Maybe it's just me but lately I've found Google results to be a LOT less helpful. The last few times I've done a search ( for server configuration problems ), my search results have been mostly postings to web-archives of email groups. Usually, the information I need is not there but when it is, I have to sift through the threads on the topic of disussion to find what I'm looking for. I liked it better when google pointed me to a web page that had the information I needed.
I just don't get why people are so pissed about taxes. I make a decent wage and don't mind paying a few bucks to feed hungry people, fix the potholes, buy some modern textbooks or give a kid a free doctor visit a few times a year. I do get pissed about welfare payments to corporations or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers but I figure it's the part of the cost of paying to fix the potholes.
In java, as soon as you stick something in a collection, you lose all type safety because you have to type cast:
A a = (A)list.get(0);
I'm still not getting it. It just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to override the put() method to throw an exception if you try to insert something that doesn't implement your expected interface. Of course, the rest of the posters to this thread wouldn't have had the opportunity to look down their noses at me and make condescending remarks but that doesn't seem like a design goal the Java folks had in mind.
I've never used genrics. From what I understand, it's a way to keep a group of different objects in a collection without having to warry about what type of object they are when you retrieve them. I can't think of any useful application where I need a collection of different types of objects. In some case where I might (a shopping cart) the items can just implement an interface to guarantee me the operations I need to perform on different objects. Why would I need to collect a String, an int and some user-defined object all in one place? Sounds sort of like the junk drawer in the kitchen that everybody has.
I think it's a marketing thing. Every now and again, the PHBs have a need to scream, "Look - we added new stuff"!!! It doesn't really matter if the new stuff is useful or necessary, just so long as they can slap a "Now With 14% More Creamy Goodness" sticker on the side of the box.
I am sure there have been other SPEWS suporters that have gotten caught up in the colateral damage that would have standing, why have they not made this case?
You'd have to ask them. From reading nanae, my sense of it is that SPEWS supporters avoid spam-friendly ISPs (yes, it can be done). You have to remember, if SPEWS wasn't effective and accurate, it wouldn't be widely used. Personally, I've switched to Spamcop and Spamhaus RBLs but when I was using SPEWS I never got any false positives.
Or if you feel so strongly about it, why not sign up with a service you know will get hit, and sue them when it happens?
Why would I want to do that? You expect me to attack something I support so that when I fail it will have been proven valid? That's pretty ignorant and makes me think I'm arguing with a troll.
If I were a game company, I might be tempted to hire a candidate for President to spout off about how horrible my game is (now on sale at stores near you) just for the publicity. Just find yourself a candidate on his last legs (Lieberman), desperate for publicity (Lieberman), almost out of money (Lieberman) and willing to whore themselves to the highest bidder (any politician really). There ya go.
Well, of course it would have to go to court. What did you think?
I do feel it is a position that could be succesfully argued, however, I have no standing as I have not been damaged. I'm the one blocking the spam and my ISP does not support spammers so I don't have any reason to test it in court.
Very doubtfull. Most ISP's indemnify themselves against just about everything.
Simply because the ISP says, "We're not to blame for anything", doesn't make it so. You are right that this has not been tested in this particular circumstance, however, there are hundreds of en pointe cases where a vendor has been succesfully sued for being willfully negligent. The issue boils down to whether or not you can show that refusing to disconnect spammers constitutes "willful negligence". The argument would go something like this: 1. It is common knowledge that many hosts will refuse to receive email traffic from IPs known to spam or support spammers. 2. Defendant has been repeatedly warned that they are hosting spammers and have refused to take action. 3. Plaintiff's email traffic has been rejected due to actions of Defendant. 4. Defendant's actions have, therefore, cause Plaitiff to not receive service they contracted for.
It may or may not be succesfull in a court of law, but the lgoic os most certainly not "seriously flawed".
they have a HUGE tendancy to legislate from the bench which simply isn't their role.
No, they have a huge tendency to intepret the legislation, which IS their role. It's not their job to be in step with popular opinion - they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. The legislative and executive branches are the ones who are supposed to be in step with the American Public. I don't know why the radical right-wingers are trying to undermine this fundamental tenet of our system.
Do you have any real data to back this up, Michael, or is this yet another of your unnecessary and unwanted biased editorials? Not that I'm in the pro-Microsoft camp but a 1000-to-1 profit line sounds pretty high. This is shoddy "journalism".
Actually, it was an offhand remark that had little, if anything, to do with the main thrust of the story. Not really enough to get one's panties in a bunch over.
Put a tablespoon of wine in a barrel of shit and you still have a barrel of shit. Put a tablespoon of shit in a barrel of wine and you have a barrel of shit.
While I'm an avid Linux fan, why do I get the feeling that if a large Linux distributor like Red Hat arranged for a glut of software to be sent to UN countries, the headline would have been slightly more flattering?
Redhat has never been convicted (or even accused) of being a monopoly and using that monopoly illegaly to gain competitive advantage.
Re:This won't spell the end to software developmen
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
It is a bad idea to have laws that nobody can/will respect.
There is an entire political party devoted to passing laws that nobody will respect. Believe me, it will get worse, maybe much worse, before it gets any better.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's just me but lately I've found Google results to be a LOT less helpful. The last few times I've done a search ( for server configuration problems ), my search results have been mostly postings to web-archives of email groups. Usually, the information I need is not there but when it is, I have to sift through the threads on the topic of disussion to find what I'm looking for. I liked it better when google pointed me to a web page that had the information I needed.
I just don't get why people are so pissed about taxes. I make a decent wage and don't mind paying a few bucks to feed hungry people, fix the potholes, buy some modern textbooks or give a kid a free doctor visit a few times a year. I do get pissed about welfare payments to corporations or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers but I figure it's the part of the cost of paying to fix the potholes.
Dude, Osama bin Laden is so damn cool. Did you see how on Sept. 11 he orchestrated a complex attack on the US...
Liar!!! Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. I know it's true because George W. Bush told me so.
"Well known" if you happen to be a right-wing crackpot.
Your local government dorks gave the cable company a monopoly and now they don't HAVE to give a shit what you think about them.
My satellite would definitely go out during storms.
If your satellite was affected by storms maybe it should have been in a higher orbit.
They should do something about all those spammers using their service.
They probably won't but SPEWS has. Much of Comcast's home-user IP space has been blacklisted:
http://spews.org/html/S2963.html
True, but this will generate a run-time error, while generics will generate a compile-time error.
Ahh - now THAT'S much clearer. Thank you.
In java, as soon as you stick something in a collection, you lose all type safety because you have to type cast:
A a = (A)list.get(0);
I'm still not getting it. It just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to override the put() method to throw an exception if you try to insert something that doesn't implement your expected interface.
Of course, the rest of the posters to this thread wouldn't have had the opportunity to look down their noses at me and make condescending remarks but that doesn't seem like a design goal the Java folks had in mind.
You and me both. And how does Ant, a build tool, depend on Swing, a GUI-building set of classes?
Is that all? Seems like much ado about nothing.
I've never used genrics. From what I understand, it's a way to keep a group of different objects in a collection without having to warry about what type of object they are when you retrieve them.
I can't think of any useful application where I need a collection of different types of objects. In some case where I might (a shopping cart) the items can just implement an interface to guarantee me the operations I need to perform on different objects.
Why would I need to collect a String, an int and some user-defined object all in one place? Sounds sort of like the junk drawer in the kitchen that everybody has.
Guess what, if your app needs to be high performance, you shouldn't be doing it in java.
I laugh when people make sweeping generalities that aren't based in reality.
I think it's a marketing thing. Every now and again, the PHBs have a need to scream, "Look - we added new stuff"!!!
It doesn't really matter if the new stuff is useful or necessary, just so long as they can slap a "Now With 14% More Creamy Goodness" sticker on the side of the box.
It is pretty obvious that this was written by someone in the Linux community.
It is not at all obvious to me, Sherlock. How did you deduce this?
I am sure there have been other SPEWS suporters that have gotten caught up in the colateral damage that would have standing, why have they not made this case?
You'd have to ask them. From reading nanae, my sense of it is that SPEWS supporters avoid spam-friendly ISPs (yes, it can be done). You have to remember, if SPEWS wasn't effective and accurate, it wouldn't be widely used. Personally, I've switched to Spamcop and Spamhaus RBLs but when I was using SPEWS I never got any false positives.
Or if you feel so strongly about it, why not sign up with a service you know will get hit, and sue them when it happens?
Why would I want to do that? You expect me to attack something I support so that when I fail it will have been proven valid? That's pretty ignorant and makes me think I'm arguing with a troll.
If I were a game company, I might be tempted to hire a candidate for President to spout off about how horrible my game is (now on sale at stores near you) just for the publicity.
Just find yourself a candidate on his last legs (Lieberman), desperate for publicity (Lieberman), almost out of money (Lieberman) and willing to whore themselves to the highest bidder (any politician really).
There ya go.
Well, of course it would have to go to court. What did you think?
I do feel it is a position that could be succesfully argued, however, I have no standing as I have not been damaged. I'm the one blocking the spam and my ISP does not support spammers so I don't have any reason to test it in court.
... and my reactions is, "who gives a fuck about what some overpaid actor does?"
When the overpaid actor is the tasty Mary Louise Parker and when what she does is wear a low-cut dress, I, for one, "give a fuck".
Very doubtfull. Most ISP's indemnify themselves against just about everything.
Simply because the ISP says, "We're not to blame for anything", doesn't make it so. You are right that this has not been tested in this particular circumstance, however, there are hundreds of en pointe cases where a vendor has been succesfully sued for being willfully negligent.
The issue boils down to whether or not you can show that refusing to disconnect spammers constitutes "willful negligence". The argument would go something like this:
1. It is common knowledge that many hosts will refuse to receive email traffic from IPs known to spam or support spammers.
2. Defendant has been repeatedly warned that they are hosting spammers and have refused to take action.
3. Plaintiff's email traffic has been rejected due to actions of Defendant.
4. Defendant's actions have, therefore, cause Plaitiff to not receive service they contracted for.
It may or may not be succesfull in a court of law, but the lgoic os most certainly not "seriously flawed".
they have a HUGE tendancy to legislate from the bench which simply isn't their role.
No, they have a huge tendency to intepret the legislation, which IS their role. It's not their job to be in step with popular opinion - they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. The legislative and executive branches are the ones who are supposed to be in step with the American Public.
I don't know why the radical right-wingers are trying to undermine this fundamental tenet of our system.
Do you have any real data to back this up, Michael, or is this yet another of your unnecessary and unwanted biased editorials? Not that I'm in the pro-Microsoft camp but a 1000-to-1 profit line sounds pretty high. This is shoddy "journalism".
Actually, it was an offhand remark that had little, if anything, to do with the main thrust of the story. Not really enough to get one's panties in a bunch over.
A better adage:
Put a tablespoon of wine in a barrel of shit and you still have a barrel of shit.
Put a tablespoon of shit in a barrel of wine and you have a barrel of shit.
While I'm an avid Linux fan, why do I get the feeling that if a large Linux distributor like Red Hat arranged for a glut of software to be sent to UN countries, the headline would have been slightly more flattering?
Redhat has never been convicted (or even accused) of being a monopoly and using that monopoly illegaly to gain competitive advantage.
It is a bad idea to have laws that nobody can/will respect.
There is an entire political party devoted to passing laws that nobody will respect. Believe me, it will get worse, maybe much worse, before it gets any better.