In most Java frameworks (especially in Spring) there are two things mixed into a single set of configuration files: items created once while developing application (for example Spring depencency injection bindings, Hibernate mappings etc. - let's call it plumbing) and factual configuration settings (for example: database URL, user and password for application)
So pull them out into a.properties file and use a PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer to inject them into your XML file of bindings and mappings
That's why I prefer annotations rather than XML for binding everything into final application (eg. Guice over Spring)
Except Spring has annotation-based config and it's fairly nice?
(Disclaimer, haven't actually used Guice, but do spend quite a bit of time using Spring - your comments look as though they're based on opinions and experiences from using Spring version $old?)
I use http://www.retrosnub.co.uk/ for this (http://www.retrosnub.co.uk/email), at about £1.50pcm (assuming you're from the US since you didn't specify, around $3 I gather) for their basic Email package (2GB space, unlimited mailboxes with POP IMAP and webmail access, and other useful stuff) and they've been great.
Hmm, you may actually have a point. From what little contract law I have studied, and the even smaller amount I remember, I believe that comes under "not having the authority to make the contract on someone's behalf". It goes something like the following:
A owns a house. B breaks in while A is on holiday. B puts a sign on the front saying "Everything inside is free for the taking". C walks in and grabs the TV
C cannot *keep* the TV, because B didn't have the right to make the contract. However, C is *not* a thief (unless the TV is not returned) because C was lead to believe that his actions were ok.
Here, the Coffee shop owner is A, "the default wireless settings"/"the wireless manufacturer" is B, and C is the guy in his car checking his emails. So, ok, a "The coffee shop fucked up, and would like you to pay $10 of traffic charges" would seem reasonable.
However, even then, there are arguments (that I believe in), that say "If you are led to believe that *a service* is free" (note, not a TV, but a service, where, if told it is free, you can justifiably believe that making use of it where you wouldn't otherwise), and find out otherwise, then you shouldn't be liable for charges. This basically stops excessive "surprise charges", e.g. if C'd justifiably believed (as he seemingly had) that the connection was *free*, and then downloaded (slowly, over a long period of time) what, if charged per byte, was a MASSIVE sum, that he wouldn't have had he known he'd have to pay per byte.
I'm probably going to be echoing many other people here, with a resounding "wtf?"
Surely, what a wireless access point *does*, and was doing, was sitting there, broadcasting packets that basically say "I'm an open wireless connection!". Before someone attempts the (poor) "open door" analogy, we're talking more "This cashier is now available".
Sure, if it was hiding its SSID or WEP encrypted (yes, laughably poor security methods, one even more so than the other, but that's not the point), then I'd say yes, that was wrong, because the owners, by doing that, had signalled that it wasn't a "free-for-all", regardless of how (in)effective their measures were of doing so.
But, *open* *broadcasting* wireless? A little box sitting there, doing the wlan-equivalent of screaming "I AM HERE! USE ME!"? We need to start educating people more, since the technological world must be doing a poor job for things like this to happen...
A certain Cambridge college has implemented a similar policy. The fine is a charge of 2 terms' connection fee (totalling c. £50, around $100), and disconnection for 8 weeks of term time. However, this is only after investigation (we've had two cases so far, where both students were asked if the allegations were true, and admitted it). There is no policy, as of yet, for repeat offences.
However, I don't really, in all honesty, see the issue. The charges are only imposed if the allegations are "proven" to be true. Students admit to what is a breach of the ToS for the College network, and are punished accordingly, an amount enough to discourage them from repeating said actions, but not of unreasonably great significance ($100 on top of $550 (the total network charge for the average undergrad))
I would like to add that I don't necessarily see the ToC as being "correct", given that as far as I'm aware, downloading an avi of Prison Break is about the same cost as videotaping it from freeview Sky, however, I feel that's beyond the scope of this discussion
I realise many have said this already, but my own personal spin:
Since we know (generalisation, I know, but it works) that any big piece of software is going to have bugs, surely all this means is "woo, yay, look, Open Source's benefits wrt bugs are real", since fast and good response to bug reports has been shown. If it's easy to find bugs, and when found, they're being fixed quickly and well, and we know that bugs are always going to happen, then why is this anything but superior to other closed source competitors who've had less bugs found?
A small disclaimer, I've never really been involved in the admin of a system that's used anything other than Mandr(ake/iva).
Basically, over the past 2-3 years, I've never had any problems, simply by using urpmi, configured with easyurpmi at install. I want make? I "urpmi make", I get the latest make from the repository, along with all dependencies it needs and I don't have. I have no experience at all with yum/aptitude etc, but I *have* used urpmi, and it seems to work for me
Re:those poor /.'d fools! Put the pics on FLICKR!-
on
Space On a Shoestring
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Bandwidth isn't the issue. It's the server hosting it, that belongs to the Student Run Computing Facility, that is
I don't really see an incredible amount of relation between the two. The technology described is merely a new medium for, in this case, vaccination, not something liable to cause mutational effects in the vaccine itself. Yes, in general, it would seem to be standard procedure to test one and only one new thing at a time, but I believe that, as already mentioned, the link is made purely to boost awareness and interest.
At the risk of bordering on repeating the hammer/etc. analogies:
"Nothing is intrinsically good or evil, but its manner of usage may make it so."
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Slashdot Mirror
In most Java frameworks (especially in Spring) there are two things mixed into a single set of configuration files: items created once while developing application (for example Spring depencency injection bindings, Hibernate mappings etc. - let's call it plumbing) and factual configuration settings (for example: database URL, user and password for application)
So pull them out into a .properties file and use a PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer to inject them into your XML file of bindings and mappings
That's why I prefer annotations rather than XML for binding everything into final application (eg. Guice over Spring)
Except Spring has annotation-based config and it's fairly nice?
(Disclaimer, haven't actually used Guice, but do spend quite a bit of time using Spring - your comments look as though they're based on opinions and experiences from using Spring version $old?)
I use http://www.retrosnub.co.uk/ for this (http://www.retrosnub.co.uk/email), at about £1.50pcm (assuming you're from the US since you didn't specify, around $3 I gather) for their basic Email package (2GB space, unlimited mailboxes with POP IMAP and webmail access, and other useful stuff) and they've been great.
...though of course, as I always forget to mention, that's UK law, and probably different...
Hmm, you may actually have a point. From what little contract law I have studied, and the even smaller amount I remember, I believe that comes under "not having the authority to make the contract on someone's behalf". It goes something like the following:
A owns a house. B breaks in while A is on holiday. B puts a sign on the front saying "Everything inside is free for the taking". C walks in and grabs the TV
C cannot *keep* the TV, because B didn't have the right to make the contract. However, C is *not* a thief (unless the TV is not returned) because C was lead to believe that his actions were ok.
Here, the Coffee shop owner is A, "the default wireless settings"/"the wireless manufacturer" is B, and C is the guy in his car checking his emails. So, ok, a "The coffee shop fucked up, and would like you to pay $10 of traffic charges" would seem reasonable.
However, even then, there are arguments (that I believe in), that say "If you are led to believe that *a service* is free" (note, not a TV, but a service, where, if told it is free, you can justifiably believe that making use of it where you wouldn't otherwise), and find out otherwise, then you shouldn't be liable for charges. This basically stops excessive "surprise charges", e.g. if C'd justifiably believed (as he seemingly had) that the connection was *free*, and then downloaded (slowly, over a long period of time) what, if charged per byte, was a MASSIVE sum, that he wouldn't have had he known he'd have to pay per byte.
I'm probably going to be echoing many other people here, with a resounding "wtf?"
Surely, what a wireless access point *does*, and was doing, was sitting there, broadcasting packets that basically say "I'm an open wireless connection!". Before someone attempts the (poor) "open door" analogy, we're talking more "This cashier is now available".
Sure, if it was hiding its SSID or WEP encrypted (yes, laughably poor security methods, one even more so than the other, but that's not the point), then I'd say yes, that was wrong, because the owners, by doing that, had signalled that it wasn't a "free-for-all", regardless of how (in)effective their measures were of doing so.
But, *open* *broadcasting* wireless? A little box sitting there, doing the wlan-equivalent of screaming "I AM HERE! USE ME!"? We need to start educating people more, since the technological world must be doing a poor job for things like this to happen...
Apologies, I always forget; in case it isn't apparent from the currency used, I mean *the* Cambridge, as in UK ;)
A certain Cambridge college has implemented a similar policy. The fine is a charge of 2 terms' connection fee (totalling c. £50, around $100), and disconnection for 8 weeks of term time. However, this is only after investigation (we've had two cases so far, where both students were asked if the allegations were true, and admitted it). There is no policy, as of yet, for repeat offences.
However, I don't really, in all honesty, see the issue. The charges are only imposed if the allegations are "proven" to be true. Students admit to what is a breach of the ToS for the College network, and are punished accordingly, an amount enough to discourage them from repeating said actions, but not of unreasonably great significance ($100 on top of $550 (the total network charge for the average undergrad))
I would like to add that I don't necessarily see the ToC as being "correct", given that as far as I'm aware, downloading an avi of Prison Break is about the same cost as videotaping it from freeview Sky, however, I feel that's beyond the scope of this discussion
I realise many have said this already, but my own personal spin:
Since we know (generalisation, I know, but it works) that any big piece of software is going to have bugs, surely all this means is "woo, yay, look, Open Source's benefits wrt bugs are real", since fast and good response to bug reports has been shown. If it's easy to find bugs, and when found, they're being fixed quickly and well, and we know that bugs are always going to happen, then why is this anything but superior to other closed source competitors who've had less bugs found?
A small disclaimer, I've never really been involved in the admin of a system that's used anything other than Mandr(ake/iva). Basically, over the past 2-3 years, I've never had any problems, simply by using urpmi, configured with easyurpmi at install. I want make? I "urpmi make", I get the latest make from the repository, along with all dependencies it needs and I don't have. I have no experience at all with yum/aptitude etc, but I *have* used urpmi, and it seems to work for me
Bandwidth isn't the issue. It's the server hosting it, that belongs to the Student Run Computing Facility, that is
I don't really see an incredible amount of relation between the two. The technology described is merely a new medium for, in this case, vaccination, not something liable to cause mutational effects in the vaccine itself. Yes, in general, it would seem to be standard procedure to test one and only one new thing at a time, but I believe that, as already mentioned, the link is made purely to boost awareness and interest.
At the risk of bordering on repeating the hammer/etc. analogies: "Nothing is intrinsically good or evil, but its manner of usage may make it so." Saint Thomas Aquinas