the using keyword in c# handles exactly this situation.
This code:
using(DisposableObj x = new DisposableObj()) { x.DoSomething(); }
is equivilent to
DisposableObj x = new DisposableObj(); try { x.DoSomething(); } finally { x.Dispose(); }
So as long as the object's author put any "close/release" code into the dispose method, it will get handled automatically when you are done with it. (Even if an exception occurs!)
Most c# objects that have dispose() also have a close()
For example, databases. You can close() them and then reopen them multiple times. If you call dispose() and the object is open, it closes for you.
(So what, I still have to call dispose manually!)
And thats the purpose of the using(){} syntax. You dont have to remember anymore.
Checking out their source code by any non-approved means would imply hacking into their server to get the code, or getting someone "on the inside" to give it to you outside of any license.
I bet if you hack into Linus' box he gets mad at you and stomps on you.
I be he also gets mad at you if you get someone "on the inside" to release you a copy of the kernel outside the GPL.
"But wait!" you say, if someone releases you the kernel without the GPL, they weren't authorized to do that, so its stealing!
While I think the analogy of copying something to attacking ships is certainly not a good analogy, the current publishers are using the term in 100% accordance with the meaning originally used by authors.
The rightfull owner of a copyright protected work is calling someone who copies and or distributes that same work without their permission a pirate. In both cases.
2) Secondly, even if MS was a 100% pure monopoly (which they aren't) they cannot set prices arbitrarily. They are still subject to basic economics. Elasticity of demand is still around, its just more steep.
3.1) (2) is true because : you don't "need" Windows. Or Office. There are alternatives. (Linux, Mac, Openoffice, wordperfect)
3.2) There are millions of people in the USA that do not use Windows or Office. There are billions of the same in the world. Therefore your "need" is likely based on your choice. Your choice of hobby. Your choice of profession (or future profession). If you wanted to be a doctor, you can't claim its ok to steal corpses so you can learn (medical school is expensive. They must have a monopoly! (they do BTW, its called the AMA))
The bottom feeders are already out against MS. Everyone who had even a potential case (The feds, the states, and europe) (individuals are covered via the large suits) has already filed a case.
Therefore MS can only save money by getting rid of these things quickly. Once all the suits are settled, they are in the clear, because everyone who was against them has given up their rights by settling in the first place.
There are no new people who can make suits, because they were already represented by the bigger suits.
The microsoft to Ma Bell analogy holds little water.
Bell was a large company, broken into several smaller companies, each allowing to provide service to a given area. No restrictions were made on what type of product each baby bell was allowed to produce, or the prices each baby bell could set (other than the pricing regulations already in effect)
The other large anti-trust case, (Standard Oil) was the same. Location of service were split into multiple companies, not type of service.
Microsoft is a producer of goods, not a distributor of goods. The things that they do distribute (Software downloads, services) aren't really location based. As Slashdot is well aware, the internet has no boundries.
There are 0/None/Nada precidents for splitting up a company based on product, or telling a company what products they can create.
While MS did (and may continue to, depending on who you ask) act uncompetitavley, this power would not be removed by any logical splitup.
If you split them into OS vs Office for example, the major source of anti-compete accusations in the past was bundling of features within the OS, or forced contracts on OEMs. Neither of these would be fixed by this (proposed) split.
As stated, geographical splits don't really make sense for a virtual company. You could split up distribution, but MS doesnt really do their own distribution except for downloads. Everything is already passed out to OEMs or chains like Best Buy.
The only thing you could do would be to make the internal departments act like Black Boxes to eachother. The office team doesn't get any inside info on the OS that isnt available to other developers.
Even with that, MS is still a defacto monopoly. Very few buisiness apps or games run on non-MS hardware (Discounting mainframe and huge unix apps like SAP that MS isn't even competing with)
In office they have a defacto standard, because everyone wants their files to be readable by as many people as possible. The new XML file formats will significantly lower the barrier for entry into that market tho.
And finally, The fact that Mac and Linux are claiming such good marketing position, is in fact evidince AGAINST MS being given a radical splitup. If you really want MS to get split up, make Apple and Redhat say that they are closing because MS drove them into the ground.
As long as they are around, all MS will get is "corrective" action.
Your 10000000 bit PKI key is just a secret. If you are relying on not giving that secret out to handle your security, then you don't have any. Its just a secret, I guess I am better off not using encryption
The arrangement of pins in my doorknob is a secret. I guess I am better off not locking my doors.
The password to log into my workstation is just a secret. I should just leave it open.
The more "secrets" you have in any given situation, the better secured you are.
Random portscans where they get all your secrets wrong : could be random noise.
Random portscans where they get 2/3 of your secrets right : You have probably identified an active intrusion attempt. Also you have identified a possible leak in your secrets. Time to change the passwords.
Assuming the original owners still have a stock sitting around, any increase in stock demand (from new people buying the stock) will tend to put upward pressure on the stock price, increasing the value of the shares retained by the founders. These shares could then be sold at the higher price, or used as collatoral in a loan.
Also, stock price is one of the indicators of company health, which is used for bond issues, etc.
Conversly, if the stock price falls, the company will find it hard to get loans, and may find itself in a buyout position. That could be bad, since they could get bought out by "bad guys"
Also, like I said, it should just be one factor in the spam identification.
Besides, most likely what will happen is this:
domain of email is not spoofed (-20 to spam)
domain of email is spoofed (+20 to spam)
spoofiness of email is undetermined (0)
you are not spoofing, and using the verification service, therefore you get the -20 to spam.
Spammer does not spoof, and uses the verification (-20 to spam), but also, he is selling his product illegally, and because he didnt spoof, he is easy to track down. a few people get the spam, but then the spammer is shut down.
Spammer does spoof and doesnt verify, or the verification fails (+20 to spam)
If you ignore all mail that isnt verified, then spammers will have to verify. Once they verify, its easy to shut down their open relays and infected achines, because they are easy to find.
If the caller ID works on the zombie box, that gives one more unfakable thing that baynesian (sp?) filters etc can look for.
"This email looks like it is advertizing something" (+1 to spam)
"The URL that they are directing you to does not match the domain the email came from" (+20 to spam)
Wheras legitimate email that you might really have signed up for, even though it is commercial will most likely come from the same domain as the URL in the message
Obviously this is not foolproof, or a stand alone solution, but it is one more variable that can be taken into spam-identifying equations
There is a big difference between how crappy their parser is (which is pretty bad, but the.net one is much better)
and saying that Microsoft should use XML in their applications.
If they said "we are not going to use XML", everyone would be mad at them for trying to use encrypted proprietary formats (see Word debates regularly on/.)
Have you ever used office XML? I have. Their namespace is of course proprietary, but EVERYONE's namespace is proprietary. There isn't a standard document schema out there. (And no, OpenOffice and StarOffice etc are not standards, they may be open, but they are not a standard.)
The XML is in plain english (well technical english maybe, but it isnt encrypted/encoded gibberish) , and very easy to use. I write applications all the time that output word, xl, and popwerpoint files from code.
Well, from a quick google search, I came up with this site which gives two possible numbers for the speed of the earth, 15km/s and 30km/s
For argument's sake, i will use the slower number(which hurts my argument). So if we can delay the asteroid for 12 hours, that means that the earth has moved over 648,000 km from its original location. (this isn't quite true, since earth moves in an orbit, and there would be a straight line distance that is shorter, but the orbit of earth is pretty huge, and for such a small arc, its pretty approximate to linear)
Since the diameter of earth is ~13000km, the earth would have moved approximately 50 earth-diameters away from its original position during the 12 hour delay.
Assuming the asteroid is smaller than the earth (lets say the size of texas), it is extremetly unlikely that it would still hit earth if we could somehow induce a 12 hour delay in the asteroid reaching the oribit of earth. This is true even if the orbits were tangental. Basically the only way it would still hit us after a 12 hour delay, is if it was in an almost identical oribit to earth, the it would be just a matter of waiting until we got to the "least common multiple" of orbit times.
Since we know there are no asteroids in a conncurent orbit with earth at this time, I think it is safe to assume that if we have the ability to delay the asteroid, we can avoid it all together.
Also, if an orbit was tangental, an asteroid would tend to "bounce" off the athmosphere. Probably still mess with us a bit, but not nearly as bad as a full on impact.
um. Which side of the earth an asteroid hits is pretty much a function of when it gets here, since the earth spins. So unless you have a way to delay it getting to earth (and delaying it would allow earth to just move out of the way)
So really the only way you could get it to hit the "other" side of the earth, would be to delay it AND deflect it to be into the new spot in earth's orbit. If you can deflect it, just deflect it the OTHER WAY.
In addition, an asteroid of any significance hitting the earth (singificant enough that we would try and deflect it) would be pretty much cataclysmic regardless of where it it. Tidal waves, and dust plumes, and fires would do the damage no matter where they started from.
I was not lying. Perhaps exaggerating. But you will surely admit that conservative viewpoints are grossly underrepresented when compared to liberal viewpoints on most campuses.
As for people accepting viewpoints. I know many more conservatives who are willing to debate out (civily!) an issue with any takers. However the majority of liberals I know take a very dogmatic approach, and do nothing except repeat out whatever slogan is currently hip in the liberal world. They don't have any reason or logic behind their opinions, and therefore cannot discuss them. (Since you didn't do anything but flame bait and repeat what I said, I am tempted to put you into this category)
In any case, the only place that I can actually respond to you:
Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F."
Take a physics class and try to argue with your professor and you get an F.
Physics are matters of fact. Poly Sci is not fact, it is theories, and ideas. There are plenty of competeing ideas to go around.
There is not a massive movement to fire liberal teachers.
There is a movement to have some fairness in hiring and tenure for both sides of the political spectrum. 99% of professors self identify as liberal. Socialists and marxists dominate many compuses. Universities claim to want diversity, and they should actually try to get that. Have both view points represented.
Further, many professors will not accept any viewpoints other than their own. Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F. Regardless of the professor's viewpoint, all viewpoints should be allowed. They are not.
1) Im sure Canada has laws against conspiring to assault people
2) If a prosecuter in the US decides that the message was intended for a US audience, it dosent matter where the poster is, its a crime in the US. If the poster comes to the US, he goes to jail. If the prosecuter cares enough, he gets extradaited, and then goes to jail.
I am not little minded. If you read the comment to which I originaly replied (and its parent). Someone did commit a crime, even though they meant it with humor. My subsequent replies were clarification for people who asked "what crime". So I elaborated.
You are certainly free to say that you dont think certain people should exist. But if you go so far as to offer money to have someone taken out, that is a crime, joke or not.
Of course you would probably not be prosecuted, yet a crime it still is.
Additionally, it wasn't a flame, as I didn't swear, TYPE IN ALL CAPS, or get mad in any way. You seem to be a bit sensitive.
Since all of those things are usefull to me (except 2 and 3) that isn't really an option.
What IS an option : www.sneakemail.com
create a new email address each time you need to sign up for a website/list. All the addresses forward to your main account.
If that address gets spammed, you can delete it, or apply filters so that only the list/site can send you mail from it.
Its free, but if you pay them ($12/6mo) you get a bunch of nifty features, and a 50MB/mo limit. (free is like 10MB/mo I think. but for email that is alot)
Well, since this is an international forum, he has an out. But if it could be shown that he was soliciting someone to do that crime in the US, even if he did the solicitation from Canada, it would still be a crime in the US.
At a minimum, he would be arrested if he came to the states. However, if someone actually went through with the crime, I'm sure Canada would be willing to extradite him. Canada doesn't want maniacs running around free, anymore than the US does.
Slashdot Mirror
well, the average (hell, even small) program makes thousands and thousands of memory allocations. Every string, every bit of math etc.
However, database or file allocations are much less frequent.(and in a well written program, very localized and isolated)
Just because you can't solve every problem, doesn't mean you can't solve the big one.
the using keyword in c# handles exactly this situation.
:
This code
using(DisposableObj x = new DisposableObj())
{
x.DoSomething();
}
is equivilent to
DisposableObj x = new DisposableObj();
try
{
x.DoSomething();
}
finally
{
x.Dispose();
}
So as long as the object's author put any "close/release" code into the dispose method, it will get handled automatically when you are done with it.
(Even if an exception occurs!)
Most c# objects that have dispose() also have a close()
For example, databases. You can close() them and then reopen them multiple times. If you call dispose() and the object is open, it closes for you.
(So what, I still have to call dispose manually!)
And thats the purpose of the using(){} syntax. You dont have to remember anymore.
Checking out their source code by any non-approved means would imply hacking into their server to get the code, or getting someone "on the inside" to give it to you outside of any license.
I bet if you hack into Linus' box he gets mad at you and stomps on you.
I be he also gets mad at you if you get someone "on the inside" to release you a copy of the kernel outside the GPL.
"But wait!" you say, if someone releases you the kernel without the GPL, they weren't authorized to do that, so its stealing!
"Same thing for Microsoft source" I reply.
While I think the analogy of copying something to attacking ships is certainly not a good analogy, the current publishers are using the term in 100% accordance with the meaning originally used by authors.
The rightfull owner of a copyright protected work is calling someone who copies and or distributes that same work without their permission a pirate. In both cases.
1) I think you mean "can"
2) Secondly, even if MS was a 100% pure monopoly (which they aren't) they cannot set prices arbitrarily. They are still subject to basic economics. Elasticity of demand is still around, its just more steep.
3.1) (2) is true because : you don't "need" Windows. Or Office. There are alternatives. (Linux, Mac, Openoffice, wordperfect)
3.2) There are millions of people in the USA that do not use Windows or Office. There are billions of the same in the world. Therefore your "need" is likely based on your choice. Your choice of hobby. Your choice of profession (or future profession). If you wanted to be a doctor, you can't claim its ok to steal corpses so you can learn (medical school is expensive. They must have a monopoly! (they do BTW, its called the AMA))
The bottom feeders are already out against MS. Everyone who had even a potential case (The feds, the states, and europe) (individuals are covered via the large suits) has already filed a case.
Therefore MS can only save money by getting rid of these things quickly. Once all the suits are settled, they are in the clear, because everyone who was against them has given up their rights by settling in the first place.
There are no new people who can make suits, because they were already represented by the bigger suits.
The microsoft to Ma Bell analogy holds little water.
Bell was a large company, broken into several smaller companies, each allowing to provide service to a given area. No restrictions were made on what type of product each baby bell was allowed to produce, or the prices each baby bell could set (other than the pricing regulations already in effect)
The other large anti-trust case, (Standard Oil) was the same. Location of service were split into multiple companies, not type of service.
Microsoft is a producer of goods, not a distributor of goods. The things that they do distribute (Software downloads, services) aren't really location based. As Slashdot is well aware, the internet has no boundries.
There are 0/None/Nada precidents for splitting up a company based on product, or telling a company what products they can create.
While MS did (and may continue to, depending on who you ask) act uncompetitavley, this power would not be removed by any logical splitup.
If you split them into OS vs Office for example, the major source of anti-compete accusations in the past was bundling of features within the OS, or forced contracts on OEMs. Neither of these would be fixed by this (proposed) split.
As stated, geographical splits don't really make sense for a virtual company. You could split up distribution, but MS doesnt really do their own distribution except for downloads. Everything is already passed out to OEMs or chains like Best Buy.
The only thing you could do would be to make the internal departments act like Black Boxes to eachother. The office team doesn't get any inside info on the OS that isnt available to other developers.
Even with that, MS is still a defacto monopoly. Very few buisiness apps or games run on non-MS hardware (Discounting mainframe and huge unix apps like SAP that MS isn't even competing with)
In office they have a defacto standard, because everyone wants their files to be readable by as many people as possible. The new XML file formats will significantly lower the barrier for entry into that market tho.
And finally, The fact that Mac and Linux are claiming such good marketing position, is in fact evidince AGAINST MS being given a radical splitup. If you really want MS to get split up, make Apple and Redhat say that they are closing because MS drove them into the ground.
As long as they are around, all MS will get is "corrective" action.
Well, then there is no such thing as security.
Your 10000000 bit PKI key is just a secret. If you are relying on not giving that secret out to handle your security, then you don't have any. Its just a secret, I guess I am better off not using encryption
The arrangement of pins in my doorknob is a secret. I guess I am better off not locking my doors.
The password to log into my workstation is just a secret. I should just leave it open.
The more "secrets" you have in any given situation, the better secured you are.
Random portscans where they get all your secrets wrong : could be random noise.
Random portscans where they get 2/3 of your secrets right : You have probably identified an active intrusion attempt. Also you have identified a possible leak in your secrets. Time to change the passwords.
You are right as far as generating capitol, but :
Assuming the original owners still have a stock sitting around, any increase in stock demand (from new people buying the stock) will tend to put upward pressure on the stock price, increasing the value of the shares retained by the founders. These shares could then be sold at the higher price, or used as collatoral in a loan.
Also, stock price is one of the indicators of company health, which is used for bond issues, etc.
Conversly, if the stock price falls, the company will find it hard to get loans, and may find itself in a buyout position. That could be bad, since they could get bought out by "bad guys"
You are probably on your friends' whitelist.
:
Also, like I said, it should just be one factor in the spam identification.
Besides, most likely what will happen is this
domain of email is not spoofed (-20 to spam)
domain of email is spoofed (+20 to spam)
spoofiness of email is undetermined (0)
you are not spoofing, and using the verification service, therefore you get the -20 to spam.
Spammer does not spoof, and uses the verification (-20 to spam), but also, he is selling his product illegally, and because he didnt spoof, he is easy to track down. a few people get the spam, but then the spammer is shut down.
Spammer does spoof and doesnt verify, or the verification fails (+20 to spam)
If you ignore all mail that isnt verified, then spammers will have to verify. Once they verify, its easy to shut down their open relays and infected achines, because they are easy to find.
This raises their cost of doing business again.
I output the xml using PHP all the time. the XML is XML. just stream it out!
If the caller ID works on the zombie box, that gives one more unfakable thing that baynesian (sp?) filters etc can look for.
"This email looks like it is advertizing something" (+1 to spam)
"The URL that they are directing you to does not match the domain the email came from" (+20 to spam)
Wheras legitimate email that you might really have signed up for, even though it is commercial will most likely come from the same domain as the URL in the message
Obviously this is not foolproof, or a stand alone solution, but it is one more variable that can be taken into spam-identifying equations
There is a big difference between how crappy their parser is (which is pretty bad, but the .net one is much better)
/.)
and saying that Microsoft should use XML in their applications.
If they said "we are not going to use XML", everyone would be mad at them for trying to use encrypted proprietary formats (see Word debates regularly on
Have you ever used office XML? I have. Their namespace is of course proprietary, but EVERYONE's namespace is proprietary. There isn't a standard document schema out there. (And no, OpenOffice and StarOffice etc are not standards, they may be open, but they are not a standard.)
The XML is in plain english (well technical english maybe, but it isnt encrypted/encoded gibberish) , and very easy to use. I write applications all the time that output word, xl, and popwerpoint files from code.
I think you just like to bash MS.
Well, from a quick google search, I came up with this site which gives two possible numbers for the speed of the earth, 15km/s and 30km/s
For argument's sake, i will use the slower number(which hurts my argument). So if we can delay the asteroid for 12 hours, that means that the earth has moved over 648,000 km from its original location. (this isn't quite true, since earth moves in an orbit, and there would be a straight line distance that is shorter, but the orbit of earth is pretty huge, and for such a small arc, its pretty approximate to linear)
Since the diameter of earth is ~13000km, the earth would have moved approximately 50 earth-diameters away from its original position during the 12 hour delay.
Assuming the asteroid is smaller than the earth (lets say the size of texas), it is extremetly unlikely that it would still hit earth if we could somehow induce a 12 hour delay in the asteroid reaching the oribit of earth. This is true even if the orbits were tangental. Basically the only way it would still hit us after a 12 hour delay, is if it was in an almost identical oribit to earth, the it would be just a matter of waiting until we got to the "least common multiple" of orbit times.
Since we know there are no asteroids in a conncurent orbit with earth at this time, I think it is safe to assume that if we have the ability to delay the asteroid, we can avoid it all together.
Also, if an orbit was tangental, an asteroid would tend to "bounce" off the athmosphere. Probably still mess with us a bit, but not nearly as bad as a full on impact.
um. Which side of the earth an asteroid hits is pretty much a function of when it gets here, since the earth spins. So unless you have a way to delay it getting to earth (and delaying it would allow earth to just move out of the way)
So really the only way you could get it to hit the "other" side of the earth, would be to delay it AND deflect it to be into the new spot in earth's orbit. If you can deflect it, just deflect it the OTHER WAY.
In addition, an asteroid of any significance hitting the earth (singificant enough that we would try and deflect it) would be pretty much cataclysmic regardless of where it it. Tidal waves, and dust plumes, and fires would do the damage no matter where they started from.
If you have a piece of rubber to cary around, why not just stick some bendable circuits in there and type right on the rubber?
I was not lying. Perhaps exaggerating. But you will surely admit that conservative viewpoints are grossly underrepresented when compared to liberal viewpoints on most campuses.
:
As for people accepting viewpoints. I know many more conservatives who are willing to debate out (civily!) an issue with any takers. However the majority of liberals I know take a very dogmatic approach, and do nothing except repeat out whatever slogan is currently hip in the liberal world. They don't have any reason or logic behind their opinions, and therefore cannot discuss them. (Since you didn't do anything but flame bait and repeat what I said, I am tempted to put you into this category)
In any case, the only place that I can actually respond to you
Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F."
Take a physics class and try to argue with your professor and you get an F.
Physics are matters of fact. Poly Sci is not fact, it is theories, and ideas. There are plenty of competeing ideas to go around.
There is not a massive movement to fire liberal teachers.
There is a movement to have some fairness in hiring and tenure for both sides of the political spectrum. 99% of professors self identify as liberal. Socialists and marxists dominate many compuses. Universities claim to want diversity, and they should actually try to get that. Have both view points represented.
Further, many professors will not accept any viewpoints other than their own. Take a poly sci class, and try to argue the conservative viewpoint, and you get an F. Regardless of the professor's viewpoint, all viewpoints should be allowed. They are not.
1) Im sure Canada has laws against conspiring to assault people
2) If a prosecuter in the US decides that the message was intended for a US audience, it dosent matter where the poster is, its a crime in the US. If the poster comes to the US, he goes to jail. If the prosecuter cares enough, he gets extradaited, and then goes to jail.
I am not little minded. If you read the comment to which I originaly replied (and its parent). Someone did commit a crime, even though they meant it with humor. My subsequent replies were clarification for people who asked "what crime". So I elaborated.
You are certainly free to say that you dont think certain people should exist. But if you go so far as to offer money to have someone taken out, that is a crime, joke or not.
Of course you would probably not be prosecuted, yet a crime it still is.
Additionally, it wasn't a flame, as I didn't swear, TYPE IN ALL CAPS, or get mad in any way. You seem to be a bit sensitive.
Conspriacy to commit assault. possibly conspiracy to commit murder (if the guy died)
Since all of those things are usefull to me (except 2 and 3) that isn't really an option.
What IS an option : www.sneakemail.com
create a new email address each time you need to sign up for a website/list. All the addresses forward to your main account.
If that address gets spammed, you can delete it, or apply filters so that only the list/site can send you mail from it.
Its free, but if you pay them ($12/6mo) you get a bunch of nifty features, and a 50MB/mo limit. (free is like 10MB/mo I think. but for email that is alot)
Well, since this is an international forum, he has an out. But if it could be shown that he was soliciting someone to do that crime in the US, even if he did the solicitation from Canada, it would still be a crime in the US.
At a minimum, he would be arrested if he came to the states. However, if someone actually went through with the crime, I'm sure Canada would be willing to extradite him. Canada doesn't want maniacs running around free, anymore than the US does.
Because if the mail doesnt come with the postage (which would be signed with some massive encryption) the mail is automatically rejected.