any language, but much was made about Java being a language to make people make less mistakes - they just make different ones.
I guess this is a matter of degrees isn't it. No Java isn't perfect. But it's a darn site easier to learn and maintain than other, more obfuscated languages like Perl. Java is a language that let's you make less fatal mistakes. No buffer overflows, no pointers, strict type checking and casting rules as well as the Java sandbox go a long way in protecting a system running Java. Can the same be said about C? So even if I'm a bad java programmer, I can't be bad enough to cause the OS to crash or to introduce a system level vunerablility. C give you the freedom to do anything...kinda like giving you enough rope to hang yourself (and two of your friends sometimes).
Despite all that, use the Right Tool for the Job. If that is Java, use it. If it's C (and you can use it right) use it.
But please don't go spreading half-truths and crap to get moderated up.
This simply cannot be done because this part of our parliamentary (notice the correct spelling) heritage is enshrined in the Canada Act 1982 (formerly the British North America Act 1867).... you know the other half of our Consititution along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To change it requires the ratification of a majority of Canadian Provincial legislatures representing 2/3 of the population of Canada. Now Consider Meech Lake (I and II) and the Charlottown Accord and see how successful we've been on changing our constitution since 1982 (and only the British Parliament could change it before that!).
No my friend, you are either a terribly missinformed, ignorant, reactionary, idiot or a bald-faced liar.
Either way, you're a perfect supporter of the Alliance party.;)
And yes, I did study consitutional law (got an A, too!)
So combine a 'mesh' network topology with say, UltraWideBand (UWB) transmission technology (at higher power of course, or have a node every 10 meters:0 ).
The Mesh gives you the ability to create ad hoc, self-healing, wireless networks and the UWB (at higher power than the FCC currently allows) gives you incredibly high data transfer rates (average is 40 Mbps but it can get up to 1 Gig !!). UWB has the added advantage of being able to not be bocked by walls, water, or rock so it can be used anywhere. Many different apps can use the same frequencies because the information is "Pulse Width" modulated - unless you are listening for a particular pulse size (pico to nano seconds) everything else is ignored and is the same as background noise (and thus won't interfere with local radio, radar etc). Think interlocking networks sharing bandwidth and not interfering with each other...
All of the technology exists today for this totally decentralized network with very good throughput. No need for cables of telco at all. Add in some security features and we have a winner...
How about UWB 802.11?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sounds like a good time to switch to/invest in a new 802.11x ultra-wide-band solution.
UWB, as I understand it, sends out nano-second pulses over a wide band of frequencies. These pulses sound like regular "noise" if they are detectable at all. Best part they don't interfere with existing signals on any particular frequency. They can be used for communications or specialized radar (ground penetrating, seeing through walls to find people etc).
So either your DOD swithces it's radar or gets your FCc to allow higher power UWB (currently the range is limited to about 10 meters...great for a UWB mesh network;) )
Anyway, I may not be the most knowledgable in the field, so someone ca correct me but this sounds like a great opportunity to make a better more decentralized technology take hold
Well, those exploits were also fixed quickly becasue the source was available.
How many IE exploits are there right now that are either known and unpatched or just unknown to most people?
And since those exploits happened, if you were expert enough to know the coding problem that caused them, you could certainly recognize the same mistakes in the source code of another mail or shell implementation? But of course, you don't have the chance to even look in the source to Exchange etc to see if the mistakes were made there becasue you can't see the source....
If a company is going to shell out a few million for an enterprise mail system, they may not think much of spending another $20k or so and hire you to go over the source to make sure BEFORE they buy.
Maybe jsut sue them if something goes wrong. But then money goes to lawyers not developers;)
Well, your average user won't want it...you're right.
So I suppose it shouldn't be part of the "download" or cd distribution.
But I do agree that the software should be "publicly" available for inspection. If the source to Windows or IE were available, people who would want to know such things could actually see all those security holes and exploits before they are "exploited". MS might not produce such shoddy software then.
Think of it as peer-review of code. Where I work, our code is always peer reviewed and heavily commented before it goes to a client, so some poor shlep can come along in 2 years (and it might even be the same shlep that originally wrote the code!) and change or maintain it. If your code is consistantly crappy, uncommented or uses poor practices and standards, you don't work here long.
The same should be true of major commercial software. I, or anyone else with the knowledge, time or desire, should be able to review the code to IE to see if all those security issues result from design or programming flaws. I can get the code as uneditable, uncopyable, unprintable PDF if "code stealing" is a concern.
Many of these programs get hacked, stolen or dissasembled now, without the source code available. Making source available will not make it worse. It could arguably make it easier to enforce "copyright"...It will be crystal clear who "borrowed" the BSD code and used it in their own commercial implementation of the TCP/IP stack;)(etc).
Companies may want to have their own or "hired gun" experts inspect the code as a condition of purchase. Would you buy a house without having a home inspector go through it an tell you if the furnace was old, if the roof leaked or if the back porch was about to fall down? Buying commercial software for many medium to large companies is an investment on the same magnitude as buying a house is to individuals. Why shouldn't they have the same ability to protect themselves?
The only other way would be to make all existing EULA's null and void and hold software companies finacially liable for any "harm" caused by security breaches or bugs in their software...
Holy shit, just because XML is easy to read and write by hand doesn't mean it should be...
My point was that XML documents are easier for a program to parse (given the abundance of Sax and DOM parsers available in almost every language). Just beacause an XML document is large and complex for a human to read doesn't mean a program can't read with great ease.
So complaining that it's harder to write by hand than property files is crap because if you had any brains, you'd use an XML editor (like the ones built into Netbeans and just about every other IDE or XML Spy etc).
Reading a spec and using this stuff in the real world are 2 different things...
Number 1, we are not talking about programming languages, but build systems. Whine all you want, it's still better than the other major build system 'make'..
Number 2, if you have ever used Ant you'll know that these so-called inconsistancies are relatively minor and many get fixed with each new release. Clearly, you've never used Ant...
Since I started using Ant on projects, I've actually found them much easier to maintain, since the Ant script usually doesn't change, dick head, the code it compiles, jars and deploys does.
"XML is not meant for humans to read, XML is not meant for humans to read..."
XML is way of structuring information so it is easy for software to parse and read, not people. By the same token, it's also not meant to be typed by hand (although it can be). I use Netbeans 3.4 to generate and create my build scripts (an all my other java development;) ) because, since it's an xml document, I can add elements and tasks by right clicking and selecting "Add".
Pretty easy. Way easier than make and makefiles.
Sure the syntax is a bit inconsistant, but that's mainly because Ant growns by incorporating lots of externally created custom tasks into the base. It also gets released fairly often so there isn't a lot of time to refactor those new custom tasks to make them "look" like the old ones....if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No matter what, the bottom line is that Ant makes Java development easier, faster and more manageable. Id rather have inconsistant syntax and a powerful, efficient build system than the consistant syntax any day.
BTW, If you are so disappointed with the way Ant is made, download the source, fix the "problems" you see and contribute it back...it is, after all, Open Source;)
As a non-VB weenie (;) -> Java and formerly C/C++ - I can't but agree with you. Stones and Matthews book is a reference when I need to bone up on things like multi-threading and signals under POSIX.
A really great book.
I wonder how their 2nd book Professional Linux Programming is? (Hint hint/. )
Even before the merger with TD, Canada Trust has always had a great banking site.
I also have never encountered any problems with using almost any browser with their site (and never any problems with the OS?!? as other posters have stated their banks)
As for cheques...since I use TC Canadatrust Easyweb (and before that the telephone version Easyline), I haven't written a cheque in 3 years;)...so I've never gone to the page of which you speak.
Re:How about taking over a Canadian province?
on
The Free State Project
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Except of course, it hasn't worked in Quebec, no matter how close they got, so I'll be willing to bet it won't work in PEI.
Besides, most of the "laws" these whiners are complaining about are FEDERAL laws in Canada (yes, we have ONE Criminal Code for the whole country!)so taking over any province wouldn't do them much good. They would have to take over the whole country.
And despite what you may have heard, or what our dim-witted right-wing will have you beleive, there are still lots of Canadians with plenty of (fully legal and registered) hunting rifles that won't let 20 000 Americans do anything in our country, let alone take it over (or one of the provinces).
Most of us like Canada the way it is, thank you very much.
BTW, Do ya think G. Dubya would let them take over North Dakota either? (ND has Nukes and SAC Air Wings...separation would make them a Terrorist state!!!!))
Slashdot Mirror
Let me tell you how good you have it in Toronto. The Star may be left wing, but at least it provides a balance to the other right-wing, psuedo-facist rags run by Conrad Black or Issy Asper the city has(Globe an Mail, National Post or the Toronto Sun).
In Ottawa, we have a "choice" between the neo-conservative tripe dished out by the Ottawa Citizen (Can-West Global/ Issy Asper), the same tripe but written for six year olds with lots of pictures in the Ottawa Sun (same company that owns the Toronto Sun) or the Globe and Mail (quite literally the same version as in Toronto). In other words, no choice in opinion or variety in view points at all.
If I didn't need my local news, I would subscribe to the Star. But since I have no choice, and my IQ is higher than my age (thus ruling out any version of the Sun), I must stick with the Citizen.
Disagree with their editorial stance if you wish but at least enjoy the fact that you can choose. Most of the rest of Canada does not enjoy the same freedom you do.
Wow...considering every other comment in this entire thread answers this, all I have to say is...
Good Troll!....
This is particularly funny today...
Hey are you from the future too?
Sounds like Liberty Alliance.....
It's at very low power because the FCC said to put it at low power. The Pulse Position Modualtion (PPM)nature means it is not likely to interfier with other transmissions - it will look like regular background noise.
;). That's why its part of the IEEE 802.15 standard for Personal Area Networks (PAN).
So, to get bigger distances, TURN UP THE POWER! I'd be willing to bet it works
Yeah except 30 countries like Cameroon and Portugal don't count when they don't contribute troops. GW can only convice one other NATO country to join him.
That's coalition builing for you. If you can't convince your friends, brow-beat, bride and threaten a bunch of 3rd world countries desparate for money and then claim you have a broad "coalition".
As for Yugoslavia, perhaps you have a different definition of "led" than I do. Being finally forced to do something by your NATO allies after years and years of human rights abuses and atrocities (remember Bosnia?) does not constitute "leading". I guess if Bosnia or Kosovo had an abundance of oil under the ground it would have been a different story.
Hey remember Rawanda? 1 million people killed in an ethinic genocide, live on TV. Canada (under the UN but with no real help), Belgium and France (yes France, remember them?) sent troops (too little too late unfortunatly). The people of Rawanda suffered far more than the people of Iraq. Where was the 3rd of the 7th then? The 101? The marines? Oh yeah, no oil.
Even today in parts of the Sudan, children are sold into slavery and forced to fight for warlords. If they refuse they are killed. Special Ops going there after Iraq? How about a few tomohawks? Oh wait, the US government can only spend the millions on a war if it gets something back....like oil.
Don't try to pretend that this is a broad coalition fighting in Iraq. It isn't. It's the US and Britain, with token help from the Aussies and a few other countries. And don't try to pretend the war is being fought to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam and to find weapons of mass destruction. The US government only seems to be interested in human rights when it's oil supply is threatened.
Liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator is a noble effort and a good reason to go to war. How come the US doesn't apply the same standard when oil is not involved? Hell, last time the put the Amir of Kuwait back in power. Try looking up his record at Amnesty International and see if the US is really interested in "freedom and democracy" in the middle east.
It's a short article. SM says
"We want you to build the next generation software alternative to the Microsoft architecture"
It then goes on to say
He said the desktop with a smart card reader capability would have Mad Hatter, Linux, Gnome, Evolution and Java's star office products (emphasis mine)
It seems to be saying to me that the alternative to Windows is Linux, Gnome etc, not something new. Sounds like all those developers will be contributing to Linux and Gnome etc, adding software and capabilities that will make it compete with Windows.
Sounds good to me...
Now maybe I'm wrong. If so, could someone point out where in the 7 paragraphs (6 really sine one "paragraph" is a single line) it says that Sun will be making its "own" desktop environment and not use what they already support (Gnome)?
Or did some of the whiners not bother to read the article and just spout off because of a headline?
Read this and try forming opinions other than "Sun sucks" or "Go JBoss, you rock".
.Not would be much more prevelant. They should also thank JBoss for technical innovations like drag and drop deploy of .ear's and hot deploy (is anyone at IBM reading this?), which has been picked up BEA and Oracle to varying degrees because of the competition.
.Net
I love JBoss. I use it daily. I even contributed some patches to it back in the 2.4.4 days. I like
Sun stuff. I use it daily. The company I work for is a Sun iForce Partner (we're also and MS partner, in case you think I'm realy biased). I look at this issue, and read the above article (which I was pointed to on the JBoss forums, ironically) and I see two sets of people acting incredibly childish. I won't say the two companies or organizations, because I know there are people on both sides of this issue that don't share these opinions. So Sun won't certify JBoss? Big woop. I'll still use it. So will most of the developers I work with. And we'll still use it for dev and then port to BEA or OC4J because it's easy to do (Websphere bites and is incredibly hard to port to...yet certified!). If JBoss "goes beyoind J2EE" and doesn't support the standard anymore (J2EE 1.4 in the future, it complies to 1.3 as far as I can see), I will stop using it.
Period. End of story. I'll use OC4J...not open source but free for development and certified. It's also easy to use.
I don't give a rat's ass about AOP, or even JMX or micro-kernel crap. I care about writing EJB's (Session not entity...we've discovered Apache OJB),JSP's and servlets to the J2EE standard that are easily moved from one app server to another. I care about using the latest features of the spec. As soon as I can't do that, I'll stop using that server. If JBoss goes to far beyond J2EE they will lose. If they don't like the current spec, maybe they should get involved with the JCP to affect some change, like Apache.
As for Sun folks thumbing their nose at JBoss, perhaps they should remember that without JBoss, there would be hundreds of thousands less J2EE developers out there and likely
Given that, and the exchange in the above article, maybe I'll switch to Jonas or OpenEJB (or another Open Source server if it exists).
This whole thing is ridiculous. Stop whining and start working to beat out
Please someone with points mod this idiot down...advocating the htting and beating of children.
Insightful my ass
...our American cousins are complaining about this "afront to civil liberties" while thousands of their own citizens are being detained, without trial or charge, in undisclosed locations across the US?
One would think that with Ireland's experience with terrorism, the Yanks would be applauding this!
I think some other posters have made the point quite well. Just because a government collects the information, doesn't mean they can do anything with it without a court order. I can tell you with some confidence that virutally all governments collect this information,it just that getting at it is hard (as is sifting through it - how many phone , cell, fax transmissions are there in your city or town in one day? Try picking out specific information out of that!).
Collecting information is morally neutral. Use that information to catch the Omagh bombers, and collecting it is good. Use it to track citizens arbitrarily and to detain them without trial or charge and it is evil. I'd be less worried about the collecting and more about how it is used.
Absolutely incorrect.
Every source I have read (CNN, major newspapers) or seen (CNN again, CBC Newsworld, Discovery/TLC and PBS) has stated that the total collapse of the towers was not expected by anyone, not the designers or even Osama Bin Laden - he thought there would be mass casualties but never thought the buildings would fall (remember that little "smoking gun" video of him at the dinner party that was broadcast non-stop about a year ago?).
There is no evidence that any of the 9/11 attackers ever studied the plans of the towers. They followed the logic that if the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 727 (as was "common knowledge" as a strength and not a known weakness), then a 767 loaded with fuel should probably cause lots of damage.
Simple as that.
9/11 actually revealled a previously unknown weakness in the design. Without public access to the plans etc, experts and documentarians may not have found out why the towers fell, and engineers may be planning buildings with the same techniques today.
So much for security through obscurity...
I think you have it bang on....
Instead of apollo style capsules perhaps a new version of the Delta Clipper to act as a "tug boat" or life boat from space. Seems to me that Columbia could have been avoided had it been a "powered" reentry instead of glider. The pilots could come in slower and more in control. This is what the both the Delta Clipper and the X-33/Venture Star were meant to do. Who says you have to have One kind of orbiter? That's like telling early explorers they could only use ships like the Pinta (as opposed to Viking Longboats, Chiniese Junks or English Man o Wars)
I hope this is a wake up call to the US Government on the dangers of underfunding the space program and of a too narrow focus because of maney.
However for me Java has not delivered on it's promises. Performance generally is poor, compared to say Perl, and is dire when compared to C.
.ear file...no compiling involved. Any issues I have ever run into have been when the have code makes JNI calls or when environmental differences in the OS are not taken into account during a JDK install (think .so vs .sa). Sometimes poor programming, like hard coding "/" vs "\" in path names, but that is hardly the fault of the language. Even with a few warts, the fact still remains that I cannot compile C or C++ on a linus box and just run it on Windows box. With Java I can.
FUD, FUD and more FUD.
Starting with the jdk1.3.1_x series Java has been pretty peppy. JDK 1.4.1_x is downright speedy. Do a google search. On the server, Java is very fast and even some Swing apps can beat native code. Java in 1998 was slow. Java today is not. Get over it and stop living in the past.
Java also failed to deliver it's platform independence - you just get so many problems running on different platforms and different VMs. Compare this to say Perl - if you avoid platform specifics, Perl just works. Even compare to C when using a library to abstract platform independence (e.g. things like in Gnome/Gtk or Qt), it's not so hard and at least the mistakes are usually yours. I know it's not the fault of Java as a language, but if it can't be implemented well, it won't be much good.
Well I don't know what your experience is but I have never run into any issues with Java being cross-platform. I have literaly just finished doing some bug fixes to a J2EE app for one of our clients. I develop on Win2K, test deploy on Solaris (Sparc) and will deploy it tommorow on HP-UX. All I do is redeploy the
The final major reason Java has not delivered is because it's not made programming any easier or error prone - and much has been made of this promise. Yes, gc does save some bugs (it does cause some more, but on the whole it's good). Java does not save you from uneducated developers or people who simply suck as a programmer. I've seen some steaming piles of turds writted in Java by people who really should be better. This can be said of any language, but much was made about Java being a language to make people make less mistakes - they just make different ones.
I guess this is a matter of degrees isn't it. No Java isn't perfect. But it's a darn site easier to learn and maintain than other, more obfuscated languages like Perl. Java is a language that let's you make less fatal mistakes. No buffer overflows, no pointers, strict type checking and casting rules as well as the Java sandbox go a long way in protecting a system running Java. Can the same be said about C? So even if I'm a bad java programmer, I can't be bad enough to cause the OS to crash or to introduce a system level vunerablility. C give you the freedom to do anything...kinda like giving you enough rope to hang yourself (and two of your friends sometimes).
Despite all that, use the Right Tool for the Job. If that is Java, use it. If it's C (and you can use it right) use it.
But please don't go spreading half-truths and crap to get moderated up.
Nice Troll....
.... you know the other half of our Consititution along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This simply cannot be done because this part of our parliamentary (notice the correct spelling) heritage is enshrined in the Canada Act 1982 (formerly the British North America Act 1867)
To change it requires the ratification of a majority of Canadian Provincial legislatures representing 2/3 of the population of Canada. Now Consider Meech Lake (I and II) and the Charlottown Accord and see how successful we've been on changing our constitution since 1982 (and only the British Parliament could change it before that!).
No my friend, you are either a terribly missinformed, ignorant, reactionary, idiot or a bald-faced liar.
Either way, you're a perfect supporter of the Alliance party.;)
And yes, I did study consitutional law (got an A, too!)
What you describe is possible now using mesh networking technology. See http://locustworld.com/and http://www.meshnetworks.com/
:0 ).
So combine a 'mesh' network topology with say, UltraWideBand (UWB) transmission technology (at higher power of course, or have a node every 10 meters
The Mesh gives you the ability to create ad hoc, self-healing, wireless networks and the UWB (at higher power than the FCC currently allows) gives you incredibly high data transfer rates (average is 40 Mbps but it can get up to 1 Gig !!). UWB has the added advantage of being able to not be bocked by walls, water, or rock so it can be used anywhere. Many different apps can use the same frequencies because the information is "Pulse Width" modulated - unless you are listening for a particular pulse size (pico to nano seconds) everything else is ignored and is the same as background noise (and thus won't interfere with local radio, radar etc). Think interlocking networks sharing bandwidth and not interfering with each other...
All of the technology exists today for this totally decentralized network with very good throughput. No need for cables of telco at all. Add in some security features and we have a winner...
And it can only get better
...of the "computers" used in the movie "Brazil".
Pretty neat.
Sounds like a good time to switch to/invest in a new 802.11x ultra-wide-band solution.
;) )
UWB, as I understand it, sends out nano-second pulses over a wide band of frequencies. These pulses sound like regular "noise" if they are detectable at all. Best part they don't interfere with existing signals on any particular frequency. They can be used for communications or specialized radar (ground penetrating, seeing through walls to find people etc).
So either your DOD swithces it's radar or gets your FCc to allow higher power UWB (currently the range is limited to about 10 meters...great for a UWB mesh network
Anyway, I may not be the most knowledgable in the field, so someone ca correct me but this sounds like a great opportunity to make a better more decentralized technology take hold
Well, those exploits were also fixed quickly becasue the source was available.
;)
How many IE exploits are there right now that are either known and unpatched or just unknown to most people?
And since those exploits happened, if you were expert enough to know the coding problem that caused them, you could certainly recognize the same mistakes in the source code of another mail or shell implementation? But of course, you don't have the chance to even look in the source to Exchange etc to see if the mistakes were made there becasue you can't see the source....
If a company is going to shell out a few million for an enterprise mail system, they may not think much of spending another $20k or so and hire you to go over the source to make sure BEFORE they buy.
Maybe jsut sue them if something goes wrong. But then money goes to lawyers not developers
Well, your average user won't want it...you're right.
;)(etc).
So I suppose it shouldn't be part of the "download" or cd distribution.
But I do agree that the software should be "publicly" available for inspection. If the source to Windows or IE were available, people who would want to know such things could actually see all those security holes and exploits before they are "exploited". MS might not produce such shoddy software then.
Think of it as peer-review of code. Where I work, our code is always peer reviewed and heavily commented before it goes to a client, so some poor shlep can come along in 2 years (and it might even be the same shlep that originally wrote the code!) and change or maintain it. If your code is consistantly crappy, uncommented or uses poor practices and standards, you don't work here long.
The same should be true of major commercial software. I, or anyone else with the knowledge, time or desire, should be able to review the code to IE to see if all those security issues result from design or programming flaws. I can get the code as uneditable, uncopyable, unprintable PDF if "code stealing" is a concern.
Many of these programs get hacked, stolen or dissasembled now, without the source code available. Making source available will not make it worse. It could arguably make it easier to enforce "copyright"...It will be crystal clear who "borrowed" the BSD code and used it in their own commercial implementation of the TCP/IP stack
Companies may want to have their own or "hired gun" experts inspect the code as a condition of purchase. Would you buy a house without having a home inspector go through it an tell you if the furnace was old, if the roof leaked or if the back porch was about to fall down? Buying commercial software for many medium to large companies is an investment on the same magnitude as buying a house is to individuals. Why shouldn't they have the same ability to protect themselves?
The only other way would be to make all existing EULA's null and void and hold software companies finacially liable for any "harm" caused by security breaches or bugs in their software...
Ooooooo, so cool, calling me pompous and an ass in the same sentence....
You don't need to edit Ant's XML by hand, Netbeans, IntelliJ and a few others have nice GUI's for doing that...and even if you do, it's not that hard.
Put your real name down next time asshole, so I can put you on my foes list...
Holy shit, just because XML is easy to read and write by hand doesn't mean it should be...
My point was that XML documents are easier for a program to parse (given the abundance of Sax and DOM parsers available in almost every language). Just beacause an XML document is large and complex for a human to read doesn't mean a program can't read with great ease.
So complaining that it's harder to write by hand than property files is crap because if you had any brains, you'd use an XML editor (like the ones built into Netbeans and just about every other IDE or XML Spy etc).
Reading a spec and using this stuff in the real world are 2 different things...
Nice straw man attack asswipe...
Number 1, we are not talking about programming languages, but build systems. Whine all you want, it's still better than the other major build system 'make'..
Number 2, if you have ever used Ant you'll know that these so-called inconsistancies are relatively minor and many get fixed with each new release. Clearly, you've never used Ant...
Since I started using Ant on projects, I've actually found them much easier to maintain, since the Ant script usually doesn't change, dick head, the code it compiles, jars and deploys does.
Nice try, troll
Repeat after me:
;) ) because, since it's an xml document, I can add elements and tasks by right clicking and selecting "Add".
;)
"XML is not meant for humans to read, XML is not meant for humans to read..."
XML is way of structuring information so it is easy for software to parse and read, not people. By the same token, it's also not meant to be typed by hand (although it can be). I use Netbeans 3.4 to generate and create my build scripts (an all my other java development
Pretty easy. Way easier than make and makefiles.
Sure the syntax is a bit inconsistant, but that's mainly because Ant growns by incorporating lots of externally created custom tasks into the base. It also gets released fairly often so there isn't a lot of time to refactor those new custom tasks to make them "look" like the old ones....if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No matter what, the bottom line is that Ant makes Java development easier, faster and more manageable. Id rather have inconsistant syntax and a powerful, efficient build system than the consistant syntax any day.
BTW, If you are so disappointed with the way Ant is made, download the source, fix the "problems" you see and contribute it back...it is, after all, Open Source
As a non-VB weenie (;) -> Java and formerly C/C++ - I can't but agree with you. Stones and Matthews book is a reference when I need to bone up on things like multi-threading and signals under POSIX.
/. )
A really great book.
I wonder how their 2nd book Professional Linux Programming is? (Hint hint
I agree.
;) ...so I've never gone to the page of which you speak.
Even before the merger with TD, Canada Trust has always had a great banking site.
I also have never encountered any problems with using almost any browser with their site (and never any problems with the OS?!? as other posters have stated their banks)
As for cheques...since I use TC Canadatrust Easyweb (and before that the telephone version Easyline), I haven't written a cheque in 3 years
Except of course, it hasn't worked in Quebec, no matter how close they got, so I'll be willing to bet it won't work in PEI.
Besides, most of the "laws" these whiners are complaining about are FEDERAL laws in Canada (yes, we have ONE Criminal Code for the whole country!)so taking over any province wouldn't do them much good. They would have to take over the whole country.
And despite what you may have heard, or what our dim-witted right-wing will have you beleive, there are still lots of Canadians with plenty of (fully legal and registered) hunting rifles that won't let 20 000 Americans do anything in our country, let alone take it over (or one of the provinces).
Most of us like Canada the way it is, thank you very much.
BTW, Do ya think G. Dubya would let them take over North Dakota either? (ND has Nukes and SAC Air Wings...separation would make them a Terrorist state!!!!))
Whew...I feel better now...