The Sandbox To allow App Engine to distribute requests for applications across multiple web servers, and to prevent one application from interfering with another, the application runs in a restricted "sandbox" environment. In this environment, the application can execute code, store and query data in the App Engine datastore, use the App Engine mail, URL fetch and users services, and examine the user's web request and prepare the response.
An App Engine application cannot:
write to the filesystem. Applications must use the App Engine datastore for storing persistent data. Reading from the filesystem is allowed, and all application files uploaded with the application are available.
open a socket or access another host directly. An application can use the App Engine URL fetch service to make HTTP and HTTPS requests to other hosts on ports 80 and 443, respectively.
spawn a sub-process or thread. A web request to an application must be handled in a single process within a few seconds. Processes that take a very long time to respond are terminated to avoid overloading the web server.
make other kinds of system calls.
Threads A Java application cannot create a new java.lang.ThreadGroup nor a new java.lang.Thread. These restrictions also apply to JRE classes that make use of threads. For example, an application cannot create a new java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor, or a java.util.Timer. An application can perform operations against the current thread, such as Thread.currentThread().dumpStack().
The Filesystem A Java application cannot use any classes used to write to the filesystem, such as java.io.FileWriter. An application can read its own files from the filesystem using classes such as java.io.FileReader. An application can also access its own files as "resources", such as with Class.getResource() or ServletContext.getResource().
Only files that are considered "resource files" are accessible to the application via the filesystem. By default, all files in the WAR are "resource files." You can exclude files from this set using the appengine-web.xml file.
java.lang.System Features of the java.lang.System class that do not apply to App Engine are disabled.
The following System methods do nothing in App Engine: exit(), gc(), runFinalization(), runFinalizersOnExit()
The following System methods return null: inheritedChannel(), console()
An app cannot provide or directly invoke any native JNI code. The following System methods raise a java.lang.SecurityException: load(), loadLibrary(), setSecurityManager()
Reflection An application is allowed full, unrestricted, reflective access to its own classes. It may query any private members, use java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.setAccessible(), and read/set private members.
An application can also also reflect on JRE and API classes, such as java.lang.String and javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest. However, it can only access public members of these classes, not protected or private.
An application cannot reflect against any other classes not belonging to itself, and it can not use the setAccessible() method to circumvent these restrictions.
Custom Class Loading Custom class loading is fully supported under App Engine. Please be aware, though, that App Engine overrides all ClassLoaders to assign the same permissions to all classes loaded by your application. If you perform custom class loading, be cautious when loading untrusted third-party code.
So I would say the reasons behind their decision would boil down to "cutting out the stuff that isn't compatible with the model the App Engine uses to run things".
Subtle yet important difference to me, Microsoft released something that did include the 'full set' plus some but didn't work the same as the specs said it should.
Google simply didn't release a full set.
And where Microsoft pulled their stunt to kill Java, I imagine Google did it for technical reasons (i.e. trying to lock down the sandbox) since they have said they want to add more classes to the list of allowed ones.
Your argument has points and yet none of them go to the supporting thread of "we shouldn't publish a BNP member list" instead they go to the "there is a problem with the government that we need to fix" argument, which certainly is a wonderful thing to point out since my whole argument that secrets are bad is one concerning the fact that for a large part, secrets are used by us to avoid the flaws in our society, as opposed to actually working to correct them ala "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
We hide our nature on the flawed assumption that no one else is like us, and by hiding our nature, we reinforce the idea in everyone else that no one else is like us.
Can one argue successfully that the strides being made in gay rights should not be attributed to the fact that more and more people are feeling comfortable stepping out of the closet, and thus making homosexuality seem less of an aberration to those who aren't simply operating on doctrine?
However, regardless of how well your argument segues into a supporting point for my own, you still haven't made a case for why the membership list shouldn't be published, just for why the government should do more about cleaning up its own act concerning political freedom. Which in itself, would be easier to do if the secrets concerning that were made open as well.
Arguing the 'essential' nature of secrets with me is not likely a productive experience, which if you peruse my comment history concerning that, would be clear. I'm of the "secrets are a bad thing" camp. The only reason to keep secrets currently is the imbalance of power between those who have the most to hide and those who just think they do. And the only way to overcome that imbalance is to start exposing those at the top and working your way down to the bottom.
Which is why I stated my request as "list the things that you don't think should be up there" rather than "explain to me why secrets should kept"
In regards to your actual example, you will also remember I stated that for any item you listed, someone should be able to come up with a reason for it.
Here is my world view. There may be secrets you'd like to keep about yourself. There may be ideas, fantasies, even events in your life that you don't want shared with the world.
But a political party is by definition a public entity. You are attempting, by your membership, to guide public and government opinion. Your membership to a party should not be a secret. Not in Britain. There are countries in this world where that would be different. But Britain is not one of them. It is not a tyranny. It is not run by a government that is going to go and shove these people into internment camps. The BNP has a history of attempting to play the 'man in the shadows' of attempting to get people into position of authority while hiding their affiliation. This, IMO, is wrong. Even if they weren't the more legitimate sibling of the Nazi's and KKK.
The McCarthy Era of America was a shame specifically because what happened after people were fingered as Communists then was wrong, not because people were outed in the first place.
I'll write quickly, since you seem to have a hair trigger, ADD, and the manners of the southern portion of a north bound ass. At a grand total of 30 posts AFTER mine, you were jumping gun regardless of why you were bitching.
The Wikinews article, originally published on April 19, described material in the Church Handbook of Instructions. The work is a two-volume book of policies and is a guide for leaders of the Mormon Church. Wikinews obtained the Church Handbook of Instructions from Wikileaks, a whistleblower website which publishes anonymous submissions of sensitive documents while preserving the anonymity of its contributors. Wikileaks describes the material as significant because "...the book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveals the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination)."
I think that last line pretty much give a good reason, you don't?
Transparency is transparency. List what items have they hosted that you felt shouldn't have been up? I can almost guareentee you that someone out there can give you a reason why they should have been.
Given there are more than a couple of posts just above you doing some german bashing, might I suggest that posting almost immediately after the article goes up to complain about how there aren't more german bashing comments might seem a bit... hypercritical (and yes, that's the word I meant)?
By the time you get to the billionth download, variable pricing will ensure the card is only worth two songs, both sung by the Chipmunks (or alternatively, the Chipettes).
I recommend "The Girls of Rock and Roll" and "Weekend In France, Italy, England, Amsterdam, Greece..."
That sounds like something you'd reverse the polarity on to get a couple more tenths of a Warp speed when attempting to out run the Vrzn or Sprnt probes.
Minor note: The Cyclopedia is actually not 2nd edition AD&D, it's a republishing of the alternative line they had going when AD&D came out.
It was originally meant to be the 'intro to D&D' rules which would transition to AD&D but ended up being it's own separate line entirely. Prior to being released as the Cyclopedia, it was called the Box Sets as unlike AD&D, the Box sets were sold as paired Player and Dungeon Master guides based on level ranges.
It was a screening to people who would actually take time out of their lives to go see a remastered version of Wrath of Khan. Which isn't anything against those folk, that was a good movie. But in terms of objective "this was a good movie on it's own merits" reviews, do you honestly expect to see any?
This was a binary choice: either they all loved it because it was the next Star Trek movie. Meaning it didn't stink as bad as Nemesis. Or they burnt down the theater because it was the next Star Trek movie and it stunk as bad as Nemesis.
TSR was the love child of two people with a creative idea and the willingness to put it on the line to see it bloom.
Unfortunately, like most companies formed this way, the business aspect was ignored in favor of the 'beloved product'.
They never really had a business plan, and if you viewed the history of the company since it's inception, you'd notice that the way they 'made money' was simply coming up with new ways to repackage their idea. And then the founders got into a fight and lost pretty much the whole deal to a numbnut who didn't even like gaming.
Is it any wonder, when they were purchased by Wizards of the Coast, a company that had a similar history, that the business plan never changed?
And when Hasbro purchased WoTC, they weren't doing it for D&D they were doing it for Pokemon and to a lesser extent, MtG. They also haven't put any thought into what they should be doing with the older, legacy, properties that came along with the purchase.
Unlike TSR or WoTC though, Hasbro is a bona fide corporation, they have cube farms and quarterly meetings, middle management and legal divisons. And unlike TSR or WoTC, Hasbro isn't in this for any 'love' of anything other than money. It shouldn't be any surprise that of the three, Hasbro has been the most willing to screw over fans and partners while doing it's double takes and meandering in an attempt to realize a profit on D&D. Not that TSR or WoTC have ever had a history of not doing so, simply that their actions were usually the result of infighting between people who actually felt they had a stake in things instead of some impersonal jackass looking a bottom line on a report.
You may have been marked as funny, but you do deserve a bit of insightful for that.
Perhaps not all of it, but a portion of the 'uncertainty' is due to the fact that everyone is certain that we are in 'uncertain' times. If we stopped pushing that down folks throats, then there might be less panic to keep things stired up.
Sarge: Hurry up ladies, this ain't no ice cream social!
Simmons: Ice cream social?
Sarge: Stop the pillow-talk you two. Anyone want to guess, why I gathered you here, today?
Grif: Um, is it because the war's over and you're sending us home?
Sarge: That's exactly it, private. War's over. We won. Turns out you're the big hero, and we're gonna hold a parade in your honor. I get to drive the float, and Simmons here, is in charge of confetti!
Grif: I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir.
Sarge: God dammit private, shut your mouth or else I'll have Simmons slit your throat while you're asleep!
Simmons: Oh, I'd do it too.
Sarge: I know you would Simmons... good man. Couple of things today, ladies: Command has seen fit to increase our ranks here at Blood Gulch Outpost Number 1.
Grif: Crap, we're getting a rookie.
Sarge: That's right dead man. Our new recruit will be here within the week. But today, we received the first part of our shipment from Command. Lopez... bring up the vehicle.
A jeep emerges from the hill behind Sarge
Simmons: Shotgun!
Grif: Shotgun! Fuck!
Sarge: May I introduce, our new light reconnaissance vehicle. It has four inch armor plating, maaag buffer suspension, a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen, this is the M12-LRV! I like to call it the Warthog.
Simmons: Why 'Warthog' sir?
Sarge: Because M12-LRV is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but... why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a puma.
Sarge: What in sam hell is a puma?
Simmons: Uh... you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No, like a puma. It's a big cat. Like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
Simmons: Yes sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif: A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?
Church is looking at the red team through the sniper rifle, and Tucker is with him
Tucker: What is that thing?
Church: I don't know, but it looks like uh... looks like they got some kinda car down there. We'd better get back to base and report it.
Tucker: A car? How come they get a car?
Church: What are you complaining about man? We're about to get a tank in the very next drop.
Tucker: You can't pick up chicks in a tank.
Church: Oh, you know what, you could bitch about anything, couldn't you. We're gonna get a tank, and you're worried about chicks. What chicks are we gonna pick up man!? Firay, and secondly, how are we gonna pick up chicks in a car that looks like that?
Tucker: Well what kind of car is it?
Church: I don't know, I've never seen a car that looks like that before, it looks like a uh... like a big cat of some kind.
Tucker:...... what, like a puma?
Church: Yeah man, there ya go.
Back to the reds
Sarge: So unless anybody else has any more mythical creatures to suggest as a name for the new vehicle, we're gonna stick with 'the Warthog'. How about it Grif?
It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion. It is through beans of java that thoughts acquire speed, that hands acquire shakes, that shakes become a warning... I am...IN CONTROL...OF MY ADDICTION!
Slashdot Mirror
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/runtime.html#The_Sandbox
So I would say the reasons behind their decision would boil down to "cutting out the stuff that isn't compatible with the model the App Engine uses to run things".
Subtle yet important difference to me, Microsoft released something that did include the 'full set' plus some but didn't work the same as the specs said it should.
Google simply didn't release a full set.
And where Microsoft pulled their stunt to kill Java, I imagine Google did it for technical reasons (i.e. trying to lock down the sandbox) since they have said they want to add more classes to the list of allowed ones.
Your argument has points and yet none of them go to the supporting thread of "we shouldn't publish a BNP member list" instead they go to the "there is a problem with the government that we need to fix" argument, which certainly is a wonderful thing to point out since my whole argument that secrets are bad is one concerning the fact that for a large part, secrets are used by us to avoid the flaws in our society, as opposed to actually working to correct them ala "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
We hide our nature on the flawed assumption that no one else is like us, and by hiding our nature, we reinforce the idea in everyone else that no one else is like us.
Can one argue successfully that the strides being made in gay rights should not be attributed to the fact that more and more people are feeling comfortable stepping out of the closet, and thus making homosexuality seem less of an aberration to those who aren't simply operating on doctrine?
However, regardless of how well your argument segues into a supporting point for my own, you still haven't made a case for why the membership list shouldn't be published, just for why the government should do more about cleaning up its own act concerning political freedom. Which in itself, would be easier to do if the secrets concerning that were made open as well.
Arguing the 'essential' nature of secrets with me is not likely a productive experience, which if you peruse my comment history concerning that, would be clear. I'm of the "secrets are a bad thing" camp. The only reason to keep secrets currently is the imbalance of power between those who have the most to hide and those who just think they do. And the only way to overcome that imbalance is to start exposing those at the top and working your way down to the bottom.
Which is why I stated my request as "list the things that you don't think should be up there" rather than "explain to me why secrets should kept"
In regards to your actual example, you will also remember I stated that for any item you listed, someone should be able to come up with a reason for it.
Here is my world view. There may be secrets you'd like to keep about yourself. There may be ideas, fantasies, even events in your life that you don't want shared with the world.
But a political party is by definition a public entity. You are attempting, by your membership, to guide public and government opinion. Your membership to a party should not be a secret. Not in Britain. There are countries in this world where that would be different. But Britain is not one of them. It is not a tyranny. It is not run by a government that is going to go and shove these people into internment camps. The BNP has a history of attempting to play the 'man in the shadows' of attempting to get people into position of authority while hiding their affiliation. This, IMO, is wrong. Even if they weren't the more legitimate sibling of the Nazi's and KKK.
The McCarthy Era of America was a shame specifically because what happened after people were fingered as Communists then was wrong, not because people were outed in the first place.
I'll write quickly, since you seem to have a hair trigger, ADD, and the manners of the southern portion of a north bound ass. At a grand total of 30 posts AFTER mine, you were jumping gun regardless of why you were bitching.
I think that last line pretty much give a good reason, you don't?
Transparency is transparency. List what items have they hosted that you felt shouldn't have been up? I can almost guareentee you that someone out there can give you a reason why they should have been.
Given there are more than a couple of posts just above you doing some german bashing, might I suggest that posting almost immediately after the article goes up to complain about how there aren't more german bashing comments might seem a bit... hypercritical (and yes, that's the word I meant)?
You and I speaking about the same group chief?
The group that published, among other things, leaked ACTA documents?
Cause folk who are willing to play host to that sort of item are doing a far far greater service to us than a hundred Pirate Bays.
By the time you get to the billionth download, variable pricing will ensure the card is only worth two songs, both sung by the Chipmunks (or alternatively, the Chipettes).
I recommend "The Girls of Rock and Roll" and "Weekend In France, Italy, England, Amsterdam, Greece..."
His name is Robert Paulson.
That's just what all the guys call it...
The Happening never happened, and if you attempt to claim otherwise, I'm going to run you over with a lawnmower.
That sounds like something you'd reverse the polarity on to get a couple more tenths of a Warp speed when attempting to out run the Vrzn or Sprnt probes.
Because, it'll hurt more?
Minor note: The Cyclopedia is actually not 2nd edition AD&D, it's a republishing of the alternative line they had going when AD&D came out.
It was originally meant to be the 'intro to D&D' rules which would transition to AD&D but ended up being it's own separate line entirely. Prior to being released as the Cyclopedia, it was called the Box Sets as unlike AD&D, the Box sets were sold as paired Player and Dungeon Master guides based on level ranges.
It was a screening to people who would actually take time out of their lives to go see a remastered version of Wrath of Khan. Which isn't anything against those folk, that was a good movie. But in terms of objective "this was a good movie on it's own merits" reviews, do you honestly expect to see any?
This was a binary choice: either they all loved it because it was the next Star Trek movie. Meaning it didn't stink as bad as Nemesis. Or they burnt down the theater because it was the next Star Trek movie and it stunk as bad as Nemesis.
TSR was the love child of two people with a creative idea and the willingness to put it on the line to see it bloom.
Unfortunately, like most companies formed this way, the business aspect was ignored in favor of the 'beloved product'.
They never really had a business plan, and if you viewed the history of the company since it's inception, you'd notice that the way they 'made money' was simply coming up with new ways to repackage their idea. And then the founders got into a fight and lost pretty much the whole deal to a numbnut who didn't even like gaming.
Is it any wonder, when they were purchased by Wizards of the Coast, a company that had a similar history, that the business plan never changed?
And when Hasbro purchased WoTC, they weren't doing it for D&D they were doing it for Pokemon and to a lesser extent, MtG. They also haven't put any thought into what they should be doing with the older, legacy, properties that came along with the purchase.
Unlike TSR or WoTC though, Hasbro is a bona fide corporation, they have cube farms and quarterly meetings, middle management and legal divisons. And unlike TSR or WoTC, Hasbro isn't in this for any 'love' of anything other than money. It shouldn't be any surprise that of the three, Hasbro has been the most willing to screw over fans and partners while doing it's double takes and meandering in an attempt to realize a profit on D&D. Not that TSR or WoTC have ever had a history of not doing so, simply that their actions were usually the result of infighting between people who actually felt they had a stake in things instead of some impersonal jackass looking a bottom line on a report.
Dear lord, my links keep eating up parts of my sentences.
Ah my friend. But it depends on the referred to.
but that's pure nonsense as well.
Do you know what Dance Pit is an anagram for?
You may have been marked as funny, but you do deserve a bit of insightful for that.
Perhaps not all of it, but a portion of the 'uncertainty' is due to the fact that everyone is certain that we are in 'uncertain' times. If we stopped pushing that down folks throats, then there might be less panic to keep things stired up.
Red vs Blue - Season 1 Episode 2 - Red Gets a Delivery
Sarge: Hurry up ladies, this ain't no ice cream social!
Simmons: Ice cream social?
Sarge: Stop the pillow-talk you two. Anyone want to guess, why I gathered you here, today?
Grif: Um, is it because the war's over and you're sending us home?
Sarge: That's exactly it, private. War's over. We won. Turns out you're the big hero, and we're gonna hold a parade in your honor. I get to drive the float, and Simmons here, is in charge of confetti!
Grif: I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir.
Sarge: God dammit private, shut your mouth or else I'll have Simmons slit your throat while you're asleep!
Simmons: Oh, I'd do it too.
Sarge: I know you would Simmons... good man. Couple of things today, ladies: Command has seen fit to increase our ranks here at Blood Gulch Outpost Number 1.
Grif: Crap, we're getting a rookie.
Sarge: That's right dead man. Our new recruit will be here within the week. But today, we received the first part of our shipment from Command. Lopez... bring up the vehicle.
A jeep emerges from the hill behind Sarge
Simmons: Shotgun!
Grif: Shotgun! Fuck!
Sarge: May I introduce, our new light reconnaissance vehicle. It has four inch armor plating, maaag buffer suspension, a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen, this is the M12-LRV! I like to call it the Warthog.
Simmons: Why 'Warthog' sir?
Sarge: Because M12-LRV is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but... why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a puma.
Sarge: What in sam hell is a puma?
Simmons: Uh... you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No, like a puma. It's a big cat. Like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
Simmons: Yes sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif: A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?
Church is looking at the red team through the sniper rifle, and Tucker is with him
Tucker: What is that thing?
Church: I don't know, but it looks like uh... looks like they got some kinda car down there. We'd better get back to base and report it.
Tucker: A car? How come they get a car?
Church: What are you complaining about man? We're about to get a tank in the very next drop.
Tucker: You can't pick up chicks in a tank.
Church: Oh, you know what, you could bitch about anything, couldn't you. We're gonna get a tank, and you're worried about chicks. What chicks are we gonna pick up man!? Firay, and secondly, how are we gonna pick up chicks in a car that looks like that?
Tucker: Well what kind of car is it?
Church: I don't know, I've never seen a car that looks like that before, it looks like a uh... like a big cat of some kind.
Tucker: ... ... what, like a puma?
Church: Yeah man, there ya go.
Back to the reds
Sarge: So unless anybody else has any more mythical creatures to suggest as a name for the new vehicle, we're gonna stick with 'the Warthog'. How about it Grif?
Grif: No sir, no more suggestions.
Sarge: Are you sure? How 'bout Bigfoot?
Grif: That's okay.
Sarge: Unicorn?
Grif: No really, I'm... I'm cool.
Sarge: Sasquatch?
From the Minicon Graffiti Wall, 1989
Which is what Google will do if they can find who to write the check to.