OK, IANAL, but I have an idea that so crazy it just might work.
Instead of outlawing spamming, outlaw the purchace of products advertised with spam.
You could enforce this in a similar way to recent online gambling regulations that prohibit credit card companies from honoring transactions for online gambling. So if you sell your products using spam, you can't collect on the payment.
Also, you solve the jurisidction problem of outlawing spamming. Instead of just moving the spammers out of the country, you now discourage spammers from ever sending spam into the country because it would then become illegal for anyone to purchace their products.
And finally, it would discourage the 0.001% of people who are idiotic enough to respond to this crap. "You'll go to jail if you buy this." is just the kind of simplistic message that would get through to these people. When spammers stop getting replies, they won't have anyone to sell thier service to.
This is just an idea, so I'm sure there's a few problems with it. But maybe in order to combat spam, we need to stop trying to go after the spammers and start trying to just make it unprofitable for them to operate in the first place.
When will people learn that non-stick cooking spray causes more harm than good? Unneeded fat, calories and remote root exploits are just some of the problems caused by these unsavory products. For god's sake, people...there are better ways to dissipate heat and prevent sticking and burning. For one, turn that CPU clock speed down! Just because you can fry an egg on your motherboard, doesn't mean you should! That's what the CD-ROM drive is for!
Oh please, of course he knows that JSP is a part of J2EE.
Does he? Maybe so, but I doubt very seriously that he understands what J2EE really is if he's using the term in this way. It's like saying "The Internet is broken." His resume doesn't seem to mention any Java or J2EE experience. And the fact that he's having his students put Java code in their JSPs speaks volumes about his level of expertise with J2EE (which seems to be on the level of your average Visual Basic code monkey).
Improper use of terminology is the first sign that you don't really know what you're talking about. If he wanted to say that using EJBs and Servlets is too complicated, he should have just said it. The way he phrased it makes it seem like JSPs are an alternative to J2EE, which is like saying that drinking Evian is an alternative to water.
Memory is cheap. Programmers aren't. Any task that I can delegate to a 3rd party library or EJB container is going to save me money and time, and if I have to spend $250 to double the amount of memory in my server, then fine. It's much better than spending weeks of development on a hand-coded SQL persistance mechanism that has to be designed, written, tested, documented and maintained.
Besides, the local entity beans in CMP 2.0 reside in the same VM as the client code, so no RMI calls, and no bandwidth usage. And just as compilers are better at optimization than 99.999% of programmers, chances are an EJB container can optimize database connections and object pooling better than you can.
O/R mapping tools are very powerful. They save time and money. If you like writing SQL queries yourself, and don't mind working overtime to do it then fine. Me, I like to go home every once in a while.
JSP is fantastically simpler than "J2EE", which is the recommended-by-Sun way of building applications
JSP is a component of J2EE. Here's a tip: When you have an "epiphany" about the nature of something, it ususally helps to have at least a basic understanding of whatever the hell it is you're talking about.
I use an old IBM PS/2 keyboard, with the IBM logo on it and everything. It took me forever to find it but it makes my life wonderful. First of all, it's indestructable. Even after all this time the letters on the keys haven't worn off. It's got a nice tilt to it and I really like the tactile feedback from the keys because they're individually spring loaded, (instead of a plastic membrane). Also, since it's PS/2 I don't use up a USB port just for my keyboard. But the best part is no Windows keys! So when I'm playing quake on a friday afternoon, I don't have to worry about accidently tasking out because I hit the wrong button.
Keyboards have gone way downhill in the last few years because of all the "innovation". Simple is better. I don't need a seperate button on the keyboard for checking my e-mail, opening a web browser, and connecting to the internet. That's just lame.
I've worked in a variety of Java development projects in the past and not once has it ever risen to the task to show itself as a worthy choice and/or a mature language. Instead it has invariably wasted companies time and money.
I would be willing to bet the reason they failed is because you do not understand how to use Java correctly. As long as we're playing the personal experience game, it has been my experience that hardcore C/C++ programmers tend to make horrible Java programmers because they think Java should behave like C/C++. It doesn't (obviously), and when you try to shove that round peg into a square hole what you get is a huge mess.
At my company, we have a bunch of old school C/C++ progammers and a few Java programmers. As our Java products started to take off (now our #1 selling product line), we wanted to move some of those developers over to Java to help out.
It was a disaster. They made object pools in order to try to manage thier own memory. They were calling System.gc() and yield() instead of using a Java profiler to find bottlenecks. The never used lazy loading. They never used failfast ("exceptions are too slow!", they said). The result was all the projects they worked on were extremely brittle, used twice as much memory, and ran much slower than our original Java stuff because they were constantly fighting against the system instead of working with it.
Try reading Effective Java by Josh Bloch and Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel. Do what these guys suggest and your Java apps will run just as well than as anything written in C or C++.
OK, so when I leave my house in the morning, I shouldn't lock the door right? I mean, if someone is going to break in, that lock isn't going to stop them, so what's the point?
And if I see someone in my office parking lot monkeying around with my car, I should just leave them alone. I mean, if they're gonna steal it, there's nothing I can do to stop them, right?
And if I'm asleep at night, and I hear someone breaking into my house, I should just lay in bed, close my eyes, and go to my happy place. There's nothing I can do to prevent my house from being robbed or stop them from killing me.
That's a bunch of crap. Criminals prey on the weak, and they're oppertunists. The less oppertunities you give them, the less likely you are to be a victim. Not only can crime be prevented, but YOU PERSONALLY, can prevent crime if you have enough sense to do it.
"During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent."
I read this as: While Linux admins can usually determine when they've been hacked, Windows admins usually cannot. And there appears to be nothing in this study to contradict this intrepretation of the facts presented.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Studies Funded by Microsoft.
Because they're full of frothy, liquid shit...that's why. And this guy is no different, I'm sure.
I really want to know when this whole idea started that the government (in particular, the federal government) is responsible for your personal well-being? When the US was founded, the whole idea was to keep the government weak so that individuals could live as they please, and you wouldn't have lawyers and politicians running the show behind the scenes. That's why the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government can't do, not a list of things it can.
Now, it seems, it's the government's job to tell me what I can eat, drink, smoke, say, think, fuck, and buy. And It's all because lawyers like Mr. Thompson (and the judges who used to be lawyers like him) have turned the Constitution into a "living document", that can be interpreted as they see fit for any particular situation. "Oh, creating a video game, that's not free speech. But donating money to a political candidate, that's protected by the first amendment."
Excuse me? Could you explain that again slowly? And please repeat the parts that are supposed to make any fucking sense at all?!?
Government is evil. It's evil because all government eventually devolves into tyranny. Good ideas established by Good people get warped and twisted and preverted by guys like this, until eventually you just have to tear the whole thing down and start over again. Which is a damn shame, because up until now, we had a pretty good thing going here.
Finding conditions that are outside your assumptions is not something you can do with a unit test. I have found that trying to simulate user creativity (stupidity?) with unit tests is an exersize in futility. Use your unit tests to make sure your methods do what they're supposed to do.
To find all those tricky combinations of use cases that blow away all your assumptions, just stick to the Fail-Fast principle. If you find anything that goes even slightly wrong, complain. Loudly! Throw an exception, pop up a dialog, whatever you need to make sure that everyone knows an error just occured. This will do two things:
1) You'll find a lot more errors in your code. You'll also be motivated to fix them quicker because the app will be unusable until you do.
2) You'll reduce the likelihood of generating bad data. The only thing worse than your program doing something wrong and crashing is doing something wrong and NOT crashing. Users will usually forgive you if your software crashes. If you start giving them bad data, they'll lose confidence in your app and never trust it again.
Java's philosophy of development is to expose low-level system interfaces to give developers greater control. Microsoft simplifies the development process; the developer has less control -- but the tools are easier to use.
Says who?
I've developed applications in both.NET and Java and I've found Java's toolset to be much easier to use. This is simply due to the fact that there are many more vendors (open-source and commercial) that provide Java products. I can pick and choose which tools fit the particular project that I'm working on, and those tools will also run on any platform that Java runs on, so I'm not locked into a particular operating system while I'm doing development. I can decide to work in Linux one day and Windows the next, and use the exact same toolset for both.
So I guess if your definition of simple is "you will use this tool and like it", then yeah,.NET is simpler. But in that case I'll take complicated over simple any day of the week.
Make up your mind.
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article,
.NET's ease-of-use characteristics are forcing Sun to try to simplify Java development.
and later,
Sun needs to make the Java Community Process (JCP) more efficient and simple, because its unwieldiness is slowing the adoption of Java standards
Huh? So first this article complains that Java is too complicated and needs to be simpler. Then it complains that Sun makes it hard to add new features (i.e. complexity) to the platform.
I'll say it again...Huh?!?
I think the JCP moves at just the right speed. If you change a language too quickly, make it harder for everyone to keep up. If you move to slowly, the language/platform won't be able to keep up with current technology. It should be hard to add things to the Java platform. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what Java should be. Sun tries to make sure only the best of the best gets integrated into the core platform. Anything else can be left as a 3rd party library (like AspectJ for example).
A great man once said, "The Law should be stable but never stand still". Programming languages and platforms are the same way. Turning the JCP into a rubber stamp for new, unproven ideas isn't going to do anyone any good.
MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) implies that record companies actually manufacture something. They don't. They just take other people's creative work, market it, and re-sell it.
They are not doing this because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business. If that were all there were to it, they'd probably quickly change business models, and be done with it.
To what? What business model is going to allow an organization like your average modern recording company to remain relevant and profitable in an era where musicians can sell directly to thier fans? There is no such thing.
The reason these large record comapnies can't change is because change equals death. If they are forced to give up control of the distribution channels for music, things like and value-based pricing *Gasp* will be possible. Why do you think that every CD in a store is either the standard rate (about $16) or a bargian rate (about $9)? It's because those prices are fixed by the record companies.
Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Do these companies have the right to sue violators of thier copyrights? Yes. But lets not get confused as to the purpose of these lawsuits. Stopping piracy is just a beneficial side effect, the real goal here is to kill P2P by making everyone scared to use it.
Why are they just going after P2P filesharing? Why not vigorously prosecute those who download music off of Usenet? Or those who copy CD's from friends? How about people who make bootlegs?
I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.
This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.
Golfers made very little money playing pro at the turn of the century. So did baseball players. Pro gamers are just going to have to do it for the love of the game for now. When (or if) more people start watching, then the purses will get bigger.
And when it happens, I'm sure people will complain about how it's all about the money now, and pro gamers should be thankful that they get to play video games for a living and stop whining about how thier agent could only get them $20 mil.
What the fuck happened to the concept of personal repsonsibility! Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ!
"I murder people because I was abused as a child."
"I rob people because the system keeps me poor."
"I'm addicted to drugs because nobody will give me a job."
BULLSHIT!
It's not the government's job to take care of you. It's not Verant's job to take care of you. It's not Nabisco's or Microsoft's or Anyone's job to take care of you...except you. And if you can't take care of yourself, I'm sorry; But that's no excuse to drag the rest of us down too. If we keep heading down this road, eventually they'll be nobody left but laywers and 'victims', and modern civilization will grind to a halt.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, IANAL, but I have an idea that so crazy it just might work.
Instead of outlawing spamming, outlaw the purchace of products advertised with spam.
You could enforce this in a similar way to recent online gambling regulations that prohibit credit card companies from honoring transactions for online gambling. So if you sell your products using spam, you can't collect on the payment.
Also, you solve the jurisidction problem of outlawing spamming. Instead of just moving the spammers out of the country, you now discourage spammers from ever sending spam into the country because it would then become illegal for anyone to purchace their products.
And finally, it would discourage the 0.001% of people who are idiotic enough to respond to this crap. "You'll go to jail if you buy this." is just the kind of simplistic message that would get through to these people. When spammers stop getting replies, they won't have anyone to sell thier service to.
This is just an idea, so I'm sure there's a few problems with it. But maybe in order to combat spam, we need to stop trying to go after the spammers and start trying to just make it unprofitable for them to operate in the first place.
This vulnerability apparently has to do with PAM
When will people learn that non-stick cooking spray causes more harm than good? Unneeded fat, calories and remote root exploits are just some of the problems caused by these unsavory products. For god's sake, people...there are better ways to dissipate heat and prevent sticking and burning. For one, turn that CPU clock speed down! Just because you can fry an egg on your motherboard, doesn't mean you should! That's what the CD-ROM drive is for!
If the box is not open, you can return it.
If it's not, you can exchange it for the exact same game.
There's a reason game studios release demo versions. If you like it, and it runs on your computer, buy it. Otherwise, caveat emptor.
Oh please, of course he knows that JSP is a part of J2EE.
Does he? Maybe so, but I doubt very seriously that he understands what J2EE really is if he's using the term in this way. It's like saying "The Internet is broken." His resume doesn't seem to mention any Java or J2EE experience. And the fact that he's having his students put Java code in their JSPs speaks volumes about his level of expertise with J2EE (which seems to be on the level of your average Visual Basic code monkey).
Improper use of terminology is the first sign that you don't really know what you're talking about. If he wanted to say that using EJBs and Servlets is too complicated, he should have just said it. The way he phrased it makes it seem like JSPs are an alternative to J2EE, which is like saying that drinking Evian is an alternative to water.
Memory is cheap. Programmers aren't. Any task that I can delegate to a 3rd party library or EJB container is going to save me money and time, and if I have to spend $250 to double the amount of memory in my server, then fine. It's much better than spending weeks of development on a hand-coded SQL persistance mechanism that has to be designed, written, tested, documented and maintained.
Besides, the local entity beans in CMP 2.0 reside in the same VM as the client code, so no RMI calls, and no bandwidth usage. And just as compilers are better at optimization than 99.999% of programmers, chances are an EJB container can optimize database connections and object pooling better than you can.
O/R mapping tools are very powerful. They save time and money. If you like writing SQL queries yourself, and don't mind working overtime to do it then fine. Me, I like to go home every once in a while.
OK, I guess I need a programming lesson then. For a database driven application, how do you propose not to have hardcoded SQL statements?
Well you could,
- Use Java Entity Beans with Container Managed Persistance.
- Use JDO
- Use TopLink
All of the O/R mapping tools automatically generate the SQL queries for you based on your Database Schema. No SQL necessary, hardcoded or otherwise.
JSP is fantastically simpler than "J2EE", which is the recommended-by-Sun way of building applications
JSP is a component of J2EE. Here's a tip: When you have an "epiphany" about the nature of something, it ususally helps to have at least a basic understanding of whatever the hell it is you're talking about.
*including reading slashdot
I use an old IBM PS/2 keyboard, with the IBM logo on it and everything. It took me forever to find it but it makes my life wonderful. First of all, it's indestructable. Even after all this time the letters on the keys haven't worn off. It's got a nice tilt to it and I really like the tactile feedback from the keys because they're individually spring loaded, (instead of a plastic membrane). Also, since it's PS/2 I don't use up a USB port just for my keyboard. But the best part is no Windows keys! So when I'm playing quake on a friday afternoon, I don't have to worry about accidently tasking out because I hit the wrong button.
Keyboards have gone way downhill in the last few years because of all the "innovation". Simple is better. I don't need a seperate button on the keyboard for checking my e-mail, opening a web browser, and connecting to the internet. That's just lame.
The US still has more internet users than any other country. By about 3 times, actually.
It's a big country, and it's hard to wire it all.
I've worked in a variety of Java development projects in the past and not once has it ever risen to the task to show itself as a worthy choice and/or a mature language. Instead it has invariably wasted companies time and money.
I would be willing to bet the reason they failed is because you do not understand how to use Java correctly. As long as we're playing the personal experience game, it has been my experience that hardcore C/C++ programmers tend to make horrible Java programmers because they think Java should behave like C/C++. It doesn't (obviously), and when you try to shove that round peg into a square hole what you get is a huge mess.
At my company, we have a bunch of old school C/C++ progammers and a few Java programmers. As our Java products started to take off (now our #1 selling product line), we wanted to move some of those developers over to Java to help out.
It was a disaster. They made object pools in order to try to manage thier own memory. They were calling System.gc() and yield() instead of using a Java profiler to find bottlenecks. The never used lazy loading. They never used failfast ("exceptions are too slow!", they said). The result was all the projects they worked on were extremely brittle, used twice as much memory, and ran much slower than our original Java stuff because they were constantly fighting against the system instead of working with it.
Try reading Effective Java by Josh Bloch and Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel. Do what these guys suggest and your Java apps will run just as well than as anything written in C or C++.
RUN AWAY!!!!!!
"You cant prevent crimes from happening"
OK, so when I leave my house in the morning, I shouldn't lock the door right? I mean, if someone is going to break in, that lock isn't going to stop them, so what's the point?
And if I see someone in my office parking lot monkeying around with my car, I should just leave them alone. I mean, if they're gonna steal it, there's nothing I can do to stop them, right?
And if I'm asleep at night, and I hear someone breaking into my house, I should just lay in bed, close my eyes, and go to my happy place. There's nothing I can do to prevent my house from being robbed or stop them from killing me.
That's a bunch of crap. Criminals prey on the weak, and they're oppertunists. The less oppertunities you give them, the less likely you are to be a victim. Not only can crime be prevented, but YOU PERSONALLY, can prevent crime if you have enough sense to do it.
"During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent."
I read this as: While Linux admins can usually determine when they've been hacked, Windows admins usually cannot. And there appears to be nothing in this study to contradict this intrepretation of the facts presented.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Studies Funded by Microsoft.
Because they're full of frothy, liquid shit...that's why. And this guy is no different, I'm sure.
I really want to know when this whole idea started that the government (in particular, the federal government) is responsible for your personal well-being? When the US was founded, the whole idea was to keep the government weak so that individuals could live as they please, and you wouldn't have lawyers and politicians running the show behind the scenes. That's why the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government can't do, not a list of things it can.
Now, it seems, it's the government's job to tell me what I can eat, drink, smoke, say, think, fuck, and buy. And It's all because lawyers like Mr. Thompson (and the judges who used to be lawyers like him) have turned the Constitution into a "living document", that can be interpreted as they see fit for any particular situation. "Oh, creating a video game, that's not free speech. But donating money to a political candidate, that's protected by the first amendment."
Excuse me? Could you explain that again slowly? And please repeat the parts that are supposed to make any fucking sense at all?!?
Government is evil. It's evil because all government eventually devolves into tyranny. Good ideas established by Good people get warped and twisted and preverted by guys like this, until eventually you just have to tear the whole thing down and start over again. Which is a damn shame, because up until now, we had a pretty good thing going here.
"Effective Java" by Josh Bloch. The best Java book I've ever read.
Finding conditions that are outside your assumptions is not something you can do with a unit test. I have found that trying to simulate user creativity (stupidity?) with unit tests is an exersize in futility. Use your unit tests to make sure your methods do what they're supposed to do.
To find all those tricky combinations of use cases that blow away all your assumptions, just stick to the Fail-Fast principle. If you find anything that goes even slightly wrong, complain. Loudly! Throw an exception, pop up a dialog, whatever you need to make sure that everyone knows an error just occured. This will do two things:
1) You'll find a lot more errors in your code. You'll also be motivated to fix them quicker because the app will be unusable until you do.
2) You'll reduce the likelihood of generating bad data. The only thing worse than your program doing something wrong and crashing is doing something wrong and NOT crashing. Users will usually forgive you if your software crashes. If you start giving them bad data, they'll lose confidence in your app and never trust it again.
Java's philosophy of development is to expose low-level system interfaces to give developers greater control. Microsoft simplifies the development process; the developer has less control -- but the tools are easier to use.
.NET and Java and I've found Java's toolset to be much easier to use. This is simply due to the fact that there are many more vendors (open-source and commercial) that provide Java products. I can pick and choose which tools fit the particular project that I'm working on, and those tools will also run on any platform that Java runs on, so I'm not locked into a particular operating system while I'm doing development. I can decide to work in Linux one day and Windows the next, and use the exact same toolset for both.
.NET is simpler. But in that case I'll take complicated over simple any day of the week.
Says who?
I've developed applications in both
So I guess if your definition of simple is "you will use this tool and like it", then yeah,
and later,
Huh? So first this article complains that Java is too complicated and needs to be simpler. Then it complains that Sun makes it hard to add new features (i.e. complexity) to the platform.
I'll say it again...Huh?!?
I think the JCP moves at just the right speed. If you change a language too quickly, make it harder for everyone to keep up. If you move to slowly, the language/platform won't be able to keep up with current technology. It should be hard to add things to the Java platform. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what Java should be. Sun tries to make sure only the best of the best gets integrated into the core platform. Anything else can be left as a 3rd party library (like AspectJ for example).
A great man once said, "The Law should be stable but never stand still". Programming languages and platforms are the same way. Turning the JCP into a rubber stamp for new, unproven ideas isn't going to do anyone any good.
MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) implies that record companies actually manufacture something. They don't. They just take other people's creative work, market it, and re-sell it.
Hence, "Suggested Retail Price" or SRP
They are not doing this because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business. If that were all there were to it, they'd probably quickly change business models, and be done with it.
To what? What business model is going to allow an organization like your average modern recording company to remain relevant and profitable in an era where musicians can sell directly to thier fans? There is no such thing.
The reason these large record comapnies can't change is because change equals death. If they are forced to give up control of the distribution channels for music, things like and value-based pricing *Gasp* will be possible. Why do you think that every CD in a store is either the standard rate (about $16) or a bargian rate (about $9)? It's because those prices are fixed by the record companies.
Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Do these companies have the right to sue violators of thier copyrights? Yes. But lets not get confused as to the purpose of these lawsuits. Stopping piracy is just a beneficial side effect, the real goal here is to kill P2P by making everyone scared to use it.
Why are they just going after P2P filesharing? Why not vigorously prosecute those who download music off of Usenet? Or those who copy CD's from friends? How about people who make bootlegs?
I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.
This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.
Golfers made very little money playing pro at the turn of the century. So did baseball players. Pro gamers are just going to have to do it for the love of the game for now. When (or if) more people start watching, then the purses will get bigger.
And when it happens, I'm sure people will complain about how it's all about the money now, and pro gamers should be thankful that they get to play video games for a living and stop whining about how thier agent could only get them $20 mil.
...sue sombody because it's not your fault.
What the fuck happened to the concept of personal repsonsibility! Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ!
"I murder people because I was abused as a child."
"I rob people because the system keeps me poor."
"I'm addicted to drugs because nobody will give me a job."
BULLSHIT!
It's not the government's job to take care of you. It's not Verant's job to take care of you. It's not Nabisco's or Microsoft's or Anyone's job to take care of you...except you. And if you can't take care of yourself, I'm sorry; But that's no excuse to drag the rest of us down too. If we keep heading down this road, eventually they'll be nobody left but laywers and 'victims', and modern civilization will grind to a halt.
Where's your proof?
Right here.