"But, if there are no valid reasons, then the only thing left pretty much is discrimination."
Its called being poor. If you are a high school student, black/hispanic/white/whatever, and your family can't afford a PC and internet service, you would be at a severe disadvantage for getting into the IT field.
I was lucky, my father was in the right place at the right time in the late 80s to get promoted into an IT director position (before there really were such things at public schools). At the time, it was a pretty minor role he filled while teaching. It slowly grew until he had to stop teaching and go full time as the district's IT guy, then to director with a staff, then to Administrator (not as in Sysadmin). That helped me out significantly. I got to play with a 386sx25 long before PCs were household norms. Between having a computer available, and a role model to inspire me, I knew in the 7th grade what I wanted to do (I still have the "Wanted: Computer Programmer" want add cliping).
Point being, if I only used computers at school for school related purposes, and I didn't have an IT role model, I likely wouldn't have joined the IT workforce.
As for the original question, My comp sci class started with 44 students. We graduated with 7, 6 guys, 1 gal, all white. There was atleast 1 black student, 3 asian students, and I beleive 2 latino students when we started. I'm from up north though, where there are significantly lower ratios of minorities, but I don't think our class was representative of our community.
"Do you truly believe that MS develops and gives away their media player at no cost? Whenever anyone buys Windows or a computer preloaded with Windows MS collects money. All that money goes into one pot, from which they pay for the development of WMP."
True, but by the same logic RMP makes its profit from advertisement and consumer tracking.
"Is this some sort of typo?"
Excuse my poor spelling. It's a gift I've had my entire life. That should have read: A typically rabid anti-microsoft community is placing Real Media Player in an even worse light. Implying that a sizable technology orriented community is rating this product at a quality level below that of their primary enemy (See Dr. Bion and group dynamics).
"Having fair competition is important to consumers so they get a good deal, to the economy so money is not directed to those who do no work, and to technology to provide incentive for innovation."
In areas where WMP/IE free Windows is available at a reduced cost, people are still buying the full version, because it has a better value to cost ratio. Microsoft has been working extensively improving their product from v9 to v10, Real Media has also likely been working hard, but because they are both working should RM get 3/4 of a billion dollars from MS? And as far as innovation goes, I would say WMP 10 has developed some great integrated systems, where as the last version of Real Media Player I used was just like the version before it, with a slightly different interface.
I'm just not seeing Real as a company that has brought any innovation to the industry or improvement to consumer experiences.
"First, Ford is not a monopoly."
I disagree. Ford is the only company I can buy an F-350 from. Just like Microsoft is the only company I can buy Windows from. True, I could buy a Sierra from GM, but I could also buy Linux from Red Hat, or Tiger from Apple.
"Second and exhaust system is integral to the operation of a car"
Again, I disagree. A car can run with out exhaust. It's loud, and depending on sub systems it could be stinky, but exhaust is not a requirement of a vehicle to run. And ford does indeed offer a performance options on some vehicles, and they are available at an additional cost.
"while a media player is not integral to the operation of an OS."
One more disagreement before I run off to school. A Media player, be it a movie viewer, image viewer, text viewer, audio player, etc, is indeed just as necesary to the OS as the exhaust is to a car. Can you run a car with out exhaust? Yes. Can you run an OS with out any media playback ability? Yes. Who would do such a thing? Fringe groups. Mainstream society demands exhaust on their cars and the ability to play content with one single purchase. And like the exhaust, if they want a better system, they are free to download or purchase any alternative.
In anycase, as you mentioned, bundling is an example of monopoly abuse (I'm assuming theres some case law behind this, but thanks for correcting me), so it doesn't matter how Real performed. My question now is, Why is Real the only one sueing? Why didn't apple get in on this to get its share of the $750 milllllllion dollars? Atleast then the cash would goto lawyers at the company with the better product;)
"You haven't bought a copy of Windows or PC hardware from and major vendor in a while then huh?"
Correct. I bought a copy of XP Pro last year, so you could argue that the cost of WMP 9 was included, but I have since downloaded WMP 10 for free.
"That is a fine assertion, but there is no way to prove that "
Take a look at the general response here. A typicly rabid anti-microsoft community is placing RMP in an even worse light. True, this >could "In truth they have to make product so much better than what MS make that people have to be willing to pay the cost of both programs just to get the better one."
And what's wrong with that? If I want a car, I buy a car with exhaust. If I want better exhaust, I buy a Borla catback and install it. And in this case, we are comparing free goods. WMP 10, RMP, And TextPad can all be downloaded for free.
"Picture a world where MS and a hundred other vendors all submit bids on text editors, web browsers, e-mail applications, office suites, etc. to Dell (and all the other OEMs) who then bundles one or more of those applications based upon what their customers want and the cost. That is called a fair market."
Customers are still free to choose what ever 3rd party tools they want. Or are you suggesting that Ford should start shipping cars with out exhaust so I can have the dealer install the specific exhaust system I want? The cost of the system would far outway the cost of installing 3rd party tools and the free market would look for a cheaper alternative. And viola, we're right back with Microsoft.
"They have to produce a product that is better by so much that people who have already been forced to pay for the cost of one program will still pay for the second one. That is not fair competition."
ooh! ooh! I've heard this one before. This is the part where I say, "Who said life is fair?";)
"They have a monopoly. Monopolies can be used to bypass fair competition, but need not be used to do so. It is illegal to use them in this way."
Correct, Microsoft is still considered a monopoly. But being a monopoly is not illegal. If MS actively pushed any PC vendors to not include RMP, it would be a violation. If MS purposely designed their system to break RMP, it would be a violation. If MS packages a (widely accepted as) superior product with a product, that's called added value and is a simple part of marketing. If someone does not want the MS add ons, they can buy the MS Windows lite (or what ever it is called) that does not include WMP or IE. Oddly enough, sales of this consumer liberating version of the OS have been very poor.
"MS knowingly decided to break the law, and make consumers suffer financially and technology suffer by removing the innovation that results from competition."
MS offers a reduced cost version of Windows, and there is still a lot of competition in the streaming media industry. MS does not have a monopoly over all aspects of everything digital, they have a monopoly in the OS and Browser markets. If they use their power in the those markets to destroy their competition, have at them. But in this situation, it's a simple case of the free market moving away from the least desired good.
"but it is not up to you or MS to decide what product deserves to be purchased."
Never has been. I have never purchased WMP, Winamp, or Real MP. No one's sales have been hurt by Microsoft's actions (by my actions at least).
RMP sales have been hurt for two reasons, 1) it is an inferior product, and 2) it has a very poor image.
Using your logic, the makers of TextPad should be able to sue Microsoft for including NotePad in their OS. But they don't. They produce a supirior product and compete with microsoft. Real had that same oppertunity. Produce a supirior, or hell, even similarly performing application, and they could have competed with Microsoft. Even if their product was as annoying as WMP 9 it still would have been popular just because so many people look for non-MS solutions. Instead they create a bloated resource whoring program that was grocely inferior to not just WMP, but pretty much every other streaming content viewer.
I'm going to have to side with MS on this one. Real released a crappy product with a shady web site. I think it's a shame to capitalism that the better product will be funding the lessor product in this case.
Ehh, we're arguing symantics over the definition of the JVM/.Net framework.
My Tons of crap list wasn't to impress, it was to show that I am not a 'Microsoft fanboi.' In that I will use which ever tool best fits the need of the situation in context. Whether its Java,.Net, C++, PHP, or what ever. This was intended to rebut your implication that I am some how inferior because at the moment the tool I am using is designed by Microsoft.
"Today, assuming that because something wasn't coded in Java means it performs better than a Java-based solution is silly."
Assuming the code was compiled natively I would expect it to outperfom Java. If the JVM's JIT compiler can compete with natively compiled code that's great. I haven't actively worked in Java sine 1.41 was new.
""Higher level of control" sounds nice but doesn't mean much, unless by "higher level" you mean directly accessing memory or attached devices...which most folks would call "lower"."
Again symantics. You have a higher level of control over a lower level functionality.
"the C++ programmer is only "free to fix it" if it's in his code, or code he controls. "Home-built" apps actually do call libraries and the OS too."
Very true. No matter which language you write in, you will likely be at the trust of some other code provider.
"Calling a virtual machine an "emulator-like environment" is kind of silly; modern JVMs perform dynamic optimizations that bear little resemblence to what an emulator typically does."
The JVM and.Net Framework acheive the same thing, the convert a common language to native language and run it in a (somewhat) enclosed environment. Call it an emulator, a virtual machine, a sandbox, what ever.
"Now that we know you're a.Net person the motivation for all this noise becomes a bit clearer"
What is that suposed to mean? Yes, I code in.Net. Why? Because I love design and coding and there is a strong market for.Net developers. If the market was as strong for in house Java developers, I would have gone that route. I've worked in Pascal, ADA, Notes, Java, Access/Excel/VBA, Delphi, and tons of other crap that I needed to complete a job. The language is a tool, and given a choice between developing in C/C++ or Java, I would take Java with out hesitation. But if the situation demands a higher level of control, performance, and no cross platform execution, I would have no problem recommending C++. Use the correct tool for the job.
"In point of fact Java architecture contributes significantly to making it easier to write secure applications (as it also improves reliability);"
I agree completely. I'm a.Net developer, I much prefer using precompiled libraries and an emulator like environment to run my applications. My point being that C/C++ can be just as secure as a Java app if it is coded correctly. The question should not be which is MORE secure, but which is EASIER to secure.
A Java app will come with all of the inherant security of the Java VM. But a flaw in the VM effects all Java applications. And as such an application developer is at the mercy of the VM developers. Where as if a home built C/C++ app has a vulnerbility found, the developer is free to fix it. Both have advantages and disadvantages in the security world, and I stand by my assessment that the debate is highly contextual.
Which is why I specificly noted that I could not garuntee the accuracy of that statement. The issue is that the problem was being approached from a black or white stance. Much like the retarded Linux vs Windows arguements that are had here. What is likely to follow is a bunch of java fanatics and C old schoolers tossing insults back and forth over who's language is better. The point is that either can be better, and either can be worse, it entirely depends on context, design, and the skill of the coder.
It's been years, and I can't remember what specific limitations there are. Yes there is the sand box, which would apply at least a basic level of security. But so long as there has been a sand box there have been ways out of it. So even if you can do pointer math in Java you are theoretically limited to the sand box. But realisticly, either language can be used for malicious reasons.
-Rick
By design C allows you to access memory at your own descretion. I beleive Java does also (It's been a while), which means neither is a 'secure' programing language. This would be like asking if Fords or Chevys are safer because one uses tig welding and the other uses mig welding. It completely matters on how the code is used. You can write your own memory editor in C (and I beleive Java). Which would make them fundamentally unsecure. C has the advantage that you have to write your own code, so you can make sure it is bug and security flaw free (cha right, and monkeys might fly from my ass!) where as Java comes with libraries. No need to recreate the string. Which saves you tons of dev time, but now you depend on someone else's code review. With that in mind, I'd say Java has a slight edge, just because more people are testing the Java libraries then your custom made objects.
I pulled contracting gigs from 2k1 to 2k4. And it was okay. I was a single early 20s guy, fresh out of the military with vetrans health care and a strong liver. Jump up to 2k4 and I had a wife, kid, and a house to keep tabs on. My last contract was killing me because health insurance was not included and the bill for family coverage was $980/month. So a year ago I got hired on to a local very successful and stable company, and I've been loving it ever since. No more down time with unemployment and odd jobs to pay the rent. No more putting my resume into 600 applicant positions. No more worrying about what will happen when I finish a project. Nope, I took a slight pay cut, but I gain full health insurance, 401k with 8% matching, profit sharing, a yearly bonus (depending on sales), a cubicle with a window view, and a project list about a mile and a half long. Job security is a beautiful thing!
What if it were 20 posts? 100 posts? Unfortunatly the masses will beleive anything if it's told to them enough times.
"Does that mean the government must step in and track down that anonymous poster who said mean, untrue things about me? No. "
No, its not, but that's not what this is about. This is saying that a person CAN NOT track that person down. I agree that it shouldn't be the gov's job to track some ass hat down, but to have the government prevent someone from tracking down the person lieing about them is just insane.
I'm not saying illegal posting should be illegal. I'm saying that you should not have the expectation of anonyminity while posting. Any ISP should have the right to investigate any user and hand over that information if they desire. If they want to with hold the user's name, fine, go get a court order. At that point, you need to present probrable cause, atleast enough to get a judge to agree that the situation warrents investigation.
As for what is lible and what the fines should be, that's what the courts are for. The situation you have here is that the offended can not take the offender to court because he is hiding behind the shield of anonyminity. If they were not anonymous, the offended could take them to court and let a jury decide if the remarks/context were lible and what the penalty should be. But since anonyminity is now a shield, the offended must first prove the offender is guilty, to aquire their identity, and then they can begin all over again with a new trial to attempt to prove the person's guilt a second time.
So lets say you are the CEO from some large christian/family values company. Someone posts on a closely affiliated public forum that you are gay, permiscuous, etc... Now, you talk to the CEO/Board, and they don't beleive the post, but your reputation on the forum is now tarnished. So while you have suffered any obvious loss, you suffer in your local comunity, people ridicule you, and no matter how much you correct them, there will always be rumors. And now, you still have no legal recourse against this person.
Thanks for the info. That's the joy of having one of the shortest constitutions in the world. Instead of having one document with all of the fundamentals of our government, we have 1 short doc and 200+ years of case laws to dig through.
"The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity."
But you should have a fear of reprisal while leafletting cars. If I see someone leaflet my car, I can approach them and discuse the issue with them. I can see someone post an inflamitory post on the internet, and it's easy enough to approach them (given the ISP's assistance) but now the Government is saying that the ISP can not assist me until I have already proved that the person in question is guilty of something.
Anonyminity is not a right, it's a privledge.
-Rick
The difference is that watching Jay Leno or the Daily Show, you know that it is a parody. Also, content is important. If you post on a political or informational web site that you disagree with Bush's handling of the War in Iraq for reasons A, B, and C, that's fine. If you post "I had anal butt sex with Bush and Laura took pictures" then you should be held accountable for your accusations. Your post has no merit, unless you DID have sexual relations with the President, in which case you would have your chance in court to show your innocense. Let's be realistic here, we're not talking about people who posted responsible though provoking points of view. We are talking about flamers and trolls who attacked this guy's family and sexuality for no reason other to inflame and misinform others.
-Rick
FTFA:
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,"
FT First Amedment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm failing to see where the 1st Amedment garuntees anyone the right of anonymous speech? These people are perfectly free to speak, but they should have no expectation of anonyminity. And heaven forbid they are held accountable for things they say. What this finding says is that you must now prove the defendants guilt before you can even find out who it is.
-Rick
Yeah, I'm sure so many family supporting developers are enjoying the riches they make off of donations. LOL. Heck IBM kicked some group $10,000. And while that sounds like a lot, that won't even cover a years worth of mortgage payments.
-Rick
I agree with you on deskzilla, I've never used it, but from my understanding of it, the web interface would seem to be the most logical way to go.
As for why smart/thick clients, if your app is hosted entirely local, for a smart/thick client you need a desktop client and a data source. For a web based client, you would need the data source, a web server, and the web application. Setting up and maintaining a webserver and web app is significantly more involved then having 3 guys run a setup.exe for some generic windows app.
Slashdot Mirror
"But, if there are no valid reasons, then the only thing left pretty much is discrimination."
Its called being poor. If you are a high school student, black/hispanic/white/whatever, and your family can't afford a PC and internet service, you would be at a severe disadvantage for getting into the IT field.
I was lucky, my father was in the right place at the right time in the late 80s to get promoted into an IT director position (before there really were such things at public schools). At the time, it was a pretty minor role he filled while teaching. It slowly grew until he had to stop teaching and go full time as the district's IT guy, then to director with a staff, then to Administrator (not as in Sysadmin). That helped me out significantly. I got to play with a 386sx25 long before PCs were household norms. Between having a computer available, and a role model to inspire me, I knew in the 7th grade what I wanted to do (I still have the "Wanted: Computer Programmer" want add cliping).
Point being, if I only used computers at school for school related purposes, and I didn't have an IT role model, I likely wouldn't have joined the IT workforce.
As for the original question, My comp sci class started with 44 students. We graduated with 7, 6 guys, 1 gal, all white. There was atleast 1 black student, 3 asian students, and I beleive 2 latino students when we started. I'm from up north though, where there are significantly lower ratios of minorities, but I don't think our class was representative of our community.
-Rick
Yeah yeah yeah, Lesser product. Sorry, I've ben working on leasing software for the last 10 months, lessor has become an automatic response.
-Rick
"Do you truly believe that MS develops and gives away their media player at no cost? Whenever anyone buys Windows or a computer preloaded with Windows MS collects money. All that money goes into one pot, from which they pay for the development of WMP."
;)
True, but by the same logic RMP makes its profit from advertisement and consumer tracking.
"Is this some sort of typo?"
Excuse my poor spelling. It's a gift I've had my entire life. That should have read: A typically rabid anti-microsoft community is placing Real Media Player in an even worse light. Implying that a sizable technology orriented community is rating this product at a quality level below that of their primary enemy (See Dr. Bion and group dynamics).
"Having fair competition is important to consumers so they get a good deal, to the economy so money is not directed to those who do no work, and to technology to provide incentive for innovation."
In areas where WMP/IE free Windows is available at a reduced cost, people are still buying the full version, because it has a better value to cost ratio. Microsoft has been working extensively improving their product from v9 to v10, Real Media has also likely been working hard, but because they are both working should RM get 3/4 of a billion dollars from MS? And as far as innovation goes, I would say WMP 10 has developed some great integrated systems, where as the last version of Real Media Player I used was just like the version before it, with a slightly different interface.
I'm just not seeing Real as a company that has brought any innovation to the industry or improvement to consumer experiences.
"First, Ford is not a monopoly."
I disagree. Ford is the only company I can buy an F-350 from. Just like Microsoft is the only company I can buy Windows from. True, I could buy a Sierra from GM, but I could also buy Linux from Red Hat, or Tiger from Apple.
"Second and exhaust system is integral to the operation of a car"
Again, I disagree. A car can run with out exhaust. It's loud, and depending on sub systems it could be stinky, but exhaust is not a requirement of a vehicle to run. And ford does indeed offer a performance options on some vehicles, and they are available at an additional cost.
"while a media player is not integral to the operation of an OS."
One more disagreement before I run off to school. A Media player, be it a movie viewer, image viewer, text viewer, audio player, etc, is indeed just as necesary to the OS as the exhaust is to a car. Can you run a car with out exhaust? Yes. Can you run an OS with out any media playback ability? Yes. Who would do such a thing? Fringe groups. Mainstream society demands exhaust on their cars and the ability to play content with one single purchase. And like the exhaust, if they want a better system, they are free to download or purchase any alternative.
In anycase, as you mentioned, bundling is an example of monopoly abuse (I'm assuming theres some case law behind this, but thanks for correcting me), so it doesn't matter how Real performed. My question now is, Why is Real the only one sueing? Why didn't apple get in on this to get its share of the $750 milllllllion dollars? Atleast then the cash would goto lawyers at the company with the better product
-Rick
"You haven't bought a copy of Windows or PC hardware from and major vendor in a while then huh?"
;)
Correct. I bought a copy of XP Pro last year, so you could argue that the cost of WMP 9 was included, but I have since downloaded WMP 10 for free.
"That is a fine assertion, but there is no way to prove that "
Take a look at the general response here. A typicly rabid anti-microsoft community is placing RMP in an even worse light. True, this >could
"In truth they have to make product so much better than what MS make that people have to be willing to pay the cost of both programs just to get the better one."
And what's wrong with that? If I want a car, I buy a car with exhaust. If I want better exhaust, I buy a Borla catback and install it. And in this case, we are comparing free goods. WMP 10, RMP, And TextPad can all be downloaded for free.
"Picture a world where MS and a hundred other vendors all submit bids on text editors, web browsers, e-mail applications, office suites, etc. to Dell (and all the other OEMs) who then bundles one or more of those applications based upon what their customers want and the cost. That is called a fair market."
Customers are still free to choose what ever 3rd party tools they want. Or are you suggesting that Ford should start shipping cars with out exhaust so I can have the dealer install the specific exhaust system I want? The cost of the system would far outway the cost of installing 3rd party tools and the free market would look for a cheaper alternative. And viola, we're right back with Microsoft.
"They have to produce a product that is better by so much that people who have already been forced to pay for the cost of one program will still pay for the second one. That is not fair competition."
ooh! ooh! I've heard this one before. This is the part where I say, "Who said life is fair?"
"They have a monopoly. Monopolies can be used to bypass fair competition, but need not be used to do so. It is illegal to use them in this way."
Correct, Microsoft is still considered a monopoly. But being a monopoly is not illegal. If MS actively pushed any PC vendors to not include RMP, it would be a violation. If MS purposely designed their system to break RMP, it would be a violation. If MS packages a (widely accepted as) superior product with a product, that's called added value and is a simple part of marketing. If someone does not want the MS add ons, they can buy the MS Windows lite (or what ever it is called) that does not include WMP or IE. Oddly enough, sales of this consumer liberating version of the OS have been very poor.
"MS knowingly decided to break the law, and make consumers suffer financially and technology suffer by removing the innovation that results from competition."
MS offers a reduced cost version of Windows, and there is still a lot of competition in the streaming media industry. MS does not have a monopoly over all aspects of everything digital, they have a monopoly in the OS and Browser markets. If they use their power in the those markets to destroy their competition, have at them. But in this situation, it's a simple case of the free market moving away from the least desired good.
-Rick
"but it is not up to you or MS to decide what product deserves to be purchased."
Never has been. I have never purchased WMP, Winamp, or Real MP. No one's sales have been hurt by Microsoft's actions (by my actions at least).
RMP sales have been hurt for two reasons, 1) it is an inferior product, and 2) it has a very poor image.
Using your logic, the makers of TextPad should be able to sue Microsoft for including NotePad in their OS. But they don't. They produce a supirior product and compete with microsoft. Real had that same oppertunity. Produce a supirior, or hell, even similarly performing application, and they could have competed with Microsoft. Even if their product was as annoying as WMP 9 it still would have been popular just because so many people look for non-MS solutions. Instead they create a bloated resource whoring program that was grocely inferior to not just WMP, but pretty much every other streaming content viewer.
-Rick
I'm going to have to side with MS on this one. Real released a crappy product with a shady web site. I think it's a shame to capitalism that the better product will be funding the lessor product in this case.
-Rick
Lesson 13: How to make OSS profitable.
-Rick
Ehh, we're arguing symantics over the definition of the JVM/.Net framework.
.Net, C++, PHP, or what ever. This was intended to rebut your implication that I am some how inferior because at the moment the tool I am using is designed by Microsoft.
My Tons of crap list wasn't to impress, it was to show that I am not a 'Microsoft fanboi.' In that I will use which ever tool best fits the need of the situation in context. Whether its Java,
"Today, assuming that because something wasn't coded in Java means it performs better than a Java-based solution is silly."
Assuming the code was compiled natively I would expect it to outperfom Java. If the JVM's JIT compiler can compete with natively compiled code that's great. I haven't actively worked in Java sine 1.41 was new.
""Higher level of control" sounds nice but doesn't mean much, unless by "higher level" you mean directly accessing memory or attached devices...which most folks would call "lower"."
Again symantics. You have a higher level of control over a lower level functionality.
-Rick
Now that would be a much more interesting debate! Which is better, an open source VM(python/Mono) or closed source VM(Java/.Net) for security? -Rick
"the C++ programmer is only "free to fix it" if it's in his code, or code he controls. "Home-built" apps actually do call libraries and the OS too."
.Net Framework acheive the same thing, the convert a common language to native language and run it in a (somewhat) enclosed environment. Call it an emulator, a virtual machine, a sandbox, what ever.
.Net person the motivation for all this noise becomes a bit clearer"
.Net. Why? Because I love design and coding and there is a strong market for .Net developers. If the market was as strong for in house Java developers, I would have gone that route. I've worked in Pascal, ADA, Notes, Java, Access/Excel/VBA, Delphi, and tons of other crap that I needed to complete a job. The language is a tool, and given a choice between developing in C/C++ or Java, I would take Java with out hesitation. But if the situation demands a higher level of control, performance, and no cross platform execution, I would have no problem recommending C++. Use the correct tool for the job.
Very true. No matter which language you write in, you will likely be at the trust of some other code provider.
"Calling a virtual machine an "emulator-like environment" is kind of silly; modern JVMs perform dynamic optimizations that bear little resemblence to what an emulator typically does."
The JVM and
"Now that we know you're a
What is that suposed to mean? Yes, I code in
-Rick
"In point of fact Java architecture contributes significantly to making it easier to write secure applications (as it also improves reliability);"
.Net developer, I much prefer using precompiled libraries and an emulator like environment to run my applications. My point being that C/C++ can be just as secure as a Java app if it is coded correctly. The question should not be which is MORE secure, but which is EASIER to secure.
I agree completely. I'm a
A Java app will come with all of the inherant security of the Java VM. But a flaw in the VM effects all Java applications. And as such an application developer is at the mercy of the VM developers. Where as if a home built C/C++ app has a vulnerbility found, the developer is free to fix it. Both have advantages and disadvantages in the security world, and I stand by my assessment that the debate is highly contextual.
-Rick
Which is why I specificly noted that I could not garuntee the accuracy of that statement. The issue is that the problem was being approached from a black or white stance. Much like the retarded Linux vs Windows arguements that are had here. What is likely to follow is a bunch of java fanatics and C old schoolers tossing insults back and forth over who's language is better. The point is that either can be better, and either can be worse, it entirely depends on context, design, and the skill of the coder.
-Rick
It's been years, and I can't remember what specific limitations there are. Yes there is the sand box, which would apply at least a basic level of security. But so long as there has been a sand box there have been ways out of it. So even if you can do pointer math in Java you are theoretically limited to the sand box. But realisticly, either language can be used for malicious reasons. -Rick
By design C allows you to access memory at your own descretion. I beleive Java does also (It's been a while), which means neither is a 'secure' programing language. This would be like asking if Fords or Chevys are safer because one uses tig welding and the other uses mig welding. It completely matters on how the code is used. You can write your own memory editor in C (and I beleive Java). Which would make them fundamentally unsecure. C has the advantage that you have to write your own code, so you can make sure it is bug and security flaw free (cha right, and monkeys might fly from my ass!) where as Java comes with libraries. No need to recreate the string. Which saves you tons of dev time, but now you depend on someone else's code review. With that in mind, I'd say Java has a slight edge, just because more people are testing the Java libraries then your custom made objects.
-Rick
I pulled contracting gigs from 2k1 to 2k4. And it was okay. I was a single early 20s guy, fresh out of the military with vetrans health care and a strong liver. Jump up to 2k4 and I had a wife, kid, and a house to keep tabs on. My last contract was killing me because health insurance was not included and the bill for family coverage was $980/month. So a year ago I got hired on to a local very successful and stable company, and I've been loving it ever since. No more down time with unemployment and odd jobs to pay the rent. No more putting my resume into 600 applicant positions. No more worrying about what will happen when I finish a project. Nope, I took a slight pay cut, but I gain full health insurance, 401k with 8% matching, profit sharing, a yearly bonus (depending on sales), a cubicle with a window view, and a project list about a mile and a half long. Job security is a beautiful thing!
-Rick
Teach me to post with out a preview while sick.
This line: I'm not saying illegal posting should be illegal
Should read: I'm not saying anonymous posting should be illegal
-Rick
"Why would anyone believe an anonymous post?"
What if it were 20 posts? 100 posts? Unfortunatly the masses will beleive anything if it's told to them enough times.
"Does that mean the government must step in and track down that anonymous poster who said mean, untrue things about me? No. "
No, its not, but that's not what this is about. This is saying that a person CAN NOT track that person down. I agree that it shouldn't be the gov's job to track some ass hat down, but to have the government prevent someone from tracking down the person lieing about them is just insane.
I'm not saying illegal posting should be illegal. I'm saying that you should not have the expectation of anonyminity while posting. Any ISP should have the right to investigate any user and hand over that information if they desire. If they want to with hold the user's name, fine, go get a court order. At that point, you need to present probrable cause, atleast enough to get a judge to agree that the situation warrents investigation.
As for what is lible and what the fines should be, that's what the courts are for. The situation you have here is that the offended can not take the offender to court because he is hiding behind the shield of anonyminity. If they were not anonymous, the offended could take them to court and let a jury decide if the remarks/context were lible and what the penalty should be. But since anonyminity is now a shield, the offended must first prove the offender is guilty, to aquire their identity, and then they can begin all over again with a new trial to attempt to prove the person's guilt a second time.
-Rick
So lets say you are the CEO from some large christian/family values company. Someone posts on a closely affiliated public forum that you are gay, permiscuous, etc... Now, you talk to the CEO/Board, and they don't beleive the post, but your reputation on the forum is now tarnished. So while you have suffered any obvious loss, you suffer in your local comunity, people ridicule you, and no matter how much you correct them, there will always be rumors. And now, you still have no legal recourse against this person.
-Rick
Thanks for the info. That's the joy of having one of the shortest constitutions in the world. Instead of having one document with all of the fundamentals of our government, we have 1 short doc and 200+ years of case laws to dig through.
-Rick
"The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity." But you should have a fear of reprisal while leafletting cars. If I see someone leaflet my car, I can approach them and discuse the issue with them. I can see someone post an inflamitory post on the internet, and it's easy enough to approach them (given the ISP's assistance) but now the Government is saying that the ISP can not assist me until I have already proved that the person in question is guilty of something. Anonyminity is not a right, it's a privledge. -Rick
The difference is that watching Jay Leno or the Daily Show, you know that it is a parody. Also, content is important. If you post on a political or informational web site that you disagree with Bush's handling of the War in Iraq for reasons A, B, and C, that's fine. If you post "I had anal butt sex with Bush and Laura took pictures" then you should be held accountable for your accusations. Your post has no merit, unless you DID have sexual relations with the President, in which case you would have your chance in court to show your innocense. Let's be realistic here, we're not talking about people who posted responsible though provoking points of view. We are talking about flamers and trolls who attacked this guy's family and sexuality for no reason other to inflame and misinform others. -Rick
FTFA: "We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," FT First Amedment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm failing to see where the 1st Amedment garuntees anyone the right of anonymous speech? These people are perfectly free to speak, but they should have no expectation of anonyminity. And heaven forbid they are held accountable for things they say. What this finding says is that you must now prove the defendants guilt before you can even find out who it is. -Rick
Yeah, I'm sure so many family supporting developers are enjoying the riches they make off of donations. LOL. Heck IBM kicked some group $10,000. And while that sounds like a lot, that won't even cover a years worth of mortgage payments. -Rick
is that most developers like getting paid for their work. :)
-Rick
I agree with you on deskzilla, I've never used it, but from my understanding of it, the web interface would seem to be the most logical way to go.
As for why smart/thick clients, if your app is hosted entirely local, for a smart/thick client you need a desktop client and a data source. For a web based client, you would need the data source, a web server, and the web application. Setting up and maintaining a webserver and web app is significantly more involved then having 3 guys run a setup.exe for some generic windows app.
-Rick