This may be a dumb question, but why can't Java just provide access to the existing desktop GUI (Windows, OSX, QT, whatever) rather than re-inventing the wheel with it's own set of widgets that inevitably don't look or behave like native apps?
It's not a stupid question.
Short answer: Because Java is meant to be cross-platform.
Long answer: I really don't want to re-write the ENTIRE GUI for each platform I port my app to. Would you? You're right, though - Java apps don't look like native apps. But that's a small thing to sacrifice for my app being able to run on almost any platform. However, they don't "behave" like native apps? Menu behavior is standardized. Buttons are standardized. They may not look the same, but they behave the same
Basically, you're using "re-inventing the wheel" is the wrong sense of the phrase, when it comes to programming. Sun can re-invent the wheel one time for each platform the JVM is ported to, or it can force you to re-invent the wheel for your GUI for *every* platform you want your app to run on. Pick one.
You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.
Actually, that's completely wrong. Untrusted OSS tools simply wouldn't be able to access the the "trusted" memory pool or interact at all with "trusted" components. See this FAQ.
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
Well... yeah. Sony broke the law, and the state prosecutes them. I honestly don't see your point here. The state goes after them so that the burden is not on the people to make sure that Sony is punished. However, the people can still get damages from Sony.
Wait, it is costly to sue a big company? Might that be due to the laws created in your state? Might that be due to the lawyers in control of the operation of the law?
So do you suggest punishing the state for their big bad laws? Even the most benign law can be misused, to the detrement of the so-called little guy. But that's why you can keep appealing your case until it reaches the Supreme Court, at which point it's just you, opposing counsel, and nine old guys. Lawyers are indeed costly, but that's not the state's fault. And considering the only direct cost to the plaintiff is lawyers' fees, it's... not the state's fault! But there's also pro bono attorneys. Also, lawyers don't really control the laws, they abide by them. Judges and congesspeople are there for just that. I hear they even have gavels.
They're going to fight Sony with millions of taxpayer dollars, and if they win, the taxpayers won't see a cent, but a bunch of state lawyers and Sony lawyers will be wealthier.
Actually, state lawyers don't make a commission, only a steady salary. Watch Law & Order sometime, and point out to me the first gold wristwatch that you see.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Believe it or not, Congress writes laws. Admittedly, Congress is made up of lawyers, but they're non-practicing. Also, even a lawyer involved in the creation of a law (perhaps through lobbying) would argue either a) the defendant broke the law, or b) the defendant did not break the law. Whether or not the law is constitutional is a decision left up to the Supreme Court, and whether or not the law is just is a question that goes right back to Congress.
To put it another way, say I wrote a law prohibiting murder. Now, out of the goodness of my heart, I am defending a man accused of murder for free. Would I be lax in my defense of this man, simply because I wrote the penal code for his alleged crime? Of course not! The same goes for contract law. Actually, it's much less likely for contract law, because those who write contract law are very rarely called upon for court cases.
Ah, those good ol' days, when you could sue the pants off somebody without a lawyer... wait. Maybe there's a reason for lawyers? Oh, that's right - they know the law! They can make an intelligent argument for a position, based on the facts of the case, precedent, and their overall knowledge of... the law! Also, they weren't "the days" when you didn't need a lawyer; lawyers have been around for centuries. Millenia. For a reason. You must have some picture in your mind of a rural area a long time ago, where there were no lawyers. There's a reason, unfortunately, for that too. They were poor! Back then, lawyers were much more expensive than they are today, and there probably weren't any around, because there weren't many law schools in their neck of the woods.
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
I recall this happening in Independence Day. Before I saw that movie, I had no idea that a Mac could give an alien computer a virus! (Which confirms my suspicions about Steve Jobs...)
If he already has the source, then this problem may be easy enough to make asking Slashdot unnecessary. However, there are instances in which asking Slashdot is necessary. If they didn't have most of the source, for example. Or, for example, in this article, where an IT guy was asked to make an infrastructure for over one million email accounts that must scale perfectly and have 99.9% uptime. Show me a university that trains students for that.
It's the service that indexes and provides easy access to illegal material (software, music, child pornography) that is at fault.
So is Google at fault for indiscriminantly indexing a Russian kiddie porn site, and thereby allowing users easy access to it by using a simple search form?
And "protocol vs. service"? A protocol is useless without a service (also known as the client). For example, are you saying that my computer and an Internet server can communicate via HTTP just fine, but building a browser that presents, in human-readable form, that same kiddie porn site is illegal?
I've checked on http://www.new.net/, and guess what? People have already registered popular domain names under.xxx! Here's some of the ones I found, along with their owners:
microsoft.xxx is owned by:
C Angle
cja5481@hotmail.com
10 Bryn Hedydd
Morriston
Swansea, SA6 8BS
GB
yahoo.xxx is owned by:
P.+Adams P.+Adams
biz2004@mail.com
PO+Box+811505
Los Angeles, CA 90081
US
google.xxx is owned by:
Nader Driver
driverinc@hotmail.com
14 Relroy Court
Toronto, Ontario M1W 2Y7
CA
ebay.xxx is owned by:
Xingtao Jiang
sinoleojiang@yahoo.com.cn
Nanjing Road
Shanghai, none 200070
CN
I dunno, but it looks to me like those domains haven't been registered by their respective companies. A WHOIS yields (predictably) nada on any of these, but if they actually go up, I'll be looking forward to the lawsuit landslide.
It's practically impossible to completely protect public computers (wow, that's a lot of "p"s in one sentence). In a strange coincidence, I first read this particular/. story this morning at my local library. I normally shouldn't have been able to do that, because the library has a specially-developed browser that only lets you access about five websites, but it took me all of about 30 seconds to hack around that and open up IE. This guy probably did the same.
Besides, a librarian can't watch over your shoulder the entire time you're using their computers. Could they hire an IT guy to secure the computers so well that it would be practically impossible to access restricted content? Maybe. But I think that his $60,000-or-more salary might be better spent on, oh, a couple thousand new books? A new non-fiction wing?
Oh, and my library does have a separate room where a permission slip is required for access. A permission slip? That'll keep the sex offenders at bay.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: it's called SKOOL.
Here.
This may be a dumb question, but why can't Java just provide access to the existing desktop GUI (Windows, OSX, QT, whatever) rather than re-inventing the wheel with it's own set of widgets that inevitably don't look or behave like native apps?
It's not a stupid question.
Short answer: Because Java is meant to be cross-platform.
Long answer: I really don't want to re-write the ENTIRE GUI for each platform I port my app to. Would you? You're right, though - Java apps don't look like native apps. But that's a small thing to sacrifice for my app being able to run on almost any platform. However, they don't "behave" like native apps? Menu behavior is standardized. Buttons are standardized. They may not look the same, but they behave the same
Basically, you're using "re-inventing the wheel" is the wrong sense of the phrase, when it comes to programming. Sun can re-invent the wheel one time for each platform the JVM is ported to, or it can force you to re-invent the wheel for your GUI for *every* platform you want your app to run on. Pick one.
You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.
Actually, that's completely wrong. Untrusted OSS tools simply wouldn't be able to access the the "trusted" memory pool or interact at all with "trusted" components. See this FAQ.
Designed by committee... C... 0... B... 0... L...
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
Well... yeah. Sony broke the law, and the state prosecutes them. I honestly don't see your point here. The state goes after them so that the burden is not on the people to make sure that Sony is punished. However, the people can still get damages from Sony.
Wait, it is costly to sue a big company? Might that be due to the laws created in your state? Might that be due to the lawyers in control of the operation of the law?
So do you suggest punishing the state for their big bad laws? Even the most benign law can be misused, to the detrement of the so-called little guy. But that's why you can keep appealing your case until it reaches the Supreme Court, at which point it's just you, opposing counsel, and nine old guys.
Lawyers are indeed costly, but that's not the state's fault. And considering the only direct cost to the plaintiff is lawyers' fees, it's... not the state's fault! But there's also pro bono attorneys. Also, lawyers don't really control the laws, they abide by them. Judges and congesspeople are there for just that. I hear they even have gavels.
They're going to fight Sony with millions of taxpayer dollars, and if they win, the taxpayers won't see a cent, but a bunch of state lawyers and Sony lawyers will be wealthier.
Actually, state lawyers don't make a commission, only a steady salary. Watch Law & Order sometime, and point out to me the first gold wristwatch that you see.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Believe it or not, Congress writes laws. Admittedly, Congress is made up of lawyers, but they're non-practicing. Also, even a lawyer involved in the creation of a law (perhaps through lobbying) would argue either a) the defendant broke the law, or b) the defendant did not break the law. Whether or not the law is constitutional is a decision left up to the Supreme Court, and whether or not the law is just is a question that goes right back to Congress.
To put it another way, say I wrote a law prohibiting murder. Now, out of the goodness of my heart, I am defending a man accused of murder for free. Would I be lax in my defense of this man, simply because I wrote the penal code for his alleged crime? Of course not! The same goes for contract law. Actually, it's much less likely for contract law, because those who write contract law are very rarely called upon for court cases.
Ah, those good ol' days, when you could sue the pants off somebody without a lawyer... wait. Maybe there's a reason for lawyers? Oh, that's right - they know the law! They can make an intelligent argument for a position, based on the facts of the case, precedent, and their overall knowledge of... the law! Also, they weren't "the days" when you didn't need a lawyer; lawyers have been around for centuries. Millenia. For a reason. You must have some picture in your mind of a rural area a long time ago, where there were no lawyers. There's a reason, unfortunately, for that too. They were poor! Back then, lawyers were much more expensive than they are today, and there probably weren't any around, because there weren't many law schools in their neck of the woods. Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
That they were lying is one possible explanation. Looking on the bright side, another possibility is that they're just incompetent.
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to by incompetence - Some Dead Guy.
I recall this happening in Independence Day. Before I saw that movie, I had no idea that a Mac could give an alien computer a virus! (Which confirms my suspicions about Steve Jobs...)
saying that herpes is good thing, because at least you're getting some ass!
Ironically, one of the users who tagged the book was named "Jesus."
If he already has the source, then this problem may be easy enough to make asking Slashdot unnecessary. However, there are instances in which asking Slashdot is necessary. If they didn't have most of the source, for example. Or, for example, in this article, where an IT guy was asked to make an infrastructure for over one million email accounts that must scale perfectly and have 99.9% uptime. Show me a university that trains students for that.
I think I'll start working on my Nintendo DS emulator right now!
It's only a matter of time before the music labels will want a $.02 royalty for every time I imagine Britney Spears naked...
It's not entrapment, it's like LoJak for movies.
Without the blaring alarm and cops chasing you, that is.
It's the service that indexes and provides easy access to illegal material (software, music, child pornography) that is at fault.
So is Google at fault for indiscriminantly indexing a Russian kiddie porn site, and thereby allowing users easy access to it by using a simple search form?
And "protocol vs. service"? A protocol is useless without a service (also known as the client). For example, are you saying that my computer and an Internet server can communicate via HTTP just fine, but building a browser that presents, in human-readable form, that same kiddie porn site is illegal?
I've checked on http://www.new.net/, and guess what? People have already registered popular domain names under .xxx! Here's some of the ones I found, along with their owners:
microsoft.xxx is owned by:
C Angle
cja5481@hotmail.com
10 Bryn Hedydd
Morriston
Swansea, SA6 8BS
GB
yahoo.xxx is owned by:
P.+Adams P.+Adams
biz2004@mail.com
PO+Box+811505
Los Angeles, CA 90081
US
google.xxx is owned by:
Nader Driver
driverinc@hotmail.com
14 Relroy Court
Toronto, Ontario M1W 2Y7
CA
ebay.xxx is owned by:
Xingtao Jiang
sinoleojiang@yahoo.com.cn
Nanjing Road
Shanghai, none 200070
CN
I dunno, but it looks to me like those domains haven't been registered by their respective companies. A WHOIS yields (predictably) nada on any of these, but if they actually go up, I'll be looking forward to the lawsuit landslide.
It's practically impossible to completely protect public computers (wow, that's a lot of "p"s in one sentence). In a strange coincidence, I first read this particular /. story this morning at my local library. I normally shouldn't have been able to do that, because the library has a specially-developed browser that only lets you access about five websites, but it took me all of about 30 seconds to hack around that and open up IE. This guy probably did the same.
Besides, a librarian can't watch over your shoulder the entire time you're using their computers. Could they hire an IT guy to secure the computers so well that it would be practically impossible to access restricted content? Maybe. But I think that his $60,000-or-more salary might be better spent on, oh, a couple thousand new books? A new non-fiction wing?
Oh, and my library does have a separate room where a permission slip is required for access. A permission slip? That'll keep the sex offenders at bay.
IBM has always been cozy with eBay; as I recall, eBay's logo said "powered by IBM" for quite a long time.