No defense, no explanation. Just insults. This is your version of an apology for blatantly making up quotes?
That's OK. I know you're reading this right now, because you're reliable. You just hate that you might not get the last word in, hate that you might further lose face somehow. You're operating on predictable, simple principles that have nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with a being a little child, a baby who wins arguments by screaming and stomping. You've never properly developed the healthy capacity to subjugate your ego and be challenged by anything difficult. And worse, you're just not that good at the job. Time is passing you by. You see things you don't understand and are threatened by that, and you know it.
You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to others (if indeed you're not just making that up too), but deep inside, you know the truth, and you will never be able to completely forget it.
You ask yourself, does it really matter what the truth is, after a while? What matters is you being right, or at least not being wrong. It's so hard to admit the possibility of being wrong when you're a little insecure. You have to prove you're the man. Show how you're right. How dare anyone question you? No way your opinions aren't always justified.
But, sometimes you have to lie to win an argument. And, you don't always check the facts before you leap in, and sometimes you get caught out. But the worst part is, sometimes you make a judgement, in your expert opinion, and you're so sure of it, and then you realize you might have been wrong.
Oh you can cover it up. Bluster, joke and nudge, shout and scream, and no one notices, do they? I've fooled them. Nobody can question my opinions. Phew. Got away with it this time. Why, you might even put a brave face on things. Why not print this out and proudly hang it on your wall? Show everyone your latest accomplishment. Showed them what for.
Only, when you're compiling your trophy, you leave out certain parts (for instance, the parts that make it clear you're lying). You might feel a little twinge. Just a hint of self-doubt. It comes from realizing, slowly, gradually, secretly, that you're a fraud - to others, and most of all, to yourself.
Wait for it... yep, here it is. Beaten, exausted, strung in his own web of lies, exaggerations, and insults, he's finally just degenerated into last-worder nonsense.
Show this thread to everyone you meet, IM. That should get you started on the right foot.
Sadly, you didn't provide any links to back up this latest invention. I have some links for you, however.
That was merely some spiritual twin of yours who showed up with claims like "sacrifice a litte performance for reliablity and security"
I think you honestly just forgot what you were talking about.
Let's recap. You originally complained that "Why if one were to listen to what we are being told, one cant possibly write bad code in Java for the language is divine and one's hand is guided with certainty by the fairies of object-oriented-pointerless-bliss."
And, pressed on whether you really believed someone was claiming it was impossible write bad code in Java, first you suspected me of doing it, and further pressed, you only respond with the non-sequitir: "That was merely some spiritual twin of yours who showed up with claims like 'sacrifice a litte performance for reliablity and security'".
Which somehow has something to do with claims of it being impossible to write bad code in Java.
Can I look forward to more such future entertainments? If we continue, will you in fact be forced to degenerate into complete incoherence?
I looked, and I looked, and then I looked some more and only found things like "it performs as well as native apps" followed by "sometimes it performs as well" followed by "on some benchmarks even now it performs as well" followed by "When you finally get them right, native code can(sic!) outperform...".
So, you've been reduced to making up quotes.
You've already had my speech on lying about earlier posts.
I thought to myself: gosh, I don't remember writing "it performs as well as native apps." Let me go back over my posting history and use my browser's search feature. Surely I can those quotes in my posts.
I searched for "it performs as well as native apps" and "native apps" and "performs" and "perform." YET STRANGELY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THIS QUOTE IN WHAT I'VE WRITTEN.
Bravo. Soon you will not need me at all; you can continue to have this debate entirely in your imagination.
Your support group: do they enjoy lying as much as you? Do you feel the ability to write your own quotes makes you a better engineer, or a better consultant?
Oh! Here it is again, I could swear it was steadily outperforming the native code until the native code was sometimes outperformed on some benchmarks by it.
Here it is again. He could swear it was steadily outperforming the native code... in his imagination.
Congratulations. It never ceases to amaze me how people feel more comfortable audaciously lying about the printed word right there on their screens than simply admitting a mistake. Do you somehow imagine making up quotes and assertions that you actually are capable of arguing against is less wrong than just plain being wrong?
Or is it that you actually cannot grasp that Java runs some things faster than native, and some things slower?
I was under this impression that it was you who were claiming Java is near-perfect...perhaps because you like to make things up.
You want me to defend Java now and you are going to present problems?
No, perhaps just having a discussion about any aspect of it at the grade-school level, without any blatant prevarication on your part would suffice.
I am a generous dude but this is a bit too much to ask of a stranger you know.
Don't worry. Since we both know I haven't asked it you don't have to strain your generosity.
Compared to dicking around with JRE's they are truly negligable
First none. Then negligible. And no doubt readers can grasp at this point that if we start picking apart the details of this sweeping, meaningless generalization, we will continue up your curve of equivocations to possibly negligible, minor, and perhaps less, depending on the application.
Oh I agree with you there, it is the engineer's fault. He picked a wrong tool for this and any other job.
So you're point is, Java is wrong for any possible use.
I hope you have already notified the press of this headline-making revelation.
Or perhaps you did, but are now procrastinating since they asked you to prove you have any basis whatsoever for this funny idea.
You know, this is probably going to get lost on you, but, you cant have it both ways...Java being totally as good as the native code and then... almost being there on some benchmarks
You are lying again, sir - about something just written. And since I am trying to educate you, I feel it part of my duty to remind you that future readers, who typically read these comments in order, will have to pass through the actual words you are lying about in order to reach your lie. It looks very ridiculous on your part.
Oh, everybody hates being called a liar. I will give you another hint. You have a foolproof riposte to this accusation: merely show me any text I have previously written where I describe "Java being totally as good as the native code."
Then again, perhaps you can't. Because you are a liar.
For reference: "Java is matching native code in some benchmarks already" but perhaps this really gets to the heart of the matter here, which is that (in addition to being unusually prone to hyperbole) you seem unable to comprehend the basic subtlety that a language can be good for some things and not others.
Not without getting lucky and having someone publish a report counting deployments of business apps.
You're right. I do wait to get lucky and have some basis for say the things I say. But aren't you luckier, in a way, since you can just make up whatever you like without having to wonder if it's true?
Your stats speak merely of employment ads which is not a measure of existing applications.
First of all, they do not; the second link took other factors into account, and there are many, many more such studies at your fingertips on google.
Second of all, the number of existing applications does correlate to job opportunities (although it is certainly not the only factor).
Just ponder this: VB in various forms was around longer then Java and its adoption rate was far greater for all these years when Java meant just a type of coffee beans to most IT people.
And I'm sure you just forgot to provide a link backing up this assertion.
Come on. Just admit it. You're over your head and you just made some bullshit up.
Seriously, you'll feel better once you come clean.
There is no such tools like bounds checkers (still waiting to be invented says you).
Oh really? You are so inventive. Where did I say bounds checkers in C++ and C are not yet invented?
You have such an imagination.
No, sir, the point is that they are optional.And the rest is notorious history. Or do you perhaps live under a rock?
And manual memory management (this mighy shock you) is actually preferred by many (I know, I know, dirty backwards cavemen that we all are).
It does not shock me. I prefer it too - when it is appropriate.
But I'll give you a hint. All those times people had to deal with a buggy application that crashed a lot or leaked memory or corrupted their data: this created a small, multi-billion dollar market for software systems that simplified memory management for programmers.
I strongly suspect the misrepresenting party was someone like you
So... you're not answering that question...
And you are apparently flip-flopping to a new point of view:
So, It's me that promised people that it is impossible to write bad code in Java?
Is that it now?
There is no such thing and likely will never be.... All the advantages and dis-advantages of the language features are subjective.
No. Wrong. You wish they were, so then you could sound off with impugnity.
However, rudimentary common sense does allow us a little leeway in identifying bad arguments. See my earlier posts.
what one can easilly judge is the performance of apps written in these languages on one's computer.
This is a sadly ironic statement for you. This is because not only does Java sometimes win performance benchmarks against native code, but because languages are different there will always be arguments about specific implementation details and architectural differences in these tests.
This is leaving aside for the moment that most customers will happily sacrifice performance (in moderation, of course) in exchange for reliability and security.
Or availability of experience and tools used to make those apps.
Java has no problems there.
Or time required to make and maintain these apps.
And Java wins there.
That is preciesly what I am doing.
Actually, no. This is precisely what you are not doing.
my patience for this audience with the Great Shaman of Expresso is wearing thin.
I'm sorry, so sorry you are becoming fatigued. No doubt the effort of continuing the massive affront to common sense you call an argument is taking its toll. I will honestly be saddened when you finally concede. I am already looking forward to your parting shot: "Although I cannot be bothered at the moment to answer any of these clearly unnecessary and ridiculous criticisms of my unimpeachable ideas, rest assured I am absolutely correct and you are wrong. Good day."
Actually, that's pretty good. You can use that if you want. Or you can try answering any of the 14 or 15 serious problems I've just recently raised with what you've written.
That is a 100% of a sample of a Java apps that are shitty.
I see. You examined a representative cross-section of Java application programming and found it 100% shitty... in your imagination.
Since you are getting more incredibly fanatical and blind by the minute
Ahem.
no maintanance costs [with HTML]
Right.
is a way to create deployment issues and thus support costs and thus employment for countless Java tweaker monkeys.
I can see what's dear to your heart: The continuous fantasy, undisturbed by any intervention from the real world, that a bad engineering decision, like using the wrong tool for the job, is somehow the fault of anyone other than the engineer who made it.
So what if this has nothing to do with Java. Why let it stop you now? You've got such a good froth going.
A Windows Java app will never run as well as a native Windows app neither will unix Java app run as well as a native unix app.
In your weird alternative universe - again, undisturbed by the facts. Don't worry, no need to back this fantastically absurd statement. It's funnier this way.
This is not even up for discussion.
Translation: insults, bad jokes, and meaningless anecdotes are all I have in my repertoire, and I'm hoping you'll let it slide.
The most convoluted of JITs and what nots are still overhead over native code and I will not even entertain any moronic discussion on that topic no more that I will entertain discussions of how you can make 2 and 2 equal 7.
1) A VM can provide runtime optimizations that outperform compile-time optimizations. This is well documented - for that matter, whole companies base their yearly revenue on it. Java is matching native code in some benchmarks already, You would know this, if you weren't smashingly ignorant. Not that it needs to, because
2) The millions of users you are constantly trying to imagine out of existence have happily traded that overhead for what they get in return: better quality product. Easier development. Easier maintenance. Security. Reliability. And yes, nobody really likes hardware/OS lock-in either, no matter how much you seem to enjoy it.
I regret to inform you that you are just a priest of yet another silly language who has no clue who pays his bills.
Wow, watch him try and weasel out of it.
Admit it. You're wrong on your point about VB. You can't show me anything that says Java is "nowhere near" the size of VB, because it's not true. You just plain made that up.
In fact, you make a lot of things up.
Now, let's take a step back. Do you have what it takes to talk about languages like an adult? Your parenthetical non-justifications are not a good start.
Native apps are easier to write (many decades of experience and tools)
No. They are not. The win32 APIs are awful and disorganized compared to Java's. Don't get me started on Unix. Manual management of memory and primitive String and array handling are constant invitations to failure, constantly accepted. Basic data structures are reinvented constantly. Languages like C pile on obscure kluges like preprocessors and disorganized file structures creating pointless management tasks that are completely unnecessary in the modern world and constant invitations to mistakes. You will lose 9 out of 10 races against a Java programmer when given an application programming task.
run better (many decades of OS design and integration of apps with the OS)
When you finally get them right, native code can outperform Java code in some cases. That's especially true if you don't care so much about security and you code for speed. Congratulations. Now, do you enjoy bilking clients, telling them that native code is the only safe way to do everything, taking 2-3 times as long to do everything, exposing them to far more risk (since your native app has so many common, every
now I am busy shoveling the donkey dung which this unholy sales-rape produced.
I see. So your complaint is, someone promised someone else it was impossible to write bad code in Java, and they believed them.
You're not wavering on the basic point of this whole promise, though, are you?
You really think someone promised that? At any point?
Or is this just the capper on a non-stop urine stream of noisy, ignorant exaggerations?
I sure do have a good argument: the 100% of millions of the lines of code in the software running this computer, on which I am typing this missive to you
So, I ask you for an argument that it's easier to write good code in C, and you put forward the millions of lines on your computer and say, "here." That's it?
No acknowledgement of the incredibly painful journey those millions of lines have probably taken? Windows 3.1? Nimda? JPEG buffer overflow exploits? No discussion of syntax, man hours, TCO, development time? No blue screens? No nightly reboots?
I'm curious. Since you don't seem to use any of the normal, accepted techniques for measuring the benefits of a language, what do you use? Is throwing the bones of your personal black box experience really the limit of your deductive powers?
the Enlightened Grand Moccachino Inquisition.
I see. You joke about shooting Java programmers on the pretext of ignorant nonsense. But I'm the Inquisition. You know what? I think that's flippant. And also wrong.
Go explain it to all those salesmen from Sun who were running around in the.com bubble times claiming that this is the type of application Java was meant for
There are millions of Java clients out in the wild; they're used all over the place, in phones, in intranets, in giant video games deployed through web start... The developer has to use the right tool for the job, and make it work. If they don't, it's not Java's problem. You are just falling on your face trying to make the failures of your shitty applications into the failures of a language. God, imagine if we held C++ responsible for... well, everything else.
Sun once thought they had a killer web client platform, and they had a point before Microsoft came along and poisoned the browser with an incompatible VM, before Netscape caved in. Funnily, this didn't stop Java clients, just kept them from dominating that niche. And despite it all there's still a lot of Java on the web.
there is probably over 30 and more...
30 shitty applications. That's the sample you've built this thesis on? That's it?
So, you clearly neither much of a clue about programming or the Java language internals, nor a lot of broad experience with the platform. And I am starting to wonder how much experience you have in general, because what I'm conspicuously not hearing is X and Y and Z systems are way better for A and B and C. Just vague generalities about HTML forms and (I think?) coding in C? Or do you perhaps favor VBScript?
All this while I started by agreeing with you that people use Java for things they shouldn't?
Do you have any idea how many places Java is used in some way now? databases, web servers, research labs, RAD tools... My entire IDE takes less RAM than your banking client, and it blows away Visual Studio on features in addition to being faster. Yes, of course, written in Java. It runs just fine on MacOS, WinXP and Linux (even AMD64). Yes, I've used all 4 at one point or another. See, the developer was competent.
You chalked up your shitty experience to Java. But it doesn't add. The problem is with your vendor, or perhaps the user.
HTML with server side is the only sane and truly OS/browser agnostic way of writing e-commerce applications which is what we see Java used in business for and which is what Java was hyped for by Sun.
(Ironically using Java on the server side only, running HTML forms through a web application server, is by far the most common use of Java in ecommerce...)
On a win2k thin-client system (used by people who care about things like TCO and not latest fads in languages), each user has one or more.
So, let me get this straight. You either stack up VMs, or you don't?
No I merely mocked you because your Quake 3D Java clone is a laughable excercise in futility running slower then original, consuming vast amounts of memory compared to original and not in the slightest more portable then original. Wake me up when all the major game makers start shipping all of their games exclusively in Java and do not get lynched by their customers.
I'm pretty sure now you're just confused and not following this, so I'll try to spell it out a bit more:
First, I repeat again:
Do you really need to continue to manufacture the straw man that someone thinks Java is the right language for everything, in order to have a point?
Your complaint about Java clients was bullshit. The Q3A port proves it. If you can do that in Java with respectable framerates you can goddamn well make a responsive ecommerce applet. It's not my fault if your shitty vendor can't write code.
It looks like you got confused and somehow lost that thread.
Also, can you explain what you mean about the JWS Quake app not being "the slightest more portable then original?"
Well, I left you a message to tell you I quoted it, so hopefully it's not a surprise.
5-6 seconds of startup for a few boxes of interactive input is not really acceptable.
Thus, using Java for a few boxes of interactive input is also unacceptable.
The startup times are slow. That's one of the real problems I was talking about - one, in fact, lamented from within Sun. For VMs that have this problem, this limits their usefulness a bit.
Hasn't stopped the language's implacable advance, though. Let's see, do you know why? "Because 90% of the time, nobody gives a shit."
I did not miss your attempt at humor. I am saying saying it was a bad attempt - misleading, not really illustrative.
one-size-fits-all applied to extremes allways results in the effects I described.... Merely a user of apps written in your favourite cure-all language.
Did you read what I wrote? I will repeat it, with emphasis:
"...things that make any really big language a target: 1) people start using it for everything, including things its not suited for..."
Do you really need to continue to manufacture the straw man that someone thinks Java is the right language for everything, in order to have a point?
if you go nuts and have hundreds of objetcs, events and containers all over the place, you are bound to end up with huge overhead.
Congratulations, sir. You are a computer science genius.
Java from what my (cursory I admit) glance at the language/libraries takes this to just such extremes.
You have just saved me the trouble of pointing out that you are apparently ignorant about the system. The balance of abstraction and efficiency in the java architecture is actually surprisingly good, and I would say better than most other comprable systems.
But of course, you seem to like writing Gameboy games, or device drivers, or something. Yes, keep jamming the square peg in the round hole. Damn that naughty peg. It never fits. It's the peg's fault.
The "Just Too Late" was just a pun on the hype JIT is endowed with. The memory requirement (if you had read the thread where the original post was made) was confirmed by just about anybody including those who advocate Java.
You segue from JIT to memory too quickly for someone really familiar with VM or OS internals. Something tells me you're not the kind of guy who looks at how big the resident set is when he checks memory usage.
The JIT works very well. The garbage collector works very well. For overall memory usage, Java has room to improve.
Yet strangely, the language is so popular. Why? "Because 90% of the time, nobody gives a shit." We've already GOT RAM. what we needed was a clean, well-organized high-level language, and the trade was just what the market wanted.
Better yet, this is not necessarily a problem with Java as much as with VM implementation, as the wide usage of Java in consumer and embedded devices conveniently underscores, it is not necessary to have high memory overhead; this is the result of the major VM vendors trading memory for speed in products aimed at the workstation/server market. As time goes by the RAM overhead can be improved (by Sun or by the market picking up the slack), if the market wants it.
a 10-15 meg per JRE + 10-50 (memory managment seems to suck badly for the apps we use) per instance of an application
So, how many simulatneous VM instances do you typically run at once, comrade?
I dont care who broke whose toys.
When selecting a platform, language, or implementation strategy, I can see how you would consequently run into some trouble.
If I am forced to let people download and install JRE's du-jeur for each e-commerce craplet out there, this is far worse then any other "client side" app.
You can't hate any language as much as some people hate Java until it's really reached critical mass.
There are two things that make any really big language a target: 1) people start using it for everything, including things its not suited for. 2) junior folks without a lot of compiler or cross-language experiences will cut their teeth on Java, and at that point in one's career it is sometimes considered cool to blame a bad application's flaws on the language it's written in.
Java has plenty of problems. There are brilliant essays written on it; some of them by Sun engineers. But the complaint linked to in story was so bad by comparison, however, I doin't feel offtopic in addressing some points it raised:
there are a thousand "super-efficient".jar libraries required by a "Hello World" app
No.
it takes 12 objects instantiated in 4 containers to flip a bit in a byte
Oh, I see. You're flipping bytes.
there is the substitution of native performance of compiled code to code compiled "Just Too Late" combined with exceptional memory usage that entails
The VM is more work. Strangely, you will have trouble finding benchmarks that make other comparable high-level languages look way faster than Java on the same _non-user-facing_ application.
As always, code in C, assembler, or another specialized language if you really need to.
The speed thing is well-addressed elsewhere. Enough said for now.
we get the garbage collector which is scientifically fine-tuned to run just when user is expected to interact with the application in most time sensitive manner
People love to bitch about client-side Java. It's as if all the flaws they're used to from other client side systems are fine, because they're used to them, and every foible of Java is worth agonizing over as if it were the worst thing in the world.
I dunno what else to say, but I wrote an enormous graphic-intensive video game in it and it runs fine. And what I did is nothing; somebody cloned the QIII engine to the point where it plays actual Q3A maps (with multiplayer) at respectable framerates.
Once again, someone shows me a shitty client app written by a team of 30 22 year olds in Thailand and claim it's proof that Java sucks. Congratulations.
multiple, insideously incompatible with each other, versions of the so-called "universal" VM
Yes, leaving aside the fact that Microsoft deliberately broke VM compatibility. Not just in one or two big ways. In a lot of little ways. As in on purpose. Great example. Very honest.
There is a giant test suite. Gets better all the time. Reputable VM's pass it. Most of all, though, I just don't run into the cross-VM problem in the first place unless I'm doing 1.1 development for browsers, see above...
We actually abandoned DB2 8.x release because noone could deal with the havoc the DB2 admin tools were causing with various other retarded banking related Java apps.
There we go. The truth outs. You overpaid for a shitty product. Congratulations. You can do that in C or Fortran, too.
Blame the language, though. Don't blame yourselves for picking a bad app.
"Kerry will bust you for not being nice to Muslims."
I've heard a lot of dumb and/or partisan political statements this year. A whole lot. But this has to win some kind of award.
What on earth are you talking about?
Consider for a moment, crowd, moderators, metamoderators all. Is it flamebait to look at this pathetic attempt at analogy and say "horseshit?" Or is it just being succinct?
We're supposed to seriously consider whether Senator Kerry has a forced Muslim appreciation regime? Maybe politely ask for his sources? Calmly spend time wondering what hidden diamond of wisdom is buried inside this petrified cow pellet?
Is it somehow satisfying to just wave our hands as these idea spammers overload the mental inbox with bullshit? Have to keep calm... Every idea is equal... Have to treat everyone with respect...
Can any outrage slip past us as long as it is outrageous enough?
We used to have uncomplicated, plain old non-postmodern ridicule for nonsense like this. Is it extinct?
Just curious, acvh, did you wince a little when you wrote that? Maybe even you know you're stretching it a little?
'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?'
You pulled 283 out of your ass. Those are just the ones you know about. You know why you pulled that number out of your ass? It's impossible to review the whole patent database and screen it against the whole of Linux. Humanly impossible. 283 is a made up number. May as well say 2,830 or 283,000.
An exact count of how many software patents are violated by Microsoft Windows, for instance, would be equally impossible - nay, more, because they keep their source code a secret; however, it is incontravertibly a similar if not higher number.
If you try to follow the U.S. software patent system you won't even be able to power a pocket calculator without a half-million dollars for attorneys and payoffs. Yes, you think I'm exaggerating, don't you.
That's why 100% of Americans ignore their own system. Everybody knows its ridiculous. Even SP's major proponents are afraid to use them because they fear the whole system will unravel if they test it, so all they do is occasionally shake people down, hit and run once and a while. They want to sue Linux over patents; they've been desperate to do it for years, and they're too scared of how badly it will backfire. They're probably right. So they're reduced to backdoors like SCO. And we see how well that cleverness works for them.
Thank you, no. I hope you will take this in the good spirit it's indended: I think your concern about a shortage of catalysts for positive change is basically unfounded. We can debate about, for instance, whether the lack of an American Revolution would have delayed the French Revolution but honestly, it is difficult to historically support an argument that either violence or geography or conquest is necessary for even radical social change. Which is not to say that it's not good to have a supply of new places for the persecuted and downtrodden to abscond to and experiment with new societies - only that we are not screwed just because we ran out of hemispheres or empire building has (theoretically) gone out of style. It's a big world; you'll never even think of all the little things that can spark irretrievable change. How does revolutionary new information technology play into things, for instance?
The real lesson of history is that there is no stopping marked, progressive, radical changes, no matter how damn hard you try or how damn ferocious you think you are.
The past is littered with the desecrated ruins of monuments to people 100 times more ruthless and frightening than the worst neoconservative imagines herself in her wildest dreams.
Did you miss the part about what we already accomplished with our two party system and our "apathetical electorate" (let alone a hostile one)?
Our procedural details are just details. No system is perfect and you don't have to wait for a perfect one to come along to start working to fix things. It's nothing you can't work around, frankly. If you are interested in the practical details of American political activism, there is a wealth of information available to you.
Repeating, with emphasis added: This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars.
Most monarchs and slave masters looked after their own best interests, and while their clients bore the brunt of their fickleness and failure, these kinds of societies endured for so long because they could provide organization and stability.
If you like, just consider this in terms of the basic reciprocity. Blood will be spilled for blood. Money will be spent to fight money being lost. Grass-roots social pressures will be applied to resolve cultural problems.
As long as the most basic mechanisms of democracy work (theoretically, someone can be put on the ballot and win, even if they aren't sanctioned by the political elite), then rigging the policy market just makes it more vulnerable to radical realignment over time. Sooner or later, just as with a trust overcharging its customers for some monopolized commodity, some upstart will pop up and undercut them, because the incentive is just too great. Sure, upstarts have to survive propaganda, assassins, and collusion, but eventually the pressure builds to the point that it's very difficult to hold the crowd back. That's why effort is often best spent just maintaining the basic features of a democracy: elections, journalism, and education.
America has a great foundation to build on. It's current problems stem from failures on all three fronts, but on the other hand, what we have to fix is obvious, and so much easier to achieve.
This is not a one way trip. We are not "doomed" or "fucked." We overcame monarchy. We overcame slavery. We have dismantled patriarchal sexual customs that have 40,000 years of tenure. The progress of our civilization is highly dynamic and we are sitting on a 100 year winning streak.
This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars. Our progress is the result of small groups of dedicated, intelligent individuals who overcame their own cynicism and defeatism and got their hands dirty. These are not people richer or more powerful or luckier than you that you imagine really take care of everything. This is you. Right here, right now, posting on this stupid website.
Frankly the biggest enemy you have to face after ignorance is helplessness. You are not helpless. Reading recent history is often the best cure for that feeling, and I urge you to read it.
Unhealthy intellectual property policy affects our entire society, through its economy and its quality of intellectual and artistic life. Our patent regime is especially pernicious; software patents in particular are obviously, prima facie unjustifiable.
Oh, we have hot button poltics, and bread and circuses like always. But never forget that money is what really moves politics in this country. And software patents are very, very bad for business, at all levels.
Everyone wants to make money, to push growth. The problem is the prisoner's dillemma; software patents are bad if everyone has them, but they're theoretically good for me (if I'm one giant company). All that has to happen is lining the natural opponents up and letting them work. It will take time; the community needs to develop the conventional wisdom that with software patents everybody loses.
Just be smart, and be willing to work. Once tension builds, it often takes a dramatic event to tip the balance. Say, a bunch of tiny upstarts suing Microsoft for billions over patents and any of them winning?
No one can guarantee or even predict what open source projects people will want to work on. So, it's true, there's no way you can have "certainty," except with the wherewithal to put a developer on the payroll yourself.
The difference is that, with closed source, you don't have that option. If the vendor refuses to fix a bug (happens constantly), or decides to change direction, discontinue your product, or go out of business, you're screwed.
With open source, you're alright. The worst case scenario is that nobody besides you cares about a particular project and you take care of yourself.
Obviously, in either case, the onus is on you, the "buyer," to select a healthy product (preferably with people behind it you know and respect) in the first place.
No closed-source project can ever "ensure" you anything. No open-source project can ever leave you truly stranded.
Ask yourself honestly: would you be sporting this new attitude if it were some middle eastern countries I could name, rather than China?
We used to believe (a few years ago) that totalitarian communist regimes were so evil that just as a matter of course doing this sort of business with them was illegal.
Then we had an idea that freer trade would help liberalize these societies. Stories like this should make you carefully revisit that idea.
Google has no responsibility to fight evil wherever possible, just as I have no responsibility to rescue you if you were kidnapped by the North Koreans and used to train spies in our language. But isn't this a bit more like traveling to North Korea to sell dictionaries to the guards at your prison camp? Isn't that somewhere else on the moral envelope?
Slashdot Mirror
No defense, no explanation. Just insults. This is your version of an apology for blatantly making up quotes?
That's OK. I know you're reading this right now, because you're reliable. You just hate that you might not get the last word in, hate that you might further lose face somehow. You're operating on predictable, simple principles that have nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with a being a little child, a baby who wins arguments by screaming and stomping. You've never properly developed the healthy capacity to subjugate your ego and be challenged by anything difficult. And worse, you're just not that good at the job. Time is passing you by. You see things you don't understand and are threatened by that, and you know it.
You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to others (if indeed you're not just making that up too), but deep inside, you know the truth, and you will never be able to completely forget it.
You ask yourself, does it really matter what the truth is, after a while? What matters is you being right, or at least not being wrong. It's so hard to admit the possibility of being wrong when you're a little insecure.
You have to prove you're the man. Show how you're right. How dare anyone question you? No way your opinions aren't always justified.
But, sometimes you have to lie to win an argument. And, you don't always check the facts before you leap in, and sometimes you get caught out. But the worst part is, sometimes you make a judgement, in your expert opinion, and you're so sure of it, and then you realize you might have been wrong.
Oh you can cover it up. Bluster, joke and nudge, shout and scream, and no one notices, do they? I've fooled them. Nobody can question my opinions. Phew. Got away with it this time. Why, you might even put a brave face on things. Why not print this out and proudly hang it on your wall? Show everyone your latest accomplishment. Showed them what for.
Only, when you're compiling your trophy, you leave out certain parts (for instance, the parts that make it clear you're lying). You might feel a little twinge. Just a hint of self-doubt. It comes from realizing, slowly, gradually, secretly, that you're a fraud - to others, and most of all, to yourself.
Show this thread to everyone you meet, IM. That should get you started on the right foot.
Sadly, you didn't provide any links to back up this latest invention. I have some links for you, however.
- One
- Two
- Three
- Four
- Five
- Six
- Seven
- Eight
- Nine
- Ten
- Eleven
- Twelve
You have a lot of work to do to bring reality in line with your imagination. Better get started.That was merely some spiritual twin of yours who showed up with claims like "sacrifice a litte performance for reliablity and security"
...perhaps because you like to make things up.
I think you honestly just forgot what you were talking about.
Let's recap. You originally complained that "Why if one were to listen to what we are being told, one cant possibly write bad code in Java for the language is divine and one's hand is guided with certainty by the fairies of object-oriented-pointerless-bliss."
And, pressed on whether you really believed someone was claiming it was impossible write bad code in Java, first you suspected me of doing it, and further pressed, you only respond with the non-sequitir: "That was merely some spiritual twin of yours who showed up with claims like 'sacrifice a litte performance for reliablity and security'".
Which somehow has something to do with claims of it being impossible to write bad code in Java.
Can I look forward to more such future entertainments? If we continue, will you in fact be forced to degenerate into complete incoherence?
I looked, and I looked, and then I looked some more and only found things like "it performs as well as native apps" followed by "sometimes it performs as well" followed by "on some benchmarks even now it performs as well" followed by "When you finally get them right, native code can(sic!) outperform...".
So, you've been reduced to making up quotes.
You've already had my speech on lying about earlier posts.
I thought to myself: gosh, I don't remember writing "it performs as well as native apps." Let me go back over my posting history and use my browser's search feature. Surely I can those quotes in my posts.
I searched for "it performs as well as native apps" and "native apps" and "performs" and "perform." YET STRANGELY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THIS QUOTE IN WHAT I'VE WRITTEN.
Bravo. Soon you will not need me at all; you can continue to have this debate entirely in your imagination.
Your support group: do they enjoy lying as much as you? Do you feel the ability to write your own quotes makes you a better engineer, or a better consultant?
Oh! Here it is again, I could swear it was steadily outperforming the native code until the native code was sometimes outperformed on some benchmarks by it.
Here it is again. He could swear it was steadily outperforming the native code... in his imagination.
Congratulations. It never ceases to amaze me how people feel more comfortable audaciously lying about the printed word right there on their screens than simply admitting a mistake. Do you somehow imagine making up quotes and assertions that you actually are capable of arguing against is less wrong than just plain being wrong?
Or is it that you actually cannot grasp that Java runs some things faster than native, and some things slower?
I was under this impression that it was you who were claiming Java is near-perfect
You want me to defend Java now and you are going to present problems?
No, perhaps just having a discussion about any aspect of it at the grade-school level, without any blatant prevarication on your part would suffice.
I am a generous dude but this is a bit too much to ask of a stranger you know.
Don't worry. Since we both know I haven't asked it you don't have to strain your generosity.
Compared to dicking around with JRE's they are truly negligable
First none. Then negligible. And no doubt readers can grasp at this point that if we start picking apart the details of this sweeping, meaningless generalization, we will continue up your curve of equivocations to possibly negligible, minor, and perhaps less, depending on the application.
Oh I agree with you there, it is the engineer's fault. He picked a wrong tool for this and any other job.
So you're point is, Java is wrong for any possible use.
I hope you have already notified the press of this headline-making revelation.
Or perhaps you did, but are now procrastinating since they asked you to prove you have any basis whatsoever for this funny idea.
You know, this is probably going to get lost on you, but, you cant have it both ways...Java being totally as good as the native code and then... almost being there on some benchmarks
You are lying again, sir - about something just written. And since I am trying to educate you, I feel it part of my duty to remind you that future readers, who typically read these comments in order, will have to pass through the actual words you are lying about in order to reach your lie. It looks very ridiculous on your part.
Oh, everybody hates being called a liar. I will give you another hint. You have a foolproof riposte to this accusation: merely show me any text I have previously written where I describe "Java being totally as good as the native code."
Then again, perhaps you can't. Because you are a liar.
For reference: "Java is matching native code in some benchmarks already" but perhaps this really gets to the heart of the matter here, which is that (in addition to being unusually prone to hyperbole) you seem unable to comprehend the basic subtlety that a language can be good for some things and not others.
Not without getting lucky and having someone publish a report counting deployments of business apps.
You're right. I do wait to get lucky and have some basis for say the things I say. But aren't you luckier, in a way, since you can just make up whatever you like without having to wonder if it's true?
Your stats speak merely of employment ads which is not a measure of existing applications.
First of all, they do not; the second link took other factors into account, and there are many, many more such studies at your fingertips on google.
Second of all, the number of existing applications does correlate to job opportunities (although it is certainly not the only factor).
Just ponder this: VB in various forms was around longer then Java and its adoption rate was far greater for all these years when Java meant just a type of coffee beans to most IT people.
And I'm sure you just forgot to provide a link backing up this assertion.
Come on. Just admit it. You're over your head and you just made some bullshit up.
Seriously, you'll feel better once you come clean.
There is no such tools like bounds checkers (still waiting to be invented says you).
Oh really? You are so inventive. Where did I say bounds checkers in C++ and C are not yet invented?
You have such an imagination.
No, sir, the point is that they are optional. And the rest is notorious history. Or do you perhaps live under a rock?
And manual memory management (this mighy shock you) is actually preferred by many (I know, I know, dirty backwards cavemen that we all are).
It does not shock me. I prefer it too - when it is appropriate.
But I'll give you a hint. All those times people had to deal with a buggy application that crashed a lot or leaked memory or corrupted their data: this created a small, multi-billion dollar market for software systems that simplified memory management for programmers.
This allowed them to write far more corr
I strongly suspect the misrepresenting party was someone like you
... All the advantages and dis-advantages of the language features are subjective.
So... you're not answering that question...
And you are apparently flip-flopping to a new point of view:
So, It's me that promised people that it is impossible to write bad code in Java?
Is that it now?
There is no such thing and likely will never be.
No. Wrong. You wish they were, so then you could sound off with impugnity.
However, rudimentary common sense does allow us a little leeway in identifying bad arguments. See my earlier posts.
what one can easilly judge is the performance of apps written in these languages on one's computer.
This is a sadly ironic statement for you. This is because not only does Java sometimes win performance benchmarks against native code, but because languages are different there will always be arguments about specific implementation details and architectural differences in these tests.
This is leaving aside for the moment that most customers will happily sacrifice performance (in moderation, of course) in exchange for reliability and security.
Or availability of experience and tools used to make those apps.
Java has no problems there.
Or time required to make and maintain these apps.
And Java wins there.
That is preciesly what I am doing.
Actually, no. This is precisely what you are not doing.
my patience for this audience with the Great Shaman of Expresso is wearing thin.
I'm sorry, so sorry you are becoming fatigued. No doubt the effort of continuing the massive affront to common sense you call an argument is taking its toll. I will honestly be saddened when you finally concede. I am already looking forward to your parting shot: "Although I cannot be bothered at the moment to answer any of these clearly unnecessary and ridiculous criticisms of my unimpeachable ideas, rest assured I am absolutely correct and you are wrong. Good day."
Actually, that's pretty good. You can use that if you want. Or you can try answering any of the 14 or 15 serious problems I've just recently raised with what you've written.
That is a 100% of a sample of a Java apps that are shitty.
I see. You examined a representative cross-section of Java application programming and found it 100% shitty... in your imagination.
Since you are getting more incredibly fanatical and blind by the minute
Ahem.
no maintanance costs [with HTML]
Right.
is a way to create deployment issues and thus support costs and thus employment for countless Java tweaker monkeys.
I can see what's dear to your heart: The continuous fantasy, undisturbed by any intervention from the real world, that a bad engineering decision, like using the wrong tool for the job, is somehow the fault of anyone other than the engineer who made it.
So what if this has nothing to do with Java. Why let it stop you now? You've got such a good froth going.
A Windows Java app will never run as well as a native Windows app neither will unix Java app run as well as a native unix app.
In your weird alternative universe - again, undisturbed by the facts. Don't worry, no need to back this fantastically absurd statement. It's funnier this way.
This is not even up for discussion.
Translation: insults, bad jokes, and meaningless anecdotes are all I have in my repertoire, and I'm hoping you'll let it slide.
The most convoluted of JITs and what nots are still overhead over native code and I will not even entertain any moronic discussion on that topic no more that I will entertain discussions of how you can make 2 and 2 equal 7.
1) A VM can provide runtime optimizations that outperform compile-time optimizations. This is well documented - for that matter, whole companies base their yearly revenue on it. Java is matching native code in some benchmarks already, You would know this, if you weren't smashingly ignorant. Not that it needs to, because
2) The millions of users you are constantly trying to imagine out of existence have happily traded that overhead for what they get in return: better quality product. Easier development. Easier maintenance. Security. Reliability. And yes, nobody really likes hardware/OS lock-in either, no matter how much you seem to enjoy it.
I regret to inform you that you are just a priest of yet another silly language who has no clue who pays his bills.
Wow, watch him try and weasel out of it.
Admit it. You're wrong on your point about VB. You can't show me anything that says Java is "nowhere near" the size of VB, because it's not true. You just plain made that up.
In fact, you make a lot of things up.
Now, let's take a step back. Do you have what it takes to talk about languages like an adult? Your parenthetical non-justifications are not a good start.
Native apps are easier to write (many decades of experience and tools)
No. They are not. The win32 APIs are awful and disorganized compared to Java's. Don't get me started on Unix. Manual management of memory and primitive String and array handling are constant invitations to failure, constantly accepted. Basic data structures are reinvented constantly. Languages like C pile on obscure kluges like preprocessors and disorganized file structures creating pointless management tasks that are completely unnecessary in the modern world and constant invitations to mistakes. You will lose 9 out of 10 races against a Java programmer when given an application programming task.
run better (many decades of OS design and integration of apps with the OS)
When you finally get them right, native code can outperform Java code in some cases. That's especially true if you don't care so much about security and you code for speed. Congratulations. Now, do you enjoy bilking clients, telling them that native code is the only safe way to do everything, taking 2-3 times as long to do everything, exposing them to far more risk (since your native app has so many common, every
now I am busy shoveling the donkey dung which this unholy sales-rape produced.
I see. So your complaint is, someone promised someone else it was impossible to write bad code in Java, and they believed them.
You're not wavering on the basic point of this whole promise, though, are you?
You really think someone promised that? At any point?
Or is this just the capper on a non-stop urine stream of noisy, ignorant exaggerations?
I sure do have a good argument: the 100% of millions of the lines of code in the software running this computer, on which I am typing this missive to you
So, I ask you for an argument that it's easier to write good code in C, and you put forward the millions of lines on your computer and say, "here." That's it?
No acknowledgement of the incredibly painful journey those millions of lines have probably taken? Windows 3.1? Nimda? JPEG buffer overflow exploits? No discussion of syntax, man hours, TCO, development time? No blue screens? No nightly reboots?
I'm curious. Since you don't seem to use any of the normal, accepted techniques for measuring the benefits of a language, what do you use? Is throwing the bones of your personal black box experience really the limit of your deductive powers?
the Enlightened Grand Moccachino Inquisition.
I see. You joke about shooting Java programmers on the pretext of ignorant nonsense. But I'm the Inquisition. You know what? I think that's flippant. And also wrong.
So, you're complaint is, someone promised you it was impossible to write bad code in Java, and you believed them.
Or are you really saying, it's easier to write good code in C, except you have no good arguments to back it up?
Go explain it to all those salesmen from Sun who were running around in the .com bubble times claiming that this is the type of application Java was meant for
There are millions of Java clients out in the wild; they're used all over the place, in phones, in intranets, in giant video games deployed through web start... The developer has to use the right tool for the job, and make it work. If they don't, it's not Java's problem. You are just falling on your face trying to make the failures of your shitty applications into the failures of a language. God, imagine if we held C++ responsible for... well, everything else.
Sun once thought they had a killer web client platform, and they had a point before Microsoft came along and poisoned the browser with an incompatible VM, before Netscape caved in. Funnily, this didn't stop Java clients, just kept them from dominating that niche. And despite it all there's still a lot of Java on the web.
there is probably over 30 and more...
30 shitty applications. That's the sample you've built this thesis on? That's it?
So, you clearly neither much of a clue about programming or the Java language internals, nor a lot of broad experience with the platform. And I am starting to wonder how much experience you have in general, because what I'm conspicuously not hearing is X and Y and Z systems are way better for A and B and C. Just vague generalities about HTML forms and (I think?) coding in C? Or do you perhaps favor VBScript?
All this while I started by agreeing with you that people use Java for things they shouldn't?
Do you have any idea how many places Java is used in some way now? databases, web servers, research labs, RAD tools... My entire IDE takes less RAM than your banking client, and it blows away Visual Studio on features in addition to being faster. Yes, of course, written in Java. It runs just fine on MacOS, WinXP and Linux (even AMD64). Yes, I've used all 4 at one point or another. See, the developer was competent.
You chalked up your shitty experience to Java. But it doesn't add. The problem is with your vendor, or perhaps the user.
HTML with server side is the only sane and truly OS/browser agnostic way of writing e-commerce applications which is what we see Java used in business for and which is what Java was hyped for by Sun.
(Ironically using Java on the server side only, running HTML forms through a web application server, is by far the most common use of Java in ecommerce...)
On a win2k thin-client system (used by people who care about things like TCO and not latest fads in languages), each user has one or more.
So, let me get this straight. You either stack up VMs, or you don't?
No I merely mocked you because your Quake 3D Java clone is a laughable excercise in futility running slower then original, consuming vast amounts of memory compared to original and not in the slightest more portable then original. Wake me up when all the major game makers start shipping all of their games exclusively in Java and do not get lynched by their customers.
I'm pretty sure now you're just confused and not following this, so I'll try to spell it out a bit more:
First, I repeat again:
Do you really need to continue to manufacture the straw man that someone thinks Java is the right language for everything, in order to have a point?
Your complaint about Java clients was bullshit. The Q3A port proves it. If you can do that in Java with respectable framerates you can goddamn well make a responsive ecommerce applet. It's not my fault if your shitty vendor can't write code.
It looks like you got confused and somehow lost that thread.
Also, can you explain what you mean about the JWS Quake app not being "the slightest more portable then original?"
Nowhere near the size of VB for example
I regret to inform you that you are
In other words, it's possible to write shitty code in either Java or another Object Oriented language, so it's off to the firing squad for everybody!
Stand and salute the logic!
I wrote the original post you seem to quote
... Merely a user of apps written in your favourite cure-all language.
Well, I left you a message to tell you I quoted it, so hopefully it's not a surprise.
5-6 seconds of startup for a few boxes of interactive input is not really acceptable.
Thus, using Java for a few boxes of interactive input is also unacceptable.
The startup times are slow. That's one of the real problems I was talking about - one, in fact, lamented from within Sun. For VMs that have this problem, this limits their usefulness a bit.
Hasn't stopped the language's implacable advance, though. Let's see, do you know why? "Because 90% of the time, nobody gives a shit."
I did not miss your attempt at humor. I am saying saying it was a bad attempt - misleading, not really illustrative.
one-size-fits-all applied to extremes allways results in the effects I described.
Did you read what I wrote? I will repeat it, with emphasis:
"...things that make any really big language a target: 1) people start using it for everything, including things its not suited for..."
Do you really need to continue to manufacture the straw man that someone thinks Java is the right language for everything, in order to have a point?
if you go nuts and have hundreds of objetcs, events and containers all over the place, you are bound to end up with huge overhead.
Congratulations, sir. You are a computer science genius.
Java from what my (cursory I admit) glance at the language/libraries takes this to just such extremes.
You have just saved me the trouble of pointing out that you are apparently ignorant about the system. The balance of abstraction and efficiency in the java architecture is actually surprisingly good, and I would say better than most other comprable systems.
But of course, you seem to like writing Gameboy games, or device drivers, or something. Yes, keep jamming the square peg in the round hole. Damn that naughty peg. It never fits. It's the peg's fault.
The "Just Too Late" was just a pun on the hype JIT is endowed with. The memory requirement (if you had read the thread where the original post was made) was confirmed by just about anybody including those who advocate Java.
You segue from JIT to memory too quickly for someone really familiar with VM or OS internals. Something tells me you're not the kind of guy who looks at how big the resident set is when he checks memory usage.
The JIT works very well. The garbage collector works very well. For overall memory usage, Java has room to improve.
Yet strangely, the language is so popular. Why? "Because 90% of the time, nobody gives a shit." We've already GOT RAM. what we needed was a clean, well-organized high-level language, and the trade was just what the market wanted.
Better yet, this is not necessarily a problem with Java as much as with VM implementation, as the wide usage of Java in consumer and embedded devices conveniently underscores, it is not necessary to have high memory overhead; this is the result of the major VM vendors trading memory for speed in products aimed at the workstation/server market. As time goes by the RAM overhead can be improved (by Sun or by the market picking up the slack), if the market wants it.
a 10-15 meg per JRE + 10-50 (memory managment seems to suck badly for the apps we use) per instance of an application
So, how many simulatneous VM instances do you typically run at once, comrade?
I dont care who broke whose toys.
When selecting a platform, language, or implementation strategy, I can see how you would consequently run into some trouble.
If I am forced to let people download and install JRE's du-jeur for each e-commerce craplet out there, this is far worse then any other "client side" app.
Golly,
Do you know what bugs, specifically?
A story about Java links to your post. I took the opportunity to respond to your post in that story. Would love to hear your comments.
You can't hate any language as much as some people hate Java until it's really reached critical mass.
.jar libraries required by a "Hello World" app
There are two things that make any really big language a target: 1) people start using it for everything, including things its not suited for. 2) junior folks without a lot of compiler or cross-language experiences will cut their teeth on Java, and at that point in one's career it is sometimes considered cool to blame a bad application's flaws on the language it's written in.
Java has plenty of problems. There are brilliant essays written on it; some of them by Sun engineers. But the complaint linked to in story was so bad by comparison, however, I doin't feel offtopic in addressing some points it raised:
there are a thousand "super-efficient"
No.
it takes 12 objects instantiated in 4 containers to flip a bit in a byte
Oh, I see. You're flipping bytes.
there is the substitution of native performance of compiled code to code compiled "Just Too Late" combined with exceptional memory usage that entails
The VM is more work. Strangely, you will have trouble finding benchmarks that make other comparable high-level languages look way faster than Java on the same _non-user-facing_ application.
As always, code in C, assembler, or another specialized language if you really need to.
The speed thing is well-addressed elsewhere. Enough said for now.
we get the garbage collector which is scientifically fine-tuned to run just when user is expected to interact with the application in most time sensitive manner
People love to bitch about client-side Java. It's as if all the flaws they're used to from other client side systems are fine, because they're used to them, and every foible of Java is worth agonizing over as if it were the worst thing in the world.
I dunno what else to say, but I wrote an enormous graphic-intensive video game in it and it runs fine. And what I did is nothing; somebody cloned the QIII engine to the point where it plays actual Q3A maps (with multiplayer) at respectable framerates.
Once again, someone shows me a shitty client app written by a team of 30 22 year olds in Thailand and claim it's proof that Java sucks. Congratulations.
multiple, insideously incompatible with each other, versions of the so-called "universal" VM
Yes, leaving aside the fact that Microsoft deliberately broke VM compatibility. Not just in one or two big ways. In a lot of little ways. As in on purpose. Great example. Very honest.
There is a giant test suite. Gets better all the time. Reputable VM's pass it. Most of all, though, I just don't run into the cross-VM problem in the first place unless I'm doing 1.1 development for browsers, see above...
We actually abandoned DB2 8.x release because noone could deal with the havoc the DB2 admin tools were causing with various other retarded banking related Java apps.
There we go. The truth outs. You overpaid for a shitty product. Congratulations. You can do that in C or Fortran, too.
Blame the language, though. Don't blame yourselves for picking a bad app.
Oh well, time to have me shot on sight.
Have a nice day.
"Kerry will bust you for not being nice to Muslims."
I've heard a lot of dumb and/or partisan political statements this year. A whole lot. But this has to win some kind of award.
What on earth are you talking about?
Consider for a moment, crowd, moderators, metamoderators all. Is it flamebait to look at this pathetic attempt at analogy and say "horseshit?" Or is it just being succinct?
We're supposed to seriously consider whether Senator Kerry has a forced Muslim appreciation regime? Maybe politely ask for his sources? Calmly spend time wondering what hidden diamond of wisdom is buried inside this petrified cow pellet?
Is it somehow satisfying to just wave our hands as these idea spammers overload the mental inbox with bullshit? Have to keep calm... Every idea is equal... Have to treat everyone with respect...
Can any outrage slip past us as long as it is outrageous enough?
We used to have uncomplicated, plain old non-postmodern ridicule for nonsense like this. Is it extinct?
Just curious, acvh, did you wince a little when you wrote that? Maybe even you know you're stretching it a little?
Are you serious? You can't think of any other progress we've made in, say, the last 100 years?
I actually did specifically mention gender equality, but even just these two changes, huge as they are, aren't half... or you disagree?
I can let OSRM pull it out of their ass.
Very funny.
'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?'
You pulled 283 out of your ass. Those are just the ones you know about. You know why you pulled that number out of your ass? It's impossible to review the whole patent database and screen it against the whole of Linux. Humanly impossible. 283 is a made up number. May as well say 2,830 or 283,000.
An exact count of how many software patents are violated by Microsoft Windows, for instance, would be equally impossible - nay, more, because they keep their source code a secret; however, it is incontravertibly a similar if not higher number.
If you try to follow the U.S. software patent system you won't even be able to power a pocket calculator without a half-million dollars for attorneys and payoffs. Yes, you think I'm exaggerating, don't you.
That's why 100% of Americans ignore their own system. Everybody knows its ridiculous. Even SP's major proponents are afraid to use them because they fear the whole system will unravel if they test it, so all they do is occasionally shake people down, hit and run once and a while. They want to sue Linux over patents; they've been desperate to do it for years, and they're too scared of how badly it will backfire. They're probably right. So they're reduced to backdoors like SCO. And we see how well that cleverness works for them.
Thank you, no. I hope you will take this in the good spirit it's indended: I think your concern about a shortage of catalysts for positive change is basically unfounded. We can debate about, for instance, whether the lack of an American Revolution would have delayed the French Revolution but honestly, it is difficult to historically support an argument that either violence or geography or conquest is necessary for even radical social change. Which is not to say that it's not good to have a supply of new places for the persecuted and downtrodden to abscond to and experiment with new societies - only that we are not screwed just because we ran out of hemispheres or empire building has (theoretically) gone out of style. It's a big world; you'll never even think of all the little things that can spark irretrievable change. How does revolutionary new information technology play into things, for instance?
The real lesson of history is that there is no stopping marked, progressive, radical changes, no matter how damn hard you try or how damn ferocious you think you are.
The past is littered with the desecrated ruins of monuments to people 100 times more ruthless and frightening than the worst neoconservative imagines herself in her wildest dreams.
Did you miss the part about what we already accomplished with our two party system and our "apathetical electorate" (let alone a hostile one)?
Our procedural details are just details. No system is perfect and you don't have to wait for a perfect one to come along to start working to fix things. It's nothing you can't work around, frankly. If you are interested in the practical details of American political activism, there is a wealth of information available to you.
Repeating, with emphasis added: This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars.
Most monarchs and slave masters looked after their own best interests, and while their clients bore the brunt of their fickleness and failure, these kinds of societies endured for so long because they could provide organization and stability.
If you like, just consider this in terms of the basic reciprocity. Blood will be spilled for blood. Money will be spent to fight money being lost. Grass-roots social pressures will be applied to resolve cultural problems.
As long as the most basic mechanisms of democracy work (theoretically, someone can be put on the ballot and win, even if they aren't sanctioned by the political elite), then rigging the policy market just makes it more vulnerable to radical realignment over time. Sooner or later, just as with a trust overcharging its customers for some monopolized commodity, some upstart will pop up and undercut them, because the incentive is just too great. Sure, upstarts have to survive propaganda, assassins, and collusion, but eventually the pressure builds to the point that it's very difficult to hold the crowd back. That's why effort is often best spent just maintaining the basic features of a democracy: elections, journalism, and education.
America has a great foundation to build on. It's current problems stem from failures on all three fronts, but on the other hand, what we have to fix is obvious, and so much easier to achieve.
This is not a one way trip. We are not "doomed" or "fucked." We overcame monarchy. We overcame slavery. We have dismantled patriarchal sexual customs that have 40,000 years of tenure. The progress of our civilization is highly dynamic and we are sitting on a 100 year winning streak.
This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars. Our progress is the result of small groups of dedicated, intelligent individuals who overcame their own cynicism and defeatism and got their hands dirty. These are not people richer or more powerful or luckier than you that you imagine really take care of everything. This is you. Right here, right now, posting on this stupid website.
Frankly the biggest enemy you have to face after ignorance is helplessness. You are not helpless. Reading recent history is often the best cure for that feeling, and I urge you to read it.
Unhealthy intellectual property policy affects our entire society, through its economy and its quality of intellectual and artistic life. Our patent regime is especially pernicious; software patents in particular are obviously, prima facie unjustifiable.
Oh, we have hot button poltics, and bread and circuses like always. But never forget that money is what really moves politics in this country. And software patents are very, very bad for business, at all levels.
Everyone wants to make money, to push growth. The problem is the prisoner's dillemma; software patents are bad if everyone has them, but they're theoretically good for me (if I'm one giant company). All that has to happen is lining the natural opponents up and letting them work. It will take time; the community needs to develop the conventional wisdom that with software patents everybody loses.
Just be smart, and be willing to work. Once tension builds, it often takes a dramatic event to tip the balance. Say, a bunch of tiny upstarts suing Microsoft for billions over patents and any of them winning?
No one can guarantee or even predict what open source projects people will want to work on. So, it's true, there's no way you can have "certainty," except with the wherewithal to put a developer on the payroll yourself.
The difference is that, with closed source, you don't have that option. If the vendor refuses to fix a bug (happens constantly), or decides to change direction, discontinue your product, or go out of business, you're screwed.
With open source, you're alright. The worst case scenario is that nobody besides you cares about a particular project and you take care of yourself.
Obviously, in either case, the onus is on you, the "buyer," to select a healthy product (preferably with people behind it you know and respect) in the first place.
No closed-source project can ever "ensure" you anything. No open-source project can ever leave you truly stranded.
The market is gradually figuring this out.
Ask yourself honestly: would you be sporting this new attitude if it were some middle eastern countries I could name, rather than China?
We used to believe (a few years ago) that totalitarian communist regimes were so evil that just as a matter of course doing this sort of business with them was illegal.
Then we had an idea that freer trade would help liberalize these societies. Stories like this should make you carefully revisit that idea.
Google has no responsibility to fight evil wherever possible, just as I have no responsibility to rescue you if you were kidnapped by the North Koreans and used to train spies in our language. But isn't this a bit more like traveling to North Korea to sell dictionaries to the guards at your prison camp? Isn't that somewhere else on the moral envelope?
So everything is OK as long as you're getting paid?
As long as someone else with political power signs off on it, no moral rules apply? That's just the cost of doing business?
Congratulations. According to you, the corproation's moral envelope is defined by the lowest, most base, inhuman foreign dictator's whim.
I almost hope you could live in a totatlitarian society for long enough to understand the magnitude of how wrong you are.