Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Java Programming Best Practices

Reply
Thread Tools

Java Programming Best Practices

 
 
Daniel Pitts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2012
On 7/21/12 6:59 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
> On 7/21/2012 5:55 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:53:39 -0400, Eric Sosman
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
>> someone who said :
>>
>>> I like "Effective Java" by Josh Bloch.

>>
>> ditto. http://mindprod.com/book/9780321356680.html

>
> It is not difficult to Google.
>
> Of course Google would produce links without
> referrals.

And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search. Perhaps
its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2012
On 7/22/2012 7:11 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:
> On 7/21/12 6:59 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>> On 7/21/2012 5:55 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:53:39 -0400, Eric Sosman
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
>>> someone who said :
>>>
>>>> I like "Effective Java" by Josh Bloch.
>>>
>>> ditto. http://mindprod.com/book/9780321356680.html

>>
>> It is not difficult to Google.
>>
>> Of course Google would produce links without
>> referrals.

> And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search.


Of course. I think most people understand that Google is a business
and that they make money from ads.

> Perhaps
> its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
> linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?


I am not generally against people making money on being helpful.

If Roedy has been the first to suggest that book with the link
and the page had contained a note explaining that he would make
money if the reader clicked the link and bought the book then
I would certainly not have posted anything.

If just one of the these has been the case, then I would
probably not have posted either.

But trying to make money from usenet without really
providing any help and hiding that one is making money
is a tad too greedy in my book.

Arne




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2012
On 7/22/2012 7:11 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:
> On 7/21/12 6:59 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>> On 7/21/2012 5:55 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:53:39 -0400, Eric Sosman
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
>>> someone who said :
>>>
>>>> I like "Effective Java" by Josh Bloch.
>>>
>>> ditto. http://mindprod.com/book/9780321356680.html

>>
>> It is not difficult to Google.
>>
>> Of course Google would produce links without
>> referrals.

> And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search.


Of course. I think most people understand that Google is a business
and that they make money from ads.

> Perhaps
> its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
> linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?


I am not generally against people making money on being helpful.

If Roedy has been the first to suggest that book with the link
and the page had contained a note explaining that he would make
money if the reader clicked the link and bought the book then
I would certainly not have posted anything.

If just one of the these has been the case, then I would
probably not have posted either.

But trying to make money from usenet without really
providing any help and hiding that one is making money
is a tad too greedy in my book.

Arne




 
Reply With Quote
 
markspace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2012
On 7/22/2012 3:43 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

> I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
> Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).



Furthermore I recall that Roedy lives in Canada, and maintains his web
presence there, complicating the whole "US law" thing even more. (What
treaties exist to cover speech? I don't know.)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2012
On 7/22/2012 6:43 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 22.07.2012 23:25, Lew wrote:
>> On 07/22/2012 01:43 PM, Philip Brown wrote:

>
>>> But even from a legal standpoint, religion is a protected
>>> characteristic, so that site is clearly engaging in hate speech.

>>
>> Huh? Religion?
>>
>> And religion is a matter of choice, so one is perfectly free to speak
>> against the practices of any relgion, including even atheism.

>
> I think you are arguing from very different legal systems here. If
> anything, Philip you should mention the legal basis you are arguing
> from. The US, for example and as far as I know, are strictly liberal
> when it comes to freedom of speech. In the US you are allowed to say
> things which are banned, for example, in Germany (for historic reasons).
>
> I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
> Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).
> Whether you think those claims are true or not, or even good to have
> that on the site is a totally different question.


Here's something I know about R.G.: He favors vigilantism
and vandalism as a means of regulating the Internet. See the
thread he started this past Valentine's Day titled "the Olson
Timezone Database," in which he writes (apparently in haste, but
he reaffirmed his position in follow-ups):

"A hope Anonymous soon gets round to putting these
unprintables out of business."

--
Eric Sosman
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Cranmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2012
On 7/22/2012 8:18 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 7/22/2012 3:43 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
>> Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).

>
>
> Furthermore I recall that Roedy lives in Canada, and maintains his web
> presence there, complicating the whole "US law" thing even more. (What
> treaties exist to cover speech? I don't know.)


There's some blathering about freedom of speech in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights, but it's vague on where freedom of speech stops. The
Durham Conference produced a toothless document a few years ago, but
considering that several notable countries boycotted, it's not really
worth talking about.

The US has extremely liberal free speech laws--hate speech is actually
protected free speech here; considering that, e.g., Arab countries have
attempted to push for making defamation against (read: criticism of)
religion not-free speech, it's very doubtful that any treaty the US
would agree to would be tenable to the rest of the world.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh├Şj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2012
On 7/22/2012 5:25 PM, Lew wrote:
> On 07/22/2012 01:43 PM, Philip Brown wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:07:17 PM UTC-7, Lew wrote:
>>>> Philip Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please don't spread hate propaganda.
>>>
>>>> When any site makes statements, in its top paragraph no less, such as
>>>
>>>> "XYZ is the #1 source of evil on the planet today." against a group
>>>> of people collectively, that is pretty much the definition of
>>>> hatred, prejudice, and bigotry.
>>>
>>> If &quot;XYZ&quot; is a racial, ethnic or gender distinction
>>> you're right. If &quot;XYZ&quot; is
>>> someone or group of someones excoriated for their choices, not their
>>> inherent
>>> being, you're wrong.
>>>

>>
>> So you're saying it's wrong to be bigoted against people because of
>> ethnicity or gender, but its perfectly fine for any other reason.

>
> I did not say that.
>
> You misquoted me.
>
> I said nothing about whether it's right to be bigoted. Instead, thank
> you for disingenuously misstating my point, I said that it is not
> bigotry to castigate someone for their behavior.


And the relevancy is?

The political parts of Roedy's web site seems at be very
negative towards entire groups without evaluating any
individual behavior.

> You are engaging in begging the question and straw-man arguments.
>
> And not talking about
>> And words like " I would be interested in hearing your ideas about
>> would could be done to help eliminate XYZ", and comparing that group
>> of people, to a disease, is just fine.
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Personally, my view is that if bigotry is wrong, then it's wrong for
>> any and all reasons.
>> (In the same way that if someone is for "free speech", they should
>> support speech they dont agree with... if someone is against bigotry,
>> they should be uniformly against it, even when directed against groups
>> they dont personally like)

>
> Fine, if we were discussing someone's bigotry, which we aren't.
>
> We're discussing Roedy's political statements, which are not bigoted.


The before mentioned parts of his web site does seem to fit the
definition of bigotry pretty well.

A very one sided and rather extreme point of view with a tendency
to ignore facts on certain topics.

>> PS:
>>> You fail to distinguish hate speech, which targets people based on their
>>> inherent characteristics, from criticism, which targets people based
>>> on their
>>> actions.

>>
>>
>> hate speech is hate speech, no matter whether it's directed at
>> "inherent characteristics", or "I hate everyone whose first name
>> starts with the letter Q"

>
> You are like Humpty Dumpty in _Through the Looking Glass_: "When I use a
> word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more, no less."
>
> But your definitions happen to be wrong.
>
> Hate speech is hate speech, as you so circularly claim, but speech
> excoriating someone's actions is not hate speech.
>
> You don't get to just make up your own definitions.


Given that having a first name that starts with Q is
not an action of that person (unless he changed his
name himself), then I can not see that example
conflict with your definition.

>> But even from a legal standpoint, religion is a protected
>> characteristic, so that site is clearly engaging in hate speech.

>
> Huh? Religion?
>
> And religion is a matter of choice, so one is perfectly free to speak
> against the practices of any relgion, including even atheism.
>
> Otherwise statements like, "That church stole gazillions from gullible
> poor people" would be hate speech, which it isn't, or "That other church
> engages in hate speech" would be hate speech, which it isn't.


But it would be hate speech to say that "Everybody belonging to that
church are thieves".

Arne

 
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
Best practices for Ruby Meta-programming harshal Ruby 9 03-11-2008 05:11 PM
Best Codeplex sample for showing best coding practices? John Dalberg ASP .Net 3 11-16-2006 12:07 PM
programming best practices swille Ruby 15 11-12-2005 03:56 PM
Looking for best practices for Java project documentation Juergen Java 2 01-20-2005 09:15 AM
Best sample app for learning best practices, OO & asp.net? karim ASP .Net 0 07-13-2003 04:26 AM



Advertisments