Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Re: Dumb instanceof question

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Dumb instanceof question

 
 
Paul Tomblin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2003
In a previous article, Sudsy <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>Roedy Green wrote:
><snip>
>> 2. insisting you see long URLs just to reference them.

>
>Sorry, Roedy, but i'll take 24x80 text any day. That invalidates your
>point 3. Points 1, 2 and 4 are general complaints. Quite frankly, I'd


Actually, I think point 2 is a feature, not a bug. Lots of people get
suckered into clicking onto malicious sites because they didn't see the
URL they were clicking on. I keep getting these emails that says
something like "there is a problem with your ebay/paypal/amazon account,
please click here and log in", where "here" is a URL that takes you to a
site that isn't ebay/paypal/amazon, but which looks exactly like their
login screens. Obviously there are enough stupid people out there to make
those scams work, but I'll bet you anything that none of them were using
plain text email or news clients.


--
Paul Tomblin <(E-Mail Removed)>, not speaking for anybody
If Microsoft made your letter box, all some one would have to do is write
"Burn the house down" on a piece of paper and post it through the door,
and your house would go up in flames. - David Ruck
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2003
Sudsy <(E-Mail Removed)> horrified us with:

> Roedy Green wrote:
> <snip>
>> The most virtuous newsreader at this point would display HTML but
>> would not produce it.
>>
>> Eventually the newsgroups will flip to html or something more
>> structured.
>>
>> Raw text has its problems:
>>
>> 1. breaking URL over a line.
>>
>> 2. insisting you see long URLs just to reference them.
>>
>> 3. no convenient way to display aligned tabular data. The user has to
>> flip to fixed pitch just to view. Lots of fiddling preparing it.
>>
>> 4. attributions get scrambled.

>
> Sorry, Roedy, but i'll take 24x80 text any day. That invalidates your
> point 3. Points 1, 2 and 4 are general complaints. Quite frankly, I'd


....[snipriptearshredgash]...

My observations had more to do with what WILL happen, not why it should
happen, but in any case Roedy is right, and SURE points 1, 2, and 4 are
general complaints----that's the point.

That being said, I think that you are very much in the minority in wanting
"24x80", assuming that's characters and not pixels

Go ahead guys, holler at me, but the truth is that this kind of thing was
said with *ENORMOUS* ire when people started sending HTML emails around.
Stuck in the muds complaining that their software, or even VT100's couldn't
read it, that kind of thing. Now I'm GLAD there is a formatted text
standard. Though I'm still a tad partial to display postscript over html...








 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2003
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:48:34 -0400, Sudsy <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote or quoted :

> (not necessary on
>my Linux platform) than dealing with HTML and JavaScript and pop-up
>chains from h*ll.


the solution is develop technology to prevent abuse, not sit in the
dark rubbing sticks together forever. 100 years from now do you still
think people won't be able to share unmangled source text?
won't get the attributions straight automatically.
won't be able to misquote someone.
won't have a way of sharing tabular data?
won't have a way of including a photo or diagram?
Won't be able to organising posts with subheadings, indentation, etc.


If not, why wait?

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas G. Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
Roedy Green <(E-Mail Removed)> horrified us with:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:48:34 -0400, Sudsy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote or quoted :
>
>> (not necessary on
>> my Linux platform) than dealing with HTML and JavaScript and pop-up
>> chains from h*ll.

>
> the solution is develop technology to prevent abuse, not sit in the
> dark rubbing sticks together forever. 100 years from now do you still
> think people won't be able to share unmangled source text?
> won't get the attributions straight automatically.
> won't be able to misquote someone.
> won't have a way of sharing tabular data?
> won't have a way of including a photo or diagram?
> Won't be able to organising posts with subheadings, indentation, etc.
>
>
> If not, why wait?


To further the point, I've noticed a parallel argument amongst the
anti-cellphone-while-driving nazi's.

The introduction of any technology is often to one extent or another a bumpy
ride. Remember that in 1910 there were people complaining about the
horseless cariage with the following (then compelling) arguments:

1. Most of the roads are meant for horses
2. The few that have horseless cariages are frightening the horses of
which there are far more than motors.
3. The horseless cariage is causing deaths to increase because it is an
inherrently unsafe way to travel.

All three statements were technically correct, but the argument is incorrect
because it is devoid of the vision of where the future lies.















 
Reply With Quote
 
Sudsy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
Roedy Green wrote:
<snip>
> the solution is develop technology to prevent abuse, not sit in the
> dark rubbing sticks together forever. 100 years from now do you still
> think people won't be able to share unmangled source text?


And you've said a mouthful there. My premise is that straight text WILL
still be accessible to future generations, much as people today are able
to read newspapers printed 100 years ago. Once you add too much in the
way of extensions so as to support inclusion of images and whatever else
is the flavour of the month, you run the risk of challenges.
Consider the situation with Unisys and their attempts to enforce the
licensing of the GIFF encoding.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg! Companies attempt to include
algorithms and processes to which they hold patent rights in what are
supposed to be "industry standards".
I can't be the only one here who has witnessed this kind of chicanery!
So, yes! I'm quite comfortable sticking with plain text for newsgroups,
e-mail and the like. If someone wants to include an attachment then I
have options as to how I deal with it, including the opportunity to
save it in /dev/null. I don't have those same options when the content
is "in-lined".
Perhaps I am an anachronism. At least I can state positively that I've
never had any of my systems infected by a virus, worm or Trojan Horse,
knock on wood!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Manish Jethani
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
Patrick May wrote:

> If there is a real need for rich format, a pointer to a
> website or ftp'able document is a functional alternative.


And this could be a feature of the mail client.

--------
Hi Bob,

Here's my latest bunch-of-crap:

<INLINE:http://bunch-of-crap.com/latest/23123.html>

Hope you enjoy it!

Pete
--------

A mail client that supports it will inline the content from that
URL. And one that doesn't support will be just fine with this.

Again, the mail client should make it easy for users to
frequently upload content and send a link. This feature could
be added transparently on top of existing HTML-mail support, and
users need not notice this even (except that they have to enter
their ftp server auth info when configuring their mail accounts).

This will reduce bandwith-consumption in comparison with
existing HTML-mail.

-Manish

--
Manish Jethani (manish.j at gmx.net)
phone (work) +91-80-51073488

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dumb, Dumb Vista Au79 Computer Support 4 02-11-2007 03:40 PM
instanceof NOT (always) bad? The instanceof myth. dmx_dawg@hotmail.com Java 21 07-20-2006 07:06 PM
instanceof question Dotty Java 2 02-16-2005 05:15 AM
Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion David Napierkowski Digital Photography 6 10-31-2004 11:14 PM
dumb newbie question (or newbie dumb question) Jerry C. Perl Misc 8 11-23-2003 04:11 AM



Advertisments