I doubt it provides "faster performance". Seems to me most GUI designers either don't really care about performance or are clueless about it. They keep creating extra steps to do common stuff. Or insert artificial delays so that they can show flashy animations (e.g. click, pause for flashy animation, then only click to launch/activate). OSX's expose is actually slower than just clicking on the taskbar button representing the window you want to "raise". And moving your hand to click on the task button is often slower than "alt+<number>".
I use Compiz's scale feature (essentially the same as OSX's expose) on a fairly regular basis. I do have the task bar there as well. But there are times when I want to find a particular terminal window among several other similarly named terminal windows that's sitting on some desktop that I forget where I put it. Scale.... visual recognition... select... and I'm there. Granted - this could probably be done more efficiently if I were paying more attention to what I was doing and not multitasking as much. But this feature is more than flash and I miss it when it's not available. YMMV.
By the way, to the GUI designers out there, if "GNU screen" manages windows/tasks faster/better than your GUI, you are doing something wrong. A GUI that is friendly to new users does not have to be slower than "screen" in the hands of expert users.
Love screen. Use it daily. But I'm never handling the same number of applications within screen as I do my desktop. I could certainly emulate screen's window / task management in my desktop environment. But I have absolutely no desire to do that.
I would also like to add that over the past ten years, "security" has gotten much much tighter at NASA. NASA has many roles that involve interfacing with the industrial community, the scientific community, and the public community at large. It is often difficult to reconcile those roles with the additional goal of "more security!" In fact, in the interests of blanket security, I would say that NASA's ability to interact with communities, and lead through good example, have been partially stifled in the name of security.
That's a fair point. Security has been an even bigger issue over the past 10 years. Although unfortunately a fair amount of that effort has been around feeding the bureaucracy of compliance rather than actual technical security practices. Which is boon and bane. At least the compliance drive is pushing technical issues that in the past would be entirely ignored by some organizations within NASA.
Another thing to mention is that often-times, large institutions like NASA are dealing with legacy systems that do not have the latest security. The common knee-jerk reaction is to say, "just upgrade it!" But the reality is that there can be knock-on effects that prevent upgrading or make it cost-prohibitive. Critical systems that have been running for years often do not have the funds or staff expertise to execute a major upgrade. But as I said, this is a problem with most large institutions, it's just that "NASA" in the title of an article makes it higher profile.
The problem is that security impacts productivity. So much of what is done in IT is done without security issues in mind. Which eventually means disruption of services as security issues are addressed. The challenge has always been to catch security issues early in to a project's development or find the most graceful path to addressing a project's security issues. Those who drive infosec aren't always good at doing these things.
Someone over at NASA, and government agencies in general, need to seriously step-up their security team.
To outsiders, NASA looks like a big monolithic Government agency. The reality is that NASA is schizophrenic. It is really a collection of entities that operate at different levels of control and coordination depending on what particular issue is at hand. When you quote "Houston, we have a serious security problem", I'm inclined to point out that it isn't Houston's problem.
Hire people that can effectively put a system in place to secure their networks, data, and disposition of old equipment. Monitor your networks and data, put systems and people place that can predict and respond to security issues.
Sounds so easy when you put it down on paper like that.
My assumption is that NASA is so budget-constrained, and has so many wasteful expenditures that security gets left to the wayside and then things like this happen (if it indeed DID happen.)
I would say your assumption is mostly incorrect. It is more about NASA's bureaucracy than squandering limited resources; though budget constraints are certainly a fundamental issue. The CAIB Report hinted at a culture that was broken within NASA in general. And years later, despite best efforts to change that culture, many of the same problems echo throughout NASA's daily business.
I have no problem with reasonable checks. The problem is what is reasonable. Heritage and language is not a valid basis for reasonable suspicion. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, cultural background is not a crime and it takes more than the mere possibility of a crime to impede on civil liberties.
So what you're saying is that there's no market for Monster Cables, Geeksquad, and articles about simple rules-of-thumb about buying technology because everyone has a 14yr old to help out.
I can teach anyone how to change the ram in my hp laptop in under 2 minutes. It's just 2 screws to remove the cover, and a nail file to pop out the sticks and the new ones snap into place. It's really SO much easier than a desktop.
As for price, I bought 4 gigs at the local big-box when they were on sale, for less than the 2-gig-to-4-gig would have cost when the laptop was new. I then gave the original 2 gigs to one of my daughters, who installed it in her laptop without any instructions from me on how to do it - it really IS that easy.
You're missing the point. Yes - it's easy. It can be done by even the novice with a screwdriver. Yet people still don't know how to do it and won't do it - and they're the (arguable) majority.
You've got a good point in so far that some basic knowledge goes a long way. But when one faces the reality that so few will gain that basic knowledge, the simple guidelines have to be tailored accordingly.
Cables - it's written right on the package. HDMI 1.4. So if you see one set for $100, and another for $14, and they're both HDMI 1.4, it's easy to figure out.
Which makes the assumption that the consumer is going to know to look for "HDMI 1.4", much less what that means.
You've really got to consider the audience this article is written for; it's not for/. techies.
For example - "Pay for RAM, not speed. The speed of the computer chip does not matter; the attention-span or RAM memory does matter."
Totally wrong. You can always throw in more ram at a later date, and it will probably cost less to replace all of it than the cost of the "upgrade" today. Upgrading ram on a laptop is even easier than on a desktop, while a cpu upgrade... forget it. And you'll always find takers for your old ram.
Most/. readers would likely have no problem popping open a case and swapping out a few sticks of RAM. We'd probably also know where to get a better price on RAM than the factory pull-down option offers, and where to get good quality RAM for that better price. However, there are many, many consumers who view this all as black-boxes and black arts. To them, the box will remain in whatever configuration they buy it as until they decide it's time for a new computer and buy another one. Here is when one has to be wary of the marketing of CPU numbers and the illusion that a fast CPU guarantees a fast computer. Nevermind that most consumers' needs would be well met by today's moderate speed CPUs.
The advice is good for those who won't know more than the rule of thumb. But as with most things - reducing the complexity reduces accuracy. A smart consumer would be better served at knowing a bit more.
Or "Pay for components, not cables. Buy the best components, and the cheapest cables". While you don't have to pay a monster price for "Monster Cables", some HDMI cables don't meet the latest specs. The difference between those that do and the cheapest may only be a few bucks, and it can't hurt.
And here we have the same problem. You have to know something about HDMI cables and specs to ensure that you're buying a technically superior cable and not just a marketing up-sell. Keep in mind that a lot of up-selling happens with ancillaries like cables. And if that's the waters the naive consumer is swimming in, the advice to avoid the costly cables and get good hardware steers clear of the most sharks. But again, a bit more knowledge beyond the generic rule of thumb would serve the consumer well.
Or "Pay for speed, not channels. For cable internet, with enough speed you can watch TV channels on the internet for free." Pay for bandwidth. Speed means nothing if you have a low bandwidth cap. And buying a pair of bunny-ears for your HDTV can give a better picture over the air than either the net OR cable.
Along the lines of my theme - I'm not sure telling people that they should swap out Internet for the cable box as a TV source is all that wise. Sure - many/. readers probably have no problem doing it. But I'm not sure we're there yet (much to Google's chagrin). So if we're going to get in to those bleeding edge waters - I think you have the right of it. Bandwidth caps are the hidden evil.
And "Pay for reliability, not mileage. On a car, you'll spend more of repairs and maintaince over its lifetime than you will on a difference in gas." needs to re-think that when faced with $6-$8 a gallon gas prices. At $6 a gallon, 20mpg is going to cost you $30,000.00 in gas over 100,000 miles. At 40mpg you save $15,000.00
And for those who don't think gas prices will go that high, they already are in many parts of the world (and you can bet that cash-strapped state and federal governments are going to need to raise more taxes).
A couple small points - repair bills are big, sudden expenses while gas is a slow consistent expense. And while many places in the world have had high gas prices due to taxes for decades, many places in the world do not have the land mass and infrastructure requirements of the US. Having said those things - you do have a very good point that's certainly worth considering.
Does it annoy anyone else that there are more and more articles here on/. that are submissions of an article/store by the author of the story ?
Not at all. I do get annoyed when the submitter is pointing to his content farm that just re-frames the original source. But it's not because I can't stand self-promotion, it's because the content farm rarely adds anything to the subject and I have to jump through another hoop to get to the real story.
It's not a crime to profit from providing information. As long as it really is something interesting (and not otherwise deceitful), I see no reason to get one's hackles up about it.
Don't they usually appear before their followers blubbering, apologising, and begging for forgivness (that is never given).
In the history of televangelism, there's been plenty of scandal. It usually costs the subject in question money, marriages, followers and sometimes even their church. But remarkably, more than a few continue to maintain followers or later form new churches. And while they seem to rarely hit the same heights, those that bounce back seem to do fairly well. Remarkable considering the usually unforgiving nature of their message.
We only need to look at religious fundamentalists and associated scandals (usually involving sex) in the US to have an idea how this plays out. Granted - it's not exactly the same thing and there are additional factors (geopolitical, racial / tribal, etc.) in this case. Yet fundamentalism has some commonality no matter what the exact brand of religion is involved.
Considering your inability to have an adult conversation, I suspect that's too subtle a point for you to grasp.
It's just a little common sense applied to a screening system that has become ridiculous.
No - it's not a little common sense. Trying to spend extra time putting extra scrutiny on everyone with brown skin and an accent would be a draw on resources for no good reason. Let me repeat this for you; an inappropriate draw on resources. Extra screening takes time, it takes energy, it takes attention, it takes money. We have to apply those limited resources to the threat in the most effective manner or we're squandering what little we have. Since having brown skin and an accent is equally applied to a rather large population of people who are not terrorists, focusing on that is entirely inappropriate.
What's even more amusing is that you note "a screening system that has become rediculous" but at the same time hand-wave that concern away as being an "inconvenience" as long as it applies to a very specific subset of people which I suspect wouldn't apply to you. So let me go back to my original point - what makes those people more worthy of suspicion than you? And at what point is it OK for me to label you "not us" and also subject you to the same degree of ridiculous inconvenience?
This is some extra security screening, not throwing someone in jail.
Hey - injustice is alright as long as it's just a little inconvenience. Meanwhile, we'll just spend all our resources looking at all the wrong people instead of actually doing something productive. That way, the bigots can feel better which adds value to our security theater.
So you can take your cape off, Captain Equality.
I'll shed my cape after you drop the mask, Dr. Bigot. Next, you can accuse me of wearing tights and I'll talk about your monocle and cat. Or we can drop the childish name-calling and discuss real points to the issue.
Just to be clear - I'm not the champion for political correctness. I fully realize that there are profiles that can be drawn concerning the individuals who perpetrated these attacks. But I also note that the only profile you outlined was race and speech patterns which, as 91degrees pointed out, can be attributed to a pretty large population. Racial background and speech patterns may be a tick mark in the list of things to watch - but they are hardly the red flag you seem to want them to be. Too much focus on entirely the wrong thing is just as damaging as turning a blind eye for the sake of political correctness - both detract from paying attention to the real issue at hand.
Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.
I've got a big Disney fan in the household. We used to make at least one vacation stop at Disney World each year. This year, we've canceled our initial plans. A big part of that is not wishing to go through Security Theatre.
I understand that big tourism like Disney theme parks are struggling with disappointing numbers in current times. What a pity they have additional pinch points further restricting income flow.
you can expect big changes from a group that are working it all out as they go along...
Well, sure. There's growing pains. But it should be noted that what WikiLeaks is doing isn't without historical precedent. And growing pains doesn't negate criticism. Wikileaks wants to operate on a big stage and get lots of attention - both of which rightfully draws a critical eye.
I have a contrary viewpoint. I believe the fact that they are making changes that are counter to their initial statements validate much of the criticism. But at the same time, it opens them up to additional criticism from those who got behind some of the initial ideals Wikileaks no longer practices. Meanwhile, some of the behavior from WikiLeaks simply adds fuel to other controversies like financial interests / claims (which seems to be the angle of this article).
Which just means that the producers will introduce another Wesley every week or two. So instead of one Wesley, you get a constantly repeating series of Wesley and Wesley-alikes (some Wesleys will be the same Wesley due to time travel, holodecks, and tachyon particles).
Of course... that may lead to more meta geek culture moments where post-Wesley actors (who are considerably more cool than their character) work out their personal issues in front of the world with the simple question "are we cool?"
While you've got a good point (barriers to entry are a pain when it comes to utilities) - you just talked past the parent. The parent is referring to regions where the local government bids out a monopoly for a service. So even if investors were willing to push through the Natural monopoly you note, they are not allowed to by the local government.
Your argument now rests on the assumption that Microsoft was misleading developers that its extensions were part of standard Java.
Microsoft was never doing such a thing.
Moreover, it's fairly obnoxious to suggest that people developing using Microsoft solutions are all so dumb that they wouldn't be able to figure out that (e.g.) a call to the native Windows API is not cross-platform, even if MS had somehow tried to convince people of that. Which, again, they weren't doing.
I agree that it's an obnoxious view. I don't believe all developers are "so dumb." But I do believe enough are. If it weren't so, we wouldn't have the problem with so many IE6-only web sites / apps. That is the world we were in back then and there's echoes of it still today.
What Microsoft was doing was enticing developers to use the non-standard extensions so they'd be able to choose Java as a language but end up with software that wasn't actually portable. Clearly Java was the fashionable new language, but Windows was the traditional desktop OS. So this method would rope in people whose skills and existing codebase was Java, as well as persuade those whose real knowledgebase was in the Windows API to never really leave Windows.
Let's not forget that Microsoft was also specifically trying to "pollute" Java. From the court case:
In short, Microsoft feared and sought to impede the development of network effects that cross-platform technology like Netscape Navigator and Java might enjoy and use to challenge Microsoft's monopoly. Another internal Microsoft document indicates that the plan was not simply to blunt Java/browser cross-platform momentum, but to destroy the cross-platform threat entirely, with the "Strategic Objective" described as to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."(57) Exhibit 101 (MS7 033448)
Clearly, this was more than Microsoft trying to leverage experienced Java coders. They specifically wanted Java coders creating Java code that would run nowhere else but windows for the sole purpose of polluting the Java environment.
Some of this mirrors what Google are doing: leverage existing Java codebase and developers but require (not even just entice) them to use non-standard extensions so further work remains tied to their platform.
This is the danger of "embrace and extend", and this is what Google are doing. They're just much better than Microsoft at maintaining the odour of roses.
At which point one has to ask whether Google is also really attempting to pollute Java like Microsoft wanted to do. You seem to think so. I don't think there's any evidence. I think you have a valid point in so far as the general outcome might be the same no matter what the intention is. But that's a far cry from trying to insinuate hypocrisy between how Microsoft and Google are perceived.
Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did.
This is a red herring. Developers don't write in bytecode so it doesn't matter whether the resulting binaries are slightly different or very different from standard.
If I build something Java-y but with MS extensions, it will work on the MSJVM but not on a standard Java VM.
If I build something Java-y but with Google extensions, it will work on Google's virtual machine but not on a standard Java VM.
I don't think this is a red herring at all. In fact, I think this is the exact point. What's being coded is something "Java-y" in both cases. But in Microsoft's case, they were presenting it as writing for a Java VM. That implies everything that comes with a Java VM. Google presents it as writing for Dalvik. And while there are certainly similarities between a JVM and Dalik, there is little implication that the Java-y code you write for Dalik is going to work on any given JVM and visa versa.
Again, the choice of compiled executable format is irrelevant. Every developer can run a compilation script to produce an executable for various different platforms. What takes time and matters is whether the source must be changed
I think this highlights the difference. Is Google misleading developers in to thinking that what they code for Android is going to work on any given JVM? I don't think there's any such implication. And so someone coding for Dalvik is going to know that the promise of Java does not apply to this project.
And even if you take offense to coding in Java for a Dalvik environment, anyone can take the Apache License Dalvik VM and port it to other platforms (which more than one entity is doing).
Yeah, because what we need is another non-standard where alternative implementations are always playing catchup. Thanks for illustrating the problem.
Fair enough. I'm not saying what Google is doing is The Right Way. But the point here is that it's hardly lock-in as anyone can make a Dalik VM work anywhere because the code is available. That works against lock-in.
There are, of course, systems that are neglected either due to being forgotten or being assigned to staff not up to the task. But I find that it's more often that one has agile systems and competent staff being bogged down by an increasingly cumbersome bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it provides "faster performance". Seems to me most GUI designers either don't really care about performance or are clueless about it. They keep creating extra steps to do common stuff. Or insert artificial delays so that they can show flashy animations (e.g. click, pause for flashy animation, then only click to launch/activate). OSX's expose is actually slower than just clicking on the taskbar button representing the window you want to "raise". And moving your hand to click on the task button is often slower than "alt+<number>".
I use Compiz's scale feature (essentially the same as OSX's expose) on a fairly regular basis. I do have the task bar there as well. But there are times when I want to find a particular terminal window among several other similarly named terminal windows that's sitting on some desktop that I forget where I put it. Scale.... visual recognition... select... and I'm there. Granted - this could probably be done more efficiently if I were paying more attention to what I was doing and not multitasking as much. But this feature is more than flash and I miss it when it's not available. YMMV.
By the way, to the GUI designers out there, if "GNU screen" manages windows/tasks faster/better than your GUI, you are doing something wrong. A GUI that is friendly to new users does not have to be slower than "screen" in the hands of expert users.
Love screen. Use it daily. But I'm never handling the same number of applications within screen as I do my desktop. I could certainly emulate screen's window / task management in my desktop environment. But I have absolutely no desire to do that.
I would also like to add that over the past ten years, "security" has gotten much much tighter at NASA. NASA has many roles that involve interfacing with the industrial community, the scientific community, and the public community at large. It is often difficult to reconcile those roles with the additional goal of "more security!" In fact, in the interests of blanket security, I would say that NASA's ability to interact with communities, and lead through good example, have been partially stifled in the name of security.
That's a fair point. Security has been an even bigger issue over the past 10 years. Although unfortunately a fair amount of that effort has been around feeding the bureaucracy of compliance rather than actual technical security practices. Which is boon and bane. At least the compliance drive is pushing technical issues that in the past would be entirely ignored by some organizations within NASA.
Another thing to mention is that often-times, large institutions like NASA are dealing with legacy systems that do not have the latest security. The common knee-jerk reaction is to say, "just upgrade it!" But the reality is that there can be knock-on effects that prevent upgrading or make it cost-prohibitive. Critical systems that have been running for years often do not have the funds or staff expertise to execute a major upgrade. But as I said, this is a problem with most large institutions, it's just that "NASA" in the title of an article makes it higher profile.
The problem is that security impacts productivity. So much of what is done in IT is done without security issues in mind. Which eventually means disruption of services as security issues are addressed. The challenge has always been to catch security issues early in to a project's development or find the most graceful path to addressing a project's security issues. Those who drive infosec aren't always good at doing these things.
This post has my personal opinions only.
These are my own personal opinions as well. :)
Someone over at NASA, and government agencies in general, need to seriously step-up their security team.
To outsiders, NASA looks like a big monolithic Government agency. The reality is that NASA is schizophrenic. It is really a collection of entities that operate at different levels of control and coordination depending on what particular issue is at hand. When you quote "Houston, we have a serious security problem", I'm inclined to point out that it isn't Houston's problem.
Hire people that can effectively put a system in place to secure their networks, data, and disposition of old equipment. Monitor your networks and data, put systems and people place that can predict and respond to security issues.
Sounds so easy when you put it down on paper like that.
My assumption is that NASA is so budget-constrained, and has so many wasteful expenditures that security gets left to the wayside and then things like this happen (if it indeed DID happen.)
I would say your assumption is mostly incorrect. It is more about NASA's bureaucracy than squandering limited resources; though budget constraints are certainly a fundamental issue. The CAIB Report hinted at a culture that was broken within NASA in general. And years later, despite best efforts to change that culture, many of the same problems echo throughout NASA's daily business.
I think it's safe to say PJ is going to do at least one thing - get the hell away from the limelight.
I have no problem with reasonable checks. The problem is what is reasonable. Heritage and language is not a valid basis for reasonable suspicion. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, cultural background is not a crime and it takes more than the mere possibility of a crime to impede on civil liberties.
So what you're saying is that there's no market for Monster Cables, Geeksquad, and articles about simple rules-of-thumb about buying technology because everyone has a 14yr old to help out.
I can teach anyone how to change the ram in my hp laptop in under 2 minutes. It's just 2 screws to remove the cover, and a nail file to pop out the sticks and the new ones snap into place. It's really SO much easier than a desktop.
As for price, I bought 4 gigs at the local big-box when they were on sale, for less than the 2-gig-to-4-gig would have cost when the laptop was new. I then gave the original 2 gigs to one of my daughters, who installed it in her laptop without any instructions from me on how to do it - it really IS that easy.
You're missing the point. Yes - it's easy. It can be done by even the novice with a screwdriver. Yet people still don't know how to do it and won't do it - and they're the (arguable) majority.
You've got a good point in so far that some basic knowledge goes a long way. But when one faces the reality that so few will gain that basic knowledge, the simple guidelines have to be tailored accordingly.
Cables - it's written right on the package. HDMI 1.4. So if you see one set for $100, and another for $14, and they're both HDMI 1.4, it's easy to figure out.
Which makes the assumption that the consumer is going to know to look for "HDMI 1.4", much less what that means.
For example - "Pay for RAM, not speed. The speed of the computer chip does not matter; the attention-span or RAM memory does matter."
Totally wrong. You can always throw in more ram at a later date, and it will probably cost less to replace all of it than the cost of the "upgrade" today. Upgrading ram on a laptop is even easier than on a desktop, while a cpu upgrade ... forget it. And you'll always find takers for your old ram.
Most /. readers would likely have no problem popping open a case and swapping out a few sticks of RAM. We'd probably also know where to get a better price on RAM than the factory pull-down option offers, and where to get good quality RAM for that better price. However, there are many, many consumers who view this all as black-boxes and black arts. To them, the box will remain in whatever configuration they buy it as until they decide it's time for a new computer and buy another one. Here is when one has to be wary of the marketing of CPU numbers and the illusion that a fast CPU guarantees a fast computer. Nevermind that most consumers' needs would be well met by today's moderate speed CPUs.
The advice is good for those who won't know more than the rule of thumb. But as with most things - reducing the complexity reduces accuracy. A smart consumer would be better served at knowing a bit more.
Or "Pay for components, not cables. Buy the best components, and the cheapest cables". While you don't have to pay a monster price for "Monster Cables", some HDMI cables don't meet the latest specs. The difference between those that do and the cheapest may only be a few bucks, and it can't hurt.
And here we have the same problem. You have to know something about HDMI cables and specs to ensure that you're buying a technically superior cable and not just a marketing up-sell. Keep in mind that a lot of up-selling happens with ancillaries like cables. And if that's the waters the naive consumer is swimming in, the advice to avoid the costly cables and get good hardware steers clear of the most sharks. But again, a bit more knowledge beyond the generic rule of thumb would serve the consumer well.
Or "Pay for speed, not channels. For cable internet, with enough speed you can watch TV channels on the internet for free." Pay for bandwidth. Speed means nothing if you have a low bandwidth cap. And buying a pair of bunny-ears for your HDTV can give a better picture over the air than either the net OR cable.
Along the lines of my theme - I'm not sure telling people that they should swap out Internet for the cable box as a TV source is all that wise. Sure - many /. readers probably have no problem doing it. But I'm not sure we're there yet (much to Google's chagrin). So if we're going to get in to those bleeding edge waters - I think you have the right of it. Bandwidth caps are the hidden evil.
And "Pay for reliability, not mileage. On a car, you'll spend more of repairs and maintaince over its lifetime than you will on a difference in gas." needs to re-think that when faced with $6-$8 a gallon gas prices. At $6 a gallon, 20mpg is going to cost you $30,000.00 in gas over 100,000 miles. At 40mpg you save $15,000.00
And for those who don't think gas prices will go that high, they already are in many parts of the world (and you can bet that cash-strapped state and federal governments are going to need to raise more taxes).
A couple small points - repair bills are big, sudden expenses while gas is a slow consistent expense. And while many places in the world have had high gas prices due to taxes for decades, many places in the world do not have the land mass and infrastructure requirements of the US. Having said those things - you do have a very good point that's certainly worth considering.
Does it annoy anyone else that there are more and more articles here on /. that are submissions of an article/store by the author of the story ?
Not at all. I do get annoyed when the submitter is pointing to his content farm that just re-frames the original source. But it's not because I can't stand self-promotion, it's because the content farm rarely adds anything to the subject and I have to jump through another hoop to get to the real story.
It's not a crime to profit from providing information. As long as it really is something interesting (and not otherwise deceitful), I see no reason to get one's hackles up about it.
Don't they usually appear before their followers blubbering, apologising, and begging for forgivness (that is never given).
In the history of televangelism, there's been plenty of scandal. It usually costs the subject in question money, marriages, followers and sometimes even their church. But remarkably, more than a few continue to maintain followers or later form new churches. And while they seem to rarely hit the same heights, those that bounce back seem to do fairly well. Remarkable considering the usually unforgiving nature of their message.
It's G-Force all over again. Somewhere there's a niche community of fanboys that will be really upset.
We only need to look at religious fundamentalists and associated scandals (usually involving sex) in the US to have an idea how this plays out. Granted - it's not exactly the same thing and there are additional factors (geopolitical, racial / tribal, etc.) in this case. Yet fundamentalism has some commonality no matter what the exact brand of religion is involved.
Extra security screening is "injustice"?
It's called harassment.
Are you fucking retarded?
Considering your inability to have an adult conversation, I suspect that's too subtle a point for you to grasp.
It's just a little common sense applied to a screening system that has become ridiculous.
No - it's not a little common sense. Trying to spend extra time putting extra scrutiny on everyone with brown skin and an accent would be a draw on resources for no good reason. Let me repeat this for you; an inappropriate draw on resources. Extra screening takes time, it takes energy, it takes attention, it takes money. We have to apply those limited resources to the threat in the most effective manner or we're squandering what little we have. Since having brown skin and an accent is equally applied to a rather large population of people who are not terrorists, focusing on that is entirely inappropriate.
What's even more amusing is that you note "a screening system that has become rediculous" but at the same time hand-wave that concern away as being an "inconvenience" as long as it applies to a very specific subset of people which I suspect wouldn't apply to you. So let me go back to my original point - what makes those people more worthy of suspicion than you? And at what point is it OK for me to label you "not us" and also subject you to the same degree of ridiculous inconvenience?
Anything that costs Disney money (and by extension, power) is a Good Thing(tm)
So we'll jot you down for the "TSA is doing a good job" column, then?
This is some extra security screening, not throwing someone in jail.
Hey - injustice is alright as long as it's just a little inconvenience. Meanwhile, we'll just spend all our resources looking at all the wrong people instead of actually doing something productive. That way, the bigots can feel better which adds value to our security theater.
So you can take your cape off, Captain Equality.
I'll shed my cape after you drop the mask, Dr. Bigot. Next, you can accuse me of wearing tights and I'll talk about your monocle and cat. Or we can drop the childish name-calling and discuss real points to the issue.
Just to be clear - I'm not the champion for political correctness. I fully realize that there are profiles that can be drawn concerning the individuals who perpetrated these attacks. But I also note that the only profile you outlined was race and speech patterns which, as 91degrees pointed out, can be attributed to a pretty large population. Racial background and speech patterns may be a tick mark in the list of things to watch - but they are hardly the red flag you seem to want them to be. Too much focus on entirely the wrong thing is just as damaging as turning a blind eye for the sake of political correctness - both detract from paying attention to the real issue at hand.
Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.
I've got a big Disney fan in the household. We used to make at least one vacation stop at Disney World each year. This year, we've canceled our initial plans. A big part of that is not wishing to go through Security Theatre.
I understand that big tourism like Disney theme parks are struggling with disappointing numbers in current times. What a pity they have additional pinch points further restricting income flow.
How many crimes can we lay at your feet because we can arbitrarily label you as not one of us?
you can expect big changes from a group that are working it all out as they go along...
Well, sure. There's growing pains. But it should be noted that what WikiLeaks is doing isn't without historical precedent. And growing pains doesn't negate criticism. Wikileaks wants to operate on a big stage and get lots of attention - both of which rightfully draws a critical eye.
I have a contrary viewpoint. I believe the fact that they are making changes that are counter to their initial statements validate much of the criticism. But at the same time, it opens them up to additional criticism from those who got behind some of the initial ideals Wikileaks no longer practices. Meanwhile, some of the behavior from WikiLeaks simply adds fuel to other controversies like financial interests / claims (which seems to be the angle of this article).
So what you're saying is that Wikileaks is immune to criticism - above all, accusations of hypocrisy.
Which just means that the producers will introduce another Wesley every week or two. So instead of one Wesley, you get a constantly repeating series of Wesley and Wesley-alikes (some Wesleys will be the same Wesley due to time travel, holodecks, and tachyon particles).
Of course... that may lead to more meta geek culture moments where post-Wesley actors (who are considerably more cool than their character) work out their personal issues in front of the world with the simple question "are we cool?"
While you've got a good point (barriers to entry are a pain when it comes to utilities) - you just talked past the parent. The parent is referring to regions where the local government bids out a monopoly for a service. So even if investors were willing to push through the Natural monopoly you note, they are not allowed to by the local government.
Your argument now rests on the assumption that Microsoft was misleading developers that its extensions were part of standard Java.
Microsoft was never doing such a thing.
Moreover, it's fairly obnoxious to suggest that people developing using Microsoft solutions are all so dumb that they wouldn't be able to figure out that (e.g.) a call to the native Windows API is not cross-platform, even if MS had somehow tried to convince people of that. Which, again, they weren't doing.
I agree that it's an obnoxious view. I don't believe all developers are "so dumb." But I do believe enough are. If it weren't so, we wouldn't have the problem with so many IE6-only web sites / apps. That is the world we were in back then and there's echoes of it still today.
What Microsoft was doing was enticing developers to use the non-standard extensions so they'd be able to choose Java as a language but end up with software that wasn't actually portable. Clearly Java was the fashionable new language, but Windows was the traditional desktop OS. So this method would rope in people whose skills and existing codebase was Java, as well as persuade those whose real knowledgebase was in the Windows API to never really leave Windows.
Let's not forget that Microsoft was also specifically trying to "pollute" Java. From the court case:
Clearly, this was more than Microsoft trying to leverage experienced Java coders. They specifically wanted Java coders creating Java code that would run nowhere else but windows for the sole purpose of polluting the Java environment.
Some of this mirrors what Google are doing: leverage existing Java codebase and developers but require (not even just entice) them to use non-standard extensions so further work remains tied to their platform.
This is the danger of "embrace and extend", and this is what Google are doing. They're just much better than Microsoft at maintaining the odour of roses.
At which point one has to ask whether Google is also really attempting to pollute Java like Microsoft wanted to do. You seem to think so. I don't think there's any evidence. I think you have a valid point in so far as the general outcome might be the same no matter what the intention is. But that's a far cry from trying to insinuate hypocrisy between how Microsoft and Google are perceived.
Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did.
This is a red herring. Developers don't write in bytecode so it doesn't matter whether the resulting binaries are slightly different or very different from standard.
If I build something Java-y but with MS extensions, it will work on the MSJVM but not on a standard Java VM.
If I build something Java-y but with Google extensions, it will work on Google's virtual machine but not on a standard Java VM.
I don't think this is a red herring at all. In fact, I think this is the exact point. What's being coded is something "Java-y" in both cases. But in Microsoft's case, they were presenting it as writing for a Java VM. That implies everything that comes with a Java VM. Google presents it as writing for Dalvik. And while there are certainly similarities between a JVM and Dalik, there is little implication that the Java-y code you write for Dalik is going to work on any given JVM and visa versa.
Again, the choice of compiled executable format is irrelevant. Every developer can run a compilation script to produce an executable for various different platforms. What takes time and matters is whether the source must be changed
I think this highlights the difference. Is Google misleading developers in to thinking that what they code for Android is going to work on any given JVM? I don't think there's any such implication. And so someone coding for Dalvik is going to know that the promise of Java does not apply to this project.
And even if you take offense to coding in Java for a Dalvik environment, anyone can take the Apache License Dalvik VM and port it to other platforms (which more than one entity is doing).
Yeah, because what we need is another non-standard where alternative implementations are always playing catchup. Thanks for illustrating the problem.
Fair enough. I'm not saying what Google is doing is The Right Way. But the point here is that it's hardly lock-in as anyone can make a Dalik VM work anywhere because the code is available. That works against lock-in.
There are, of course, systems that are neglected either due to being forgotten or being assigned to staff not up to the task. But I find that it's more often that one has agile systems and competent staff being bogged down by an increasingly cumbersome bureaucracy.