This is mostly driven by need to remotely manage devices like set-top boxes and cable modems. Once you need to do this, IPv4+NAT becomes a real pain.
I was impressed by their business-class support one day when Nagios alerted me to an outage at a remote office. No one was at the remote office, so I couldn't figure out if it was a power outage or what, but people needed to connect in from another office and couldn't. (They didn't opt for nice expensive UPSs that could be remotely monitored, etc...just APCs that use PowerChute Personal--yuck!). Anyways, I called Comcast and asked if they were having issues in the area and the guy said he is able to pull up a map of all the Comcast devices in that area and tell how many are online, on-battery, or offline. He said our entire block was offline and he'd send a repair guy out. About an hour later we were up again.
That's a BS argument. What if I want to stream my music collection, that's stored on my media server, to work? Or access MythWeb so I can alter my recording schedule during the day? Or simply SSH to my home machine so I can retrieve something I was working on? None of these cases are served by using a hosting company, yet all qualify as "[hosting] a server".
Unfortunately a lot of ISPs flat-out don't want you doing that. Go find someone that does allow you to do that.
Honestly, I have no clue what the Comcast policy is for my home internet connection, but I have my own hosting server and my pfSense firewall at home updates my DNS server so I can connect in from client sites.
If Comcast ever came to me and told me I'm not allowed to do that, I'd ask them if they had a plan that would allow me to do that. (I seems their business plans allow you to do a lot more.) If they didn't have a plan for it, I would go find another ISP.
I'm not saying the profit is evil, it just isn't altruistic, or morally good either.
Who decides what is altruistic or not? You? The government? How about you and the government stay out of my business?
Seriously--is it altruistic if I give a widow and her two children money for food? Yeah--because it's something that came from my heart.
Now what if the government forces me to give them money? Is that altruistic? Nope. It's not something I did out of the kidness of my heart, it's something that is forced upon me.
Profit is amoral as a goal.
Then who the f*ck would start a business? Should I go open up a starbucks in my town and say to myself "I'm doing this to brake even! Yeah! F*ck retirement or better healthcare plans for employees, I'm just going to brake even!"
That's not how business work. A business turns a profit so people get more money. Be it employees, investors (Remember your retirement fund? You're an investor.), CEOs, etc...
This is why people see business' as evil, since they care far more for money, than they do about their workers, or the society their embedded in. We can see this currently, no?
Leave it to a corporate shill to think anything remotely resembling social conscience to be the act of a hippie.
Do you have a server where you work?
I'll bet it's worth at least $1,000.
Why don't you shut it off, sell it on eBay, and use the profits to feed a homeless family?
Your arguments are bullshit. It is not the job of a business to take care of people. A business only has one job--make money. If they stop making money, employees are laid off, stock prices fall, investors (including your retirement plan) lose the money they had invested, etc...
Care to explain what a social conscience is? Seriously--what the fuck is a social conscience?
Are you going to give me some BS line about how I am somehow responsible for someone/everyone else? If so, you're a socialist and full of crap.
Business doesn't "suffer" from this social care for mankind... hence: evil.
A business is nothing but a balance sheet. If profits exceed expenses, you have a business. If expenses exceed profits, you are out of business.
That balance sheet is not evil. Yeah, *people* can choose to be evil--but they don't need a business to do that. I can go punch puppies if I decide to be evil. Or I could create a business that grinds puppies up into a special brand of kids cereal. But my business still isn't evil. If there was no demand for 'puppy' cereal, I would be out of business.
So the only reason a business exists is because there is a demand for a product or service. None of which is evil.
This is an example of one of the many ways that "business" seems evil, to some of us.
Finding out they can make more money reselling electricity is 'evil'?
It's evil for the company to make a profit?
It's evil for them to earn money and make a profit that helps the people with retirement plans invested in their industry?
It's evil for them to make a profit and use their new profit to employ additional workers--to give the jobless jobs?
It's evil for the company to make more money which usually means more taxes which help pay for things like roads, schools, welfare, and all the BS welfare programs the liberals love?
Wow--I can totally see why companies are evil. We should just do away with them entirely.
Of course I don't know how I'll get food for my family. I know nothing of farming, and my food is provided by various companies.
Maybe the farmer that lives a few miles away will let me exchange some sort of good or service for some of the food that he gr--oh shit! That makes him a company. We'll have to kill him.
after all if a company is going to smelt aluminum they don't go around building an atomic power plant to run their smelters, they find a cheap source of electricity preferably reachable by major shipping lanes, and let the utility company worry about where the power comes from.
Minor nitpick unrelated to your argument: A lot of aluminum smelting plants and large paper mills have their own power generation facilities or have entered into some sort of co-op for generating the power they need rather than paying a power company.
Would you really shoot to kill some kids that are egging your house on halloween? What about stealing apples from your backyard?
Wow--that's a far-left turn. How do you go from a discussion about someone trying to harm or kill a family to shooting 'kids that are egging your house'.
Where did it get twisted in your head that 'kids that are egging your house on halloween' == immediate danger to life or health of your family?
Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.
You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.
Apparently you don't understand soft power and hard power.
Take an example of someone breaking in to your house with the intent of harming you and your family.
Soft-power is a liberal whining "You better stop trying to harm my family...or...uh...I'll say stop again or maybe call the cops." The intruder then kills you and your family and gets away during the 5 minutes it takes the cops to respond.
Hard power is when you stand there with a gun and say "Get on the ground, and don't move until the cops get here." The intruder either complies and is arrested when the cops arrive, or is shot when he ignores you and still attempts to harm your family.
Soft power does nothing unless you are willing and able to back it up with hard power.
it's plausible nobody would notice what he was really doing unless he was making motions.
well if he's calling phone sex lines, he's probably making motions...
Here's how you get away with it:
1. Go to the nearest phone box on the corner of the street
2. Pitch your work-tent
3. Grab your testset
4. Grab your...well..you know.
Imagine if I could go online and check my power consumption against that of my neighbours? Or see the average power usage in a neighbourhood before buying a house in the area?
Yeah, I'd throw your curve off on that one. I live in a duplex. The PUD installed new meters last month. They both started at 0 and were turned on within a few minutes of each other. After about a month, I've used 8 times the amount of power as my neighbor.
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
...unless Microsoft were to do something stupid like...oh....I don't know...make breaking changes to the audio and video subsystems at the very last minute forcing the companies to redesign and rush their video drivers out for the launch date.
It's kind of like those 'unhackable' computers, networks and software we keep hearing about. *yawn* Wake me up when someone actually makes such a thing and it actually, you know, works.
It's unclonable in the same manner as NT4 met it's government security ratings back in the day.
NT4 was considered secure if you didn't have a network card or a modem and the server was in a physically secure room.
This RFID chip is unclonable in the same manner. You have to have the RFID chip disabled, and the passport stored in a led wallet while you yourself are standing in a physically secure room somewhere.
This is my point exactly. What if everyone DID learn a better-paying skill? You still need 1 billion people to scrub toilets.
What you suggest "learn a better paying skill" or "get an education" is really no a solution to the problem of low-wage work. Just because one individual moves up to something better doesn't make that job go away. All they've done is shifted the situation to someone else.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if one person learns a better-paying skill and leaves their job for a higher-paying one that requires their new skill--well, that leaves fewer people who want to perform the low-wage/low-skill job. That increases demand.
Now the guy who left for a higher-paying job could always go back to the low-wage job if he had to fall-back because of job cuts or a flood of people who go out and get that new skill. But the low-wage guy can't really fall back to anything.
The sum of that ought to mean that Sweden should have broadband costs that are significantly higher than those of the united States, however that is obviously not the case.
Damn--I failed to take cable capacity into account. You've got a point.
Sorry, all you have to do is look at Canadian broadband to understand that land area or distance don't really have an effect on what a country can provide.
I know nothing of Canadian broadband, but looking at a population density map of Canada shows that there's a huge chunk of nothern Canada with next to no population. Would anyone living in that northern wilderness have high speed DSL or Cable?
I tried a few casual google searches for a ratio of population related to land-area for the US and Canada and didn't come up with much. But I'd be interested in seeing the numbers if you cut Alaska out of the US, and take the unpopulated north out of Canada.
But anyways, I'm not sure where you're going with your statement that I should look at Canadian broadband. Do you have the majority of your population with 8+Mb/sec internet access or something?
Interestingly enough, it's probably a lot more useful than most white-collar work, too. So why does it pay less?
Call me cynical, but I am convinced half the people in white-collar work are only there to make the jobs of the other half more difficult.
If only 5 people in the world can do your job, and everyone wants to employ you, you can pretty much set your own wage.
If on the other hand, there a 5 billion people who can learn to scrub toilets when presented with a 5 minute training video, and only 1 billion jobs available--well, you don't get to set your wage. Learn a better-paying skill.
well, that certainly explains our lower broadband penetration. and i agree that we should take geography and population density into account. but why should moderately-populated suburbs, or densely populated urban areas still have relatively poor/expensive broadband service compared to similar areas in other developed nations?
I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine the telcos set a yearly budget of $x, and the feds have mandates that they cover rural non-profitable areas. In my county, there an area called 'high valley'. It's an old hippie commune about 10 miles off the state highway. Once you're down to the highway, it's another ~20 miles to the main telco switch. Guess what--that area has to have phone service. It's not profitable though, because there are 5 or 6 hippies living up there.
But the telco has to pay to maintain the pairs running out there.
On the flip-side, if they hadn't mis-managed all the funds they've received through our taxes, this wouldn't be an issue.
What really needs to happen is for the feds to tell the phone companies to get fucked. No more tax money, no more federal assistance, no more monopoly protection. And of course, get rid of all the stupid FCC and telecom rules that go along with it.
Let them sink or swim on their own. If they fail, or totally suck, someone else will come in and either buy them out or start stringing cable.
i refuse to believe that South-Korea, Sweden, and Japan have fewer "power users" per capita than the U.S. or that they don't have file sharing in those countries. blaming the problem on consumers to try and divert blame ignores the most obvious and logical solution.
It couldn't be that when you combine the land-mass of South-Korea, Sweeden, and Japan, you have an area slightly bigger than Texas. Forget that the US is 3 million square miles BIGGER than all three countries combined.
Now I'm not defending the crooks that took tax money and squandered (came up with ISDN) instead of building a nation-wide high speed network--but the geography of the US is a significant factor. It costs more because we have a huge land area, and everyone is so spread out.
How exactly would that work? We're talking about something that crosses international borders; who enforces the law? How would the CC companies know when spam generated the income? When does it cross the line and, say, make income from junk snail-mail illegal to make or receive payment?
Visa and Master Card are pretty much everywhere. Get them to setup a few 'spam traps' and start tracking down these spam companies. The next step is to disable any cards the company has, followed by refusing to authorize payments to those companies from any customer. When the money dries up, the spammers will move on to the next big money-making scheme.
I'm guessing all the spammers were originally 'miracle-cure' salesmen like that dude from Pete's Dragon. When everyone caught on to his sham, he moved to the internet to sell penis enlargment cream. (Which by odd coincidence contains powdered dragon scales...)
If people would just stop buying shit from spam emails, this wouldn't be a problem.
And if people stopped eating burgers, no-one would be fat. Alas you cannot stop large numbers of people doing things just because you think they're being stupid, the world doesn't work like that.
'people stop buying from spam emails==no more spam' is not the same as 'people stop eating burgers==no more fat people'.
It's more like 'people stop eating burgers==burger joints go out of business'.
Please, take the time to back up your assertion. How is the.Net Platform so much worse than Java?
Actually, it was partly a joke. Both.NET and Java have (earned or not) a reputation for being huge bloated frameworks when compared to simpler languages like C.
Honestly, I've never searched for or run my own tests on the speeds of various languages.
One small argument in my defense is that I download a
To develop in Java, I end up having to download several hundred megs of tools, the development kit, etc... (I'm not a Java developer, so maybe it's possible to develop Java apps with notepad for all I know)
Like Scotty says though, use the right tool for the right job. I've never had a job that required Java knowledge. I developed in VB6, and the first ASP.NET release back around 2000 or so. Since then I haven't had to touch either.
My personal preference in languages though is Python (out of all the.NET languages, C, C++, Java, Erlang, Ruby, BASH scripting, Powershell scripting, and PHP). But that's simply my preference.
Slashdot Mirror
This is mostly driven by need to remotely manage devices like set-top boxes and cable modems. Once you need to do this, IPv4+NAT becomes a real pain.
I was impressed by their business-class support one day when Nagios alerted me to an outage at a remote office. No one was at the remote office, so I couldn't figure out if it was a power outage or what, but people needed to connect in from another office and couldn't. (They didn't opt for nice expensive UPSs that could be remotely monitored, etc...just APCs that use PowerChute Personal--yuck!). Anyways, I called Comcast and asked if they were having issues in the area and the guy said he is able to pull up a map of all the Comcast devices in that area and tell how many are online, on-battery, or offline. He said our entire block was offline and he'd send a repair guy out. About an hour later we were up again.
That must be one sweet monitoring system.
That's a BS argument. What if I want to stream my music collection, that's stored on my media server, to work? Or access MythWeb so I can alter my recording schedule during the day? Or simply SSH to my home machine so I can retrieve something I was working on? None of these cases are served by using a hosting company, yet all qualify as "[hosting] a server".
Unfortunately a lot of ISPs flat-out don't want you doing that. Go find someone that does allow you to do that.
Honestly, I have no clue what the Comcast policy is for my home internet connection, but I have my own hosting server and my pfSense firewall at home updates my DNS server so I can connect in from client sites.
If Comcast ever came to me and told me I'm not allowed to do that, I'd ask them if they had a plan that would allow me to do that. (I seems their business plans allow you to do a lot more.) If they didn't have a plan for it, I would go find another ISP.
I want my static IPs so I can run my own server and access my network without having to use a 3rd party service to synch up the IP and the domain.
Try here (just giving my colo provider a free click)
Seriously--I pay $59/mo for a dedicated server. I have 16 IPs included with an offer of additional IPs for free.
If you want home internet access, call Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, Qwest, AOL, Compuserv, or whomever.
If you want to host a server, call a hosting company. Your home internet connection is not sold for hosting servers.
I'm not saying the profit is evil, it just isn't altruistic, or morally good either.
Who decides what is altruistic or not? You? The government? How about you and the government stay out of my business?
Seriously--is it altruistic if I give a widow and her two children money for food? Yeah--because it's something that came from my heart.
Now what if the government forces me to give them money? Is that altruistic? Nope. It's not something I did out of the kidness of my heart, it's something that is forced upon me.
Profit is amoral as a goal.
Then who the f*ck would start a business? Should I go open up a starbucks in my town and say to myself "I'm doing this to brake even! Yeah! F*ck retirement or better healthcare plans for employees, I'm just going to brake even!"
That's not how business work. A business turns a profit so people get more money. Be it employees, investors (Remember your retirement fund? You're an investor.), CEOs, etc...
This is why people see business' as evil, since they care far more for money, than they do about their workers, or the society their embedded in. We can see this currently, no?
I don't see it. Care to cite an example?
Leave it to a corporate shill to think anything remotely resembling social conscience to be the act of a hippie.
Do you have a server where you work?
I'll bet it's worth at least $1,000.
Why don't you shut it off, sell it on eBay, and use the profits to feed a homeless family?
Your arguments are bullshit. It is not the job of a business to take care of people. A business only has one job--make money. If they stop making money, employees are laid off, stock prices fall, investors (including your retirement plan) lose the money they had invested, etc...
Care to explain what a social conscience is? Seriously--what the fuck is a social conscience?
Are you going to give me some BS line about how I am somehow responsible for someone/everyone else? If so, you're a socialist and full of crap.
Business doesn't "suffer" from this social care for mankind ... hence: evil.
A business is nothing but a balance sheet. If profits exceed expenses, you have a business. If expenses exceed profits, you are out of business.
That balance sheet is not evil. Yeah, *people* can choose to be evil--but they don't need a business to do that. I can go punch puppies if I decide to be evil. Or I could create a business that grinds puppies up into a special brand of kids cereal. But my business still isn't evil. If there was no demand for 'puppy' cereal, I would be out of business.
So the only reason a business exists is because there is a demand for a product or service. None of which is evil.
This is an example of one of the many ways that "business" seems evil, to some of us.
Finding out they can make more money reselling electricity is 'evil'?
It's evil for the company to make a profit?
It's evil for them to earn money and make a profit that helps the people with retirement plans invested in their industry?
It's evil for them to make a profit and use their new profit to employ additional workers--to give the jobless jobs?
It's evil for the company to make more money which usually means more taxes which help pay for things like roads, schools, welfare, and all the BS welfare programs the liberals love?
Wow--I can totally see why companies are evil. We should just do away with them entirely.
Of course I don't know how I'll get food for my family. I know nothing of farming, and my food is provided by various companies.
Maybe the farmer that lives a few miles away will let me exchange some sort of good or service for some of the food that he gr--oh shit! That makes him a company. We'll have to kill him.
</sarcasm>
f*cking hippies.
after all if a company is going to smelt aluminum they don't go around building an atomic power plant to run their smelters, they find a cheap source of electricity preferably reachable by major shipping lanes, and let the utility company worry about where the power comes from.
Minor nitpick unrelated to your argument: A lot of aluminum smelting plants and large paper mills have their own power generation facilities or have entered into some sort of co-op for generating the power they need rather than paying a power company.
You missed the "or your property" bit.
Would you really shoot to kill some kids that are egging your house on halloween? What about stealing apples from your backyard?
Wow--that's a far-left turn. How do you go from a discussion about someone trying to harm or kill a family to shooting 'kids that are egging your house'.
Where did it get twisted in your head that 'kids that are egging your house on halloween' == immediate danger to life or health of your family?
Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.
You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.
Apparently you don't understand soft power and hard power.
Take an example of someone breaking in to your house with the intent of harming you and your family.
Soft-power is a liberal whining "You better stop trying to harm my family...or...uh...I'll say stop again or maybe call the cops." The intruder then kills you and your family and gets away during the 5 minutes it takes the cops to respond.
Hard power is when you stand there with a gun and say "Get on the ground, and don't move until the cops get here." The intruder either complies and is arrested when the cops arrive, or is shot when he ignores you and still attempts to harm your family.
Soft power does nothing unless you are willing and able to back it up with hard power.
it's plausible nobody would notice what he was really doing unless he was making motions.
well if he's calling phone sex lines, he's probably making motions...
Here's how you get away with it:
1. Go to the nearest phone box on the corner of the street
2. Pitch your work-tent
3. Grab your testset
4. Grab your...well..you know.
Imagine if I could go online and check my power consumption against that of my neighbours? Or see the average power usage in a neighbourhood before buying a house in the area?
Yeah, I'd throw your curve off on that one. I live in a duplex. The PUD installed new meters last month. They both started at 0 and were turned on within a few minutes of each other. After about a month, I've used 8 times the amount of power as my neighbor.
No, he admitted that UAC was poorly implemented.
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
Here (PDF)
It's kind of like those 'unhackable' computers, networks and software we keep hearing about. *yawn* Wake me up when someone actually makes such a thing and it actually, you know, works.
It's unclonable in the same manner as NT4 met it's government security ratings back in the day.
NT4 was considered secure if you didn't have a network card or a modem and the server was in a physically secure room.
This RFID chip is unclonable in the same manner. You have to have the RFID chip disabled, and the passport stored in a led wallet while you yourself are standing in a physically secure room somewhere.
This is my point exactly. What if everyone DID learn a better-paying skill? You still need 1 billion people to scrub toilets.
What you suggest "learn a better paying skill" or "get an education" is really no a solution to the problem of low-wage work. Just because one individual moves up to something better doesn't make that job go away. All they've done is shifted the situation to someone else.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if one person learns a better-paying skill and leaves their job for a higher-paying one that requires their new skill--well, that leaves fewer people who want to perform the low-wage/low-skill job. That increases demand.
Now the guy who left for a higher-paying job could always go back to the low-wage job if he had to fall-back because of job cuts or a flood of people who go out and get that new skill. But the low-wage guy can't really fall back to anything.
The sum of that ought to mean that Sweden should have broadband costs that are significantly higher than those of the united States, however that is obviously not the case.
Damn--I failed to take cable capacity into account. You've got a point.
Sorry, all you have to do is look at Canadian broadband to understand that land area or distance don't really have an effect on what a country can provide.
I know nothing of Canadian broadband, but looking at a population density map of Canada shows that there's a huge chunk of nothern Canada with next to no population. Would anyone living in that northern wilderness have high speed DSL or Cable?
I tried a few casual google searches for a ratio of population related to land-area for the US and Canada and didn't come up with much. But I'd be interested in seeing the numbers if you cut Alaska out of the US, and take the unpopulated north out of Canada.
But anyways, I'm not sure where you're going with your statement that I should look at Canadian broadband. Do you have the majority of your population with 8+Mb/sec internet access or something?
Interestingly enough, it's probably a lot more useful than most white-collar work, too. So why does it pay less?
Call me cynical, but I am convinced half the people in white-collar work are only there to make the jobs of the other half more difficult.
If only 5 people in the world can do your job, and everyone wants to employ you, you can pretty much set your own wage.
If on the other hand, there a 5 billion people who can learn to scrub toilets when presented with a 5 minute training video, and only 1 billion jobs available--well, you don't get to set your wage. Learn a better-paying skill.
God help me, I parsed that as "cucumber", and now I feel like the Sam Neill character in Event Horizon...
Oh God.
Do you SEE!!?!1?one?!?
Actually, I think he's the original inventor of putting '1' and 'one' into verbal speech.
They can't open source it. It's encumbered.
Are we still talking about OS/2 or his grandmother?
well, that certainly explains our lower broadband penetration. and i agree that we should take geography and population density into account. but why should moderately-populated suburbs, or densely populated urban areas still have relatively poor/expensive broadband service compared to similar areas in other developed nations?
I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine the telcos set a yearly budget of $x, and the feds have mandates that they cover rural non-profitable areas. In my county, there an area called 'high valley'. It's an old hippie commune about 10 miles off the state highway. Once you're down to the highway, it's another ~20 miles to the main telco switch. Guess what--that area has to have phone service. It's not profitable though, because there are 5 or 6 hippies living up there.
But the telco has to pay to maintain the pairs running out there.
On the flip-side, if they hadn't mis-managed all the funds they've received through our taxes, this wouldn't be an issue.
What really needs to happen is for the feds to tell the phone companies to get fucked. No more tax money, no more federal assistance, no more monopoly protection. And of course, get rid of all the stupid FCC and telecom rules that go along with it.
Let them sink or swim on their own. If they fail, or totally suck, someone else will come in and either buy them out or start stringing cable.
i refuse to believe that South-Korea, Sweden, and Japan have fewer "power users" per capita than the U.S. or that they don't have file sharing in those countries. blaming the problem on consumers to try and divert blame ignores the most obvious and logical solution.
It couldn't be that when you combine the land-mass of South-Korea, Sweeden, and Japan, you have an area slightly bigger than Texas. Forget that the US is 3 million square miles BIGGER than all three countries combined.
Now I'm not defending the crooks that took tax money and squandered (came up with ISDN) instead of building a nation-wide high speed network--but the geography of the US is a significant factor. It costs more because we have a huge land area, and everyone is so spread out.
How exactly would that work? We're talking about something that crosses international borders; who enforces the law? How would the CC companies know when spam generated the income? When does it cross the line and, say, make income from junk snail-mail illegal to make or receive payment?
Visa and Master Card are pretty much everywhere. Get them to setup a few 'spam traps' and start tracking down these spam companies. The next step is to disable any cards the company has, followed by refusing to authorize payments to those companies from any customer. When the money dries up, the spammers will move on to the next big money-making scheme.
I'm guessing all the spammers were originally 'miracle-cure' salesmen like that dude from Pete's Dragon. When everyone caught on to his sham, he moved to the internet to sell penis enlargment cream. (Which by odd coincidence contains powdered dragon scales...)
If people would just stop buying shit from spam emails, this wouldn't be a problem.
And if people stopped eating burgers, no-one would be fat. Alas you cannot stop large numbers of people doing things just because you think they're being stupid, the world doesn't work like that.
'people stop buying from spam emails==no more spam' is not the same as 'people stop eating burgers==no more fat people'.
It's more like 'people stop eating burgers==burger joints go out of business'.
You are an idiot.
Please, take the time to back up your assertion. How is the .Net Platform so much worse than Java?
Actually, it was partly a joke. Both .NET and Java have (earned or not) a reputation for being huge bloated frameworks when compared to simpler languages like C.
.NET languages, C, C++, Java, Erlang, Ruby, BASH scripting, Powershell scripting, and PHP). But that's simply my preference.
Honestly, I've never searched for or run my own tests on the speeds of various languages.
One small argument in my defense is that I download a
To develop in Java, I end up having to download several hundred megs of tools, the development kit, etc... (I'm not a Java developer, so maybe it's possible to develop Java apps with notepad for all I know)
Like Scotty says though, use the right tool for the right job. I've never had a job that required Java knowledge. I developed in VB6, and the first ASP.NET release back around 2000 or so. Since then I haven't had to touch either.
My personal preference in languages though is Python (out of all the