You're analogy compared them to making drugs illegal wherein all users of drugs are criminals; hence by comparison in your analogy, all users of computers are criminals. As I said, bad analogy. Use your brain.
A license allows those who pass a 'basic' test to use a computer. If you lack the ability to properly secure your system by passing this test, I don't want you on the same ISP or network as me so yes, you are a criminal.
They're not talking about criminalizing computing so thats a poor analogy. They are talking about 'licensing' computing. Like getting a drivers license. Honestly, would you prefer everyone on the roads just do what they want without being educated to following 'procedures' that would make the rest of us safer??
Honestly if this were like a drivers license test where even senior citizen's were taught basic computer skill's and had to pass a basic exam to purchase a computer, it would probably cut down on the number of zombies in botnets. It would guarantee that even the most technophobic in our society had the basic skills to protect himself and others. You can do alot of damage if your computer is taken over or hacked without your knowledge.
AND... using Groovy on the fly means compiling straight to Java bytecode. Using JRuby means converting Ruby code THEN compiling. Its a one step process vs a two step process.
Thank you. That's what I was trying to get across. I'm still a little green when it comes to Java but from what I have read (and seen with the benchmarks), I was fairly certain of that; No matter what language, native is always faster than something that has to be interpreted.
Well that's what I'm am talking about. JRuby's performance is closer to Ruby rather than closer to Java. I mean PHP and Perl are more powerful than Ruby in benchmarks. Why gimp yourself? Why not just bypass the middleman and move to the next step? If you want to work with Java and a Ruby like language, just make the jump to Groovy and save yourself the time.
And I'm speaking as a dev currently working in PHP and Java with some Ruby experience who is skipping right past Ruby to Groovy. I can work directly with Java when I want and Java classes and don't even need to use Groovy with Grails if I don't want. With JRuby, you will ALWAYS be using Ruby... and it will ALWAYS be interpretted and slower. The benchmarks have improved but they are still slow and always will be because it is an interpretted layer. You can call it horseshit but it's an engineering fact; not matter what languages you are talking about, an interpretted layer will alway be slower than native. It's why they took the time to reinvent it with Groovy. To make it better and faster.
JRuby is ok but it adds extra overhead; it's an interpretation layer. It would be like adding a layer to interpret PHP code (like Quercus). Why do I want a second language to code in the language that I'm most familiar with? Why not just learn a new language that is the best of both worlds?
I'm rediscovering the fun of Java with Grails and Groovy. Groovy takes the best of PHP, Python and Ruby and integrates it into Java and Grails finally creates a framework without a million XML configs. It has made web dev in Java easy and pleasurable.
Banks, Hedge funds, Insurance companies and anyone dealing with money... this is a real and valid concern because not only are stock holders and nvestors watching your every move but the Feds are as well and you get audited regularly to see that you are in compliance with a variety of guidelines.
Failure to meet, match or getting caught with your pants down on security can mean clients will not sign up with you due to your ranking or lack of credentials.
It's fine to charge for a product that is based on a GPL'd project as long as you are contributing back to GPL'd project. That is what the GPL is about. Nothing says you can't make money. Redhat does it every day and no one complains. And CentOS came along and created a free version of Redhat but it really didn't impact Redhats business model.
Apples isn't so much worried about hacking as it's a possibility with any smartphone. It's worried more about it's profit margin with exclusive contracts; this allows them to take a percentage of the contracts rather while undercutting the price of their devices. If they were to lose this exclusivity, they would either have to raise the price of their devices again or accept that their profit margins have been cut... and that is the real thing they are arguing against.
And that plastic bag in the box? That won't break down quickly...
Au contraire. Plastics for packaging as in cereals and plastic bags are being made out of corn based materials now. They break down with minimal amounts of water and sunshine. Even in a landfills they break down in under a few months. This is in response to anti bag legislation being pushed through in several states and cities across the US.
So again, why are we introducing electronics to our packaging when the trend seems to be to reduce packaging or to make it more environmentally friendly?
Did you consider the environmental impact of better inventory control?
Yep. And what happens when a box of Cheerios goes bad? The Cheerios break down and the paper box break down. Darn. But what about all those chips and LED's and the readers that you use to read them? A couple billion Cheerio's boxes could have come and gone before those will break down.
Oh yay. Lets fill our landfills with more useless crap. Why the hell do I need LED's and battery is PACKAGING? They go into the trash! We as a society are trying to move towards LESS PACKAGING and recyclable packaging not MORE packaging. Is the consumer expected to rip out that LED and battery and recycle that separate for ever single ceral box they purchase?
Not really. For it to be useful it would need to be stored and retrieved according to government communications storage standards for companies. All communications need to be able to be stored and retrieved in the case of an investigation or subpoena or other such issues not only regarding your company but your clients as well and all persons you communicate with as a point of business.
Well if it is a corporation, they most often consider only the factors to slant the numbers in their favor for the greatest cash benefit. It is only later when in court someone points out a particular part of the study and how they neglected those numbers in calculating risk that they get nailed. But it is RARE and it costs alot of money for a court case against major insurance companies so they rarely happen. I don't know how many accounting depts and financial firms you have worked for but numbers only count when they work in your favor especially when you paid for the study.
I read the post. It takes in to consideration normal risk rather than higher risk in higher populated areas without regular driving. What you are postulating does not take into consideration increased risk in higher population density areas. In those areas, regular driving decreases risk. I understand the basis for the postulation but I am saying that additional factors are at play and must be taken into consideration before applying a broad stroke to all portions of the populace.
This also depends upon the region in which you live as well. That same scenario would work for people who live in Iowa but place them in LA and that person who never drives has a much higher chance of getting into an accident VS the people who drive regularly.
How is someone who drives less better at driving? It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver. There must be some sort of bell curve where the people on the ends pay more.
Slashdot Mirror
You're analogy compared them to making drugs illegal wherein all users of drugs are criminals; hence by comparison in your analogy, all users of computers are criminals. As I said, bad analogy. Use your brain.
A license allows those who pass a 'basic' test to use a computer. If you lack the ability to properly secure your system by passing this test, I don't want you on the same ISP or network as me so yes, you are a criminal.
Learn how you to effectively use an analogy.
They're not talking about criminalizing computing so thats a poor analogy. They are talking about 'licensing' computing. Like getting a drivers license. Honestly, would you prefer everyone on the roads just do what they want without being educated to following 'procedures' that would make the rest of us safer??
Honestly I'd like to see them create separate tests for Linux, Mac and Windows cause one test does NOT apply to all three.
Honestly if this were like a drivers license test where even senior citizen's were taught basic computer skill's and had to pass a basic exam to purchase a computer, it would probably cut down on the number of zombies in botnets. It would guarantee that even the most technophobic in our society had the basic skills to protect himself and others. You can do alot of damage if your computer is taken over or hacked without your knowledge.
AND... using Groovy on the fly means compiling straight to Java bytecode. Using JRuby means converting Ruby code THEN compiling. Its a one step process vs a two step process.
Yes but nothing is as fast as native code. Groovy is native Java. JRuby is an interpretter converting Ruby TO Java
String slapMoron = "Kapow";
Thank you. That's what I was trying to get across. I'm still a little green when it comes to Java but from what I have read (and seen with the benchmarks), I was fairly certain of that; No matter what language, native is always faster than something that has to be interpreted.
Well that's what I'm am talking about. JRuby's performance is closer to Ruby rather than closer to Java. I mean PHP and Perl are more powerful than Ruby in benchmarks. Why gimp yourself? Why not just bypass the middleman and move to the next step? If you want to work with Java and a Ruby like language, just make the jump to Groovy and save yourself the time.
And I'm speaking as a dev currently working in PHP and Java with some Ruby experience who is skipping right past Ruby to Groovy. I can work directly with Java when I want and Java classes and don't even need to use Groovy with Grails if I don't want. With JRuby, you will ALWAYS be using Ruby... and it will ALWAYS be interpretted and slower. The benchmarks have improved but they are still slow and always will be because it is an interpretted layer. You can call it horseshit but it's an engineering fact; not matter what languages you are talking about, an interpretted layer will alway be slower than native. It's why they took the time to reinvent it with Groovy. To make it better and faster.
JRuby is ok but it adds extra overhead; it's an interpretation layer. It would be like adding a layer to interpret PHP code (like Quercus). Why do I want a second language to code in the language that I'm most familiar with? Why not just learn a new language that is the best of both worlds?
I'm rediscovering the fun of Java with Grails and Groovy. Groovy takes the best of PHP, Python and Ruby and integrates it into Java and Grails finally creates a framework without a million XML configs. It has made web dev in Java easy and pleasurable.
Banks, Hedge funds, Insurance companies and anyone dealing with money ... this is a real and valid concern because not only are stock holders and nvestors watching your every move but the Feds are as well and you get audited regularly to see that you are in compliance with a variety of guidelines.
Failure to meet, match or getting caught with your pants down on security can mean clients will not sign up with you due to your ranking or lack of credentials.
I'm more worried about the brown spot on Uranus. Ok, bad joke but if I didn't make it, someone else would.
It's fine to charge for a product that is based on a GPL'd project as long as you are contributing back to GPL'd project. That is what the GPL is about. Nothing says you can't make money. Redhat does it every day and no one complains. And CentOS came along and created a free version of Redhat but it really didn't impact Redhats business model.
Apples isn't so much worried about hacking as it's a possibility with any smartphone. It's worried more about it's profit margin with exclusive contracts; this allows them to take a percentage of the contracts rather while undercutting the price of their devices. If they were to lose this exclusivity, they would either have to raise the price of their devices again or accept that their profit margins have been cut... and that is the real thing they are arguing against.
Au contraire. Plastics for packaging as in cereals and plastic bags are being made out of corn based materials now. They break down with minimal amounts of water and sunshine. Even in a landfills they break down in under a few months. This is in response to anti bag legislation being pushed through in several states and cities across the US.
So again, why are we introducing electronics to our packaging when the trend seems to be to reduce packaging or to make it more environmentally friendly?
Yep. And what happens when a box of Cheerios goes bad? The Cheerios break down and the paper box break down. Darn. But what about all those chips and LED's and the readers that you use to read them? A couple billion Cheerio's boxes could have come and gone before those will break down.
Oh yay. Lets fill our landfills with more useless crap. Why the hell do I need LED's and battery is PACKAGING? They go into the trash! We as a society are trying to move towards LESS PACKAGING and recyclable packaging not MORE packaging. Is the consumer expected to rip out that LED and battery and recycle that separate for ever single ceral box they purchase?
typical racist bullshit from inbred trailer park trash.
Like how in the review he gives it a con of 'Doesn't quite match the beauty of the Muslim distro'. BURN (in hell that is)!
Not really. For it to be useful it would need to be stored and retrieved according to government communications storage standards for companies. All communications need to be able to be stored and retrieved in the case of an investigation or subpoena or other such issues not only regarding your company but your clients as well and all persons you communicate with as a point of business.
Well if it is a corporation, they most often consider only the factors to slant the numbers in their favor for the greatest cash benefit. It is only later when in court someone points out a particular part of the study and how they neglected those numbers in calculating risk that they get nailed. But it is RARE and it costs alot of money for a court case against major insurance companies so they rarely happen. I don't know how many accounting depts and financial firms you have worked for but numbers only count when they work in your favor especially when you paid for the study.
I read the post. It takes in to consideration normal risk rather than higher risk in higher populated areas without regular driving. What you are postulating does not take into consideration increased risk in higher population density areas. In those areas, regular driving decreases risk. I understand the basis for the postulation but I am saying that additional factors are at play and must be taken into consideration before applying a broad stroke to all portions of the populace.
This also depends upon the region in which you live as well. That same scenario would work for people who live in Iowa but place them in LA and that person who never drives has a much higher chance of getting into an accident VS the people who drive regularly.
How is someone who drives less better at driving? It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver. There must be some sort of bell curve where the people on the ends pay more.