I think the logic is that since they're using the number in the advertisement, the fact that the police are bombing the number makes it difficult for the person to do business over it - of course they can just buy another phone but they'd lose any profit they would have otherwise made with the original ad.
I agree that "turn yourself in at your earliest convenience" is a bit dumb, but at least it's not "we know where you live, the phone company told us. Wer'e coming to get you" which is what I'd expect from the Chinese.
MSDN has been churning out security-related articles for a few months now.
Some of the stuff there is good (some of it is plain common sense), but I wonder if they're applying it to their own products. Supposedly IIS 6.0 was designed and coded that way *shrug*.
This increased number of users will give MS Project greater market penetration, making it more of a standard. Competing products can expect their sales to drop.
And Microsoft continues to be the Evil Empire because they're undermining their competitors and being a monopoly, etc.
Coming soon - Slashdot stories bashing "M$" because of their "unfair" competition based on the strategy of releasing the source code to their products. That should be a fun "discussion".
Be careful of what you wish for - you just might get it.
The beginning of the end for X? Vindication is at hand?
X is the single biggest obstacle to Linux becoming a usable desktop OS. It's absolutely fantastic at doing what it was designed to do, but it has no place in a desktop environment.
Heck, most of the time even Terminal Services on Windows 2000 (running over a 10mbit network) is more responsive than my Linux box.
The recent Slashdot story about kernel tweaking (kernel tweaking!) to make X more responsive underscores this perfectly. First you start tweaking the kernel... and then you realize that you have to move the graphics subsystem closer to ring 0 to make the thing work at sufficient speed. The very thing that Windows has been criticized for since NT 3.51 came out.
Get rid of X and you have a desktop OS that can actually compete. You DO NOT abstract the windowing system first and then tack stuff to it (say "OpenGL") - you put the graphics close to the metal and then abstract that instead. That's why DirectX is the darling of game developers.
Maybe this is offtopic but I think it's weird that nobody has submitted a review or something about Children Of Dune? Then there's the Riverworld one coming up (those books rock), and later Battlestar Galactica (the latter was reported here, I think).
While I wasn't a huge Farscape fan, I thought it was a relatively good show - in fact anything that doesn't attempt to tag "SciFi" to things like Buffy or Roswell is good, IMO. Especially if it involves space ships, aliens with attitudes and... uh, chicks.
But if the SciFi channel is dropping things like Farscape at the expense of doing more miniseries like Dune, Riverworld and Galactica, more power to them, I say. At least there will still be stuff to watch and look forward to, unlike the rest of TV.
You said I said:
J2EE standard says otherwise, then [..] JBoss is not compliant.
That's nice - you omitted the question mark I put at the end of that sentence. If we choose not to ignore that, then this:
It seems to me that you have a serious English problem with understanding causes and their effects
Is just you trying to put words in my mouth (or just insulting me by implying that my grasp of English is somehow more deficient than yours?). I was quoting two pieces of the article that seemed at odds with each other, verbatim, and then asking a question about them.
I figured as much. Still, it seems to me that even a simple abstraction could be better -at that level- than simply not specifying what a server should do.
As luck would have it, I've been engaged in a project to create a.NET app server (as an alternative to COM+) for the past few months and we're trying to figure out how other similar products work. My point of reference tends to be the MTS/COM+ model so I've got a ways to go.
For example, a company that writes a billing application using J2EE software and tools should be able to run that program on any J2EE-compliant software without extensive manual coding.
...
But the company asserts that its software is compatible with J2EE because applications written for commercial Java applications servers can be reworked to run on JBoss in a matter of hours or days.
So... what is compliance in this case? It seems to me that if the application has to be reworked and the J2EE standard says otherwise, then there's no issue - JBoss is not compliant? Is that what the J2EE certification actually dictates?
Flashback to August, 1998. President Clinton, in the middle of his impeachment scandal, orders a cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan. He is ridiculed and berated for this - 'wag the dog' is a phrase often used. Take it a little further. In August of 1998, 2,000 marines and 1,000 paratroopers land in Afghanistan, occupying Kandahar and Kabul. The world is in an uproar. France, Germany, Russia and China (among others) decry "american imperialism" and condemn the action in a UN resolution. The Clinton administration counters saying that it had good intelligence indicating that terrorists operating and training in Afghanistan were about to launch attacks on American interests and even cities. Clinton is ridiculed and criticized for this.
Except that September 11 never happens.
Now fast forward to March, 2003.
To all you self-righteous americans who claim they're "ashamed" of being american, and to all others who think this is an agression against your beliefs or your comfortable position in the world pecking order - I say this: too fucking bad.
If the security of the United States depends on taking out Saddam Hussein, along with a few thousands of his soldiers and (regrettably) a few thousands of Iraqi civilians, too bad. Too fucking bad.
This war is not about oil, about momey or about anything else than security. If you can't see that... well, too bad. Too fucking bad.
And I disagree. There was an article a few weeks ago that asked what Unix had that Linux didn't. If you want to get an idea what Linux has to do to get to that "big iron" arena, read the responses there.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Linux can't compete at that level (a level which Microsoft just does not play in, incidentally). I'm just saying there's still a long way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're on to something here. I doubt that's a coinky-dinky.
My husband
Mwahahah.
My karma is in the basement now, so I don't give a crap
And it's going lower, unlike mine, which is always excellent. How does that make you feel, hmmm?
No woman
Mwahahaha, again. This, coming from a 15 year old acne-ridden pud with bipolar disorder. I'm impressed.
You fucking asshole
You are very entertaining, I'll give you that much.
I agree that "turn yourself in at your earliest convenience" is a bit dumb, but at least it's not "we know where you live, the phone company told us. Wer'e coming to get you" which is what I'd expect from the Chinese.
Some of the stuff there is good (some of it is plain common sense), but I wonder if they're applying it to their own products. Supposedly IIS 6.0 was designed and coded that way *shrug*.
And Microsoft continues to be the Evil Empire because they're undermining their competitors and being a monopoly, etc.
Coming soon - Slashdot stories bashing "M$" because of their "unfair" competition based on the strategy of releasing the source code to their products. That should be a fun "discussion".
Be careful of what you wish for - you just might get it.
You need to find someone who gives a shit.
Whoa. Haven't seen that one before.
X is the single biggest obstacle to Linux becoming a usable desktop OS. It's absolutely fantastic at doing what it was designed to do, but it has no place in a desktop environment.
Heck, most of the time even Terminal Services on Windows 2000 (running over a 10mbit network) is more responsive than my Linux box.
The recent Slashdot story about kernel tweaking (kernel tweaking!) to make X more responsive underscores this perfectly. First you start tweaking the kernel... and then you realize that you have to move the graphics subsystem closer to ring 0 to make the thing work at sufficient speed. The very thing that Windows has been criticized for since NT 3.51 came out.
Get rid of X and you have a desktop OS that can actually compete. You DO NOT abstract the windowing system first and then tack stuff to it (say "OpenGL") - you put the graphics close to the metal and then abstract that instead. That's why DirectX is the darling of game developers.
While I wasn't a huge Farscape fan, I thought it was a relatively good show - in fact anything that doesn't attempt to tag "SciFi" to things like Buffy or Roswell is good, IMO. Especially if it involves space ships, aliens with attitudes and... uh, chicks.
But if the SciFi channel is dropping things like Farscape at the expense of doing more miniseries like Dune, Riverworld and Galactica, more power to them, I say. At least there will still be stuff to watch and look forward to, unlike the rest of TV.
OK, peace =)
J2EE standard says otherwise, then [..] JBoss is not compliant.
That's nice - you omitted the question mark I put at the end of that sentence. If we choose not to ignore that, then this:
It seems to me that you have a serious English problem with understanding causes and their effects
Is just you trying to put words in my mouth (or just insulting me by implying that my grasp of English is somehow more deficient than yours?). I was quoting two pieces of the article that seemed at odds with each other, verbatim, and then asking a question about them.
Or maybe I should say RTFA
Indeed.
As luck would have it, I've been engaged in a project to create a .NET app server (as an alternative to COM+) for the past few months and we're trying to figure out how other similar products work. My point of reference tends to be the MTS/COM+ model so I've got a ways to go.
Thanks for the explanation.
Forgive me for asking. Do you hang out in IRC and tell newbies to go RTFM as well?
*snort*
But the company asserts that its software is compatible with J2EE because applications written for commercial Java applications servers can be reworked to run on JBoss in a matter of hours or days.
So... what is compliance in this case? It seems to me that if the application has to be reworked and the J2EE standard says otherwise, then there's no issue - JBoss is not compliant? Is that what the J2EE certification actually dictates?
Far worse than that, actually.
I think it's time for a MODBOMB!!!!
Go ahead, make my day. Oh, unless by "modbomb" you mean posting stupid and inane AC replies to all my posts. "Wait two minutes", indeed.
I guess you've arrived when you get your very own personal troll. I'm flattered.
*grin*
That's a bit better.
Except that September 11 never happens.
Now fast forward to March, 2003.
To all you self-righteous americans who claim they're "ashamed" of being american, and to all others who think this is an agression against your beliefs or your comfortable position in the world pecking order - I say this: too fucking bad.
If the security of the United States depends on taking out Saddam Hussein, along with a few thousands of his soldiers and (regrettably) a few thousands of Iraqi civilians, too bad. Too fucking bad.
This war is not about oil, about momey or about anything else than security. If you can't see that... well, too bad. Too fucking bad.
I'm sorry, but that's a supremely stupid analogy. If you can't say anything intelligent about this, then please refrain from doing so altogether.
Ahhhh, yes. You get what you pay for, indeed.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Linux can't compete at that level (a level which Microsoft just does not play in, incidentally). I'm just saying there's still a long way to go.
mwahahahah
You said the same thing four years ago.