It should be very obvious how to guess the difference between a human logging in an a bot.
If a user is generating 100k failed password attempts a minute, day, week, month, or even a year, chances are they are a bot.
Also if someone is logging in from various places around the world, chances are its a bot. If the user sets up an account from the US or Canada, but is logging in from China one minute then Russia another, its probably a bot.
Also even if the bot has 1 failed attempt a day using some discretionary attack, at some point a server should realize that there is no human stupid enough to fail to enter a password properly on a regular basis. I mean once you enter your password in most browser or on the Wii console, you don't even have to type it in again, so 3 failed attempts in any given period of time should lock you out of your account, period.
What I feel will be the "incorrect" response:
1) Make your password require 10+ characters and the use of special requirements such as caps, digits and symbols 2) Implement some capctha system to prove you are human every time you want to do anything on the system, even after you have logged in. 3) Probably implement some crazy recovery system including having to mail you your password through snail mail to recover the account.
But the reality is I can't understand how any password system could even allow brute force password hacks. Except in the case where you make a one time attempt and use a generic commonly used password list, chances are any system is going to have to make many failed attempts before it gets it right, and there is no way a server should allow more than a few failed attempts before locking down.
because that is exactly the definition of a brute force, using non-impressive means to gain access to accounts by people stupid enough to use easy to guess passwords.
My bet is Apple will try. but it doesn't matter who patents it now because the university already holds prior art due to having published the scientific paper first. There is no rule that a university cannot hold a patent, the only shitty thing is if a student was the one that actually invented it, it's his professor that will take credit as the inventor. That's why you wait till you graduate before you invent shit.
nope, otherwise there would only exist 5 patents, wheel, fire, rock, paper, scissors.
You can't patent vague as much as people try. You can't get a patent where you claim "merge two things into one". The patent office wants to know what the "things" are. Even if you listed every port/card/slot combination, it still would be too vague and refused.
Also its not about being obvious. Rounded rectangles are obvious yet they were awarded anyways, unfortunately.
Anybody can extend an idea in a new patent. If there was a patent, say, for 3 legged chair, you could easily file your own patent for a 4 legged chair. But the holder of the 3 legged chair could not make a 4 legged model, and the "inventor" of the 4 legged chair could not sell a 4 legged chair (because it includes 3 legs) without entering a partnership of some sort with the original 3 legged patent holder. This is why I claim patents never actually stifle innovation because anybody can read patents and invent new things based off of other patents, but you can't produce or profit from an idea based on another patent until you work out a partnership with the original patent holder(s) in some way.
Finally even if not awarded an invention patent Apple could be awarded a design pattern, meaning they are protected for the exact placement and orientation of the two slots which there is no prior art for because nobody tried to protect a design for putting together an SD and USB slot before.
Its funny, read this yesterday on a Mac forum I like to troll, tee hee.
Its amazing the delusion of Apple fanatics going on about how revolutionary this is, how Apple's engineering is so far ahead of the competition, thinking outside the box bullshit.
But the reality is they have never seen a combined port of any sort, not in the Appleverse. The most they have seen is a multi-purpose dongle they have to hang off a proprietary port in order for it to do more than one thing. I mean it IS revolutionary that Apple is combining two general purpose technologies into one without inventing a new proprietary accessory you have to buy first.
But, the way patents work, its not just that other companies have merged two or more purposes into a single slot, its the fact that Apple is combining specifically a SD and USB which is why they will win this patent. Aside from Apple I can't see anybody caring to do this anyways, most port combos are for related purposes not just trying to minimize space, which I also don't see an issue because it would be thinner to put SD and USB beside each other rather than over top. I'd assume you still want to be able to use both slots and not just one or the other.
Aside from a few snarky comments about begging, I just do not understand why Wikipedia cannot be self-sustaining?
While I know you do not like ads on Wikipedia, by now you should have created an infrastructure and solutions to problems that could be used by other companies. So why not sell the SDK or API or solutions so that you can sustain Wikipedia without begging for donations?
Sure if you do not want to be rich off of Wikipedia, that is fine. I don't consider it noble by any means, but its your choice after all.
There is no reason however why Wikipedia could not be a non-profit entity that is self-sustaining by generating revenue in some way. Non-profit does not mean "no revenue" btw.
What I feel is a shame is that even if Wikipedia was a money making enterprise with obscene profits you could have put 100% of the proceeds BACK into the community, whether through educational programs, creating new solutions for education that builds off the Wikipedia platform, or otherwise have done more then be a one trick pony.
Wikipedia has not changed much over the years, it could be more interactive, dynamic, fresh. Its a shame that products like Encarta had to demise in favour of a collection of static boring web-pages. By begging for money to barely exist means you have ignored real opportunities to grow the platform and make it awesome, instead of just mediocre.
What is even more hilarious (and sad at the same time) is there is more Canadian content on the US netflix then on the Canadian one. You can get current episodes of Coonnttinnuum (the show is set in Vancouver, with all its duplicated letters in the title) and MacGyver, while US produced, was filmed in Vancouver with a largely Canadian cast.
I mean the games could be cool, and the performance great, but it doesn't change the fact they slapped a screen on a controller and called it a day.
At a time when everybody is going crazy about thin devices like tablets and phones, this thing comes out as an affront to good design.
Sure, I guess nVidia is testing the waters and seeing if there is even any interest in them producing a game platform, but I mean its a pretty weak effort IMHO. Maybe their follow up will be more inspiring, if they get to that point. This think almost reminds me of the nGage for its lack of any real focus on design, just a rush to market product to cash in on current trends.
Also considering this thing was originally priced on par with Wii U and only $50 less than the PS4. I mean come on. Even with the $50 price cut this thing is way too expensive for what it is.
I just don't think we need the Ouyas and SHIELDs. We do not need 100 special purpose devices hosting Android games. Make tablets more friendly for living room connectivity, that's all you need, like what Razer did with their Edge products. I'd rather have a tablet that I can use for other things that also happens to play high quality games on my TV easily.
If you are going to repackage phone or tablet guts into a game controller and slap on a screen, you already failed.
I think in order to claim you can drive 202 mph, you should be able to drive at that speed for an hour. Otherwise you are really getting far less actual miles per hour when you have to stop every 5 minutes and charge for 10 hours.
Really, its speed is more like 202 miles/week.
Just a reminder, before you slam me, scan for sarcasm first.
Bottom line is, you don't like video games, period.
You think Ouya will offer some revolutionary innovative way to game over Xbox360 or PS3 (or the next gen counter parts)?
While yes, there are always great indie or alternative games out there, don't assume that the Ouya will have any more or less then any other platform. I don't single mindedly believe that indie = awesome, mainstream = sucks.
I mean, if you think "The Last of Us" is a game that sucks, or even a rehash of CoD, you just don't like playing games, period, so don't pretend to be in tune with the reality of mainstream games. There is a reason those titles sell millions of units in a few short weeks, obviously these companies are not peddling boredome.
And you can be sure that there will be a lot of derivative clones of games on the Ouya platform where "indies" will just try to clone the success of mainstream franchises. Expect a slew of Angry Bird knockoffs, or poorly done FPS, or even those same mainstream titles coming to the Ouya (albeit with inferior graphics and social features) if it picks up any real traction. To assume the Ouya will be wholly original and exciting is a gross fallacy.
Look, bottom line is, there is no reason why people feel they have to back ONE game console. I own multiple because there are great games and features on every one of them. If Ouya even has one exciting and original title on I will probably pick it up (once they iron out the many, many kinks), but it's just plain retarded to assume its competing with the likes of Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft.
It has poor quality construction, gamepad fall apart in your hands (well, just the magnetically attached battery cover falls of, but its annoying none the less). Console DOA or dies after a mandatory update. The menu-interface is slow and reboots frequently. The games are not great, selection isn't great. Requires you to have to provide credit card just to use it.
Bottom line is, you got what you paid for.
And the company's official strategy is to replace it quickly with another version you will have to buy again for $99 that may or may not fix the original Ouya issues.
If you think this is a competitor to Xbox One, PS4 or even the Wii U, you are just out of touch with reality.
I don't think you need to make any consideration for bringing ripped music across the border. US customs are not going to search your computer or devices for illegal content. There is simply not enough time in a year to do this for every person entering the country.
I can't believe the amount of FUD being spread in this thread.
The most I have ever been asked is to be able to turn on my music device (CD player and eventually iPods) to ensure it is in running order. In fact the only hassle was having a dead phone, I had to charge it up a few minutes to show them it could turn on. This was back around 2001 after 9/11 and wanted to make sure it wasn't an improvised bomb. Not sure they even do that now. I've never heard of someone having to hand over their computer to be looked at.
Being ignorant of something does not mean its harmful.
What exactly is "unproven" about patents doing more good then harm? What, just because you don't like them they are obvious harmful? Your ignorance is more harmful then patents.
You claim that patents restrict someone's freedom? So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea and make money off it when someone else spends the time, effort and money to create the idea? You think the world is going to run on the honor system the moment patent and copyright laws are abolished? What a insanely stupid thing to believe.
Yes, there are many patents that are not just worthy, and I agree there is a huge issue with the patent application and granting process. The patent system needs reform for sure.
However patents themselves were ACTUALLY created to allow someone to invent something and then have it protected from unscrupulous people that would otherwise simply steal the idea and profit off it for themselves. Patents also actually publicly disclose the invention so that another person or company could build off them, provided they enter a partnership with the original patent holder. That could include licensing, royalty, or even agreeing to merge the ideas so both can profit off the end results. It gives the "freedom" of the person that invented the idea to decide how to proceed with it. The opposite of a patent, by the way, is a trade secret in which a company does not disclose in any form the invention and hope their competition is no capable of discovering how the invention works. It's a pretty much dead concept because even the most complicated system can be reversed engineered, but imagine how much innovation would be stifled if all companies worked off the idea of trade secrets and every company had to build something from scratch without any chance of cooperation or partnership.
It is simply not valid to assume that someone has a right to build off or refine an invention without entering a partnership or cooperation with the original inventor. And under MOST circumstances both parties will find some way to work together that benefits both of them. It's companies like Apple that abuse patents that operate under the premise of wanting to destroy their competition by holding a larger patent portfolio they refuse to cross license. But even then I would argue it forces companies like Google to out-innovate to compete rather then just building off of another idea. So even the premise of constant refinement through free and open invention is a fallacy.
Finally, patents are not mandatory. Nobody forces you to have to file a patent, so NO freedoms are being restricted here. I can't stand ignorant statements involving "Freedom" because it misses the point that someone has the right and freedom TO protect their content just as much as freely offer it to the world. And you can freely choose to invent something and offer it to the world as public domain however you have absolutely NO right to expect or assume compensation or even acknowledgement of being the creator of the invention. The world just doesn't work that way, there is ALWAYS someone looking for the easy way to make money. Even Open Source was created to protect acknowledgement of the original inventor of a piece of work and prevents another individual from "closing" it to profit off of someone else's idea. So even in the benevolent world of Open Source you still do not have total freedom to rip someone off and profit from their invention.
All Apple batteries are 3rd party, last I checked Apple doesn't actually make any batteries. The only difference is that Apple has learned from past fiascoes to install better quality 3rd party batteries then what you are going to get from Best Buy.
Surgeon was probably searching Google on how to actually do the procedure as well. "Google...how to I do a Gastrostomy".
Yes, its a brave, brave new world we are entering when surgeon's need always-on Internet to perform surgeries and respond to tweets while they have their hands in your guts.
Yes, I had to agree that the early days of.Net was a nightmare, but there was a reason for this to move towards a uniform API..Net 4.0+ is probably one of the most well conceived and uniform API's I have ever used. Its not perfect, but its more perfect then Java or other platforms. Today avoiding Microsoft API is ill conceived and you will find that you can do so much more so much more efficiently going back to.Net, especially since Visual Studio has also matured and implemented unit testing and other automated testing features that go hand in hand with the API.
Java and C# are neck in neck today only because Java had to catch up to C# which I find develops and improves faster. While C# may have been a blatant rip off of Java in the beginning, it evolved faster and started integrating parallelism and lambda expression long before Java did.
The problem I have with Java today is its reputation. I personally have nuked Java runtime off of any computer I use. I just do not see a point to run another runtime to write and use a Windows application, especially when it introduces its own security holes and updates weekly. While Java "the language" is great for web development especially when doing Android stuff, Java "the runtime environment" is a POS that needs to be terminated.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be very obvious how to guess the difference between a human logging in an a bot.
If a user is generating 100k failed password attempts a minute, day, week, month, or even a year, chances are they are a bot.
Also if someone is logging in from various places around the world, chances are its a bot. If the user sets up an account from the US or Canada, but is logging in from China one minute then Russia another, its probably a bot.
Also even if the bot has 1 failed attempt a day using some discretionary attack, at some point a server should realize that there is no human stupid enough to fail to enter a password properly on a regular basis. I mean once you enter your password in most browser or on the Wii console, you don't even have to type it in again, so 3 failed attempts in any given period of time should lock you out of your account, period.
What I feel will be the "incorrect" response:
1) Make your password require 10+ characters and the use of special requirements such as caps, digits and symbols
2) Implement some capctha system to prove you are human every time you want to do anything on the system, even after you have logged in.
3) Probably implement some crazy recovery system including having to mail you your password through snail mail to recover the account.
But the reality is I can't understand how any password system could even allow brute force password hacks. Except in the case where you make a one time attempt and use a generic commonly used password list, chances are any system is going to have to make many failed attempts before it gets it right, and there is no way a server should allow more than a few failed attempts before locking down.
because that is exactly the definition of a brute force, using non-impressive means to gain access to accounts by people stupid enough to use easy to guess passwords.
My bet is Apple will try. but it doesn't matter who patents it now because the university already holds prior art due to having published the scientific paper first. There is no rule that a university cannot hold a patent, the only shitty thing is if a student was the one that actually invented it, it's his professor that will take credit as the inventor. That's why you wait till you graduate before you invent shit.
nope, otherwise there would only exist 5 patents, wheel, fire, rock, paper, scissors.
You can't patent vague as much as people try. You can't get a patent where you claim "merge two things into one". The patent office wants to know what the "things" are. Even if you listed every port/card/slot combination, it still would be too vague and refused.
Also its not about being obvious. Rounded rectangles are obvious yet they were awarded anyways, unfortunately.
Anybody can extend an idea in a new patent. If there was a patent, say, for 3 legged chair, you could easily file your own patent for a 4 legged chair. But the holder of the 3 legged chair could not make a 4 legged model, and the "inventor" of the 4 legged chair could not sell a 4 legged chair (because it includes 3 legs) without entering a partnership of some sort with the original 3 legged patent holder. This is why I claim patents never actually stifle innovation because anybody can read patents and invent new things based off of other patents, but you can't produce or profit from an idea based on another patent until you work out a partnership with the original patent holder(s) in some way.
Finally even if not awarded an invention patent Apple could be awarded a design pattern, meaning they are protected for the exact placement and orientation of the two slots which there is no prior art for because nobody tried to protect a design for putting together an SD and USB slot before.
Its funny, read this yesterday on a Mac forum I like to troll, tee hee.
Its amazing the delusion of Apple fanatics going on about how revolutionary this is, how Apple's engineering is so far ahead of the competition, thinking outside the box bullshit.
But the reality is they have never seen a combined port of any sort, not in the Appleverse. The most they have seen is a multi-purpose dongle they have to hang off a proprietary port in order for it to do more than one thing. I mean it IS revolutionary that Apple is combining two general purpose technologies into one without inventing a new proprietary accessory you have to buy first.
But, the way patents work, its not just that other companies have merged two or more purposes into a single slot, its the fact that Apple is combining specifically a SD and USB which is why they will win this patent. Aside from Apple I can't see anybody caring to do this anyways, most port combos are for related purposes not just trying to minimize space, which I also don't see an issue because it would be thinner to put SD and USB beside each other rather than over top. I'd assume you still want to be able to use both slots and not just one or the other.
Anyways, whatever.
Aside from a few snarky comments about begging, I just do not understand why Wikipedia cannot be self-sustaining?
While I know you do not like ads on Wikipedia, by now you should have created an infrastructure and solutions to problems that could be used by other companies. So why not sell the SDK or API or solutions so that you can sustain Wikipedia without begging for donations?
Sure if you do not want to be rich off of Wikipedia, that is fine. I don't consider it noble by any means, but its your choice after all.
There is no reason however why Wikipedia could not be a non-profit entity that is self-sustaining by generating revenue in some way. Non-profit does not mean "no revenue" btw.
What I feel is a shame is that even if Wikipedia was a money making enterprise with obscene profits you could have put 100% of the proceeds BACK into the community, whether through educational programs, creating new solutions for education that builds off the Wikipedia platform, or otherwise have done more then be a one trick pony.
Wikipedia has not changed much over the years, it could be more interactive, dynamic, fresh. Its a shame that products like Encarta had to demise in favour of a collection of static boring web-pages. By begging for money to barely exist means you have ignored real opportunities to grow the platform and make it awesome, instead of just mediocre.
What is even more hilarious (and sad at the same time) is there is more Canadian content on the US netflix then on the Canadian one. You can get current episodes of Coonnttinnuum (the show is set in Vancouver, with all its duplicated letters in the title) and MacGyver, while US produced, was filmed in Vancouver with a largely Canadian cast.
I mean the games could be cool, and the performance great, but it doesn't change the fact they slapped a screen on a controller and called it a day.
At a time when everybody is going crazy about thin devices like tablets and phones, this thing comes out as an affront to good design.
Sure, I guess nVidia is testing the waters and seeing if there is even any interest in them producing a game platform, but I mean its a pretty weak effort IMHO. Maybe their follow up will be more inspiring, if they get to that point. This think almost reminds me of the nGage for its lack of any real focus on design, just a rush to market product to cash in on current trends.
Also considering this thing was originally priced on par with Wii U and only $50 less than the PS4. I mean come on. Even with the $50 price cut this thing is way too expensive for what it is.
I just don't think we need the Ouyas and SHIELDs. We do not need 100 special purpose devices hosting Android games. Make tablets more friendly for living room connectivity, that's all you need, like what Razer did with their Edge products. I'd rather have a tablet that I can use for other things that also happens to play high quality games on my TV easily.
If you are going to repackage phone or tablet guts into a game controller and slap on a screen, you already failed.
I think in order to claim you can drive 202 mph, you should be able to drive at that speed for an hour. Otherwise you are really getting far less actual miles per hour when you have to stop every 5 minutes and charge for 10 hours.
Really, its speed is more like 202 miles/week.
Just a reminder, before you slam me, scan for sarcasm first.
It really screams at the need for better battery technology. Come on Energizer!? 8.5 tonnes to keep a boat going and going and going?
Bottom line is, you don't like video games, period.
You think Ouya will offer some revolutionary innovative way to game over Xbox360 or PS3 (or the next gen counter parts)?
While yes, there are always great indie or alternative games out there, don't assume that the Ouya will have any more or less then any other platform. I don't single mindedly believe that indie = awesome, mainstream = sucks.
I mean, if you think "The Last of Us" is a game that sucks, or even a rehash of CoD, you just don't like playing games, period, so don't pretend to be in tune with the reality of mainstream games. There is a reason those titles sell millions of units in a few short weeks, obviously these companies are not peddling boredome.
And you can be sure that there will be a lot of derivative clones of games on the Ouya platform where "indies" will just try to clone the success of mainstream franchises. Expect a slew of Angry Bird knockoffs, or poorly done FPS, or even those same mainstream titles coming to the Ouya (albeit with inferior graphics and social features) if it picks up any real traction. To assume the Ouya will be wholly original and exciting is a gross fallacy.
Look, bottom line is, there is no reason why people feel they have to back ONE game console. I own multiple because there are great games and features on every one of them. If Ouya even has one exciting and original title on I will probably pick it up (once they iron out the many, many kinks), but it's just plain retarded to assume its competing with the likes of Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft.
From everything I read about the Ouya.
It has poor quality construction, gamepad fall apart in your hands (well, just the magnetically attached battery cover falls of, but its annoying none the less). Console DOA or dies after a mandatory update.
The menu-interface is slow and reboots frequently.
The games are not great, selection isn't great.
Requires you to have to provide credit card just to use it.
Bottom line is, you got what you paid for.
And the company's official strategy is to replace it quickly with another version you will have to buy again for $99 that may or may not fix the original Ouya issues.
If you think this is a competitor to Xbox One, PS4 or even the Wii U, you are just out of touch with reality.
I don't think you need to make any consideration for bringing ripped music across the border. US customs are not going to search your computer or devices for illegal content. There is simply not enough time in a year to do this for every person entering the country.
I can't believe the amount of FUD being spread in this thread.
The most I have ever been asked is to be able to turn on my music device (CD player and eventually iPods) to ensure it is in running order. In fact the only hassle was having a dead phone, I had to charge it up a few minutes to show them it could turn on. This was back around 2001 after 9/11 and wanted to make sure it wasn't an improvised bomb. Not sure they even do that now. I've never heard of someone having to hand over their computer to be looked at.
The moment I have to blow anything to use a device I will retire and become a Luddite.
Being ignorant of something does not mean its harmful.
What exactly is "unproven" about patents doing more good then harm? What, just because you don't like them they are obvious harmful? Your ignorance is more harmful then patents.
You claim that patents restrict someone's freedom? So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea and make money off it when someone else spends the time, effort and money to create the idea? You think the world is going to run on the honor system the moment patent and copyright laws are abolished? What a insanely stupid thing to believe.
Yes, there are many patents that are not just worthy, and I agree there is a huge issue with the patent application and granting process. The patent system needs reform for sure.
However patents themselves were ACTUALLY created to allow someone to invent something and then have it protected from unscrupulous people that would otherwise simply steal the idea and profit off it for themselves. Patents also actually publicly disclose the invention so that another person or company could build off them, provided they enter a partnership with the original patent holder. That could include licensing, royalty, or even agreeing to merge the ideas so both can profit off the end results. It gives the "freedom" of the person that invented the idea to decide how to proceed with it. The opposite of a patent, by the way, is a trade secret in which a company does not disclose in any form the invention and hope their competition is no capable of discovering how the invention works. It's a pretty much dead concept because even the most complicated system can be reversed engineered, but imagine how much innovation would be stifled if all companies worked off the idea of trade secrets and every company had to build something from scratch without any chance of cooperation or partnership.
It is simply not valid to assume that someone has a right to build off or refine an invention without entering a partnership or cooperation with the original inventor. And under MOST circumstances both parties will find some way to work together that benefits both of them. It's companies like Apple that abuse patents that operate under the premise of wanting to destroy their competition by holding a larger patent portfolio they refuse to cross license. But even then I would argue it forces companies like Google to out-innovate to compete rather then just building off of another idea. So even the premise of constant refinement through free and open invention is a fallacy.
Finally, patents are not mandatory. Nobody forces you to have to file a patent, so NO freedoms are being restricted here. I can't stand ignorant statements involving "Freedom" because it misses the point that someone has the right and freedom TO protect their content just as much as freely offer it to the world. And you can freely choose to invent something and offer it to the world as public domain however you have absolutely NO right to expect or assume compensation or even acknowledgement of being the creator of the invention. The world just doesn't work that way, there is ALWAYS someone looking for the easy way to make money. Even Open Source was created to protect acknowledgement of the original inventor of a piece of work and prevents another individual from "closing" it to profit off of someone else's idea. So even in the benevolent world of Open Source you still do not have total freedom to rip someone off and profit from their invention.
All Apple batteries are 3rd party, last I checked Apple doesn't actually make any batteries. The only difference is that Apple has learned from past fiascoes to install better quality 3rd party batteries then what you are going to get from Best Buy.
It's like McDonald's, nobody actually admits they eat them, but everybody does.
They stole this idea from a teen aged girl! Those bastards.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/06/17/1945215/teens-biofuel-invention-turns-algae-into-fuel
Surgeon was probably searching Google on how to actually do the procedure as well. "Google...how to I do a Gastrostomy".
Yes, its a brave, brave new world we are entering when surgeon's need always-on Internet to perform surgeries and respond to tweets while they have their hands in your guts.
This research was done by a man otherwise we would not be hearing about it.
With the prequels the audience was made to suffer as well.
Yes, I had to agree that the early days of .Net was a nightmare, but there was a reason for this to move towards a uniform API. .Net 4.0+ is probably one of the most well conceived and uniform API's I have ever used. Its not perfect, but its more perfect then Java or other platforms. Today avoiding Microsoft API is ill conceived and you will find that you can do so much more so much more efficiently going back to .Net, especially since Visual Studio has also matured and implemented unit testing and other automated testing features that go hand in hand with the API.
Java and C# are neck in neck today only because Java had to catch up to C# which I find develops and improves faster. While C# may have been a blatant rip off of Java in the beginning, it evolved faster and started integrating parallelism and lambda expression long before Java did.
The problem I have with Java today is its reputation. I personally have nuked Java runtime off of any computer I use. I just do not see a point to run another runtime to write and use a Windows application, especially when it introduces its own security holes and updates weekly. While Java "the language" is great for web development especially when doing Android stuff, Java "the runtime environment" is a POS that needs to be terminated.
Yes, but not to protect foreign interests, only to limit American rights.
Do I hear sirens?
"UN is 'a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil"
so we kill them all, muwahahaha.