James Hansen. He must believe it too, because he is willing to go out and protest, and even be arrested to try to change things. So good on him for being sincere.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
It's actually not.
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed. Most scientists are more moderate, and consider that too rash, but there's no broad consensus on what we should do.
In one survey of climate scientists, for example, half of scientists said mitigation was the approach we should take, and half said we should favor adaptation in the face of climate change. So clearly there's no consensus there, I don't know why you even thought there was.
Nah, that's not a reason for switching to C#. Unless all your projects are short term, because anything that Oracle is doing now is something that Microsoft's buyer might do in the future.
Former climate sceptic Richard Muller [wikipedia.org] got funded by the Koch brothers, and, with his team, did a completely independent reconstruction of the temperature record of the last.
He wasn't a skeptic: that was propaganda and you fell for it.
During that time Java user get sue and now fine. I don't think we can say both C# and Java are the same at all.
Java and C# are protected by the same kinds of licenses, so you're deluded if you think the kinds of things happening to Java users can't happen to you.
According to most developers who know both C# and Java, C# is the better one.
That's like saying you prefer drinking the water from the Pacific ocean over water from the Atlantic ocean. For th emost part, both languages are the same......enough so that you can accidentally be looking at one and think you are looking at the other.
C# programmers will say they prefer C# over Java, and the reasons they give are usually syntax-sugar related. Properties are kind of cool, I agree, but that misses the point of the purpose of Java:
Java exists to make things very simple, so that even incompetent programmers can work in it without messing things up too badly. By adding extra features, although they are fun features, C# messes that up, allowing programmers to do really stupid things. That's not the worst insult I have for C# programmers, but I ought to keep it polite.
The main thing that concerns me with your analysis is that there is too much focus on what can be done if there is a well-behaved actor. In fact, there are no well-behaved actors: you must assume they are all malicious or incompetent.
Your example suggests that the only thing that can be learned is "I am here!" messages. I will concede that these might be useful, but depending on them instead of radar (or vision) is foolish.
This isn't real. You can't have a secure system without knowing who (basis of trust) you are talking to regardless of technology or algorithms employed
In this case, all other cars are shunted into the category of "lowest level of trust," essentially equivalent to the open internet.
Indeed, it is by nature almost useless since anything told to you by any car must be considered malicious and non-authoritative, meaning it can't be used for making any decisions. Anything you learn from other cars must be verified before it is used, but once you can verify that information, you are also capable of just detecting that information yourself.
Imagine a system where Apache is running as a web server, can only access the database, and nothing else. In fact, limit it further: it can't even write/read to the database, just forwards requests to an application server.
A hacker who manages to break in to this Apache instance still has all the user data that is streaming through the server, which is quite a lot.
Unless you have a reasonable alternative you cannot complain.
In some places they have under-passes designed specifically for wildlife to go through. That seems like a solution that can be employed without destroying civilization.
Between the extremes, try to look for a middle-ground solution. Usually you'll find it.
That's basically the articles I've been reading for the last couple decades (including here on Slashdot, from time to time): that they are on to something, but no one knows what. The frustrating thing is that the state of the situation hasn't changed much over decades.......
Slashdot Mirror
James Hansen. He must believe it too, because he is willing to go out and protest, and even be arrested to try to change things. So good on him for being sincere.
That's what everyone said about Sun, too, when they started using Java.
It doesn't have to be a buyer, Microsoft could just get a new CEO.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
It's actually not.
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed. Most scientists are more moderate, and consider that too rash, but there's no broad consensus on what we should do.
In one survey of climate scientists, for example, half of scientists said mitigation was the approach we should take, and half said we should favor adaptation in the face of climate change. So clearly there's no consensus there, I don't know why you even thought there was.
Nah, that's not a reason for switching to C#. Unless all your projects are short term, because anything that Oracle is doing now is something that Microsoft's buyer might do in the future.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Again, you fell for propaganda.
Yes, being able to copy the flow of data to a user would be bad, but not system-compromising bad.
Probably the most valuable thing on that system is the flow of data.
but leaning towards C# to fill the role of training wheels for the internet and fountainhead of crappy applications.
Why, specifically? I've done both, I can give you advice, maybe.
Former climate sceptic Richard Muller [wikipedia.org] got funded by the Koch brothers, and, with his team, did a completely independent reconstruction of the temperature record of the last.
He wasn't a skeptic: that was propaganda and you fell for it.
Technology advance by one country helps all countries.
During that time Java user get sue and now fine. I don't think we can say both C# and Java are the same at all.
Java and C# are protected by the same kinds of licenses, so you're deluded if you think the kinds of things happening to Java users can't happen to you.
According to most developers who know both C# and Java, C# is the better one.
That's like saying you prefer drinking the water from the Pacific ocean over water from the Atlantic ocean. For th emost part, both languages are the same......enough so that you can accidentally be looking at one and think you are looking at the other.
C# programmers will say they prefer C# over Java, and the reasons they give are usually syntax-sugar related. Properties are kind of cool, I agree, but that misses the point of the purpose of Java:
Java exists to make things very simple, so that even incompetent programmers can work in it without messing things up too badly. By adding extra features, although they are fun features, C# messes that up, allowing programmers to do really stupid things. That's not the worst insult I have for C# programmers, but I ought to keep it polite.
The main thing that concerns me with your analysis is that there is too much focus on what can be done if there is a well-behaved actor. In fact, there are no well-behaved actors: you must assume they are all malicious or incompetent.
Your example suggests that the only thing that can be learned is "I am here!" messages. I will concede that these might be useful, but depending on them instead of radar (or vision) is foolish.
I honestly don't know. At which point do you need to pay for Java?
You don't need to pay for Java. Java is open source, and there's some question of whether a language is even copyrightable at all.
You have to pay Oracle if you start using J2EE, or other proprietary libraries. This is the same as it's been for a long time now.
I would agree with you, but it's hard to call this a burning ship when they've been doing the same thing for over two decades.
Worth mentioning that if Java dies, the thing that will replace it will be C#. So pick your poison.
Javas is not a proprietary language. Most people who use Java never do business with Oracle.
This isn't real. You can't have a secure system without knowing who (basis of trust) you are talking to regardless of technology or algorithms employed
In this case, all other cars are shunted into the category of "lowest level of trust," essentially equivalent to the open internet.
Indeed, it is by nature almost useless since anything told to you by any car must be considered malicious and non-authoritative, meaning it can't be used for making any decisions. Anything you learn from other cars must be verified before it is used, but once you can verify that information, you are also capable of just detecting that information yourself.
That's not going to fix things, and here's why:
Imagine a system where Apache is running as a web server, can only access the database, and nothing else. In fact, limit it further: it can't even write/read to the database, just forwards requests to an application server.
A hacker who manages to break in to this Apache instance still has all the user data that is streaming through the server, which is quite a lot.
while classic rock blasts on repeat over the speakers
Wait, what?? Is that a software job?
Unless you have a reasonable alternative you cannot complain.
In some places they have under-passes designed specifically for wildlife to go through. That seems like a solution that can be employed without destroying civilization.
Between the extremes, try to look for a middle-ground solution. Usually you'll find it.
It's going to be a common theme for the next four years.
Only if it's effective and helps them get what they want......otherwise they'll switch to a different strategy like a rational person.
I was sure they were on to something.
That's basically the articles I've been reading for the last couple decades (including here on Slashdot, from time to time): that they are on to something, but no one knows what. The frustrating thing is that the state of the situation hasn't changed much over decades.......
When did Assange ever lie?
Some of the shit he's said about women seems pretty sketchy.
A man who will lie to a woman will lie to you. Don't trust, ask for the evidence.
Frank Church is rolling in his grave.