Oracle has been notorious for crash-happy buggy software for 20+ years (my experience with them goes all the way back to Oracle 5.)
They are the SLOWEST company on the planet for delivering bug fixes.
They are also one of the RICHEST companies on the planet.
Why should ANYONE fix Oracle's mess for free, when all they're going to do is turn around and bundle it in a for-profit package, giving whoever fixed the problem diddly squat in return?
Open source does not mean "let me dump my untested code on the internet and let someone fix it for me." The originator of the code is always responsible for doing their best to deliver a quality solution. Any person or company using the "dump" approach deserves nothing but ridicule for their lazy incompetence.
If they don't understand the patents, they have NO BUSINESS issuing the patents.
The patent office is supposed to REVIEW patents for content, not rubber-stamp them. It is NOT supposed to be the job of the courts to do the filtering at some point down the road.
Do you really think underfunding, ignorance, and incompetence should be tolerated or forgiven when it costs the industry so many millions (if not billions) of dollars in legal fees to deal with the resulting morass?
The fact that they don't have a means of broadcasting alerts to the technicians is a sign of an absolutely scary level of incometence.
Are the launch codes for the nuclear arsenal as well protected and monitored as the drones? If so, the entire world should be terrified of American incompetence.
Without them taking companies to court over issues that should never have been patentable in the first place, no one would realize or believe just how seriously screwed up the patent system is.
Then it's unreasonable for them to assume it requires a "nation state" to perform the attacks. Some of the cracker groups out there are very, very skilled and have a lot resources available to them.
But it would be embarassing for them to admit a loosely organized bunch of people could get past their much-vaunted security. Better save face and paint pictures of a ghostly "nation state" so they don't look incompetent.
The argument that most websites haven't been upgraded is insane. The website admins won't upgrade their servers until the browser community can support it.
If Opera is already doing it, they've shown it can be done. Failure to do the same with Firefox, Chrome, et. al. is a sign of either laziness, incompetence, or extremely bad planning.
Stop farting around with 3D support and take care of the security fundamentals first!
I'm trying to think the motivation behind this through, and all I can think of is that they don't want to use PDF documents for paginated information because PDF doesn't let you embed ads.
So what's wrong with letting people use the PageUp/PageDown buttons and clicking off the scroll-thumb for the same behaviour from a scroll bar?
Before you add page tags, you'd need to add flow-control tags to CSS, similar to what virtually every document processing program supports. Anyone with a functioning brain cell that works with large documents relies on flow-control configuration to break up pages, rather than manually inserting start-page breaks.
Then there's the issue of page size, which obviously can't be the same as the browser display, or you end up creating umpteen versions of the HTML document based on the capabilities of the viewer.
The more I think about it, the less I like the idea.
I don't care how good your programmers are, version control is not optional -- and the versioning server needs to be backed up regularly.
Relying on the programmers to keep copies of code on different workstations and servers, and somehow magically coordinate them without ever losing code is absolute madness.
Old tools aren't unusual, especially if you need them to support "legacy" apps. But some companies don't invest in keeping their tools and code up to date at all, and sooner or later the house of cards comes crashing down. Guess whose "job" it is to bail them out of the resulting situation? And when you tell them how long it'll take, it'll be your fault for being "incompetent."
I remember the Toronto airport security testing out one of the electronic sniffers. It was supposed to be much more sensitive than dogs are.
The problem is, it was too sensitive. It turns out that after a few decades of smuggling, pretty much every surface in the baggage handling are has been exposed to drugs or explosives at some time or other, so the electronic sniffer kept going off.
When they turned down the sensitivity, it was no better than a dog.
It would be a debatable point if you're patenting a particular expression of genes, as every non-cloned individuals genome is unique and therefore has no "prior art." Genetics are a very specific expression of something compared most modern patents.
However, I do believe there was some discussion in the UN about banning patents on genomes, but I don't know what ever came out of those discussions. I'm sure if they did the smart thing and decided to ban patenting natural genomes that the corporate world will appeal and fire a rather large team of lawyers at the issue rather than accept that they can't own something.
The problem is not that system failures happen, but that businesses and people don't plan to deal with those failures.
Running your own email server will not prevent crashes. RIM crashes, Google crashes, a bazillion corporate email servers crash.
The trick is not to expect anyone to really deliver 24x7x365 uptime, because no one has ever actually done so. The closest they've come is playing word games with the service contracts and reason for outages so that they can still claim 5-nines uptime, even though their honest stats might be more like 3-nines at best.
I like a poster I read several years ago: "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
You can have a corporation of 1, at least in Canada. But that's beside the point....
A company I recently worked for got burned badly by just ONE corporate user making unlimited overseas long distance calls. If you've got 40 devices out there, you can pretty much bet several of your employees will abuse them. 'Tis simple human nature.
Aside from that, how hard can it be to go into an admin console and configure the limits on a user's device if the tools to do that are provided?
And to be honest, I don't care what the game setting is. All I care about is whether the game is fun, challenging, and interesting. I've never really been into any particular genre of game environments, any more than I limit my reading to "just Sci-Fi" or "just Fantasy".
I'm glad I never took such a narrow-minded approach to friends, food, or entertainment. As soon as you decide to focus on a "favourite" something, you miss out on all the other opportunities.
To each their own. Java and C# both have more than adequate performance for my needs, so it's very, very rare that I would look a C# just to get closer to the metal nowadays. Programming speed and maintainability are more important to me nowadays.
Multiple inheritance allows for tighter code, less code, and more consistent behaviour as a result. If you don't grasp the significance of multiple inheritance, it's your loss. You can simulate multiple inheritance through the use of interfaces (which are allowed to multiple-inherit), but the implementation code ends up replicated all over the place.
Introspection and dynamic invocation can provide the same code structure benefits at the expense of performance, but I'm not really a fan of that approach.
I question your qualifications to judge C++ implementation architectures if you thing multiple inheritance is no big deal. I realize there's been an umpteen year philosophical discussion about single vs. multiple inheritance, but I deal with practical programming, not philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle has been notorious for crash-happy buggy software for 20+ years (my experience with them goes all the way back to Oracle 5.)
They are the SLOWEST company on the planet for delivering bug fixes.
They are also one of the RICHEST companies on the planet.
Why should ANYONE fix Oracle's mess for free, when all they're going to do is turn around and bundle it in a for-profit package, giving whoever fixed the problem diddly squat in return?
Open source does not mean "let me dump my untested code on the internet and let someone fix it for me." The originator of the code is always responsible for doing their best to deliver a quality solution. Any person or company using the "dump" approach deserves nothing but ridicule for their lazy incompetence.
If they don't understand the patents, they have NO BUSINESS issuing the patents.
The patent office is supposed to REVIEW patents for content, not rubber-stamp them. It is NOT supposed to be the job of the courts to do the filtering at some point down the road.
Do you really think underfunding, ignorance, and incompetence should be tolerated or forgiven when it costs the industry so many millions (if not billions) of dollars in legal fees to deal with the resulting morass?
I am.
The fact that they don't have a means of broadcasting alerts to the technicians is a sign of an absolutely scary level of incometence.
Are the launch codes for the nuclear arsenal as well protected and monitored as the drones? If so, the entire world should be terrified of American incompetence.
Without them taking companies to court over issues that should never have been patentable in the first place, no one would realize or believe just how seriously screwed up the patent system is.
Then it's unreasonable for them to assume it requires a "nation state" to perform the attacks. Some of the cracker groups out there are very, very skilled and have a lot resources available to them.
But it would be embarassing for them to admit a loosely organized bunch of people could get past their much-vaunted security. Better save face and paint pictures of a ghostly "nation state" so they don't look incompetent.
The argument that most websites haven't been upgraded is insane. The website admins won't upgrade their servers until the browser community can support it.
If Opera is already doing it, they've shown it can be done. Failure to do the same with Firefox, Chrome, et. al. is a sign of either laziness, incompetence, or extremely bad planning.
Stop farting around with 3D support and take care of the security fundamentals first!
I'm trying to think the motivation behind this through, and all I can think of is that they don't want to use PDF documents for paginated information because PDF doesn't let you embed ads.
So what's wrong with letting people use the PageUp/PageDown buttons and clicking off the scroll-thumb for the same behaviour from a scroll bar?
Before you add page tags, you'd need to add flow-control tags to CSS, similar to what virtually every document processing program supports. Anyone with a functioning brain cell that works with large documents relies on flow-control configuration to break up pages, rather than manually inserting start-page breaks.
Then there's the issue of page size, which obviously can't be the same as the browser display, or you end up creating umpteen versions of the HTML document based on the capabilities of the viewer.
The more I think about it, the less I like the idea.
I worked in such environments myself -- 15-20 years ago.
There are plenty of free versioning tools. There is absolutely NO excuse for not using them. Why defend the practices of dangerously incompetent PHBs?
Are there no upgrades to TLS 1.0 available? I thought the issue was browsers and websites that hadn't upgraded.
A single programmer project should still use version control to deal with machine crashes, accidental deletions, and the inevitable "oops."
There are plenty of free tools for implementing versioning software. There is NO excuse for not doing so, other than sheer incompetent laziness.
I don't care how good your programmers are, version control is not optional -- and the versioning server needs to be backed up regularly.
Relying on the programmers to keep copies of code on different workstations and servers, and somehow magically coordinate them without ever losing code is absolute madness.
Old tools aren't unusual, especially if you need them to support "legacy" apps. But some companies don't invest in keeping their tools and code up to date at all, and sooner or later the house of cards comes crashing down. Guess whose "job" it is to bail them out of the resulting situation? And when you tell them how long it'll take, it'll be your fault for being "incompetent."
I remember the Toronto airport security testing out one of the electronic sniffers. It was supposed to be much more sensitive than dogs are.
The problem is, it was too sensitive. It turns out that after a few decades of smuggling, pretty much every surface in the baggage handling are has been exposed to drugs or explosives at some time or other, so the electronic sniffer kept going off.
When they turned down the sensitivity, it was no better than a dog.
Case in point: 90 percent of U.S. bils carry traces of cocaine. The fact that a sniffer or a dog "goes off" only justifies further investigation; it's far from proof.
It would be a debatable point if you're patenting a particular expression of genes, as every non-cloned individuals genome is unique and therefore has no "prior art." Genetics are a very specific expression of something compared most modern patents.
However, I do believe there was some discussion in the UN about banning patents on genomes, but I don't know what ever came out of those discussions. I'm sure if they did the smart thing and decided to ban patenting natural genomes that the corporate world will appeal and fire a rather large team of lawyers at the issue rather than accept that they can't own something.
The problem is not that system failures happen, but that businesses and people don't plan to deal with those failures.
Running your own email server will not prevent crashes. RIM crashes, Google crashes, a bazillion corporate email servers crash.
The trick is not to expect anyone to really deliver 24x7x365 uptime, because no one has ever actually done so. The closest they've come is playing word games with the service contracts and reason for outages so that they can still claim 5-nines uptime, even though their honest stats might be more like 3-nines at best.
I like a poster I read several years ago: "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
You can have a corporation of 1, at least in Canada. But that's beside the point....
A company I recently worked for got burned badly by just ONE corporate user making unlimited overseas long distance calls. If you've got 40 devices out there, you can pretty much bet several of your employees will abuse them. 'Tis simple human nature.
Aside from that, how hard can it be to go into an admin console and configure the limits on a user's device if the tools to do that are provided?
Monsanto has already patented their GMOs. Silly to ask if somethings goign to happen when it's already done.
And to be honest, I don't care what the game setting is. All I care about is whether the game is fun, challenging, and interesting. I've never really been into any particular genre of game environments, any more than I limit my reading to "just Sci-Fi" or "just Fantasy".
I'm glad I never took such a narrow-minded approach to friends, food, or entertainment. As soon as you decide to focus on a "favourite" something, you miss out on all the other opportunities.
Nethack has great gameplay, but the graphics suck. I've seen no shortage of games with high-quality graphics that sucked horribly for gameplay.
Good graphics do not necessarily make a good game.
Dang it. Clicked too quickly. I wouldn't look a C++ just to get closer to the metal in most cases.
It's not a lack of comfort -- I have over 15 years C++ programming experience.
To each their own. Java and C# both have more than adequate performance for my needs, so it's very, very rare that I would look a C# just to get closer to the metal nowadays. Programming speed and maintainability are more important to me nowadays.
Multiple inheritance allows for tighter code, less code, and more consistent behaviour as a result. If you don't grasp the significance of multiple inheritance, it's your loss. You can simulate multiple inheritance through the use of interfaces (which are allowed to multiple-inherit), but the implementation code ends up replicated all over the place.
Introspection and dynamic invocation can provide the same code structure benefits at the expense of performance, but I'm not really a fan of that approach.
I question your qualifications to judge C++ implementation architectures if you thing multiple inheritance is no big deal. I realize there's been an umpteen year philosophical discussion about single vs. multiple inheritance, but I deal with practical programming, not philosophy.
Personally I'm far more interested in the gameplay than the viewpoint of the camera.
A security guard has the right to detain you and call police to have you arrested. They have the right to ask you to leave.
That is ALL they have the right to do.
They are NOT police officers, though an obscene number of them are power-crazed wannabe-jackboots who THINK they have authority.
The security guard STOLE the camera. Period.
You have no rights.
Only corporatiions and bankers who pay off the politicians have rights.
Occupy! Stand up against the tyrants who've taken over, wherever you may be.
I wonder if HP has dreams of patent riches from Memristors?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/memristor_in_18_months/
Interesting technology, that.