Except the some cases are things like using an array, or calling a method, or doing any math.
We were talking about significant penalties, and significance depends on context. If your program does a little bit of array access, and calls some methods, and does a lot of database retrievals, the slowness of Java is not going to matter a whit. If your program does nothing but math, then yes, Java is probably the wrong language.
And if you compare Eclipse and Visual Studio, or uTorrent and Azureus you can see that Java is slow even outside the lab.
Two pairs of apps is a pretty small sample size. And at any rate I've found Eclipse to be a terrible memory hog, but not "slow" as long as it's given enough memory. So I'm not sure I agree with your assesment anyway. It's possible Java really is substantially slower than C++ in real applications where Java is an appropriate language choice. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence of it.
Usually the first thing you are told in a cryptography course is "Anyone that claims their encryption is unbreakable is either a liar or doesn't know what he is talking about."
Anybody who says that doesn't know what they're talking about. One-time pads, if implemented correctly, are unbreakable encryption. Anybody who claims their security is unbreakable is wrong, because security involves more than just encryption, but it is possible to have the encryption part of it be unbreakable. Still susceptible to other kinds of attacks (such as holding a gun to the recipient's head) but the encryption cannot be broken.
I used that quote years ago when IBM claimed it had an unbreakable crypt system and I was shown to be right.
Which of course does not imply you will be right the next time you use it.:-)
Here in the UK, for example, if I had a genuine case against anyone - no matter how large they were - I could and would be able to afford to take them to court because I would know that if I won then I would not be paying any legal fees. This allows a much better balance of justice IMO.
Doesn't that also mean that if you sue them and lose, then you have to pay their legal fees? You could argue that actually provides less balance - you pay either no legal fees or double (or more?) rather than each side paying their own fees (ie balance). You want to discourage frivolous lawsuits, but you also want to discourage big companies from intimidating citizens with big gangs of expensive lawyers. Ideally, I mean - not that governments necessarily care about that second goal. If I think I'll be on the hook for Megacorp's million dollars of lawyer fees if I lose, how willing would I be to sue in the first place? Perhaps someone has more detail on the UK's system.
But, all the physical inventions that we use and would agree should be patentable are combinations of wheels, axles, inclined planes, etc, etc, which are generally unpatentable.
Because of prior art. If nobody had ever made a wheel before, and it was considered non-obvious (since it doesn't occur in nature I don't see why not) then I think you could patent it. There's nothing special about wheels (levers, etc) that makes them not patentable except that they've already been in use for a very very long time.
So, where does the line get drawn? I believe that it should be drawn at the "construct", and short of the implementation. I can patent an engine design, but shouldn't be able to patent uses of it, for example.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can patent your design, but you can't patent what I'm allowed to do with your design? If I can do anything I want with the design (such as implement an engine using it) then what does your patent mean? Seems like nothing. I would say uses of the design is exactly what a patent is designed to control. For software that means that if software patents are permitted, then I can't get around your patent by writing it in a different language, because you've patented something above the level of an implementation. Perhaps that is your point? If you support software patents that's a good thing. I think software patents have a net harm to society, regardless of any philosophical debates about ownership of ideas, so they should be thrown out for that reason alone.
I think you're underestimating the power of the market. If there's really an opportunity to make a buck, somebody will do it. If the big businesses are already doing it and protected by patents, the little guys can't get in (nor can other big guys). If BB is doing it and there are no patents, little guys can try to do it better (compete). If BB isn't doing it already, then somebody will start doing it, patents or no - because there's money to be made. Without patents, it's possible that BB will swoop in and crush the little guy. But at least in that case somebody is providing the service, to the betterment of society. If predatory pricing laws are enforced, then the big guys also had to offer superior service or pricing to outcompete the little guys too, so although the little guy now has to find something else to do, the economy as a whole is better off. Patents are there to inhibit competition and protect initial investment from losses due to copying. With software, the initial investment usually isn't that big, so it may be better to sacrifice the protection in favor of stimulating competition.
you start to see that the additional features that make Java code safer have a significant cost in terms of performance.
If I'm interpreting this right (which I can't be sure of without seeing the article) we need to add "in some cases" to the end of that. I'm pretty sure using the higher-level languages doesn't always result in significant cost. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were always some performance penalty, even if one that doesn't make any real difference outside the lab.
But Java and.Net are serious overhead compared to running the code natively. Even if you could JIT the code to native code that was as efficient as C++ which you can't yet,
One of the things we're getting out of the increases in speed is more developer time (which may or may not be spent "well"). If you spend two hours optimizing your code, that's two hours you didn't spend on something else - features, testing, whatever. I'm not saying we don't have bloated code, but that just because we have bloated code doesn't necessarily mean we're not getting more value from our faster computers. It is possible that A) we aren't getting more value or B) we're getting more or better software written.
Attention geek bloggers: You are not attractive. Stop [networkper...edaily.com] posting [securityfocus.com] pictures [zdnet.com] of your dorky [zdnet.com] looking [businessweek.com] selves [pcmag.com] at the top of your blog.
I don't know how things are where you live, but over here, cars with automatic transmission typically sell at $1000 more than the exact same model with manual transmission.
In the US, many, perhaps most cars above the economy level are not available with a manual transmission. In many cases when they do offer an automatic it's only with the smaller engine option. Almost all vans, trucks, and SUVs are automatic only. As far as I know, the Dodge Viper and Subaru Impreza WRX STI are the only vehicles sold in the US exclusively with a clutch pedal (please tell me if there are others). Some cars have paddle-shift manual transmissions, but no clutch pedal.
Yes and there is a concept of a "unilateral mistake", where one party is mistaken about the terms, that allows a contract to be invalidated. It would be very difficult for anybody to step in front of a judge and say when I saw a price of $0.00 I had no notion at all that it was a mistake by Amazon.
That could be, but it has no bearing on this case, because that's not what Amazon is doing. If they were filing lawsuits against their customers, I would say that is a very stupid but legally justified thing to do. Maybe they would win, maybe they would lose, and it would all be above board. Since they are instead initiating unauthorized credit card charges, I say they're committing fraud.
If you go the counter with the two dvd sets and the cashier in error gives you both for free you already knew that you were getting one when you bought one. Now you're morally at fault here.
Why is it my moral responsibility to ensure the cashier is doing their job correctly?
I hand the DVDs and my credit card to the cashier
Cashier scans merchandise
Cashier: No charge for these items today.
Me: Really?
Cashier: Yep, it's free, have a nice day.
Me: Thanks! (leaves)
You're telling me that's stealing? I'm supposed to argue until they agree to charge me? Ask to talk to a manager about it? Leave the store without the stuff? And if you think I'm morally obliged to do one of those things... why do you think that? Should I not permit a store to give me something for free? Why not?
In Amazon's case, there is no way anyone could think that two for one meant two for none.
I don't agree. I could easily get to the checkout and think "gee, they must be running some kind of special promotion on one of these things. I guess it's my lucky day." Amazon does all kinds of things like offer free shipping or special discounts. Secondly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I figured it was probably a mistake, they have no business charging my credit card for more than the amount I agreed to. If they politely ask if they can charge me later, then legally I am still under no obligation to pay. Morally, since they're treating me nicely I should treat them nicely and pay what I originally expected to pay. If they inform me that they're going to fraudulently charge my credit card without asking, morally I have no obligation at all, except maybe to contest the charge.
They should have asked for the items back, in the most convenient way possible.
I agree.
Anyone not returning the items should be sent a notification they will be billed. Anyone not paying the bill should be sent notification that they will be sent to a collections agency. After that, a test case should be taken to court to see if there is any chance of legally recovering the money, and based on that either suck up the loss or risk alienating your customers by suing large numbers of them.
No, this is horrible. What you're saying is it should be OK for a merchant to change the stated price of goods after the sale is complete. This is fraud, pure and simple. If Amazon actually tries to fight any customers about it (which would surprise me) I hope they get successfully countersued. What they should have done is ask for the goods back, or authorization to charge for them. If the customer refuses or even doesn't respond, they should shut up and eat their losses.
I think you'd need something extra to qualify as irony - if you'd specifically planned an indoor wedding to avoid the rain, or had provided all your guests with umbrellas, then it might be ironic.
It seems that way, yes. But if you go look up the word as I did, the definition doesn't require anything extra. It's defined as a discrepancy between expected and actual outcomes. That's all. It may be seldom used in that way, but 1) I've never seen any other definition of it and 2) can you come up with a fairly rigorous definition that includes this extra stuff that we often think is required for irony? I agree with your concept, but how would you put it into words? I honestly don't know.
Either way, Amazon has no right to bill you. If there was no contract, then it just amounts to someone asking Amazon to send them free stuff, and Amazon doing so - aka a gift. Either there was a contract that was fulfilled, in which case Amazon needs to go to court to correct the situation (charging after the fact is fraud), or there was no contract, in which case Amazon needs to go to court to correct the situation (charging after the fact is fraud). Either way, I don't think they would win, and I hope the customers are contesting or blocking the credit card charges in order to teach Amazon the value of quality control and standing by your agreements with your customers.
You see a special two-for one advertised and buy the products. When you get to the register the clerk mis-rings it, punching in the wrong amount. Do you A.) Politely notify the clerk of their mistake and pay the difference, or B.) Walk out knowing you just got away with not paying what you expected to.
One time I went to a restaurant to get some take-out. It was their first day in business, and the cashier handed me my food and said "no charge". I said, "really?" (thus giving them an opportunity to correct a mistake or say just kidding), got confirmation that the food was free, and left. I would have been quite upset if they had then charged my credit card for the food without asking me (on principle, not because I can't afford it). This is exactly the same situation - Amazon told the customer "no charge" and shipped the product, and now they're charging without authorization. The only difference is there's no cashier, just software, so nobody to ask "did you get that price right?" I agree with everyone siding with the customers here. It makes no difference why the customers did what they did; Amazon is committing fraud by charging credit cards without authorization. The most they should be doing is asking the customers to please return the merchandise or accept a charge for X amount. If the customer refuses, leave them alone. Amazon's mistake should be Amazon's loss. Reminds me of what someone said in a movie: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". Since what is (or might be) expected depends on the observer, whether rain on your wedding day is ironic depends on what you were expecting. On my wedding day, it had been raining almost every day for a week, cleared up and was sunny that day, and then started raining again that evening and rained almost every day for another week. I didn't expect that, so perhaps sun on my wedding day was ironic.
So, Mr. Smarty Pants, if your Sudoku solver is good enough to solve any grid in polynomial time, please show the rest of us, as you've just cracked every encryption scheme invented to date.
As the CS gangsta rapper MC++ put it, "if we could factor large composites in poly time, we'd have enough money to not have to rhyme."
I don't get it. You think someone could spread *powered* sensors at a 2-meter grid across an entire city without being noticed? Or do you think people would notice this and not start jamming them or demanding such devices be outlawed?
Perhaps not, but how many sensors is too many? If the only sensors are on the subways and buses, some major intersections, government offices, and thanks to their cooperation some local businesses, is that OK with you? They can't track you *everywhere* you go, so it's not a violation of privacy? Or maybe it's a violation of privacy if it's even *possible* to scan my information without me knowing it? I'm going with the latter. It doesn't matter if the power is abused or not, the fact of the power existing at all is too much. Therefore, I'm glad this is flopping.
So, presume innocent, but treat as guilty. That doesn't make presuming them to be innocent to actually have any effect.
That would be a case-by-case basis. Certainly there have been and always will be sham trials. If you have any evidence that there is an actual presumption of guilt in the majority of US criminal trials, I hope you will present it. Otherwise I will assume this is a gut feeling of yours.
Really. They proved that they didn't (nor did anyone else later) plant false evidence? All the DNA testing in the world only establishes reasonable doubt. It doesn't prove anything.
And no court decision anywhere, ever, has proven anything. So what? It's a legal decision, not a scientific or certainly not a mathematical proof. The word has a different meaning in this context. Substitute "demonstrate" if you don't like "prove".
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're underestimating the power of the market. If there's really an opportunity to make a buck, somebody will do it. If the big businesses are already doing it and protected by patents, the little guys can't get in (nor can other big guys). If BB is doing it and there are no patents, little guys can try to do it better (compete). If BB isn't doing it already, then somebody will start doing it, patents or no - because there's money to be made. Without patents, it's possible that BB will swoop in and crush the little guy. But at least in that case somebody is providing the service, to the betterment of society. If predatory pricing laws are enforced, then the big guys also had to offer superior service or pricing to outcompete the little guys too, so although the little guy now has to find something else to do, the economy as a whole is better off. Patents are there to inhibit competition and protect initial investment from losses due to copying. With software, the initial investment usually isn't that big, so it may be better to sacrifice the protection in favor of stimulating competition.
One of the things we're getting out of the increases in speed is more developer time (which may or may not be spent "well"). If you spend two hours optimizing your code, that's two hours you didn't spend on something else - features, testing, whatever. I'm not saying we don't have bloated code, but that just because we have bloated code doesn't necessarily mean we're not getting more value from our faster computers. It is possible that A) we aren't getting more value or B) we're getting more or better software written.
Top 10 Blogger Babes
Gamer chick (don't know if she's actually a blogger) Morgan Webb
It's amazing that two different people thought I didn't know where the quote came from, doesn't everybody know that one? :-)
I hand the DVDs and my credit card to the cashier
Cashier scans merchandise
Cashier: No charge for these items today.
Me: Really?
Cashier: Yep, it's free, have a nice day.
Me: Thanks! (leaves)
You're telling me that's stealing? I'm supposed to argue until they agree to charge me? Ask to talk to a manager about it? Leave the store without the stuff? And if you think I'm morally obliged to do one of those things... why do you think that? Should I not permit a store to give me something for free? Why not?
Either way, Amazon has no right to bill you. If there was no contract, then it just amounts to someone asking Amazon to send them free stuff, and Amazon doing so - aka a gift. Either there was a contract that was fulfilled, in which case Amazon needs to go to court to correct the situation (charging after the fact is fraud), or there was no contract, in which case Amazon needs to go to court to correct the situation (charging after the fact is fraud). Either way, I don't think they would win, and I hope the customers are contesting or blocking the credit card charges in order to teach Amazon the value of quality control and standing by your agreements with your customers.
Irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". Since what is (or might be) expected depends on the observer, whether rain on your wedding day is ironic depends on what you were expecting. On my wedding day, it had been raining almost every day for a week, cleared up and was sunny that day, and then started raining again that evening and rained almost every day for another week. I didn't expect that, so perhaps sun on my wedding day was ironic.
Oh, I was about to ask what peroanally means.