Call me old-fashioned, but I like simple things to be simple. I've written about this before, but it seems like java wonks can't write a hello world with out also generating a "HelloWorld" class, and about 500 classes (not lines of code, but classes to go along with it. I'm getting pretty pissed off about it.
"public class HWorld{public static void main(String args[]){System.out.println("Hello world");}}"
Happy? There's a little more text, but no more programming is required then the C version. You obviously need at least one class in a java program, just like you have at least one "anonymous" class in any C or C++ class (the set of global variables and functions). If people are making hundreds of classes for a hello world program, then they are shitty programmers. Switching to Perl will just make their code less readable.
When Collin Powel considered running for president, all the white people mentioned that "He speaks so well. He speaks so well". How the fuck is he supposed to speak? "Ima be pres-o-dent!"
There's a difference between a stereotype and a fact. If I say "teenagers are not allowed to buy alcohol in the US." it's not a stereotype, it's a fact. SA's laws are out in the open, not a secret, and they are horrible.
In which case, they need to wear burkas, not work, and be totally subservient to their man.
Geeks tend not to be racist because hate takes time and effort that could be better applied to developing a better understanding of the universe.
Please. Most American geeks tend not to be white-supremacists or anything like that because modern American culture abhors that kind of thinking. You won't find any kind of "racist" anywhere, unless you look very hard.
On the other hand, have you ever read slashdot? Look at all the anti-Indian hysteria in any thread about H1-B or off shoring. It's the same unthinking "us vs. them, they're taking our jobs" attitude that all racism is borne out of. Maybe they won't take the final step to true racism (i.e. anyone of Indian decent == bad), but it's just as bad (any Indian == bad job stealer).
A couple years ago, there was an article about a fiber-optic link around Africa. I was shocked when I read the comments. People were pissed, like it was some kind of a waste (even though it was being done by African countries expecting to make a profit). The racist comments in that thread were beyond the pail.
Geeks have just as much capacity for ugliness as anyone else. I'm willing to bet that "geeks" in SA have the same sort of opinions on religious diversity, women's rights, etc that most of the country does, which is pretty bad.
I doubt this is true. The same love for computers and tech? Probably. But this doesn't make them "the same". I really doubt that many Saudi Geeks would have the same libertarian, open-society, atheistic outlook that many geeks here in the US seem to have.
There seems to be this big misconception that anyone who likes computers is therefore a "geek" and also therefore has a similar political/philosophical outlook.
This isn't to say that I think everyone in Saudi Arabia is some kind of crazy religious zealot, but if you grow up in that kind of environment, a lot of it would probably rub off on you.
The Saudis, at least the people in charge, are like the Taliban with gold Rolexes.
Maybe having the professor run paper though the site was catching "too many" people? Having the student run the paper through the service gives them the opportunity to make sure they haven't plagiarized anything "unintentionally" before it becomes a major issue.
CGI was the first easy way to program interactive web pages, as far as I know (it was a bit before my time), and perl was one of the languages you could use (along with C++, and pretty much anything else). But how does being able to write programs in perl on a device you can already code in C/C++ or java give you any huge advantage, unless you only know perl? I'm sure there are people who like to do all their coding in Perl, but unless you're one of them, this doesn't seem like much of a deal. Certanly nothing compared to CGI on the web. (And lets not forget that CGI was a pretty early tech, that came about when the web wasn't much. While CGI probably helped a lot, the web itself was pretty compelling, and growing quickly on it's own).
Also, how exactly is java "overkill" for these devices? People talk about how a hello world app is 5 lines of code, but those few lines are constants that are going to be in any small app (i.e. public class Classname{ public static void main(String args[]){... simple code...}}).
If they're talking about running time, they're probably wrong too. Perl is interpreted, while java runs in a VM. I don't know if they use JIT on moble devices, but java will still be faster then Perl.
So how is java 'overkill'? This is certainly good news for perl buffs, but I don't know why the rest of us should care.
Does Apple have a Piece of AAC the same way Microsoft has a piece of WMA? You do have a lot more choice of music stores if you have a WMA enabled player today, but will that change in the future, especially with other companies making iPods?
Apple sells a "complete solution". Hardware, OS software, multmedia apps. When you buy one, you know exactly what you're getting. And they don't have much market share.
When you buy a dell, or any other PC (other then from penguin computing or whatever) You get Microsoft crap and you don't have a choice about it. In fact, from a VAR/OEM point of view Microsoft was the only place you could buy a consumer OS. Apple made OS's, but you couldn't buy them. There was Linux, but no one was really selling it back then. That's what the anti-trust thing was about. Microsoft abusing their position as the only company selling a consumer OS to computer makers not end consumers.
Java is not a good high performance language at this point. And, yes, that is a problem with the Java language, not just its implementations.
Erm, did you read the article? If you stay away from trig functions, your code should be as fast as VisualC++, and faster then code compiled with GCC. How is that not "high performance"?
You are completely wrong. Java programs are taken and converted into machine code on the target platform. Saying that it's "the same as 'C' code" because the JVM is written in C is like saying that if I were to write a C++ compiler in Python, running the resulting binaries would be the same as running Python code.
I mean, the functions are so simple, the code generated doesn't stress anything. Not any of the 'advanced' compiler, or even architecture features. None of the good features of a JIT.
I mean seriously, they do math on all the ints from one to one billion. Why even bother? Adding large 32 bit ints takes exactly the same amount of time as adding small ones (but I guess you save one variable by doing math with the counter. Or one extra line of code saved)
I'm sorry, but this is the most pointless compiler benchmark ever.
A good language comparison would be to have a bunch of groups of people try to code up the best implementation they could in whatever language, of some complex problem, and use that as the baseline.
The reason the mission ended (and the reason that the Spirit and Opportunity missions will end, if everything goes well): dust gathering on the solar cells until they can no longer provide enough electricity for the vehicle to function. Not a problem with internally-powered humans.
* The authors have made a decision to make it really annoying to send email from a machine, and have to work with your ISP just to have a mail server. There are plenty of more solid antispam proposed mechanisms that do not place restrictions on who runs what servers (pay-per-email or pay-per-initial-email, PKI systems). This is much more in line with the way the Internet works for most services.
Less annoying then hundreds of SPAMs a week.
* There is a supposedly trusted authentication system being spread across the entire Internet over an insecure transport protocol.
Yeah, that is a problem. I can see spam-hat hackers attacking widely used DNS caches in order to poison them. But that would make SPAM even more illegal, and lots you could seriously get a fraud charge by doing that.
* IP-based auth isn't a great idea anyway, for a number of reasons. The authors claim that it isn't a huge issue, because IP spoofing is harder (I disagree -- things like Mobile IP have made it harder to *block* IP spoofing).
Another good point. Perhaps in the future, if SPF on IP isn't enough, we could move to have mail servers automatically sign all mail that comes out of them. Check the signature with the ISP. It would be resource intensive. But if SPF doesn't do what we hope based on IP we might need to do that.
* Users have no control over what gets blocked. If I *want* to receive email of a particular type, I can't. Two ISPs (sending and receiving) are the ones that determine what mail I can receive). This is perhaps acceptable within a company, but annoying and goes against traditional Internet structure.
Wrong, SPF can easily be implemented at the mail client site. Everyone should be running their own mail server anyway.
* It does nothing to avoid compromised end user machines.
It does. It will be impossible to send mail from a compromised host without 'claming' those hosts as part of your SPF record. If you include the entire 'net in your SPF record, then you're as good as not having one, and most implementations will treat you that way. If you include those zombies directly in your SPF, it's obvious you hacked 'em.
And at any rate, most domains that claim spam will quickly be blacklisted.
* It does nothing to deal with throwaway accounts.
The domain that claims those messages will mostly likely be blocked. A distributed domain blocking list will probably catch a new spam domain in a couple hours (coming down extra hard no new domains). This technique is impossible without SPF.
* It does nothing to deal with misconfigured servers.
Other then getting the domains blacklisted, and the mail servers reconfigured correctly. Hopefully SPF will make the blacklisting business a lot less harmful then it is now.
What if I don't have access to the authorized relay, as in all company outgoing mail must go through company SMTP server, wether it as a @company.com from address or a @vanitydomain.com address.
Ownz0red boxes arn't going to be added to anyone's SPF records, so letting all mail with valid SPFs should be okay. In that case, you will at least know who's responsible for spamming you : P
First of all, why can you use the machine you receive mail on to send mail? Obviously that IP doesn't change too often.
And in any event, most dynamic IPs are within a certain net block. so you can simply add that net block to your SPF record. I'm assuming you have your own domain here.
Slashdot Mirror
Call me old-fashioned, but I like simple things to be simple. I've written about this before, but it seems like java wonks can't write a hello world with out also generating a "HelloWorld" class, and about 500 classes (not lines of code, but classes to go along with it. I'm getting pretty pissed off about it.
"public class HWorld{public static void main(String args[]){System.out.println("Hello world");}}"
Happy? There's a little more text, but no more programming is required then the C version. You obviously need at least one class in a java program, just like you have at least one "anonymous" class in any C or C++ class (the set of global variables and functions). If people are making hundreds of classes for a hello world program, then they are shitty programmers. Switching to Perl will just make their code less readable.
Circumcision is also popular in Korea.
When Collin Powel considered running for president, all the white people mentioned that "He speaks so well. He speaks so well". How the fuck is he supposed to speak? "Ima be pres-o-dent!"
When was Collin Powel running for president?
There's a difference between a stereotype and a fact. If I say "teenagers are not allowed to buy alcohol in the US." it's not a stereotype, it's a fact. SA's laws are out in the open, not a secret, and they are horrible.
In which case, they need to wear burkas, not work, and be totally subservient to their man.
Geeks tend not to be racist because hate takes time and effort that could be better applied to developing a better understanding of the universe.
Please. Most American geeks tend not to be white-supremacists or anything like that because modern American culture abhors that kind of thinking. You won't find any kind of "racist" anywhere, unless you look very hard.
On the other hand, have you ever read slashdot? Look at all the anti-Indian hysteria in any thread about H1-B or off shoring. It's the same unthinking "us vs. them, they're taking our jobs" attitude that all racism is borne out of. Maybe they won't take the final step to true racism (i.e. anyone of Indian decent == bad), but it's just as bad (any Indian == bad job stealer).
A couple years ago, there was an article about a fiber-optic link around Africa. I was shocked when I read the comments. People were pissed, like it was some kind of a waste (even though it was being done by African countries expecting to make a profit). The racist comments in that thread were beyond the pail.
Geeks have just as much capacity for ugliness as anyone else. I'm willing to bet that "geeks" in SA have the same sort of opinions on religious diversity, women's rights, etc that most of the country does, which is pretty bad.
I doubt this is true. The same love for computers and tech? Probably. But this doesn't make them "the same". I really doubt that many Saudi Geeks would have the same libertarian, open-society, atheistic outlook that many geeks here in the US seem to have.
There seems to be this big misconception that anyone who likes computers is therefore a "geek" and also therefore has a similar political/philosophical outlook.
This isn't to say that I think everyone in Saudi Arabia is some kind of crazy religious zealot, but if you grow up in that kind of environment, a lot of it would probably rub off on you.
The Saudis, at least the people in charge, are like the Taliban with gold Rolexes.
Maybe having the professor run paper though the site was catching "too many" people? Having the student run the paper through the service gives them the opportunity to make sure they haven't plagiarized anything "unintentionally" before it becomes a major issue.
CGI was the first easy way to program interactive web pages, as far as I know (it was a bit before my time), and perl was one of the languages you could use (along with C++, and pretty much anything else). But how does being able to write programs in perl on a device you can already code in C/C++ or java give you any huge advantage, unless you only know perl? I'm sure there are people who like to do all their coding in Perl, but unless you're one of them, this doesn't seem like much of a deal. Certanly nothing compared to CGI on the web. (And lets not forget that CGI was a pretty early tech, that came about when the web wasn't much. While CGI probably helped a lot, the web itself was pretty compelling, and growing quickly on it's own).
... simple code ...}}).
Also, how exactly is java "overkill" for these devices? People talk about how a hello world app is 5 lines of code, but those few lines are constants that are going to be in any small app (i.e. public class Classname{ public static void main(String args[]){
If they're talking about running time, they're probably wrong too. Perl is interpreted, while java runs in a VM. I don't know if they use JIT on moble devices, but java will still be faster then Perl.
So how is java 'overkill'? This is certainly good news for perl buffs, but I don't know why the rest of us should care.
This patent was filed in 1999, and granted in 2003. DNS domains had been in use for, what, 10 years or so? There's no way this lawsuit will succeed.
Does Apple have a Piece of AAC the same way Microsoft has a piece of WMA? You do have a lot more choice of music stores if you have a WMA enabled player today, but will that change in the future, especially with other companies making iPods?
Oh well.
Apple sells a "complete solution". Hardware, OS software, multmedia apps. When you buy one, you know exactly what you're getting. And they don't have much market share.
When you buy a dell, or any other PC (other then from penguin computing or whatever) You get Microsoft crap and you don't have a choice about it. In fact, from a VAR/OEM point of view Microsoft was the only place you could buy a consumer OS. Apple made OS's, but you couldn't buy them. There was Linux, but no one was really selling it back then. That's what the anti-trust thing was about. Microsoft abusing their position as the only company selling a consumer OS to computer makers not end consumers.
One person died, but most people lost their homes. That's what they meant by 'lives destroyed'. They lost like everything they own.
Mod parent as troll.
Why should it be modded as a 'troll'? just because it betrayed some lack of knowledge about CPU design? I think your post should be modded as troll.
Real men use LUTs!
Or they use hardware which converts the number into a time index, then reads a value off of an analog signal generator. Less then one clock cycle!
Java is not a good high performance language at this point. And, yes, that is a problem with the Java language, not just its implementations.
Erm, did you read the article? If you stay away from trig functions, your code should be as fast as VisualC++, and faster then code compiled with GCC. How is that not "high performance"?
You are completely wrong. Java programs are taken and converted into machine code on the target platform. Saying that it's "the same as 'C' code" because the JVM is written in C is like saying that if I were to write a C++ compiler in Python, running the resulting binaries would be the same as running Python code.
In other words, idiotc.
I mean, the functions are so simple, the code generated doesn't stress anything. Not any of the 'advanced' compiler, or even architecture features. None of the good features of a JIT.
I mean seriously, they do math on all the ints from one to one billion. Why even bother? Adding large 32 bit ints takes exactly the same amount of time as adding small ones (but I guess you save one variable by doing math with the counter. Or one extra line of code saved)
I'm sorry, but this is the most pointless compiler benchmark ever.
A good language comparison would be to have a bunch of groups of people try to code up the best implementation they could in whatever language, of some complex problem, and use that as the baseline.
He aparantly failed to realize that post modernism is esentialy one big joke...
The reason the mission ended (and the reason that the Spirit and Opportunity missions will end, if everything goes well): dust gathering on the solar cells until they can no longer provide enough electricity for the vehicle to function. Not a problem with internally-powered humans.
Or for windshield wipers...
* The authors have made a decision to make it really annoying to send email from a machine, and have to work with your ISP just to have a mail server. There are plenty of more solid antispam proposed mechanisms that do not place restrictions on who runs what servers (pay-per-email or pay-per-initial-email, PKI systems). This is much more in line with the way the Internet works for most services.
Less annoying then hundreds of SPAMs a week.
* There is a supposedly trusted authentication system being spread across the entire Internet over an insecure transport protocol.
Yeah, that is a problem. I can see spam-hat hackers attacking widely used DNS caches in order to poison them. But that would make SPAM even more illegal, and lots you could seriously get a fraud charge by doing that.
* IP-based auth isn't a great idea anyway, for a number of reasons. The authors claim that it isn't a huge issue, because IP spoofing is harder (I disagree -- things like Mobile IP have made it harder to *block* IP spoofing).
Another good point. Perhaps in the future, if SPF on IP isn't enough, we could move to have mail servers automatically sign all mail that comes out of them. Check the signature with the ISP. It would be resource intensive. But if SPF doesn't do what we hope based on IP we might need to do that.
* Users have no control over what gets blocked. If I *want* to receive email of a particular type, I can't. Two ISPs (sending and receiving) are the ones that determine what mail I can receive). This is perhaps acceptable within a company, but annoying and goes against traditional Internet structure.
Wrong, SPF can easily be implemented at the mail client site. Everyone should be running their own mail server anyway.
* It does nothing to avoid compromised end user machines.
It does. It will be impossible to send mail from a compromised host without 'claming' those hosts as part of your SPF record. If you include the entire 'net in your SPF record, then you're as good as not having one, and most implementations will treat you that way. If you include those zombies directly in your SPF, it's obvious you hacked 'em.
And at any rate, most domains that claim spam will quickly be blacklisted.
* It does nothing to deal with throwaway accounts.
The domain that claims those messages will mostly likely be blocked. A distributed domain blocking list will probably catch a new spam domain in a couple hours (coming down extra hard no new domains). This technique is impossible without SPF.
* It does nothing to deal with misconfigured servers.
Other then getting the domains blacklisted, and the mail servers reconfigured correctly. Hopefully SPF will make the blacklisting business a lot less harmful then it is now.
What if I don't have access to the authorized relay, as in all company outgoing mail must go through company SMTP server, wether it as a @company.com from address or a @vanitydomain.com address.
I spend way to much time deleting spam to care.
Ownz0red boxes arn't going to be added to anyone's SPF records, so letting all mail with valid SPFs should be okay. In that case, you will at least know who's responsible for spamming you : P
I just realized how the 222.235.48.0/N notation worked. It's the first N bits that are on of the host mask, not the last N bits that are zero.
That confused me for the longest time. But I was too much of a pussy to ask what the hell that meant.
RMX was such a cooler Acronym. I know it didn't require modification of bind, but I don't know about other mail servers.
Seriously "SPF" doesn't make that much sense by itself while "RMX" both sounds cool and is pretty obviously decipherable.
First of all, why can you use the machine you receive mail on to send mail? Obviously that IP doesn't change too often.
And in any event, most dynamic IPs are within a certain net block. so you can simply add that net block to your SPF record. I'm assuming you have your own domain here.