The Java language ensures that, via normal constraints, you can't access members that you're not supposed to. However, it is still possible, via reflection, to access these members if you know what you're doing. This is probably equivalent to the tricks that are Dan Appleman is describing in.NET (I haven't read the book).
Where the bytecode interpreter comes in is that the use of reflection like this can be prohibited using the JVM security policies. By default, however, it is permitted.
The question is: does MS have similar support in the.NET framework for such security restrictions?
Seems to me the business/government market has clung to MS for the sole purposes of familiarity and ease of support. Hire any MCSE off the street and you have qualified support personell.
Qualified, yes. Good, no.
The problem here, of course, is that the organisation that certifies people as able to do third-party support also has an extensive revenue stream charging people for support.
About the only way I can see the MCSE as being a valid indicator of someone who can actually support MS software is if MS was required to give them free unlimited support, all the way back to the developer if needed, with rapid turnaround time. Then it would be in MS's best interests to make sure that the MCSE could actually figure out how to install a goddamned printer!
(True story: I know a MCSE who couldn't work out his printer wasn't working because it wasn't connected at the back of the machine... too used to network printers, I guess)
You need to go to a better school, or maybe a better school system. Examples from your list that are covered in Australian schools:
1. Office/Workplace Etiquette. 2. Customer Service Skills.
Work experience; placement of students in typical work environments at several points throughout their school life. The work environments must vary, and typically put the person in some menial role (often customer facing, like the receptionist's desk).
3. How Banking Works. 4. How to build Good Credit. 5. How to PAY A BILL. 8. How to budget monthly. 9. How Insurance works/how to use insurance.
Yep. Most states actually have a financial studies unit as a separate (but mandatory) course. The other couple fold into the social studies course.
7. How a car works (basic theory). Yeah, auto shop is available. Optional, but still available. Also, driver's ed course (at school, not the private ones) include basic automotive maintainence (enough to change a tyre or battery, at least).
6. Landlord/tenant rights.
Well, not covered at school, but you can get detailed brochures on this at the post office...
Except that you are expressly permitted under the US Constitution to "associate" with whoever you damn well feel like, as long as you don't commit a crime yourself.
He argued that an all-encompasing god could not have allowed room for creation because before creation God would have filled everything. This required the first creation which was a lamp of negative light which could create a hole in God where creation could exist
Serious question time: How did he make the lamp of "negative light"? Presumably he would have needed to make space for it first, and if he could do that, why did he need the lamp?
This is why we use the electoral college rather than popular vote.
Actually, the reason you use the electoral college had to do with the mechanics of actually running an election back in the 1800s. It was deemed (probably rightly) far to difficult to orchestrate an election for President amongst all of the States, so they fobbed off to the lesser task of electing the electoral college. The college then get together, several months later, to elect the President. The latter step is now a formality, mostly, as all of the electoral college nominees vote along party lines (though not always...)
The electoral college was always expected to closely tally with the popular vote; this is one reason why the electoral college gets adjusted from time to time, based on population shifts.
The checks and balances to prevent targetted pork-barelling is actually the domain of the Senate. Because the more populated states have the same amount of representation as the less populated states, the smaller states have a much higher representation per capita.
Unfortunately, the concentration of political power into two mainstream parties causes all sorts of break downs in the checks and balances...
The school should have turned Caller ID on, to let parents know when it was them calling. Then, they should have co-ordinated with the cops and the telco's to find out who was doing the ring-around (trust me, not too hard).
Re: Licensing 6.0. You don't have to use it. Even if you are a MS shop, you don't have to use it. You can simply buy perpetual licenses (what you get if you walk into a store and buy a boxed copy, for example).
The catch is that perpetual licenses cost a little more than the Licensing 6.0 option, AND you don't get free upgrades (only Service Packs). Oh, and I don't think that MS do volume licensing of perpetual licenses any more (and, as the volume discounts get BIG, for any decent sized organistion, this makes the Licensing 6.0 a lot cheaper).
The end result, of course, is what you say; large organisations really have no rational choice but to take the Licensing 6.0 option (assuming they go Windows, of course), and if they do, MS can screw them over in the event of a divestiture.
You can sell the computer; you just have to take the OS off it first. This leaves you a license that you can't use (because you now have more licenses than computers), and gives the buyer an expense to take on as well (the purchase of a new license).
If you keep the license, you have to pay for it annually; no termination clause. If you want to transfer the license, you have to pay it out in full, despite the fact that you are getting reduced value from the license.
That's the problem. But you can certainly go on using the license after you sell the computer; you just have to buy a new computer first.
Even a low ink cartridge is better than none. If consumers were forced to buy a cartridge before they could use the printer, they would equate that into the cost. So the printer wouldn't be $99, it would be $119, ie, the printer cost with the cartridge they have to buy.
And that would be the point. Right now, the cost of the printer is, say, $95, with the $4 worth of ink cartridge bundled to make it $99. However, the consumer thinks that they are getting a full cartridge, so they don't realise that they are getting ripped off.
Separation of costs is a very valuable tool in aiding consumer decisions. Bundling is invariably done to hide true costs from consumers so that they are misled in a manner advantageous for the supplier, while hiding it under a banner of "convenience".
Ideas like these aren't in use not because they haven't been pitched, but because they're bad ideas.
Ideas like this aren't in use because the manufacturers realise that they can screw the customer for more money the way things are now. Generally, any idea which would result in money being saved by consumers doesn't get used.:)
So often, for most home users, it's cheaper simply to replace it (hey, what's new?;-) and as noted in the parent post and elsewhere, it's often cheaper to replace a low-end printer than it is to buy new cartridges. I have to confess I don't understand the economics on this - I find it hard to believe it's cheaper for the manufacturers in the long run - but that's where the markets's going. Sad.
The economics of this is that the manufacturers don't quite dump the printers out at cost; they do make a profit (albeit a small one).
However, you don't think that's a full ink cartridge in that printer, do you? On the low-end printers, the ink cartridge is usually at least half-empty (often 3/4-empty). By buying a new printer instead of replacing the ink, you're forcing yourself to buy more often; true false economy.
Personally, I think that they should simply sell the printers without ink (and that it should be mandated). The printer manufacturers would probably love this, as it would let their revenue stream be the ink.
Well, no. To quote the summary: From Carl Akerlof, the ROTSE investigator: "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before."
So, nothing more than 1% of this intensity has been seen before.
You know, that's exactly the bullshit attitude complained about.
"I don't like what you say, so piss off" isn't exactly a mature response, you know. I didn't realise that the American constitution gave the "right to free speech, but only if you agree with me".
You know, you Americans have vilified the French because they disagreed with you. They didn't attack you, and they didn't insult you, but your leadership, and the common people of the USA, decide to smear the French disgracefully, simply because they said they thought you were wrong. And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like you.
Voltaire (a French philosopher) once wrote "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too". Some good advice. An American woman, Evelyn Hall, paraphrased this to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". You know, there are some places where that's taken as a goal to aspire towards, not something to pay lipservice to and ignore.
From Google: some 52000 responses. The adbust one was number 3. The first two were (drumroll please) Windows XPSucks. That's right; the MSN search didn't find stuff on MSN.
I think it's safe to assume that if a "bunch of dipshit hippies" were having a die-in on September 11, 2002 (the most recent one, you know), then nobody would have cared much.
As for September 11, 2001, then I think you can assume that they would have "undied" pretty quickly and got the hell out of the way.
And if you don't want big raucous crowds, then I suggest you try to get shopping malls closed (particularly during big sales weeks!).
Is it not at least possible that IBM has decided that, under current IP laws, it makes sense to grab as many patents as possible, but that it would also make sense to loosen IP laws?
If you're convinced that you're the smartest guy on the block, this is an appropriate stance to take. After all, if nobody can understand your technology better than you, you won't lose much by letting other people use it as long as you can use theirs (which, presumably, you'll soon be able to understand better than them as well).
You know, I would have sworn that the mainframe operators were the traditonal computer jobs... Given that they've got about 30 years more history behind them than the humble, but ubiquitous, PC.
I'd much rather receive telemarketing calls on my mobile than on my home number. They're the ones paying, and paying a much larger rate than on a fixed line.
Simply because they pay extra to call mobiles, most telemarketers filter mobiles out. They live on fairly tight margins, and high phone bills would drive them under.
(I also have my land-line on the national 'Do-Not-Call' list... no telemarketing calls to my home phone in 2 years and counting. Only 3 to my mobile in that same time)
Telstra's not the owner of the phone system. That's AusTel. Telstra is one of several phone companies in Australia (admittedly the largest one).
By personal choice, I have nothing to do with Telstra. None of my phones go through them, and I only use them for internet because I don't have a different broandband option in my area. I agree, they're fucked. But we still have a better phone system than the US (but then, so do third-world countries).
Well, try a country with a real telecommunications system.
Here in Oz, the caller of a cellular gets the phone bill, not the receiver. Telemarketers can call my mobile all they want; in fact, I never give out my home phone number if I can help it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not obvious.
.NET allows reflection, and that via reflection you can bypass the language access constraints, isn't a big deal.
The fact that
However, if this can not be prevented by appropriate security constraints, which the running code can not bypass, then that's a big bloody problem.
So, the question of what happens if a security manager is installed is the crux of the debate, not what fancy tricks you can do with reflection.
Not quite true.
.NET (I haven't read the book).
.NET framework for such security restrictions?
The Java language ensures that, via normal constraints, you can't access members that you're not supposed to. However, it is still possible, via reflection, to access these members if you know what you're doing. This is probably equivalent to the tricks that are Dan Appleman is describing in
Where the bytecode interpreter comes in is that the use of reflection like this can be prohibited using the JVM security policies. By default, however, it is permitted.
The question is: does MS have similar support in the
Seems to me the business/government market has clung to MS for the sole purposes of familiarity and ease of support. Hire any MCSE off the street and you have qualified support personell.
Qualified, yes. Good, no.
The problem here, of course, is that the organisation that certifies people as able to do third-party support also has an extensive revenue stream charging people for support.
About the only way I can see the MCSE as being a valid indicator of someone who can actually support MS software is if MS was required to give them free unlimited support, all the way back to the developer if needed, with rapid turnaround time. Then it would be in MS's best interests to make sure that the MCSE could actually figure out how to install a goddamned printer!
(True story: I know a MCSE who couldn't work out his printer wasn't working because it wasn't connected at the back of the machine... too used to network printers, I guess)
You need to go to a better school, or maybe a better school system. Examples from your list that are covered in Australian schools:
1. Office/Workplace Etiquette.
2. Customer Service Skills.
Work experience; placement of students in typical work environments at several points throughout their school life. The work environments must vary, and typically put the person in some menial role (often customer facing, like the receptionist's desk).
3. How Banking Works.
4. How to build Good Credit.
5. How to PAY A BILL.
8. How to budget monthly.
9. How Insurance works/how to use insurance.
Yep. Most states actually have a financial studies unit as a separate (but mandatory) course. The other couple fold into the social studies course.
7. How a car works (basic theory).
Yeah, auto shop is available. Optional, but still available. Also, driver's ed course (at school, not the private ones) include basic automotive maintainence (enough to change a tyre or battery, at least).
6. Landlord/tenant rights.
Well, not covered at school, but you can get detailed brochures on this at the post office...
Except that you are expressly permitted under the US Constitution to "associate" with whoever you damn well feel like, as long as you don't commit a crime yourself.
He argued that an all-encompasing god could not have allowed room for creation because before creation God would have filled everything. This required the first creation which was a lamp of negative light which could create a hole in God where creation could exist
Serious question time: How did he make the lamp of "negative light"? Presumably he would have needed to make space for it first, and if he could do that, why did he need the lamp?
This is why we use the electoral college rather than popular vote.
Actually, the reason you use the electoral college had to do with the mechanics of actually running an election back in the 1800s. It was deemed (probably rightly) far to difficult to orchestrate an election for President amongst all of the States, so they fobbed off to the lesser task of electing the electoral college. The college then get together, several months later, to elect the President. The latter step is now a formality, mostly, as all of the electoral college nominees vote along party lines (though not always...)
The electoral college was always expected to closely tally with the popular vote; this is one reason why the electoral college gets adjusted from time to time, based on population shifts.
The checks and balances to prevent targetted pork-barelling is actually the domain of the Senate. Because the more populated states have the same amount of representation as the less populated states, the smaller states have a much higher representation per capita.
Unfortunately, the concentration of political power into two mainstream parties causes all sorts of break downs in the checks and balances...
Not necessarily.
For example, you CAN buy naked PCs from Dell; simply place an order for 100 of them.
Caller ID ws first offered in 1987 (in the US).
It could well have been that simple.
Even without caller ID, caller logs could have been obtained from the telcos by the cops, if the school wanted to push it that far.
Two words: Caller ID.
The school should have turned Caller ID on, to let parents know when it was them calling. Then, they should have co-ordinated with the cops and the telco's to find out who was doing the ring-around (trust me, not too hard).
Re: Licensing 6.0. You don't have to use it. Even if you are a MS shop, you don't have to use it. You can simply buy perpetual licenses (what you get if you walk into a store and buy a boxed copy, for example).
The catch is that perpetual licenses cost a little more than the Licensing 6.0 option, AND you don't get free upgrades (only Service Packs). Oh, and I don't think that MS do volume licensing of perpetual licenses any more (and, as the volume discounts get BIG, for any decent sized organistion, this makes the Licensing 6.0 a lot cheaper).
The end result, of course, is what you say; large organisations really have no rational choice but to take the Licensing 6.0 option (assuming they go Windows, of course), and if they do, MS can screw them over in the event of a divestiture.
You missed the distinction.
You can sell the computer; you just have to take the OS off it first. This leaves you a license that you can't use (because you now have more licenses than computers), and gives the buyer an expense to take on as well (the purchase of a new license).
If you keep the license, you have to pay for it annually; no termination clause. If you want to transfer the license, you have to pay it out in full, despite the fact that you are getting reduced value from the license.
That's the problem. But you can certainly go on using the license after you sell the computer; you just have to buy a new computer first.
Even a low ink cartridge is better than none. If consumers were forced to buy a cartridge before they could use the printer, they would equate that into the cost. So the printer wouldn't be $99, it would be $119, ie, the printer cost with the cartridge they have to buy.
:)
And that would be the point. Right now, the cost of the printer is, say, $95, with the $4 worth of ink cartridge bundled to make it $99. However, the consumer thinks that they are getting a full cartridge, so they don't realise that they are getting ripped off.
Separation of costs is a very valuable tool in aiding consumer decisions. Bundling is invariably done to hide true costs from consumers so that they are misled in a manner advantageous for the supplier, while hiding it under a banner of "convenience".
Ideas like these aren't in use not because they haven't been pitched, but because they're bad ideas.
Ideas like this aren't in use because the manufacturers realise that they can screw the customer for more money the way things are now. Generally, any idea which would result in money being saved by consumers doesn't get used.
So often, for most home users, it's cheaper simply to replace it (hey, what's new? ;-) and as noted in the parent post and elsewhere, it's often cheaper to replace a low-end printer than it is to buy new cartridges. I have to confess I don't understand the economics on this - I find it hard to believe it's cheaper for the manufacturers in the long run - but that's where the markets's going. Sad.
The economics of this is that the manufacturers don't quite dump the printers out at cost; they do make a profit (albeit a small one).
However, you don't think that's a full ink cartridge in that printer, do you? On the low-end printers, the ink cartridge is usually at least half-empty (often 3/4-empty). By buying a new printer instead of replacing the ink, you're forcing yourself to buy more often; true false economy.
Personally, I think that they should simply sell the printers without ink (and that it should be mandated). The printer manufacturers would probably love this, as it would let their revenue stream be the ink.
Well, no. To quote the summary: From Carl Akerlof, the ROTSE investigator: "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before."
So, nothing more than 1% of this intensity has been seen before.
You know, that's exactly the bullshit attitude complained about.
"I don't like what you say, so piss off" isn't exactly a mature response, you know. I didn't realise that the American constitution gave the "right to free speech, but only if you agree with me".
You know, you Americans have vilified the French because they disagreed with you. They didn't attack you, and they didn't insult you, but your leadership, and the common people of the USA, decide to smear the French disgracefully, simply because they said they thought you were wrong. And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like you.
Voltaire (a French philosopher) once wrote "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too". Some good advice. An American woman, Evelyn Hall, paraphrased this to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". You know, there are some places where that's taken as a goal to aspire towards, not something to pay lipservice to and ignore.
Go troll somewhere else, you stupid git.
Why write to yourself?
SARS is a virus.
Antibiotics don't affect virii.
Thus, SARS (and HIV, for that matter) haven't "evolved" because we're using too many antibiotics.
That's nothing!
I just searched for 'windows xp sucks'.
From MSN: some 25000 responses, the first one being entitled Microsoft XP adbust in Shoreditch, London
From Google: some 52000 responses. The adbust one was number 3. The first two were (drumroll please) Windows XP Sucks. That's right; the MSN search didn't find stuff on MSN.
I think it's safe to assume that if a "bunch of dipshit hippies" were having a die-in on September 11, 2002 (the most recent one, you know), then nobody would have cared much.
As for September 11, 2001, then I think you can assume that they would have "undied" pretty quickly and got the hell out of the way.
And if you don't want big raucous crowds, then I suggest you try to get shopping malls closed (particularly during big sales weeks!).
Why does there have to be a conflict?
Is it not at least possible that IBM has decided that, under current IP laws, it makes sense to grab as many patents as possible, but that it would also make sense to loosen IP laws?
If you're convinced that you're the smartest guy on the block, this is an appropriate stance to take. After all, if nobody can understand your technology better than you, you won't lose much by letting other people use it as long as you can use theirs (which, presumably, you'll soon be able to understand better than them as well).
You know, I would have sworn that the mainframe operators were the traditonal computer jobs... Given that they've got about 30 years more history behind them than the humble, but ubiquitous, PC.
I'd much rather receive telemarketing calls on my mobile than on my home number. They're the ones paying, and paying a much larger rate than on a fixed line.
Simply because they pay extra to call mobiles, most telemarketers filter mobiles out. They live on fairly tight margins, and high phone bills would drive them under.
(I also have my land-line on the national 'Do-Not-Call' list... no telemarketing calls to my home phone in 2 years and counting. Only 3 to my mobile in that same time)
Telstra's not the owner of the phone system. That's AusTel. Telstra is one of several phone companies in Australia (admittedly the largest one).
By personal choice, I have nothing to do with Telstra. None of my phones go through them, and I only use them for internet because I don't have a different broandband option in my area. I agree, they're fucked. But we still have a better phone system than the US (but then, so do third-world countries).
Well, try a country with a real telecommunications system.
Here in Oz, the caller of a cellular gets the phone bill, not the receiver. Telemarketers can call my mobile all they want; in fact, I never give out my home phone number if I can help it.