How about run some benchmarks yourself and post them on the net:) In my opinion, the only kinds of website that should even worry about performance is dynamic sites. Even then, for low concurrency it's a non issue. Util your site needs to handle a steady flow of 100+ concurrent req/sec for 24/7, performance probably isn't going be an issue. The one major exception is E-commerce SSL servers. Most big e-comm sites use hardware acceleration anyways, so it's still a dynamic site.
In a lot of cases, how you design your application has the biggest impact on performance. I've worked on dynamic site using apache, iplanet, IIS, weblogic and tomcat. Each server has it's strength and weakness, so knowing how it works before you start coding is your best bet on good performance. iPlanet is pretty fast if you're writing your applications in C, but if you're using java, their servlet container sucks nuts. Zeus is a good server. It's great that apache 2.0 supports threading, since that will make it easier to develop more complex applications.
'm thinking the answer is, "so the poor girl shouldn't sell herself at all, or at least shouldn't under-sell herself" in the first place...
Hmmm.... some enterprising salesman could make a killing at it. Find poor good looking girls and act as their agent. The salesman and girl both live off "royalties". This way every time her clone makes a buck, she gets a percentage. Man she could retire rich.
Goood one! But then again I don't support Britney spears, even if she knows how to shake her things. I take it all back. We're still living in slavery, so no difference. Continue cloning:) Atleast this way, every geek can have his own britney slave.
This could cause some huge legal problems. Say hypothetically an attractive poor girl decides to sell her genes to a greedy corporation. The corporation then decides to use the DNA to clone her. The clone is raised in a "well adjusted environment," and groomed to be a superstar. The clone now has no rights, since she was purchased, created and programmed (raised) by the company. We now have created exactly what blade runner portrays. How is the creation of slaves any better than all other attempts at slavery throughout the history of humanity?
Geek aren't any different than anyone else. Get a freakin clue. The only thing this tells me about managers and corporate america is there is a lack of respect and honesty for the employees. No surprise there. Go back to your coding, nothing new here to see.
Although this doesn't strengthen or weaken my own desire to use Java, it is good to see Sun playing nice. Apache has made great progress and jakarta is rapidly maturing. It does make my commitment to the apache group stronger, because they have demonstrated their position in the IT community.
Ok, so the author of the article likes to complain, but it's hardly news people. As aristotle would say, "beauty and the other beauty." Good games wouldn't exist without bad games. If all we needed and wanted are good games, then there would only be one game. One game would do every thing, be everything and rule everybody. That's a boring world to live in. There has to be aweful games to make us appreciate games that are well designed and executed.
Numerous philosophers have addressed the idea of perfection and quality. The bottom line is everything changes, everything is good and bad, everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Like a great game just happens without precursors. Like game designers magically hit the bullseye on the first shot every single time. The only thing that article does is hype how great the graphics are in the new game consoles.
Work satisfaction can impact a person's sex life. If you love using a particular language at work, then you're more likely to go home happy and feel energetic. On the otherhand, if you're using a language you hate to solve a problem because you're forced to, then it's going to be pretty tough. Programming languages aside, your sex drive is just another victim of the economic down turn.
I wonder if all of this would even matter, if steve balmer and bill gates didn't act like arrogant asses. As someone said, it's not that any particular system sucks, but the attitude of the business.
Think of it this way. No matter how smart or dumb a person is, it not a problem until the person acts like an arrogant ass. If the whole sales and support staff of microsoft was more friendly and acted more humble, this law suit wouldn't have ever occurred. Lets face reality here. Nothing is perfect. No OS or business can ever be perfect, but when a business stops trying to be nice to their customers, that's when people get pissed. Microsoft created the mess with their own arrogance and heavy hand. Rather than admit their error, they are continuing to act like a bunch of spoiled brats.
Microsoft's tactics for consumer products works well because most people don't give a hoot about the guts of a particular technology. The enterprise world is totally different. There are still tons of old main frames running the most critical applications. If I was a CTO of a financial institution, that would make me laugh. The reason it's still used isn't because it "ties me to a platform." It is because the damn thing has been running with minimal downtown for a long long time. Given that my windows crashes every week or so, instead of 10 times a day, I wouldn't even consider using windows in the back office applications. Not when the PC world is just starting to get into the high reliability, fail over world of enterprise computing. When you're pushing millions of dollars around every hour and billions every month, screw windows.
Not only is it the wrong tactic, but it will hurt them in the enterprise services world. There's a reason the stock market uses Sybase ASE and not sql server. No matter how much money microsoft puts into getting high TCP numbers, real DBA's know the difference. Here's to hoping microsoft continues this line of advertising and continue to shoot themselves in the foot in the enterprise services world.
I'm not an expert on PMS, but I doubt you are either.
I'm definitely no expert, but I'm baised against excessive drug use, especially when the long term implications are unknown. Having both the FDA and Patent office approve it to many people means it's "ok". Now we can't police stupidity, god knows I'd be in jail for some of the stupid things I've done in high school. I just believe there are other solutions, that do not require patents. There's always more than one way to solve a problem in programming and the same is true of most everything. Sometimes the most convienant solution in programming isn't the best long term solution. Patenting business processes to me feel like a short term solution. Rather than treat the real problem, society tends to go for "right now" solutions, which are directly reflected in the stupid patents given out by the US Patent Office.
the problem is much bigger than the US Patent office is lame. It's just one sympton of culture that is struggling to find a balance.
Why not? It may sound ridiculous to people that are ignorant of the regulatory and business realities, but this company
likely had to clinically show, in so many words, that Prozac offered more benefits than risk in the treatment of PMS.
Then this same company has to market the idea to doctors around the country, which costs a lot of money too. As
absurd as it may sound, it's not just the idea, it's the execution of the idea that you're rewarding that person for. Both
the marketing and the clinical costs offer substantial benefit to society and cost money and demand risk taking on the
part of the innovator. This risk may not be as great as actually inventing a drug and bringing it to market, but I can
easily see it being substantial enough to require a patent.
Although that may seem like a valid argument, I would disagree. Sure a company has the right to ensure their investments, but in this particular case, I disagree. The problem I have with said company who patents the use of Prozac for PMS, is that it leads to stupid research which promotes excessive drug use. Sure there are women who suffer from extreme symptons, but I would argue the right thing to do isn't to sell prozac. It's only problem because society or in this case companies define it as a problem. If you were to base all patents based purely on it's monitary value, everyone should just be a drone and stop thinking.
Now there are businesses that absolutely need to patent their business process, but the example of prozac to me doesn't qualify. If no one forked out millions to do clinical trials to prove it works, then people would have to just be realistic about all the aches and pains of life.
The lawyer likely didn't feel like explaining the reality to you. The reality is that these cases are tried in courts and if you try to make it too specific to what you are doing they often don't hold up well. For instance, there have numerous cases where competitors have done things like adding a third wheel to a two wheel device to effectively render the patent worthless.
Actually I made him explain the implications, since we were paying him. The basic summary of his hour long explanation which is still a 1000 foot view, is when a patent is too general, often it never reach court. A patent has to be general enough to leave room for interpretation, so that it has enough vagueness to warrant a trial, or atleast be a credible threat in a trial. That's the explanation I got.
Having read trials and other legal documents for both history and literature classes, I was able to follow the legal speak. I still feel ideas should not be patented. That doesn't mean there are no good reasons, but that it is practically not feasible and un-enforcible.
Well, I consider some of his comments nutty, like his email essay on word attachments. But that doesn't mean it actually is. I just consider them nutty. Then again I'm a nut too, but just a different kind of nut.
For a previous job, I had to research patents and write up a patent application. The instruction from the lawyer was "make it more general than it needs to be." His reasoning is the patent application shouldn't go through the first try. It should take atleast 2 or 3 tries, to make sure the patent is as broad as possible.
Now of course the lawyer gets paid each time you file, so it's just fine by him. The management tends to side with lawyers, but honestly, patenting ideas, especially in software is stupid. People confuse patent with copyright. Software should use copyright only, because you're protecting the actual work that went into building the application. It's both impossible and idiotic to patent ideas. Unfortunately lawyers run the country and now we have things like patented business process. Like the company that patented the use of Prozac for treating PMS for women. Ideas should not be patented, since it's not possible to police thought. Well that doesn't stop corporations and the government from trying.
Just because RMS can be a raving nut at times, that doesn't automatically discredit every word out of his mouth. Now if only there were more clear thinking people in government, we can fix this damn problem.
I didn't expect much out of the movie. I just wanted some action that's shot and edited with some skill. Well, snipes has good form and power, but heck if you can see it through all the aweful editing. WS should totally do a re-edit for the DVD and bag the first release, cuz it sucked nuts.
I'm no editing genius or anything, but disjointed, rapid fire editing techniques are only effective if used in balance with longer shots to provide contrast and tension. I guess the guy who edited the thing was either smoking crack, or thought it would be a nice experiment to make it totally impossible to follow the moves (as in he's so fast you can't possibly see what he's doing). Sure they probably didn't want to it to look like CTHD, RH2, Matrix or Face Off, but the editor sure as heck failed to achieve a "new look" or any look.
The only decently edited shot was the long fight sequence with the ninja, but the transition between live action and CGI felt totally forced and un-natural. The lighting for the CG pieces look like they were rushed and the lighting setup compromized. They probably cheesed the whole CG scene infront of the wall of flood lights and didn't do any lighting studies of the stage.
Even though the story says "developers want 1000x the power," it doesn't mean PS3 will have 1000x the power of a PS2. Sony did say they don't want to wait 20yrs to get to 1000x PS2.
For those who forgot, Sony is already using PS2 cpu's in workstation and actively researching ways to use multiple CPU's to improve performance. If it means better environments and game AI, it's all good. If it means developers will crank out crappy games that look great, but suck in game play then forget it.
Have to admit that is a possibility considering how slow broadband deployment is in Europe. But on the otherhand, as broadband deployment increases, that angle doesn't look as attractive. In either case, Sun has more to gain by keeping it free. Especially now that Microsoft is pushing hard into enterprise services by riding on IBM's coat tails. Ok that last sentence is flame bait, but given IBM has much more experience in the enterprise services world than Microsoft there's truth to that statement. After all, a recent interview posted on/. about microsoft's push with.NET said they didn't know the business side of enterprise services too well at this point.
courtesy of/. poster you can see the original alert. If you're too lazy, here is the meat of it:
Problem
An applet could do irregular, unchecked HTTP requests.
Consequence
Network access restrictions that apply, can be bypassed. Only systems that have a HTTP proxy configured can be vulnerable.
One particular nasty exploit is where a remote server, aided by a hostile applet, hijacks a browsers persistent HTTP connection to its
configured HTTP proxy.
As far as exploits, it's not the worse or benign. This probably affects corporate networks that use HTTP proxy servers which aren't properly secured. People who don't use proxy servers don't have to worry about it.
I'd have to agree the sun reference implementation isn't as good as Tomcat. The jakarta group has done a lot of great work on Tomcat. It used to be that tomcat was one of the slowest servlet containers, but the latest tomcat 4.0.2 performs better than Orion 5.2 for 0-75 simultaneous connections. I did some benchmarking recently and was happily surprised.
Honestly the passing of JSR-99 doesn't change my mind about using Java. Sure Sun isn't being nice to open source, but I highly doubt they would charge for the jdk or implement costly licensing. Sun isn't stupid. They are in the business of enterprise hardware and services. Sun wouldn't be able to make enough on licensing to make a significant dent in the net earning department. In fact, it would probably cost Sun more money to implement a licensing scheme, than keep it free. Think about the staff needed to handle all the support and licensing issues.
In my mind, it is a way to keep charging for certification and make sure open source implementation don't limit Sun's partners from making money. If the open source version is certified, a lot of medium to small business will choose open source. Making it harder for open source to get certification gives Oracle and the other companies something to claim in their marketing. ie, "we are certified
The one solid point in the whole article is "lack of clarity in SOAP literature." I've been following SOAP and honestly haven't seen a consistent clear set of guidelines and practices. I've read through a lot of microsoft literature about SOAP and most of it is vague. I'd have to agree the SOAP drivers in the early 99-00 days were buggy and poor, but now they are good. Atleast the drivers from apache group.
As others have mentioned, the argument doesn't go deep enough, but that doesn't discredit the whole essay. The point about SOAP doesn scale is probably true of all RPC. Doing truly distributed computing isn't easy because the network is not reliable. Anyone thinks there won't be network latencies or that latencies won't be significant is in for a surprise. Put SOAP in the hands of an experienced programmer and you'll see the true power, but the power isn't in the protocol. It's in the developer implementing the solution. A tool is a tool.
For SOAP to gain acceptance, there needs to be clearer guidelines about dos/don't and other important development issues. Without it, it's just an invitation for a VB programmer to open up a server to hackers. Hackers will try, so it's the responsibility of IBM and Microsoft to set the standard. That's where SOAP has really failed in my min
Slashdot Mirror
In a lot of cases, how you design your application has the biggest impact on performance. I've worked on dynamic site using apache, iplanet, IIS, weblogic and tomcat. Each server has it's strength and weakness, so knowing how it works before you start coding is your best bet on good performance. iPlanet is pretty fast if you're writing your applications in C, but if you're using java, their servlet container sucks nuts. Zeus is a good server. It's great that apache 2.0 supports threading, since that will make it easier to develop more complex applications.
mod up the parent!
Hmmm.... some enterprising salesman could make a killing at it. Find poor good looking girls and act as their agent. The salesman and girl both live off "royalties". This way every time her clone makes a buck, she gets a percentage. Man she could retire rich.
Hmm... the po-tent-ial :P
Goood one! But then again I don't support Britney spears, even if she knows how to shake her things. I take it all back. We're still living in slavery, so no difference. Continue cloning :) Atleast this way, every geek can have his own britney slave.
This could cause some huge legal problems. Say hypothetically an attractive poor girl decides to sell her genes to a greedy corporation. The corporation then decides to use the DNA to clone her. The clone is raised in a "well adjusted environment," and groomed to be a superstar. The clone now has no rights, since she was purchased, created and programmed (raised) by the company. We now have created exactly what blade runner portrays. How is the creation of slaves any better than all other attempts at slavery throughout the history of humanity?
Geek aren't any different than anyone else. Get a freakin clue. The only thing this tells me about managers and corporate america is there is a lack of respect and honesty for the employees. No surprise there. Go back to your coding, nothing new here to see.
NOT! that's a pretty weak april fools joke.
Man, the birds are so smart. No wonder they can dive bomb so accurately, reguarless of bad disguises.
Although this doesn't strengthen or weaken my own desire to use Java, it is good to see Sun playing nice. Apache has made great progress and jakarta is rapidly maturing. It does make my commitment to the apache group stronger, because they have demonstrated their position in the IT community.
Numerous philosophers have addressed the idea of perfection and quality. The bottom line is everything changes, everything is good and bad, everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Like a great game just happens without precursors. Like game designers magically hit the bullseye on the first shot every single time. The only thing that article does is hype how great the graphics are in the new game consoles.
Boy was that a bad pun.
Think of it this way. No matter how smart or dumb a person is, it not a problem until the person acts like an arrogant ass. If the whole sales and support staff of microsoft was more friendly and acted more humble, this law suit wouldn't have ever occurred. Lets face reality here. Nothing is perfect. No OS or business can ever be perfect, but when a business stops trying to be nice to their customers, that's when people get pissed. Microsoft created the mess with their own arrogance and heavy hand. Rather than admit their error, they are continuing to act like a bunch of spoiled brats.
Not only is it the wrong tactic, but it will hurt them in the enterprise services world. There's a reason the stock market uses Sybase ASE and not sql server. No matter how much money microsoft puts into getting high TCP numbers, real DBA's know the difference. Here's to hoping microsoft continues this line of advertising and continue to shoot themselves in the foot in the enterprise services world.
I'm definitely no expert, but I'm baised against excessive drug use, especially when the long term implications are unknown. Having both the FDA and Patent office approve it to many people means it's "ok". Now we can't police stupidity, god knows I'd be in jail for some of the stupid things I've done in high school. I just believe there are other solutions, that do not require patents. There's always more than one way to solve a problem in programming and the same is true of most everything. Sometimes the most convienant solution in programming isn't the best long term solution. Patenting business processes to me feel like a short term solution. Rather than treat the real problem, society tends to go for "right now" solutions, which are directly reflected in the stupid patents given out by the US Patent Office.
the problem is much bigger than the US Patent office is lame. It's just one sympton of culture that is struggling to find a balance.
Although that may seem like a valid argument, I would disagree. Sure a company has the right to ensure their investments, but in this particular case, I disagree. The problem I have with said company who patents the use of Prozac for PMS, is that it leads to stupid research which promotes excessive drug use. Sure there are women who suffer from extreme symptons, but I would argue the right thing to do isn't to sell prozac. It's only problem because society or in this case companies define it as a problem. If you were to base all patents based purely on it's monitary value, everyone should just be a drone and stop thinking.
Now there are businesses that absolutely need to patent their business process, but the example of prozac to me doesn't qualify. If no one forked out millions to do clinical trials to prove it works, then people would have to just be realistic about all the aches and pains of life.
Actually I made him explain the implications, since we were paying him. The basic summary of his hour long explanation which is still a 1000 foot view, is when a patent is too general, often it never reach court. A patent has to be general enough to leave room for interpretation, so that it has enough vagueness to warrant a trial, or atleast be a credible threat in a trial. That's the explanation I got.
Having read trials and other legal documents for both history and literature classes, I was able to follow the legal speak. I still feel ideas should not be patented. That doesn't mean there are no good reasons, but that it is practically not feasible and un-enforcible.
Well, I consider some of his comments nutty, like his email essay on word attachments. But that doesn't mean it actually is. I just consider them nutty. Then again I'm a nut too, but just a different kind of nut.
Now of course the lawyer gets paid each time you file, so it's just fine by him. The management tends to side with lawyers, but honestly, patenting ideas, especially in software is stupid. People confuse patent with copyright. Software should use copyright only, because you're protecting the actual work that went into building the application. It's both impossible and idiotic to patent ideas. Unfortunately lawyers run the country and now we have things like patented business process. Like the company that patented the use of Prozac for treating PMS for women. Ideas should not be patented, since it's not possible to police thought. Well that doesn't stop corporations and the government from trying.
Just because RMS can be a raving nut at times, that doesn't automatically discredit every word out of his mouth. Now if only there were more clear thinking people in government, we can fix this damn problem.
I should proof read. Didn't expect much was what I meant. looks like I'm just as sloppy as the editors of blade II.
I'm no editing genius or anything, but disjointed, rapid fire editing techniques are only effective if used in balance with longer shots to provide contrast and tension. I guess the guy who edited the thing was either smoking crack, or thought it would be a nice experiment to make it totally impossible to follow the moves (as in he's so fast you can't possibly see what he's doing). Sure they probably didn't want to it to look like CTHD, RH2, Matrix or Face Off, but the editor sure as heck failed to achieve a "new look" or any look.
The only decently edited shot was the long fight sequence with the ninja, but the transition between live action and CGI felt totally forced and un-natural. The lighting for the CG pieces look like they were rushed and the lighting setup compromized. They probably cheesed the whole CG scene infront of the wall of flood lights and didn't do any lighting studies of the stage.
For those who forgot, Sony is already using PS2 cpu's in workstation and actively researching ways to use multiple CPU's to improve performance. If it means better environments and game AI, it's all good. If it means developers will crank out crappy games that look great, but suck in game play then forget it.
Have to admit that is a possibility considering how slow broadband deployment is in Europe. But on the otherhand, as broadband deployment increases, that angle doesn't look as attractive. In either case, Sun has more to gain by keeping it free. Especially now that Microsoft is pushing hard into enterprise services by riding on IBM's coat tails. Ok that last sentence is flame bait, but given IBM has much more experience in the enterprise services world than Microsoft there's truth to that statement. After all, a recent interview posted on /. about microsoft's push with .NET said they didn't know the business side of enterprise services too well at this point.
Problem
An applet could do irregular, unchecked HTTP requests.
Consequence
Network access restrictions that apply, can be bypassed. Only systems that have a HTTP proxy configured can be vulnerable.
One particular nasty exploit is where a remote server, aided by a hostile applet, hijacks a browsers persistent HTTP connection to its configured HTTP proxy.
As far as exploits, it's not the worse or benign. This probably affects corporate networks that use HTTP proxy servers which aren't properly secured. People who don't use proxy servers don't have to worry about it.
Honestly the passing of JSR-99 doesn't change my mind about using Java. Sure Sun isn't being nice to open source, but I highly doubt they would charge for the jdk or implement costly licensing. Sun isn't stupid. They are in the business of enterprise hardware and services. Sun wouldn't be able to make enough on licensing to make a significant dent in the net earning department. In fact, it would probably cost Sun more money to implement a licensing scheme, than keep it free. Think about the staff needed to handle all the support and licensing issues.
In my mind, it is a way to keep charging for certification and make sure open source implementation don't limit Sun's partners from making money. If the open source version is certified, a lot of medium to small business will choose open source. Making it harder for open source to get certification gives Oracle and the other companies something to claim in their marketing. ie, "we are certified
As others have mentioned, the argument doesn't go deep enough, but that doesn't discredit the whole essay. The point about SOAP doesn scale is probably true of all RPC. Doing truly distributed computing isn't easy because the network is not reliable. Anyone thinks there won't be network latencies or that latencies won't be significant is in for a surprise. Put SOAP in the hands of an experienced programmer and you'll see the true power, but the power isn't in the protocol. It's in the developer implementing the solution. A tool is a tool.
For SOAP to gain acceptance, there needs to be clearer guidelines about dos/don't and other important development issues. Without it, it's just an invitation for a VB programmer to open up a server to hackers. Hackers will try, so it's the responsibility of IBM and Microsoft to set the standard. That's where SOAP has really failed in my min