What is the CRTC thinking? Bell should be split into two companies: one responsible for the internet infrastructure, another for selling internet service to end-customers. It makes absolutely no sense for Bell to be able to rent its lines to Teksavvy, then tell it how to run its business. Bell is abusing its monopoly power!
"People think that profiling is old fashioned and invasive, but it saves the day," said Pini Schiff, who served for close to 30 years in the Ben-Gurion security division. "The Nigerian terrorist would have undergone comprehensive inspections at Ben-Gurion Airport, and without a doubt I can tell you that the explosives he was carrying would have been discovered."
Schiff's proof is the Hindawi affair. On April 17, 1986, a pregnant Irishwoman, Anne-Marie Murphy, arrived at Heathrow Airport with a large bag to catch El Al flight 016 to Tel Aviv. Her bag, Schiff said, had been checked by British airport security and passed, but during the standard questioning, the El Al security guard decided to check it once more.
"Her answers to our questions just didn't add up," Schiff recalled.
A second inspection of the bag discovered a sophisticated bomb made up of Semtex plastic explosives with a detonator hidden inside a calculator that was set to activate when the plane reached a cruising attitude of 39,000 feet. During her subsequent interrogation, Murphy spoke about her Jordanian boyfriend, Nizar Hindawi, who, together with the Syrian Embassy in London, it turned out, had planned the attack. Murphy, who was carrying Hindawi's child, was entirely unaware that he had been sending her to her death.
Someone hijacks a flight passing through US airspace but not landing in it to pull off an attack similar to the attack on the World Trade Center.
To be honest with you, I just don't care anymore. If someone crashes a plane and kills a few thousand Americans, I no longer see that as adequate justification for the nonsense millions of air travellers have to put up with every single day. Sure have your minutes silence at the UN. Have a few for all those victims of starvation and genocide while you're at it.
But please, let me get a flight my country to another country and back without having to take off my shoes and belt, step through a perv machine, give up all my data to third party TSAs, and sit for an hour without a book, drink, mp3 player, laptop or the right to take a piss, just because you think you're so important that I might just hijack the plane, fly it across the Atlantic and crash it into your local Wal-mart.
Wow... what an idiot.
People's right to live comes before your personal comfort. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege.
A lot of the inconveniences you're talking about are a direct result of political correctness. Ask yourself why the world's safest airline (El Al) doesn't put their passengers through the same bullshit. They limit such restrictions to a high-risk travelers. Political correctness prevents us from using common sense. 80 year old grannies traveling in wheel chairs should not undergo the same security checks as 18 year old middle eastern men. But I'm guessing you're not willing to cross that bridge, are you?
Personally I don't mind either approach, so long as travelers stop acting as if someone "owes" them something. No one owes you anything. Don't like your flying experience? Stop flying.
All three articles credit Israeli researchers for having made the discovery. The only relationship this story has with the UK is that the first link happens to be a UK newspaper.
Wrong. The more often bad companies go out of business, the more often their corrupt executives will go to jail or be sued, the less often this kind of thing will happen. Bailing out corrupt corporations taught them nothing. How do you expect capitalistic "survival of the fittest" to work when you bail out the losers?
I have experience writing Java classloaders and I've worked extensively with JAR files. I have fairly good knowledge of JS too. I think we're having a communication problem here. I keep on asking you to paste a code sniplet to demonstrate what you're trying to say and you keep on making up reasons for why you won't do so. So I attempt to read your mind (which I'll be first to admit, is hard) and paste some code to work with but honestly you can save both of us a lot of trouble by simply providing a concrete example of what you mean.
I know I quoted HTML. We are comparing how JS and Java execute in the context of a *webpage* after all. If you're referring to a different scenario feel free to explain it.
<script type="text/javascript"> // main logic goes here
<script src="a.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="b.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="c.js" type="text/javascript"></script> </script>
and I was arguing that this is no different than running an applet:
- load main.jar - applet starts running (run "main logic goes here") - run some code that causes a.jar to load - run some code that causes b.jar to load - run some code that causes c.jar to load
Well, you can hardly blame them. Everyone complains that application/plugin X isn't as fast as Flash or Internet Explorer. Yes, that's nice but both of those are preloaded with the OS.
Application developers will stop preloading their applications the second users stop implicitly demanding that they do:) By the way, this preloading feature is disabled in Vista because there the OS is supposed to be smart enough to preload *any* application that is frequently used.
In your original post you list 6 lines of JS code that loads 3 external scripts.
No, no I didn't. I listed the steps the browser took for each technology, in order. Are you at all familiar with the Javascript language? If not, you may want to consider brushing up before you make comparative statements about Java and Javascript. The two serve very different needs and operate in very different fashions.
I believe I am quite familiar with Javascript. Can you please provide a JS code sniplet that would generate the 6 lines of behavior you mentioned? I have some in mind but I suspect you are thinking of something else.
In your original post you list 6 lines of JS code that loads 3 external scripts. I agree with you that Java can't do the equivalent of inline-JS but I argue that this doesn't matter because most websites use external JS files.
So, assuming those 6 lines of code are found in some external file (say main.js) I would argue this is no different from downloading main.jar which then downloads a.jar, b.jar and c.jar on-demand as it hits the relevant lines of code. Yes, main.jar has to be fully downloaded in order to run, but so does main.js.
Nothing happens until the first JAR is downloaded. Period. End of Story. It does not compare to Javascript in any way, shape, or form.
How is this any different than a webpage that links to an external JS file (as most websites do)? In both cases, you need to download the initial JS or JAR file before loading the rest on demand.
I'm not certain whether the latter feature also works for applets (I suspect so) but it proves my point that this is technically possible and already implemented.
I don't think that's true. I remember reading that applets support loading JAR files on demand. This is especially true in Java6 update 10 where they folded in a lot of the Java Webstart functionality into applets. That isn't any worse than what JS can do.
No, you're thinking of Java6 (no updates). Java6 update 10 introduced many client-side enhancements, such as preloading of the browser plugin so the first time you hit applets they load instantaneously.
If someone has an unhealthy addiction to a substance you should be breaking that addiction, not fueling it. When gambling addicts sell their homes away the correct response is hardly "well, addiction is another kind of need". No, this kind of addiction is ruining people's lives. We shouldn't be facilitating this kind of destructive behavior. The more hoops people have to jump through to get trapped in this kind of destructive behavior, the better.
You need food to live. You don't need drugs to live. If there was a particular food that was so addictive that people were killing themselves over I would not hesitate in banning it.
I agree that alcohol has a negative affect on some of its users. However, I would point out that this hardly calls for replacing one drug with another.
A far better solution would be to develop a new stimulant with none of these negative impacts. Kind of like StarTrek's equivalent of alcohol;)
Replace drugs with sugar or fat and ask yourself the same question.
Potato chips create more health care costs than any drug ever has.
No one has held up banks or killed people for sugar before. No sir, the major difference is that drugs are extremely addictive. Far more than sugar or fat ever will be.
Legalizing would not change most of those things, except one important one: the drug cartels (a source of much violence) go out of business overnight.
How do you figure? They are the market leader. They hold most of the supplies. They have and use arms to take out the competition. Go out of business overnight? Hardly. Demand would go up.
I think Chris Rock put it best... What about the good side of crack? For $2.99 you could buy yourself a brand new sofa and a stereo system...
Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Speaking of Freedom of Speech, Expression, etc. Are you really Free when you do hard drugs? Or are the drugs the ones in control?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the CRTC thinking? Bell should be split into two companies: one responsible for the internet infrastructure, another for selling internet service to end-customers. It makes absolutely no sense for Bell to be able to rent its lines to Teksavvy, then tell it how to run its business. Bell is abusing its monopoly power!
What can we do about this?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339393752&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Profiling is a lot more effective than you think. Case in point:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364564590&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
"People think that profiling is old fashioned and invasive, but it saves the day," said Pini Schiff, who served for close to 30 years in the Ben-Gurion security division. "The Nigerian terrorist would have undergone comprehensive inspections at Ben-Gurion Airport, and without a doubt I can tell you that the explosives he was carrying would have been discovered."
Schiff's proof is the Hindawi affair. On April 17, 1986, a pregnant Irishwoman, Anne-Marie Murphy, arrived at Heathrow Airport with a large bag to catch El Al flight 016 to Tel Aviv. Her bag, Schiff said, had been checked by British airport security and passed, but during the standard questioning, the El Al security guard decided to check it once more.
"Her answers to our questions just didn't add up," Schiff recalled.
A second inspection of the bag discovered a sophisticated bomb made up of Semtex plastic explosives with a detonator hidden inside a calculator that was set to activate when the plane reached a cruising attitude of 39,000 feet. During her subsequent interrogation, Murphy spoke about her Jordanian boyfriend, Nizar Hindawi, who, together with the Syrian Embassy in London, it turned out, had planned the attack. Murphy, who was carrying Hindawi's child, was entirely unaware that he had been sending her to her death.
To be honest with you, I just don't care anymore. If someone crashes a plane and kills a few thousand Americans, I no longer see that as adequate justification for the nonsense millions of air travellers have to put up with every single day. Sure have your minutes silence at the UN. Have a few for all those victims of starvation and genocide while you're at it.
But please, let me get a flight my country to another country and back without having to take off my shoes and belt, step through a perv machine, give up all my data to third party TSAs, and sit for an hour without a book, drink, mp3 player, laptop or the right to take a piss, just because you think you're so important that I might just hijack the plane, fly it across the Atlantic and crash it into your local Wal-mart.
Wow... what an idiot.
People's right to live comes before your personal comfort. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege.
A lot of the inconveniences you're talking about are a direct result of political correctness. Ask yourself why the world's safest airline (El Al) doesn't put their passengers through the same bullshit. They limit such restrictions to a high-risk travelers. Political correctness prevents us from using common sense. 80 year old grannies traveling in wheel chairs should not undergo the same security checks as 18 year old middle eastern men. But I'm guessing you're not willing to cross that bridge, are you?
Personally I don't mind either approach, so long as travelers stop acting as if someone "owes" them something. No one owes you anything. Don't like your flying experience? Stop flying.
All three articles credit Israeli researchers for having made the discovery. The only relationship this story has with the UK is that the first link happens to be a UK newspaper.
Wrong. The more often bad companies go out of business, the more often their corrupt executives will go to jail or be sued, the less often this kind of thing will happen. Bailing out corrupt corporations taught them nothing. How do you expect capitalistic "survival of the fittest" to work when you bail out the losers?
Right on!
Anyone who has actually tried Windows 7 in person will attest to the fact that it is *far* snappier than Vista.
Vista used to throttle my hard-drive for 20 minutes on bootup. Windows7 does not. Everything runs noticeably faster.
I'll pretend I'm not offended :)
I have experience writing Java classloaders and I've worked extensively with JAR files. I have fairly good knowledge of JS too. I think we're having a communication problem here. I keep on asking you to paste a code sniplet to demonstrate what you're trying to say and you keep on making up reasons for why you won't do so. So I attempt to read your mind (which I'll be first to admit, is hard) and paste some code to work with but honestly you can save both of us a lot of trouble by simply providing a concrete example of what you mean.
I know I quoted HTML. We are comparing how JS and Java execute in the context of a *webpage* after all. If you're referring to a different scenario feel free to explain it.
Why would I re-implement the browser's parsing and Javascript engine in Javascript? That seems pretty silly.
That's not what I was asking for. You wrote:
1. Read <script src="a.js">
2. Execute a.js
3. Read <script src="b.js">
4. Execute b.js
5. Read <script src="c.js">
6. Execute c.js
I believe this corresponds to this code:
<script type="text/javascript">
// main logic goes here
<script src="a.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="b.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="c.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
</script>
and I was arguing that this is no different than running an applet:
- load main.jar
- applet starts running (run "main logic goes here")
- run some code that causes a.jar to load
- run some code that causes b.jar to load
- run some code that causes c.jar to load
Well, you can hardly blame them. Everyone complains that application/plugin X isn't as fast as Flash or Internet Explorer. Yes, that's nice but both of those are preloaded with the OS.
Application developers will stop preloading their applications the second users stop implicitly demanding that they do :) By the way, this preloading feature is disabled in Vista because there the OS is supposed to be smart enough to preload *any* application that is frequently used.
No, no I didn't. I listed the steps the browser took for each technology, in order. Are you at all familiar with the Javascript language? If not, you may want to consider brushing up before you make comparative statements about Java and Javascript. The two serve very different needs and operate in very different fashions.
I believe I am quite familiar with Javascript. Can you please provide a JS code sniplet that would generate the 6 lines of behavior you mentioned? I have some in mind but I suspect you are thinking of something else.
I honestly don't see what you mean.
In your original post you list 6 lines of JS code that loads 3 external scripts. I agree with you that Java can't do the equivalent of inline-JS but I argue that this doesn't matter because most websites use external JS files.
So, assuming those 6 lines of code are found in some external file (say main.js) I would argue this is no different from downloading main.jar which then downloads a.jar, b.jar and c.jar on-demand as it hits the relevant lines of code. Yes, main.jar has to be fully downloaded in order to run, but so does main.js.
Nothing happens until the first JAR is downloaded. Period. End of Story. It does not compare to Javascript in any way, shape, or form.
How is this any different than a webpage that links to an external JS file (as most websites do)? In both cases, you need to download the initial JS or JAR file before loading the rest on demand.
Either way, the entire applet must be downloaded before execution can begin.
Wrong. Here are some enhancements that have been added recently:
Java6: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4690736
Java6 update 10: "Lazy Downloading" at the bottom of http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jweb/deployment_advice.html
I'm not certain whether the latter feature also works for applets (I suspect so) but it proves my point that this is technically possible and already implemented.
What Java version are you using? What JavaFX app are you running?
I don't think that's true. I remember reading that applets support loading JAR files on demand. This is especially true in Java6 update 10 where they folded in a lot of the Java Webstart functionality into applets. That isn't any worse than what JS can do.
There is, actually ;) No promises, but from what I hear it might be included in the next update release.
No, you're thinking of Java6 (no updates). Java6 update 10 introduced many client-side enhancements, such as preloading of the browser plugin so the first time you hit applets they load instantaneously.
Try Java6 update 10 and you'll be surprised. The plugin loads instantaneously and I believe applets load jars on demand as well.
What kind of twisted logic is that?
If someone has an unhealthy addiction to a substance you should be breaking that addiction, not fueling it. When gambling addicts sell their homes away the correct response is hardly "well, addiction is another kind of need". No, this kind of addiction is ruining people's lives. We shouldn't be facilitating this kind of destructive behavior. The more hoops people have to jump through to get trapped in this kind of destructive behavior, the better.
You need food to live. You don't need drugs to live. If there was a particular food that was so addictive that people were killing themselves over I would not hesitate in banning it.
I agree that alcohol has a negative affect on some of its users. However, I would point out that this hardly calls for replacing one drug with another.
A far better solution would be to develop a new stimulant with none of these negative impacts. Kind of like StarTrek's equivalent of alcohol ;)
Replace drugs with sugar or fat and ask yourself the same question.
Potato chips create more health care costs than any drug ever has.
No one has held up banks or killed people for sugar before. No sir, the major difference is that drugs are extremely addictive. Far more than sugar or fat ever will be.
Legalizing would not change most of those things, except one important one: the drug cartels (a source of much violence) go out of business overnight.
How do you figure? They are the market leader. They hold most of the supplies. They have and use arms to take out the competition. Go out of business overnight? Hardly. Demand would go up.
I think Chris Rock put it best... What about the good side of crack? For $2.99 you could buy yourself a brand new sofa and a stereo system...
Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Speaking of Freedom of Speech, Expression, etc. Are you really Free when you do hard drugs? Or are the drugs the ones in control?