It seems to me that you misunderstand the use of interfaces. It is not to compensate for the lack of callbacks...
Here is a prime use of interfaces. Suppose you want to instrument a Set implementation. Without the Set interface, you could extend the HashSet class and add the instrumentation to the class. However, without knowing the details of the implementation of the HashSet, you may get unexpected results. Sure, you can read the source code for HashSet, but that is unnecessary if you just wrap the Set interface in your new class, implement the set interface, and pass all of your calls on to the underlying set (the implementation of which is passed into your constructor.) You can then add your instrumentation to the new class, without concern for the underlying Set implementation. The other drawback to simply extending a Set implementation is that it ties you to that implementation. Suppose you extend a HashSet, what happens when you want to apply that instrumentation to a TreeSet? You have to write a new class.
It has been my experience that most "OO developers" lack a true understanding of the power of ObjectOriented programmming. The most common manifestation of this misunderstanding is the idea that the power of OO is inheritance. The real power is polymorphic behavior and encapsulation. Polymorphic behavior is best created through the proper use of interface inheritance, and implementation inheritance inherently breaks encapsulation. I am not saying that implementation inheritance is always a bad thing, I'm simply saying that it tends to be used incorrectly.
As far as java's event handling model, it sounds like you haven't worked much with the language. Java makes it very simple and intuitive to take advantage of an MVC framework through the current event handling model. It may take some getting used to, but I have found that decoupling presentation logic from business logic results in much more resusable software, IMHO.
cheers
the person who wrote the original post was right. we were punched in the face. and it hurt. and it is time that we wake up and smell the coffee that the rest of the world is incredibly jealous of us. We carry Europe on our shoulders through two world wars, we invent tons of useful things relative to the amount of time we have actually been a country, our businesses are the envy of the world, we were the only country (other than maybe canada and britain) brave enough to stand up and defeat the soviet union, we are tolerant of other viewpoints (which unfortunately makes attacks like these easier), and we have more people coming into our borders than any other country. The twin towers in particular, and the city of New York in general, are the very epitomy of what makes this country so enviable. And just like when a jealous lunatic destroys a piece of someone else's property, some insanse group took it upon themselves to orchestrate this attack. Congratulations. You've ruined something beautiful. But that is much easier to do than to create something beautiful. And in 5 or 10 years, believe that towers will stand again where the world trade center once did. and believe that New York city will remain the cultural center that it was before today. And believe that it will stand in defiance of all of the hatred and jealousy of Islam and every other backwards culture out there that cannot understand what makes the west so great. We are a superior culture and a superior military power and a superior economy, and all you have managed to do is piss off a group of people who have not been mad in a long time. We Americans have enjoyed prosperity unmatched in the history of the world for quite some time now, and we were willing to overlook for the most part transgressions by the dictators and lunatic leaders of the world. But now you have "hurt" us--as the originator of this post so eloquently pointed out. And you know what, the rest of the world can choose to wipe their asses with our stars and stripes. I understand that most of you are so concrete bound that you can't understand that the flag is nothing more than an icon to us, that which makes the US what it is is the spirit of the individual. And for those of you who think we can't beat terrorism, maybe you are right. But we sure as hell are going to try. There were more people saying we couldn't beat england at one point, but those who underestimate the United States and the philosophical principals on which it was founded are generally wrong. Ask Hitler, Hirohito, Lenin, Stalin, or Qadaffi.
you fucking idiot. bush coming to washington serves no purpose other than to further the incentive to bring another attack on washington. My I hope for the day is that all of you fucking little cowards out there denouncing retaliation or blaming the president for this action are realized for the partisan inhumane people that you are. Innocent people died today, and all you can think about is either protecting those responsible or blaming the president? I for one cannnot wait for the reports of islamic people being beaten to death by americans. It could be time for us to stoop to their level and kill innocent people. But this will not happen, because despite our emotions, we as Americans still defer to reason (thankfully), and will allow the rule of law to triumph.
Reducing the privileges afforded by any patent is the same as destroying it. Imagine if someone came in and said to you, we know you started your company from scratch, and we know you have property rights, but we are going to reduce some of the privileges of your property rights. You must hire this group of people, even though they are not qualified to fulfill their end of the deal for the work you are advertising, because the good of the public is more important than your own profits. Would you then feel like your right to property even existed? I don't think so, but maybe your understanding of a property right is different from mine. I am not surprised that you used such a weak and flawed analogy between my point on patent law and your example with murder. Laws against murder are designed to prevent the destruction of property rights. When someone is found innocent because of extenuating circumstances, it is because it turns out that they were defending their property rights. What we are talking about with the IP laws is something completely different. When you say that any patent can have its privileges reduced if the need of the public is high enough, you are not protecting anyones property rights. The company who loses the patent obviously has not had its rights upheld, and the people getting the cheaper medication (cheaper in the short run at least) aren't having their property rights upheld. They have no claim to the drugs. They did not create them, and they did not purchase them from the creator of the drugs in the proscribed manner. The companies manufacturing the drugs without having to have spent a dollar on research or development also are not having their property rights upheld. They obtained the drugs through the use of force; the government STOLE the recipes for them. They are actually violating someone else's property rights. So you are comparing two completely different concepts here.
And I am not being insensitive with the comment about drugs other than AIDS drugs. My point was that these people's lives are much better off for having the drug companies around.
Oh and I didn't say the people in question would be better off if the drug companies had never existed. I said they would be as well off or better, if the drug companies that hold the patents in question were to cease to exist now
I find this blatant contradiction in your reasoning to be as humorous as your awful spelling. As well off or better implies that if not the same, the people might actually be better off. And you are saying that they would be the same or better off if the companies ceased to exist now. A brute or a primitive person has the caveman mentality that "I don't care how I got to be in the position where I am now, all I care about is that I am here now". And this is how you, and the Brazilian government of thugs, approach the issue of patents. You admit that the Brazilian people are better off because the drug companies have beeen there in the past (implicit in your claim that you did not claim they would be better off if the drug companies had never existed), and yet you think they can go on enjoying the benefits of the vast inventory of drugs offered by a pharmaceutical giant without these companies existing any longer. You may think that the companies who are making short term profit with the help of stolen drug recipes handed to them by the government will actually be able to create a new drug, but you are sadly mistaken. Any company that has the capability to create a drug, does it without resorting to stolen patents.
Hospitals are right? You will also notice that most practices have LLC or LLP after their name. This stands for Limited Liability Corporation or Partnership. The difference betweeen a partnership and a corporation (or a sole proprietorship for that matter) is mainly based in where ultimate liability lies and on the way the business entity is taxed. Are you implying that a doctor is not in business for profit? Maybe some aren't, but the ones who have brought the greatest good about certainly are. And just so no one jumps on me for this, I am not implying that doctors who do pro bono work are useless or not as well meaning as for profit doctors. I just mean to point out that most of the benefits that we get from doctors come from those who are driven by a profit motive.
And they have done so much to reduce suffering and increase human hapiness compared to the drug companies, air conditioning builders, hygiene products companies, doctors, dentists, car manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, et. al.
Okay, you got me. you are so much smarter than I. I must profess my ignorance of what a troll account is or why it is relevant to this discussion. And you are obviously proud of the fact that you can regurgitate the text of your econ book. But let me take one second of your highly important time to ask you this. Why are there cures for diseases on the market? Why are there antibiotics? Can you explain to me why the drug companies wasted their time (at least in your economic viewpoint) developing a cure for bacterial meningitis, when it would obviously (again, in your economic view of the world) be more profitable to create medicines that assuage the suffering of those afflicted with it long enough to drain their wallets?
The answer is simple, (although it may be asking a lot of you to use common sense as opposed to an edgeworth box to make economic decisions) if you create a cure for a disease, you will far outsell products that simply reduce pain and suffering.
And I fully understand the concept of an oligopoly. In fact, one in particular comes to mind. The car industry. And the American car manufacturers used to build their products to not last as long as they possibly could. The idea was similar to what you have discussed. If people are forced to buy more cars, we can increase demand. The Japanese came in and disproved this theory by building cars that last 2 to 3 times as long, and the American car manufactures (the two that are still American controlled mind you), are still paying the price in terms of market share for their short sitedness.
So I'll shut up now and let you bask in the glory of your superior achievements in econ class and your low user id, and I will stop posting ideas that are slightly different from the majority of the posts on this site, since you obviously prefer to avoid open discussion of ideas by newcomers.
Is no one talking about taking away all patent priviliges? What else is implied when a government threatens to take a patent away?
I would like to point out that in the first sentence you use the word "all", and in the second you use the article "a". This disparity alone shows that you implicitly recognize that there are other patents that will still be around. Furthermore, if a patent is recognized over most of the earth and not recognized in a few countries, then it hasn't been totally taken away. These two considerations show that, far from taking away all patent priviliges, the topic is really a reduction of priviliges to a single category of patents
Reply::::::Your disection of the syntax of my sentence is incorrect. I purposely used all and a betweent the two sentences. Once a government succeeds in destroying one patent, the protection afforded by a patent is destroyed. Once a drug is copied, and the company doing the stealing does not have to cover R&D costs, that drug will become available on the market for prices that are untenable for the company that developed them. I realize you do not care about this type of thing, but what you need to realize is that the whole reason a company spends billions of dollars in research is to create the temporary competitive advantage afforded by a patent. Without the enforcement of patents, companies will not have the incentive to spend the time and money necessary to develop life saving drugs.
Remember, without these pharmaceutical companies, these people would have no hope whatsoever.
It is quite true that, if these companies had never existed, then they would have less hope than they have now. However, it is also true that, if these companies ceased to exist today, then the people in question would have at least the same amount of hope, and probably more (note, I'm not proposing the companies be dissolved).
Reply:::::Are you then arguing that nobody in Brazil has been able to purchase these drugs? I don't have the facts in front of me, but I think it is reasonable to assume that there are people in Brazil who have purchased these drugs. And even for those who do not have the resources necessary to purchase the drugs in question, I find it hard to believe that they have never used an antihistamine or pain suppressant. So to say that the Brazilians may even be better off were there no drug companies is irresponsible.
Okay, I guess you need an econ 101 lesson. If company A creates a product, company B has a few ways to compete with it. company B can make the same product for cheaper, or they can make a better product for more money (or the same price, depending on the increase in value to the consumer relative to the increase in cost). If Merck creates a drug to reduce the pain of a headache, Glaxo can make a lot of money by creating a pill that gets rid of headaches entirely. This is not to say that there will be a cure for AIDS any time soon, I just think that you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of making a profit--not just in pharmaceuticals but in any industry.
And yes, the motive of ANY business is to increase shareholder value.
Is no one talking about taking away all patent priviliges? What else is implied when a government threatens to take a patent away? When you appease a government of thugs you are opening the door for lots of problems.
this site.
Melodrama? How about realistic. Are you telling me that it's okay to bully a company as long as the whole industry doesn't come to a hault. Or if certain patents are upheld as long as a government agrees with the prices being charged is that justice? Remember, without these pharmaceutical companies, these people would have no hope whatsoever. You talk about reducing the "priviliges" of these companies to sell at a price that the market will pay. I didn't realize it was a privilege to create a product and offer it for sale to others. I suppose these patients have a "right" to the hard work of these companies. What about the right of these companies and their investors/owners?
actually, this will ruin lives. Once you take away patent protection, you reduce the incentive to create new drugs. think about what threatening to take a patent is in reality.....theft. And when it is sanctioned by others, consider the message it sends to scientists, inventors, and businessmen. If you create something of value, and we don't agree with the level of profit you want in return, we will steal it from you and abrogate the entire notion of a free market. Brazil and Africa will soon feel the consequences of such barbarism.
Slashdot Mirror
why does a jab at a right-winger get modded up funny, but an equally clever jab at the left get's left alone?
It seems to me that you misunderstand the use of interfaces. It is not to compensate for the lack of callbacks... Here is a prime use of interfaces. Suppose you want to instrument a Set implementation. Without the Set interface, you could extend the HashSet class and add the instrumentation to the class. However, without knowing the details of the implementation of the HashSet, you may get unexpected results. Sure, you can read the source code for HashSet, but that is unnecessary if you just wrap the Set interface in your new class, implement the set interface, and pass all of your calls on to the underlying set (the implementation of which is passed into your constructor.) You can then add your instrumentation to the new class, without concern for the underlying Set implementation. The other drawback to simply extending a Set implementation is that it ties you to that implementation. Suppose you extend a HashSet, what happens when you want to apply that instrumentation to a TreeSet? You have to write a new class. It has been my experience that most "OO developers" lack a true understanding of the power of ObjectOriented programmming. The most common manifestation of this misunderstanding is the idea that the power of OO is inheritance. The real power is polymorphic behavior and encapsulation. Polymorphic behavior is best created through the proper use of interface inheritance, and implementation inheritance inherently breaks encapsulation. I am not saying that implementation inheritance is always a bad thing, I'm simply saying that it tends to be used incorrectly. As far as java's event handling model, it sounds like you haven't worked much with the language. Java makes it very simple and intuitive to take advantage of an MVC framework through the current event handling model. It may take some getting used to, but I have found that decoupling presentation logic from business logic results in much more resusable software, IMHO. cheers
it seems to me that the larger and more diffuse a problem is, the more that problem screams out for object oriented design....
how do they black list you? it seems hard to do if there is no unique way to identify you.....
the person who wrote the original post was right. we were punched in the face. and it hurt. and it is time that we wake up and smell the coffee that the rest of the world is incredibly jealous of us. We carry Europe on our shoulders through two world wars, we invent tons of useful things relative to the amount of time we have actually been a country, our businesses are the envy of the world, we were the only country (other than maybe canada and britain) brave enough to stand up and defeat the soviet union, we are tolerant of other viewpoints (which unfortunately makes attacks like these easier), and we have more people coming into our borders than any other country. The twin towers in particular, and the city of New York in general, are the very epitomy of what makes this country so enviable. And just like when a jealous lunatic destroys a piece of someone else's property, some insanse group took it upon themselves to orchestrate this attack. Congratulations. You've ruined something beautiful. But that is much easier to do than to create something beautiful. And in 5 or 10 years, believe that towers will stand again where the world trade center once did. and believe that New York city will remain the cultural center that it was before today. And believe that it will stand in defiance of all of the hatred and jealousy of Islam and every other backwards culture out there that cannot understand what makes the west so great. We are a superior culture and a superior military power and a superior economy, and all you have managed to do is piss off a group of people who have not been mad in a long time. We Americans have enjoyed prosperity unmatched in the history of the world for quite some time now, and we were willing to overlook for the most part transgressions by the dictators and lunatic leaders of the world. But now you have "hurt" us--as the originator of this post so eloquently pointed out. And you know what, the rest of the world can choose to wipe their asses with our stars and stripes. I understand that most of you are so concrete bound that you can't understand that the flag is nothing more than an icon to us, that which makes the US what it is is the spirit of the individual. And for those of you who think we can't beat terrorism, maybe you are right. But we sure as hell are going to try. There were more people saying we couldn't beat england at one point, but those who underestimate the United States and the philosophical principals on which it was founded are generally wrong. Ask Hitler, Hirohito, Lenin, Stalin, or Qadaffi.
you fucking idiot. bush coming to washington serves no purpose other than to further the incentive to bring another attack on washington. My I hope for the day is that all of you fucking little cowards out there denouncing retaliation or blaming the president for this action are realized for the partisan inhumane people that you are. Innocent people died today, and all you can think about is either protecting those responsible or blaming the president? I for one cannnot wait for the reports of islamic people being beaten to death by americans. It could be time for us to stoop to their level and kill innocent people. But this will not happen, because despite our emotions, we as Americans still defer to reason (thankfully), and will allow the rule of law to triumph.
Reducing the privileges afforded by any patent is the same as destroying it. Imagine if someone came in and said to you, we know you started your company from scratch, and we know you have property rights, but we are going to reduce some of the privileges of your property rights. You must hire this group of people, even though they are not qualified to fulfill their end of the deal for the work you are advertising, because the good of the public is more important than your own profits. Would you then feel like your right to property even existed? I don't think so, but maybe your understanding of a property right is different from mine. I am not surprised that you used such a weak and flawed analogy between my point on patent law and your example with murder. Laws against murder are designed to prevent the destruction of property rights. When someone is found innocent because of extenuating circumstances, it is because it turns out that they were defending their property rights. What we are talking about with the IP laws is something completely different. When you say that any patent can have its privileges reduced if the need of the public is high enough, you are not protecting anyones property rights. The company who loses the patent obviously has not had its rights upheld, and the people getting the cheaper medication (cheaper in the short run at least) aren't having their property rights upheld. They have no claim to the drugs. They did not create them, and they did not purchase them from the creator of the drugs in the proscribed manner. The companies manufacturing the drugs without having to have spent a dollar on research or development also are not having their property rights upheld. They obtained the drugs through the use of force; the government STOLE the recipes for them. They are actually violating someone else's property rights. So you are comparing two completely different concepts here.
And I am not being insensitive with the comment about drugs other than AIDS drugs. My point was that these people's lives are much better off for having the drug companies around.
Oh and I didn't say the people in question would be better off if the drug companies had never existed. I said they would be as well off or better, if the drug companies that hold the patents in question were to cease to exist now
I find this blatant contradiction in your reasoning to be as humorous as your awful spelling. As well off or better implies that if not the same, the people might actually be better off. And you are saying that they would be the same or better off if the companies ceased to exist now. A brute or a primitive person has the caveman mentality that "I don't care how I got to be in the position where I am now, all I care about is that I am here now". And this is how you, and the Brazilian government of thugs, approach the issue of patents. You admit that the Brazilian people are better off because the drug companies have beeen there in the past (implicit in your claim that you did not claim they would be better off if the drug companies had never existed), and yet you think they can go on enjoying the benefits of the vast inventory of drugs offered by a pharmaceutical giant without these companies existing any longer. You may think that the companies who are making short term profit with the help of stolen drug recipes handed to them by the government will actually be able to create a new drug, but you are sadly mistaken. Any company that has the capability to create a drug, does it without resorting to stolen patents.
Gotcha, sorry for the cultural ignorance....
Hospitals are right? You will also notice that most practices have LLC or LLP after their name. This stands for Limited Liability Corporation or Partnership. The difference betweeen a partnership and a corporation (or a sole proprietorship for that matter) is mainly based in where ultimate liability lies and on the way the business entity is taxed. Are you implying that a doctor is not in business for profit? Maybe some aren't, but the ones who have brought the greatest good about certainly are. And just so no one jumps on me for this, I am not implying that doctors who do pro bono work are useless or not as well meaning as for profit doctors. I just mean to point out that most of the benefits that we get from doctors come from those who are driven by a profit motive.
And they have done so much to reduce suffering and increase human hapiness compared to the drug companies, air conditioning builders, hygiene products companies, doctors, dentists, car manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, et. al.
Okay, you got me. you are so much smarter than I. I must profess my ignorance of what a troll account is or why it is relevant to this discussion. And you are obviously proud of the fact that you can regurgitate the text of your econ book. But let me take one second of your highly important time to ask you this. Why are there cures for diseases on the market? Why are there antibiotics? Can you explain to me why the drug companies wasted their time (at least in your economic viewpoint) developing a cure for bacterial meningitis, when it would obviously (again, in your economic view of the world) be more profitable to create medicines that assuage the suffering of those afflicted with it long enough to drain their wallets?
The answer is simple, (although it may be asking a lot of you to use common sense as opposed to an edgeworth box to make economic decisions) if you create a cure for a disease, you will far outsell products that simply reduce pain and suffering.
And I fully understand the concept of an oligopoly. In fact, one in particular comes to mind. The car industry. And the American car manufacturers used to build their products to not last as long as they possibly could. The idea was similar to what you have discussed. If people are forced to buy more cars, we can increase demand. The Japanese came in and disproved this theory by building cars that last 2 to 3 times as long, and the American car manufactures (the two that are still American controlled mind you), are still paying the price in terms of market share for their short sitedness.
So I'll shut up now and let you bask in the glory of your superior achievements in econ class and your low user id, and I will stop posting ideas that are slightly different from the majority of the posts on this site, since you obviously prefer to avoid open discussion of ideas by newcomers.
Is no one talking about taking away all patent priviliges? What else is implied when a government threatens to take a patent away?
I would like to point out that in the first sentence you use the word "all", and in the second you use the article "a". This disparity alone shows that you implicitly recognize that there are other patents that will still be around. Furthermore, if a patent is recognized over most of the earth and not recognized in a few countries, then it hasn't been totally taken away. These two considerations show that, far from taking away all patent priviliges, the topic is really a reduction of priviliges to a single category of patents
Reply::::::Your disection of the syntax of my sentence is incorrect. I purposely used all and a betweent the two sentences. Once a government succeeds in destroying one patent, the protection afforded by a patent is destroyed. Once a drug is copied, and the company doing the stealing does not have to cover R&D costs, that drug will become available on the market for prices that are untenable for the company that developed them. I realize you do not care about this type of thing, but what you need to realize is that the whole reason a company spends billions of dollars in research is to create the temporary competitive advantage afforded by a patent. Without the enforcement of patents, companies will not have the incentive to spend the time and money necessary to develop life saving drugs.
Remember, without these pharmaceutical companies, these people would have no hope whatsoever.
It is quite true that, if these companies had never existed, then they would have less hope than they have now. However, it is also true that, if these companies ceased to exist today, then the people in question would have at least the same amount of hope, and probably more (note, I'm not proposing the companies be dissolved).
Reply:::::Are you then arguing that nobody in Brazil has been able to purchase these drugs? I don't have the facts in front of me, but I think it is reasonable to assume that there are people in Brazil who have purchased these drugs. And even for those who do not have the resources necessary to purchase the drugs in question, I find it hard to believe that they have never used an antihistamine or pain suppressant. So to say that the Brazilians may even be better off were there no drug companies is irresponsible.
Okay, I guess you need an econ 101 lesson. If company A creates a product, company B has a few ways to compete with it. company B can make the same product for cheaper, or they can make a better product for more money (or the same price, depending on the increase in value to the consumer relative to the increase in cost). If Merck creates a drug to reduce the pain of a headache, Glaxo can make a lot of money by creating a pill that gets rid of headaches entirely. This is not to say that there will be a cure for AIDS any time soon, I just think that you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of making a profit--not just in pharmaceuticals but in any industry.
And yes, the motive of ANY business is to increase shareholder value.
Is no one talking about taking away all patent priviliges? What else is implied when a government threatens to take a patent away? When you appease a government of thugs you are opening the door for lots of problems.
this site.
Melodrama? How about realistic. Are you telling me that it's okay to bully a company as long as the whole industry doesn't come to a hault. Or if certain patents are upheld as long as a government agrees with the prices being charged is that justice? Remember, without these pharmaceutical companies, these people would have no hope whatsoever. You talk about reducing the "priviliges" of these companies to sell at a price that the market will pay. I didn't realize it was a privilege to create a product and offer it for sale to others. I suppose these patients have a "right" to the hard work of these companies. What about the right of these companies and their investors/owners?
actually, this will ruin lives. Once you take away patent protection, you reduce the incentive to create new drugs. think about what threatening to take a patent is in reality.....theft. And when it is sanctioned by others, consider the message it sends to scientists, inventors, and businessmen. If you create something of value, and we don't agree with the level of profit you want in return, we will steal it from you and abrogate the entire notion of a free market. Brazil and Africa will soon feel the consequences of such barbarism.