Smartphone sucks all right, but.NET has been proving rather damn good so far... if a better linux version were available, I could forget java except in Sun locked-in companies.
For quite a while, MS has been in the position of waiting, without much to do, while its competitors gradually catch up with it, adding easy-to-use languages, component systems, and GUIS to their offerings. MS's reaction has been to try and break new markets so that they have a space to innovate in, but their PDA, phone, and game system initiatives have all been kind of mediocre-to-awful in terms of how much opportunity they give MS to create compelling products.
MS profited hugely from the increase in commodity processing power that came with the i386, but they are not managing to profit from the increase in connectivity which we are seeing now. Unless they can do so, they'll find their lead gradually eroded......speaking of eroding MS's lead, I'm trying to migrate from SQL Server to a free solution. Requirements are:
--easy to use from Java (jdbc) and COM-based programs --has stored procs, foreign key constraints, subqueries, etc --runs on linux and 2k/xp --either a gui management system or at least easy to manage in general
MySQL will *not* do it. Currently I'm leaning toward firebird but connectivity (odbc and.net drivers) still seems to be kind of new-looking. Any advice?
>We liberated countless islands and land from the >Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland.
Yeah, and now look -- the Japanese Mainland is right back in Japanese hands(*)! It's hardly been liberated at all!
(*)Except for kabukichou, which is in Chinese hands:p
Actually, I'm kind of cheered up by this.
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It's nice to know the CIA has lots of people who just sit at desks and do boring stuff and spend their time trying to find pesky documents. I was afraid they *all* spent their time ferrying cocaine around southeast asia and creating military dictatorships.
Sounds like they need to buy some nice commodity content-management and data mining software and a timesheet system. It's so cosy!
I usually search for things in winmx, kazaa, $EDONKEY_CLIENT, and soulseek simultaneously. At the end of the day, I usually have n files from winmx, n/3 files from soulseek, and pretty well nearly 0 from the others. If there are so many kazaa users, their tastes must be far more homogenous than winmx and soulseek users. I wonder what it all means.
Anyway, wake me up when kazaa can handle files with non-ISO8859 names.
Well, I've known some Vignette places and they were NOT happy with it. It seems to be more of a very very very complex database front end than an actual CMS. I think they locked in a bunch of customers early on and are now gradually losing them.
Now, if only it was so easy to dismiss WebSphere...
This does not describe a method for reading private implementation details, but a method for directly ACCESSING them.
Just as one can in C++ etc. I know.
It means that interface code that performs sanity checks/permission checks/etc.. can be bypassed at the whim of a programmer.
Well, programmers who want stable, flexible code shouldn't do that. If they do, though, it's a quality issue for them, not a security issue for the C# team.
It means that security mechanisms built into the class can actually be bypassed by directly calling the underlying functions. This isn't a pretty scenario.
Indeed not. You are postulating a programmer so improbably dumb that (s)he uses the privateness of a method to provide actual data security! A programmer, in other words, who does not understand the difference between 'private' in a programming and 'private' in a security sense! Scary thought.
Of course, you wouldn't make that sort of mistake, would you?
I don't think the user's choice of interpreter affects whether your program is Java or not.
I can't really think of many cases where calling private methods on C# or Java classes would be either difficult or useful. Either way, only those most desperate to find some.NET FUD would call it a security issue, which is why we are assured of a great big rush of people all calling it a security issue;)
typically, a language ensures that a member marked as private is hidden from anyone who doesn't have your source code,
No, typically the process of compilation does that for a compiled language that is naturally hard to read, and an obfuscator is used to do it for interpreted languages that keep type information or are otherwise easy to read.
If you use a language that stores lots of rich metadata in the executable (like.NET), and that has a clear and readable bytecode (like.NET or Java), then you should use an obfuscator if you don't want anyone to be able to see your code.
This being slashdot, though, naturally it's all Microsoft's fault. But there's still an element of fun in deciding *why* it's all their fault! Is it:
1 -- MS's fault for not obfuscating code by default? 2 -- MS's fault for including metadata? 3 -- MS's fault for not having.NET compile to x86 assembly language? 4 -- MS's fault for not simply holding all compiled.NET assemblies in escrow on behalf of their authors, releasing them only to trusted parties? 5 -- MS's fault for not changing the nature of information itself to make this particular information hard to interpret?
The Freemasons were founded in the 18th century (although they are fond of claiming to be several thousand years old, and it's more fun that way). You are thinking of just plain masons, without the 'free' and without the capital letter.
Masons: build stuff from rock Freemasons: walk around in rooms with checkered floors carring dividers and set-squares
Or, to put it another way:
Masonry: craft useful in construction Freemasonry: last offshoot of neoplatonic philosophy (or at least symbolism) in mainstream western culture
OR, to put it ANOTHER way, you have inverted the 'learn, then teach' process that works so well when done in the right order.
That'd be the Gestapo. The SS were military, exceptin RtCW where they're just apathetic. That game was really only good for the flamethrower effect. Multiplayer wasn't too bad, I guess.
Innocent times like the good ol' 50s, when you could be hounded out of the country for showing communist tendencies! Or like the 30s, when you could be framed and executed (or just beaten to death with pick handles) if you were suspected of encouraging labor rights! Or like the 19th century, when you could eliminate any random bunch of Mexicans or Native Americans cause hey, they're in the way! (doesn't work on Canadians, though).
Good ol' innocent happy days!
(waves stars and stripes, plays 'yankee doodle' on a kazoo)
What I'm hoping to figure out is, how come in the ages preceding Neo's life black people have been breeding really fast, asians really slowly, and indians/pakistanis/arabs not at all. Has there been some sinister eugenics programme at work?
Remember, folks, if it has to have the word 'science' specially added to it, it's probably not a science. On the other hand it probably is taught in Texas schools.
Just kidding, folks, I know there's lots of great stuff in Texas.
The actual technology is more of a framework for building possible restrictions on than a set of restrictions in itself.
What matters is whether it is used A) to protect specific things whose owners feel they need protecting or B) to just generally exclude software and data transfer that doesn't have corporate approval.
I must say, it looks to me as if the influence of Microsoft may well be somewhat lower by the time this technology (or similar) is released than it is now. So it'll be no so much 'Microsoft technology' as 'global corporate culture' that determines the level of restriction we eventually experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Smartphone sucks all right, but
For quite a while, MS has been in the position of waiting, without much to do, while its competitors gradually catch up with it, adding easy-to-use languages, component systems, and GUIS to their offerings. MS's reaction has been to try and break new markets so that they have a space to innovate in, but their PDA, phone, and game system initiatives have all been kind of mediocre-to-awful in terms of how much opportunity they give MS to create compelling products.
MS profited hugely from the increase in commodity processing power that came with the i386, but they are not managing to profit from the increase in connectivity which we are seeing now. Unless they can do so, they'll find their lead gradually eroded...
--easy to use from Java (jdbc) and COM-based programs
--has stored procs, foreign key constraints, subqueries, etc
--runs on linux and 2k/xp
--either a gui management system or at least easy to manage in general
MySQL will *not* do it. Currently I'm leaning toward firebird but connectivity (odbc and
>We liberated countless islands and land from the
:p
>Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland.
Yeah, and now look -- the Japanese Mainland is right back in Japanese hands(*)! It's hardly been liberated at all!
(*)Except for kabukichou, which is in Chinese hands
It's nice to know the CIA has lots of people who just sit at desks and do boring stuff and spend their time trying to find pesky documents. I was afraid they *all* spent their time ferrying cocaine around southeast asia and creating military dictatorships.
Sounds like they need to buy some nice commodity content-management and data mining software and a timesheet system. It's so cosy!
You're supporting his point, but you think you're undermining it.
I usually search for things in winmx, kazaa, $EDONKEY_CLIENT, and soulseek simultaneously. At the end of the day, I usually have n files from winmx, n/3 files from soulseek, and pretty well nearly 0 from the others. If there are so many kazaa users, their tastes must be far more homogenous than winmx and soulseek users. I wonder what it all means.
Anyway, wake me up when kazaa can handle files with non-ISO8859 names.
Was that book called 'Motel of the Mysteries'? A parody of the tutankhamen excavation?
It was good.
SGI is apparently still hiring (and hiring pretty young men to boot).
Well, I'm glad you think you're pretty.
I won't ask what 'booting' is in this context.
Well, I've known some Vignette places and they were NOT happy with it. It seems to be more of a very very very complex database front end than an actual CMS. I think they locked in a bunch of customers early on and are now gradually losing them.
Now, if only it was so easy to dismiss WebSphere...
This does not describe a method for reading private implementation details, but a method for directly ACCESSING them.
Just as one can in C++ etc. I know.
It means that interface code that performs sanity checks/permission checks/etc.. can be bypassed at the whim of a programmer.
Well, programmers who want stable, flexible code shouldn't do that. If they do, though, it's a quality issue for them, not a security issue for the C# team.
It means that security mechanisms built into the class can actually be bypassed by directly calling the underlying functions. This isn't a pretty scenario.
Indeed not. You are postulating a programmer so improbably dumb that (s)he uses the privateness of a method to provide actual data security! A programmer, in other words, who does not understand the difference between 'private' in a programming and 'private' in a security sense! Scary thought.
Of course, you wouldn't make that sort of mistake, would you?
I don't think the user's choice of interpreter affects whether your program is Java or not.
I can't really think of many cases where calling private methods on C# or Java classes would be either difficult or useful. Either way, only those most desperate to find some
In Java, the bytecode interpreter makes sure you can't access private class members.
:D
Unless you use one that doesn't
typically, a language ensures that a member marked as private is hidden from anyone who doesn't have your source code,
.NET), and that has a clear and readable bytecode (like .NET or Java), then you should use an obfuscator if you don't want anyone to be able to see your code.
.NET compile to x86 assembly language? .NET assemblies in escrow on behalf of their authors, releasing them only to trusted parties?
No, typically the process of compilation does that for a compiled language that is naturally hard to read, and an obfuscator is used to do it for interpreted languages that keep type information or are otherwise easy to read.
If you use a language that stores lots of rich metadata in the executable (like
This being slashdot, though, naturally it's all Microsoft's fault. But there's still an element of fun in deciding *why* it's all their fault! Is it:
1 -- MS's fault for not obfuscating code by default?
2 -- MS's fault for including metadata?
3 -- MS's fault for not having
4 -- MS's fault for not simply holding all compiled
5 -- MS's fault for not changing the nature of information itself to make this particular information hard to interpret?
an anime cannot properly portray the deaths of 7 billion human beings.
:D
Whereas in live action it's easy peasy
The Freemasons were founded in the 18th century (although they are fond of claiming to be several thousand years old, and it's more fun that way). You are thinking of just plain masons, without the 'free' and without the capital letter.
Masons: build stuff from rock
Freemasons: walk around in rooms with checkered floors carring dividers and set-squares
Or, to put it another way:
Masonry: craft useful in construction
Freemasonry: last offshoot of neoplatonic philosophy (or at least symbolism) in mainstream western culture
OR, to put it ANOTHER way, you have inverted the 'learn, then teach' process that works so well when done in the right order.
That'd be the Gestapo. The SS were military, exceptin RtCW where they're just apathetic. That game was really only good for the flamethrower effect. Multiplayer wasn't too bad, I guess.
Guilty conscience, huh?
Innocent times like the good ol' 50s, when you could be hounded out of the country for showing communist tendencies! Or like the 30s, when you could be framed and executed (or just beaten to death with pick handles) if you were suspected of encouraging labor rights! Or like the 19th century, when you could eliminate any random bunch of Mexicans or Native Americans cause hey, they're in the way! (doesn't work on Canadians, though).
Good ol' innocent happy days!
(waves stars and stripes, plays 'yankee doodle' on a kazoo)
Heh heh, of course they don't think we're that stupid. Why, it'd be stupid to think the good ol' US Public is that stupid!
Now, let's see, what percentage of Americans believe in Creation Science...?
Ooooooooooooohh.
What I'm hoping to figure out is, how come in the ages preceding Neo's life black people have been breeding really fast, asians really slowly, and indians/pakistanis/arabs not at all. Has there been some sinister eugenics programme at work?
I think we should be told.
that one with the Prince who catches comets in a net and flies from planet to planet and talks to the bitchy flower
Shit, is there NOTHING sacred anymore?
Remember, folks, if it has to have the word 'science' specially added to it, it's probably not a science. On the other hand it probably is taught in Texas schools.
Just kidding, folks, I know there's lots of great stuff in Texas.
Read books. 60s sci-fi would be a good place to start, since that's what the Matrix was a reworking of. Eventually, you can graduate to real books.
Matrix Reloaded rocks, by the way.
The actual technology is more of a framework for building possible restrictions on than a set of restrictions in itself.
What matters is whether it is used A) to protect specific things whose owners feel they need protecting or B) to just generally exclude software and data transfer that doesn't have corporate approval.
I must say, it looks to me as if the influence of Microsoft may well be somewhat lower by the time this technology (or similar) is released than it is now. So it'll be no so much 'Microsoft technology' as 'global corporate culture' that determines the level of restriction we eventually experience.
...do I get $100 an hour? Because if so, I love this scheme!
Otherwise I think it's kind of silly, but more in a lovable Homer Simpson way than a scary USAPATRIOT way.