capitalism can be a great accelerator of product evolution
No argument there.
But if there is only ONE product, with one or two companies controlling that product, then there is no incentive for evolution. Why spend money on R&D when you don't have to?
It's much easier to let the client pop open the little warning dialog letting the user know that they screwed up the date for example.
Easier from what perspective? To do validation at the client I need to code essetially the same logic twice. Once at the client, then the second time (in a different language) at the server.
These same validation declarations can be used on the server side, and indeed, can be programmaticaly derived from existing constraints.
That would make sense then. You only need to create the checking code once, then have some engine generate the required code for both the client and the server.
Validation and the GUI
on
XForms Essentials
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No matter how much the browser will do, you still need to validate the entered information at the server.
While XForms may ease the minds of some, anyone who trusts client side validation is kidding themselves. So yes, while it might be easier to format the forms, and you have easier client side actions and validation, you cannot really trust the information when it arrives at the server. All the same validation must be performed again.
Because people WILL hack the data stream and try to insert bogus information. The one thing that they CANNOT do is corrupt the server side business logic (short of hacking the server, in which case you're hooped anyways).
The best that client side validation can do is provide quick feedback to the user, and/or update GUI displays (such a totalling a column of numbers for a shopping cart).
I once subverted an input form which insisted that I enter a name. So I looked at the Javascript and found that it was testing for an empty string. So I entered a space, and the site let me in!
Is this legal, for a company to go about talking crap that's as yet unproven?
The technical term is FUD.
Re:Someone's going to say it, dos2unix
on
J2EE Security
·
· Score: 1
Think of a typewriter. There are seperate controls for the two functions.
I have always thought that the *nix way was wrong, and took control AWAY from me. If I want a CR, I want a the actions of a CR, NOT an automatic CR/LF.
Automatic actions are the MS way, IMHO.
Sigh, now I will get flamed for this, Oh Well.....
I'd be interest to see what the step was just before "Profit!"
?? Profit!
Re:Someone's going to say it, dos2unix
on
J2EE Security
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes but )in the DOS world) I have used just a carrige return, and I have used just a line feed. And then I have used both in combination.
Just a carriage return (no line feed) can be used as a status display with a command line app. In a loop you update the status (such as a line counter), then use just the caraige return to return the cursor to the beginning of the line. The you write out the line number again ON THE SAME LINE.
Just a line feed can mimic a tree. One line down, same character position.
You just have to understand the concept of a context menu.
and
You just have to understand the concept of command line options.
The big difference here is that in a context menu I can SEE the choices. With a GUI I can SEE the options. The GUI also (can) enforces impossible choices (what, you want to have white text with a white background? Sorry white background is greyed out with white foreground).
The problem with a CLI is that YOU need to remember what the options are, and understand how they interact. Yes you can type in -? -h or man XXX. Then you can read through a programmer's "best try" at documentation.
Now don't get me wrong here. I started with DOS 1.0, can program in DOS batch files, and have a suite of batch files to do certain repetative tasks.
But for most utilities I would prefer a GUI (especially if it can save settings).
And do, pray tell, tell me why do I need to remember a set of archane command line settings just to install an application?
Well, it's posted here, isn't that a trustworthy & unbiased source?
You are trying to be funny but...
By the time everyone has had a chance to bash a comment, what comes out is pretty close to the truth. Yes a single comment can be garbage, but the aggragate comments should be OK.
Assuming we have free will presumes the laws of physics do not apply to us
I do not see how this applies to living things.
An electron presumably does not have free will, it must follow its course and react to external events based on its physical attributes.
A living thing however makes "descisions". It reacts to external events, but not nessessarily in the same way twice. Thus a bee will fly with the wind, yet may fly against the wind.
Or we may not have enough of an understanding of the entire realm of stimuli to which we (living things) react to. But then having such an understanding would lead to prediction of the future (taking into account the fact that we can predict the future, which of course is another stilumi).
For instance I can write a computer program which has 4 different possible binary state holders. This gives me 2^4 possible states. I program that if a particular state condition exists, then the program will do X. Thus I know and understand all possible stimuli for this computer program.
Extrapolating to the real world, if I know and understand all possible stimuli for a living thing, I can predict its behaviour based on a set of stimuli.
Sometimes you only need a sub-set to predict behaviour. So if I was to put down your significant other, I can predict with some certainty that you will not be happy.
But only some certainty. You might be going through a breakup and may agree with me. I do not have enough information (understanding).
So maybe we do not have free will. We only see free will because we do not know enough about reactions to stimuli.
Going back in time is thus simply fulfilling history.
Ahh yes, except that I believe in free will......
Your proposal mandates that all that can happen has already happened and we are all following pre-determined unchangable destinies.
In other words, the far end of time (is there such a thing?) is already cast, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Because the time travellers would be following history from their point of view. But (from their perspective) travellers to their time would be following that history, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"I love chinks."
You love cracks in the wall???
some animation appears on the bottom third of the screen
At which point I note the product and company. Then I boycott them.
Advertising droids take note. If you annoy me enough, I will NOT buy/ watch/ consume/ pay for your product. And mid-show ads annoy the hell out of me.
capitalism can be a great accelerator of product evolution
No argument there.
But if there is only ONE product, with one or two companies controlling that product, then there is no incentive for evolution. Why spend money on R&D when you don't have to?
Change!? "We dont like change"
Change I can handle. Heck, the entire computer industry is BASED on change.
However lock-in I do not like, be it MS, Intel, or Linux.
That seems like an awful lot of work
Call it curiosity then.
I never use my real name at a registation site anyways. And I usually fill in bogus info for surveys.
Except slashdot polls of course....
It's much easier to let the client pop open the little warning dialog letting the user know that they screwed up the date for example.
Easier from what perspective? To do validation at the client I need to code essetially the same logic twice. Once at the client, then the second time (in a different language) at the server.
I am lazy. I prefer to code once.
These same validation declarations can be used on the server side, and indeed, can be programmaticaly derived from existing constraints.
That would make sense then. You only need to create the checking code once, then have some engine generate the required code for both the client and the server.
No matter how much the browser will do, you still need to validate the entered information at the server.
While XForms may ease the minds of some, anyone who trusts client side validation is kidding themselves. So yes, while it might be easier to format the forms, and you have easier client side actions and validation, you cannot really trust the information when it arrives at the server. All the same validation must be performed again.
Because people WILL hack the data stream and try to insert bogus information. The one thing that they CANNOT do is corrupt the server side business logic (short of hacking the server, in which case you're hooped anyways).
The best that client side validation can do is provide quick feedback to the user, and/or update GUI displays (such a totalling a column of numbers for a shopping cart).
I once subverted an input form which insisted that I enter a name. So I looked at the Javascript and found that it was testing for an empty string. So I entered a space, and the site let me in!
Private Sub Form1_Load(
Excellent naming of your forms and variables!
Is this legal, for a company to go about talking crap that's as yet unproven?
The technical term is FUD.
Think of a typewriter. There are seperate controls for the two functions.
I have always thought that the *nix way was wrong, and took control AWAY from me. If I want a CR, I want a the actions of a CR, NOT an automatic CR/LF.
Automatic actions are the MS way, IMHO.
Sigh, now I will get flamed for this, Oh Well.....
I'd be interest to see what the step was just before "Profit!"
??
Profit!
Yes but )in the DOS world) I have used just a carrige return, and I have used just a line feed. And then I have used both in combination.
Just a carriage return (no line feed) can be used as a status display with a command line app. In a loop you update the status (such as a line counter), then use just the caraige return to return the cursor to the beginning of the line. The you write out the line number again ON THE SAME LINE.
Just a line feed can mimic a tree. One line down, same character position.
So just what kind of a two-bit operation are you running here?
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 1
Given the nature of binary, you can have words based on multiples of 8 bits (and sometimes 4 bits such as a nibble (4 consecutive bits)).
:-))
You can have words on powers of 2, given the nature of the binary system. Though a 2 bit computer would be rather limited.
And you mis-spelt Nybble.
Wars and AIDS tend to remove the most able-bodied from the local labor force.
AIDS? That is an interesting assertion. How does AIDS tend to remove most able-bodied men? War yes, since the military screens out the weak, but AIDS?
Not to mention wars, corruption, terrorists, "freedom fighters", etc
You just have to understand the concept of a context menu.
and
You just have to understand the concept of command line options.
The big difference here is that in a context menu I can SEE the choices. With a GUI I can SEE the options. The GUI also (can) enforces impossible choices (what, you want to have white text with a white background? Sorry white background is greyed out with white foreground).
The problem with a CLI is that YOU need to remember what the options are, and understand how they interact. Yes you can type in -? -h or man XXX. Then you can read through a programmer's "best try" at documentation.
Now don't get me wrong here. I started with DOS 1.0, can program in DOS batch files, and have a suite of batch files to do certain repetative tasks.
But for most utilities I would prefer a GUI (especially if it can save settings).
And do, pray tell, tell me why do I need to remember a set of archane command line settings just to install an application?
Well, it's posted here, isn't that a trustworthy & unbiased source?
You are trying to be funny but...
By the time everyone has had a chance to bash a comment, what comes out is pretty close to the truth. Yes a single comment can be garbage, but the aggragate comments should be OK.
In my opinion of course.....
You misspelt 'scam'.
No he did not, he just knows more English than you do.
Assuming we have free will presumes the laws of physics do not apply to us
I do not see how this applies to living things.
An electron presumably does not have free will, it must follow its course and react to external events based on its physical attributes.
A living thing however makes "descisions". It reacts to external events, but not nessessarily in the same way twice. Thus a bee will fly with the wind, yet may fly against the wind.
Or we may not have enough of an understanding of the entire realm of stimuli to which we (living things) react to. But then having such an understanding would lead to prediction of the future (taking into account the fact that we can predict the future, which of course is another stilumi).
For instance I can write a computer program which has 4 different possible binary state holders. This gives me 2^4 possible states. I program that if a particular state condition exists, then the program will do X. Thus I know and understand all possible stimuli for this computer program.
Extrapolating to the real world, if I know and understand all possible stimuli for a living thing, I can predict its behaviour based on a set of stimuli.
Sometimes you only need a sub-set to predict behaviour. So if I was to put down your significant other, I can predict with some certainty that you will not be happy.
But only some certainty. You might be going through a breakup and may agree with me. I do not have enough information (understanding).
So maybe we do not have free will. We only see free will because we do not know enough about reactions to stimuli.
Arghh.... circular argument.
Belief does not make it so.
True. But then it cannot be determined that it is false either.
The only way to settle this is to be able to step outside our frame of reference. Might as well ask a character in a book to do that....
Deja vu (Score:1, Redundant)
Deja vu (Score:1, Redundant)
Deja vu (Score:1, Redundant)
Deja vu (Score:1, Redundant)
Seem to be stuck in a loop here......
Going back in time is thus simply fulfilling history.
Ahh yes, except that I believe in free will......
Your proposal mandates that all that can happen has already happened and we are all following pre-determined unchangable destinies.
In other words, the far end of time (is there such a thing?) is already cast, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Because the time travellers would be following history from their point of view. But (from their perspective) travellers to their time would be following that history, etc.
Well, that's just the point. If you time travel, then you use up the local-time resources. What change is small enough to have ZERO effect?