Seems you have failed to grasp the simple ideas of APIs, design by contract and standards based engineering..NET and Java are simply specifications, nothing more. Java is not just a language syntax and.NET is not just C#. Once you understand this, you will realize, that the worst thing MS could have done was to submit their API specifications to ECMA. We now have.NET implementations on both FreeBSD and Linux, allowing you to write cross platform code in VB of all languages! There is no need anymore to rely on microsoft if you want to provide.NET apps
Now you can either continue to be biggoted idiot and tar everything coming from MS with the same brush, or you can take the good from the bad and use it to your own ends.
All true. But as a developer I have access to the entire call stack when importing my C++ components into.NET. Do I get that with dynamically loaded C++ components with JNI and Java?
Can I set code access security permissions within the Java VM to deny all other code from execution on my machine? I can in.NET, but its not set by default!
Anyway this seems like just esoteria to me. More security incidents occur these days due to business illogic, laziness and misconfigurations than from things like dll injection or obscure buffer overflows.
The alarm should really be over the 'It Just Works' features of VC++ 7 & 8. Using this you can effectively recompile any legacy VC++ (be it dangerous or not) straight into a.NET runtime callable wrapper simply by importing its header file. Its very easy to do and is one of the big selling points of.NET
As far as I remember, JNI simply wraps a C/C++ component's function exports into a standard API whilst security permissions are implemented at component load/runtime.
If configured correctly,.NET's security model is seems superior. Allowing you to supply policies of trust to your own wrapped code and whilst excluding anyone elses. Of course, as with all things, if you really really want to misconfigure something you *could* use this to really *uck up your employer's systems.
is where the money is.
C/C++ and the ability to change complex equations into reusable code will make you more money than you can ever dream of. If thats your thing.
And why are formulas like that represented with such a poor syntax? Why can't I easily use proper Greek letters and standard math notations such as dots for multiplication, a horizontal line for divisions/fractions, etc.?"
Ever written a differential equation solver? In a symbolic language like Mathematica or MathCAD you have to provide the 'meat' of the routine yourself. When it doesn't work the way you expected, you only have one token that represents at (its simplest) set a multi-nested loops. Not easy to debug. Its soooo easy to create infinite loops with this stuff unless you restrict input to almost useless levels of output:(
... and how long would it have taken that same small company to design test and build that customized sorting algorithmn? Add that to the design of the application itself and I'll wager that the same small company did not have the time nor resources to even consider it.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
The USA was involvment in Europe in WWII was due to Europe declaring war on the USA. What else was the USA supposed to do?
You do realise that the UK, France and the Soviet Union are (or were) countries that are in whole or in part of Europe? You do also realise that these same nations were ALLIES of the USA during that horrible period in human history?
I pray that you will never be given any kind of military responsibility.
I would say its more 'People just don't trust things they have no knowledge of' rather than machines per se. I certainly wouldn't blindly trust something programmed by myself or any of my colleagues without being able to verify the results independently myself.
In our case the systems we produce analyse the patient's blood or tissue and then provide prescription reports based on the results. The main selling point of our systems (or so I am told) is our ability to reduce or remove doctor/nurse/lab technician's transcription errors from what turn out to be rather complex clinical or medical processes.
Instead of automating the process entirely, our customers generally end up employing a more junior nurse/technician to 'watch' our instruments in case something appears to go wrong. Of course whilst mechincal failures and data corruptions rarely occur, labs and hospitals are wise enough to have their own validation (unit testing, if you will) and calibration methods in place for when they do.
I just googled this as it was the first time I had heard of it. I don't understand how you can consider it on par with the other two theories you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but her head is only split open IF you observe it!
haha... if I only had the mod points!
Seems you have failed to grasp the simple ideas of APIs, design by contract and standards based engineering. .NET and Java are simply specifications, nothing more. Java is not just a language syntax and .NET is not just C#. Once you understand this, you will realize, that the worst thing MS could have done was to submit their API specifications to ECMA. We now have .NET implementations on both FreeBSD and Linux, allowing you to write cross platform code in VB of all languages! There is no need anymore to rely on microsoft if you want to provide .NET apps
Now you can either continue to be biggoted idiot and tar everything coming from MS with the same brush, or you can take the good from the bad and use it to your own ends.
Can I set code access security permissions within the Java VM to deny all other code from execution on my machine? I can in .NET, but its not set by default!
Anyway this seems like just esoteria to me. More security incidents occur these days due to business illogic, laziness and misconfigurations than from things like dll injection or obscure buffer overflows.
As far as I remember, JNI simply wraps a C/C++ component's function exports into a standard API whilst security permissions are implemented at component load/runtime.
If configured correctly, .NET's security model is seems superior. Allowing you to supply policies of trust to your own wrapped code and whilst excluding anyone elses. Of course, as with all things, if you really really want to misconfigure something you *could* use this to really *uck up your employer's systems.
Disclosure - C# & C++/CLI developer
is where the money is. C/C++ and the ability to change complex equations into reusable code will make you more money than you can ever dream of. If thats your thing.
Yeah but you can't write reusable code with Labview =P
... sorry, lame joke:
Ever written a differential equation solver? In a symbolic language like Mathematica or MathCAD you have to provide the 'meat' of the routine yourself. When it doesn't work the way you expected, you only have one token that represents at (its simplest) set a multi-nested loops. Not easy to debug. Its soooo easy to create infinite loops with this stuff unless you restrict input to almost useless levels of output :(
No, Rocket Science is just a question of Conservation of Momentum.
Wow, you are lucky. My PHB wants me to stop writing classes and write VB Modules because 'OO is too complex' to understand. Want to swap?
.NET's security model does this.
UCL has a great Atmospheric Physics group. I suggest you get up go across the road and ask. You'll likely get a better answer than from anyone here.
;)
Hint - Its next to the Windeyer building
... and how long would it have taken that same small company to design test and build that customized sorting algorithmn? Add that to the design of the application itself and I'll wager that the same small company did not have the time nor resources to even consider it.
You do realise that the UK, France and the Soviet Union are (or were) countries that are in whole or in part of Europe? You do also realise that these same nations were ALLIES of the USA during that horrible period in human history?
I pray that you will never be given any kind of military responsibility.
.. from someone who programs something similar.
I would say its more 'People just don't trust things they have no knowledge of' rather than machines per se. I certainly wouldn't blindly trust something programmed by myself or any of my colleagues without being able to verify the results independently myself.
In our case the systems we produce analyse the patient's blood or tissue and then provide prescription reports based on the results. The main selling point of our systems (or so I am told) is our ability to reduce or remove doctor/nurse/lab technician's transcription errors from what turn out to be rather complex clinical or medical processes.
Instead of automating the process entirely, our customers generally end up employing a more junior nurse/technician to 'watch' our instruments in case something appears to go wrong. Of course whilst mechincal failures and data corruptions rarely occur, labs and hospitals are wise enough to have their own validation (unit testing, if you will) and calibration methods in place for when they do.
You knows it.
I just googled this as it was the first time I had heard of it. I don't understand how you can consider it on par with the other two theories you mentioned.
Exploration in itself is not a technological advance. What technological advances were made this year to make these explorations possible?
At least most of my PhD friends got into that. This will allow you to broaden your horizons, as well as getting paid well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3576594. stm
That way you can avoid all those 'clever' questions about shooting beams of light at each other.
... gonna say that *groan*.
If I had mod points you'd get them all.
Sorry but some times they need reminding.