I have, after a year and a half, FINALLY understood how Java works.
Know what my problem has been? I have been trying to get away from the VB.net way of thinking, but Java is more like VB than it is like C or anything else.
Granted, there's a fair amount of stuff in Java which is as far from VB as possible, and Java doesn't have the nice, simple, "wysiwig" editor for the gui's (admit it, you want a VB style IDE for Java) but a lot of it is the same. (Button in VB is like an object in java, and both have methods inside the overall program they can utilise, etc, etc.)
FINALLY I understand.
Now to play TF2 for a bit, and return to Java later.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
More Problems on the Net
First, we had "Spectrial", the trial of the Pirate Bay and the Internet Blackout movement against the New Zealand s92a (read about both here)
Now?
DHCP Bill on CNN
Read it, then come back?
Right.
Every single broadband user is using at least one DHCP server. If you have wireless broadband, or even if you have wired, chances are you have a DHCP server, Because your Router does that for you.
A DHCP server is what gives your computer an IP address, so that it knows how to send things to you. (just like your street address is used to send your mail to you)
DHCP is a dynamic IP addressing system. it's what stops us all having to tell our computers what IP address to use.
Most every home user, most every hotel, pub, bar, coffee shop, McDonald's and even some buses and subways (it's being brought in over here soon) have wireless internet and, ergo, DHCP.
Most routers don't HAVE the functionality to keep logs of every connection. They have no memory space, so they aren't designed with the function in mind.
This bill is a horrid invasion of privacy, a massive cost to everyone, since they would be forced to get new routers and, worst of it all, anyone who doesn;t want to keep the logs could:
a) delete them.
b) keep their old router with no logging functionality
or
c) Replace the firmware on their new router with one where they either don't log or where it only logs certain events/certain time frames.
this is RIDICULOUSLY easy to circumvent, and a horrid waste of money.
I encourage all US citizens to fire off a quick email saying you're not happy with this to your senator.
It won't take more than 5mins tops, and you'll have done something for democracy and freedom.
Now?
DHCP Bill on CNN
Read it, then come back?
Right.
Every single broadband user is using at least one DHCP server. If you have wireless broadband, or even if you have wired, chances are you have a DHCP server, Because your Router does that for you.
A DHCP server is what gives your computer an IP address, so that it knows how to send things to you. (just like your street address is used to send your mail to you)
DHCP is a dynamic IP addressing system. it's what stops us all having to tell our computers what IP address to use.
Most every home user, most every hotel, pub, bar, coffee shop, McDonald's and even some buses and subways (it's being brought in over here soon) have wireless internet and, ergo, DHCP.
Most routers don't HAVE the functionality to keep logs of every connection. They have no memory space, so they aren't designed with the function in mind.
This bill is a horrid invasion of privacy, a massive cost to everyone, since they would be forced to get new routers and, worst of it all, anyone who doesn;t want to keep the logs could:
a) delete them.
b) keep their old router with no logging functionality
or
c) Replace the firmware on their new router with one where they either don't log or where it only logs certain events/certain time frames.
this is RIDICULOUSLY easy to circumvent, and a horrid waste of money.
I encourage all US citizens to fire off a quick email saying you're not happy with this to your senator.
It won't take more than 5mins tops, and you'll have done something for democracy and freedom.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
"Democracy is the worst form of government we have,
except for all the others" - Winston Churchill.
Today, democracy lost out against reason and better judgement.
Let me first say that I choose no side in Israel vs. Palestine.
Let me now continue to say that BAE systems, one of THE biggest companies in the world are now under-threat from having their connections with my university severed due to politics and publicity.
The democratic system can be abused in several ways. One of which is to make only those who support your position present for an important decision.
BAE Systems sponsors many people through their degree at Strathclyde, yet expect nothing in return. There is no obligation to work for BAE when you graduate, they merely wish to ensure those with a passion for engineering and science have the chance to study these hard subjects, and be able to dedicate the time to them.
BAE Systems, and all other companies involved in ANY of the arms trade are now to be pressured out of the university, regardless of the personal beliefs of those students actively involved with it: the engineers. None of the people who voted for this proposal are affected directly by the involvement of any of these companies with the university, and next they are trying to make that one of the things the Union does. They personally only care about the arms companies financing the Israelites. They care not about any who fund Palestine/Hammas, and they are using this as an attempt to make their side win out.
They are having a candidate stand for election for The President of my students association, even though the Union is allowed no political association. And with good reason: we have Labour, Conservative, Socialists and Lib Dems. The aim of the Union is to do what they can for every student, regardless of his or her individual beliefs, not to try to be a political organisation towards one direction or another.
Yes, democracy is the best, but only because the other options are abysmal.
Today I saw democracy "working", and I am not happy. thankfully, their candidate won't win, because he won't even take charge of his club, never mind taking charge of an organisation with tens of thousands of members.
It's the point of the matter.....
Gahhhh /story-of-my-day
Today, democracy lost out against reason and better judgement.
Let me first say that I choose no side in Israel vs. Palestine.
Let me now continue to say that BAE systems, one of THE biggest companies in the world are now under-threat from having their connections with my university severed due to politics and publicity.
The democratic system can be abused in several ways. One of which is to make only those who support your position present for an important decision.
BAE Systems sponsors many people through their degree at Strathclyde, yet expect nothing in return. There is no obligation to work for BAE when you graduate, they merely wish to ensure those with a passion for engineering and science have the chance to study these hard subjects, and be able to dedicate the time to them.
BAE Systems, and all other companies involved in ANY of the arms trade are now to be pressured out of the university, regardless of the personal beliefs of those students actively involved with it: the engineers. None of the people who voted for this proposal are affected directly by the involvement of any of these companies with the university, and next they are trying to make that one of the things the Union does. They personally only care about the arms companies financing the Israelites. They care not about any who fund Palestine/Hammas, and they are using this as an attempt to make their side win out.
They are having a candidate stand for election for The President of my students association, even though the Union is allowed no political association. And with good reason: we have Labour, Conservative, Socialists and Lib Dems. The aim of the Union is to do what they can for every student, regardless of his or her individual beliefs, not to try to be a political organisation towards one direction or another.
Yes, democracy is the best, but only because the other options are abysmal.
Today I saw democracy "working", and I am not happy. thankfully, their candidate won't win, because he won't even take charge of his club, never mind taking charge of an organisation with tens of thousands of members.
It's the point of the matter.....
Gahhhh /story-of-my-day
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Bad Evidence
Spectrial is only a day and a half in, yet half the charges against The Pirate Bay have been dropped. (see Torrentfreak)
Due to the fact that the evidence used cannot prove that the Pirate Bay's tracker was used for a set of .torrent files the prosecutor had for "evidence", the charges of "assisting copyright infringement" have been dropped, leaving only "assisting making available" which is, as I said, something Google and every other search Engine on the Internet is also guilty of. As is your ISP, might I hasten to add.
If The Pirate Bay lose this trial now (not likely, IMO) then you will quickly see any company on the internet that has any user content on it that IFPI/RIAA/MPAA/etc don't like being sued.
Those companies wouldn't try to take on Google (so my blog is safe, for now at least) but if the remaining charges succeed, then expect any ISP that doesn't agree with whatever IFPI/RIAA/etc want, then expect to see something like New Zealands propsed S92a.
Monday, 16 February 2009
Spectrial
The trial of The Pirate Bay has started in Sweden.
Apparently, the prosecutor wrote a memo in 2005 saying a trial couldn't be argued over evidence (source: Torrentfreak) indicating what we all thought: This trial is purely political. It is a political attack on The Pirate Bay and it's creator's.
Several media outlet's have been banned from all of the Pirate Bay's conferences for making it all personal. They have been making the trial about the creators and their political views, not about the issue at hand and The Pirate Bay itself, which I think we can all agree is wrong.
Well, here's my two cents (or whatever denomination you choose.)
The Pirate Bay is no different from Google or your ISP. They are all carriers of information, and it is up to the users to decide what to do with the information.
Google is a very good finder for torrents, or any direct methods of illegal downloading.
P2P technology is a very good idea and, to be totally honest, the reason why it's mainly used for illegal downloading (other than because it's more anonymous) is that no company has started to use it for legal filesharing, despite to costing companies less, easy enough to control, and very efficient.
When Microsoft failed to release Windows 7 Beta on time, everyone blamed it on the fact that they didn't use P2P. There are ways of controlling who gets it (there have been small uses of P2P for legal things, all of which MUST have been suggested to Microsoft) and it decreases load on the original servers exponentially once some people start seeding it other than the original server.
Anyway, back to the point: You wouldn't blame Google for being able to find websites with people offering illegal downloads.
Nor would you blame your ISP for allowing you to access Google, even though, as we just pointed out, Google has lots illegal content. if you blame The Pirate Bay for allowing you to see any torrents people put up, legal or illegal, then you need to blame Google and your ISP too, plan and simple.
Now, assuming you blame the carriers (something you can't do in any medium other than the internet: would you blame the postal service for delivering a mixtape?) then every ISP on the internet is breaking the law and owes millions or even billions of pounds/dollars/etc. to the various companies (IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) who "own" the material. (With about 5p in every pound going to the indvidual recording companies, and about half a penny or something ridiculous going to the artists.)
Now, the only way ISPs could continue to deliver the internet would be to have limited access to specific sites to ensure you never see any illegal content. Think about the ramifications of this: You could see this site, but not my site (Mehall.co.cc) because I couldn't afford to pay the fee they would inevitably charge to check my site had no illegal content (or any content speaking in any negative way about the ISP, filtering, circumventing the filter, the current, past or future governments, laws, etc etc etc.)
The same would apply for hundreds upon thousands upon millions of sites all over the internet. The internet could have been kept closed, with Tim Berners Lee (who invented the internet at CERN in the early 1990's) able to make millions of pounds. Instead, he used his vision and made it free for everyone to use, to allow a global community to be created, with no one person having a greater sway over any site than any other.
Now, I agree, some filtering of content has to be done, but I only think this should be done in cases such as paedophilic content and hindering the progress of terrorist activity, with the latter verging on allowing more, than denying more. Our freedom's in real life should also apply to our freedom's on the internet, and they should not be curtailed for any reason.
I look forward to the whole of "Spectrial" (the name of The Pirate Bay trial which, it has been said by Pirate Bay owners, will eventually be a soap opera) and I look forward to see the outcome.
Apparently, the prosecutor wrote a memo in 2005 saying a trial couldn't be argued over evidence (source: Torrentfreak) indicating what we all thought: This trial is purely political. It is a political attack on The Pirate Bay and it's creator's.
Several media outlet's have been banned from all of the Pirate Bay's conferences for making it all personal. They have been making the trial about the creators and their political views, not about the issue at hand and The Pirate Bay itself, which I think we can all agree is wrong.
Well, here's my two cents (or whatever denomination you choose.)
The Pirate Bay is no different from Google or your ISP. They are all carriers of information, and it is up to the users to decide what to do with the information.
Google is a very good finder for torrents, or any direct methods of illegal downloading.
P2P technology is a very good idea and, to be totally honest, the reason why it's mainly used for illegal downloading (other than because it's more anonymous) is that no company has started to use it for legal filesharing, despite to costing companies less, easy enough to control, and very efficient.
When Microsoft failed to release Windows 7 Beta on time, everyone blamed it on the fact that they didn't use P2P. There are ways of controlling who gets it (there have been small uses of P2P for legal things, all of which MUST have been suggested to Microsoft) and it decreases load on the original servers exponentially once some people start seeding it other than the original server.
Anyway, back to the point: You wouldn't blame Google for being able to find websites with people offering illegal downloads.
Nor would you blame your ISP for allowing you to access Google, even though, as we just pointed out, Google has lots illegal content. if you blame The Pirate Bay for allowing you to see any torrents people put up, legal or illegal, then you need to blame Google and your ISP too, plan and simple.
Now, assuming you blame the carriers (something you can't do in any medium other than the internet: would you blame the postal service for delivering a mixtape?) then every ISP on the internet is breaking the law and owes millions or even billions of pounds/dollars/etc. to the various companies (IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) who "own" the material. (With about 5p in every pound going to the indvidual recording companies, and about half a penny or something ridiculous going to the artists.)
Now, the only way ISPs could continue to deliver the internet would be to have limited access to specific sites to ensure you never see any illegal content. Think about the ramifications of this: You could see this site, but not my site (Mehall.co.cc) because I couldn't afford to pay the fee they would inevitably charge to check my site had no illegal content (or any content speaking in any negative way about the ISP, filtering, circumventing the filter, the current, past or future governments, laws, etc etc etc.)
The same would apply for hundreds upon thousands upon millions of sites all over the internet. The internet could have been kept closed, with Tim Berners Lee (who invented the internet at CERN in the early 1990's) able to make millions of pounds. Instead, he used his vision and made it free for everyone to use, to allow a global community to be created, with no one person having a greater sway over any site than any other.
Now, I agree, some filtering of content has to be done, but I only think this should be done in cases such as paedophilic content and hindering the progress of terrorist activity, with the latter verging on allowing more, than denying more. Our freedom's in real life should also apply to our freedom's on the internet, and they should not be curtailed for any reason.
I look forward to the whole of "Spectrial" (the name of The Pirate Bay trial which, it has been said by Pirate Bay owners, will eventually be a soap opera) and I look forward to see the outcome.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Recent Happenings
First things first, I found a belated entry to my "The good, the bad and the Ugly" blog, the Internet Five. As shown in the image (unless Vern Troyer is reading my blog now, better viewed in full-size, so click on it, the come back here to read the blog) you merely place your hand on the screen. similar to the self-five, yet individual in it's own right.
EDIT: Fixed. At all those reading the Crunchbang #! Planet, I apologise. In my blog post, the image is scaled to a reasonable size, but not on the planet. I'll try to be more aware in the future.
Anyway, on to other matters.
Terry Pratchett
I finally got around to watching "Terry Pratchett: Living with Alzheimers" on iPlayer and find that, even when he is talking about a matter so serious, and so close to home, he still gets his lovely wit through.
My favourite two quotes, one from each episode as it would happen, are thing's I Twittered when watching the show. The first one is when he is showing you his office in his house. He has a decent computer, and he has six (yes, 6) screens on his desk. Three large widescreen ones, with non-widescreen versions above. He tells the viewers "Some people ask why I have six screens. It's because I don't have enough room for eight." He is a man after my own heart, and the money to fund it. (I don't even OWN six screens just now, never mind the graphics cards to use them all.)
The quote from the second episode, he is starting to wonder about the future, and he says "I'm thinking will I end up lying somewhere as a vegetable. And part of me is wondering: What kind of vegetable shall I be?"
I'm going to contact his agent, Colin Smythe, and see if there is a chance for him to visit my club at Strathclyde Uni, "The Fanatical Guild of Terry Pratchett Fans" next time he happens to be in Glasgow, as I would love the chance to meet him again.
Crunchbang #!
Philip Newborough is hard at work on the new version of Crunchbang, 8.10.03 (the 3rd version based upon Ubuntu "Intrepid Ibex" aka Ubuntu 8.10) and this one shows many changes. The most important thing is that Crunchbang is now hosted on Launchpad, so anyone can now offer to help Philip with the new version.
The other major change is the introduction of Crunchbang's second supported architecture, though it is only 64-bit support, rather than adding in PowerPC or SPARC. (Or even Alpha ;)
Crunchbang is coming along nicely, and it is currently my Operating System of choice, being on 3 different computers, and soon to be my dad's EEE PC (a 701 4G if anybody cares.)
Final Note
My mum was doing a clear-out of her room, and she found my Primary 1 report card. It's something she has considered throwing out every time she clears out, but always kept it. This time she said either I could take it, or it could go in the bin, so I lifted it for now.
This report card showed I started as I intended to continue in that the teacher's main criticism was that I "Can be rather talkative during task times", a motif that was repeated throughout my time in Primary and Secondary School.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Learning? No need for learning.
I saw something indescribable today. I was on IRC and someone I know was admiring another user's bot, and asking about using it himself. He declined using the bot from his own computer/our department/on an extra shared shell server we have that can run it. Why? "I don't have Python on my computer. How do I invite your bot into my channel?"
What is the point in having the option to try out something so simple, especially when there are various options open to him, and it's an opportunity to learn something, and declining it because of so simple a reason?
Whatever you're studying, whatever you do, whatever you are interested in, you shouldn't ever pass up on a chance to learn about something you're interested in using.
What is the point in having the option to try out something so simple, especially when there are various options open to him, and it's an opportunity to learn something, and declining it because of so simple a reason?
Whatever you're studying, whatever you do, whatever you are interested in, you shouldn't ever pass up on a chance to learn about something you're interested in using.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Websites don't belong to the community.
Yes, that's right.
Far too often I see member's of a community on any number of websites assuming that just because they don't think the site should run the way it does, it should change, or that a possible decision shouldn't be made because they don't like it on the site.
A website is owned by a person, a group, or a company/organisation.
It is up to the site owners what does and doesn't, can and can't happen on a site.
Yes, most sites value their communities and take them into consideration when considering any changes/additions to the site, but the community DOES NOT RUN the site.
Repeatedly making comments about something when they have been shot down by the community as a whole or by the site owner will not make a difference.
People far too often forget that sites are not a community item, but something owned by someone.
Edit: I'd just like to clarify that this is not strictly aimed at any one site, and chances are if you're reading this, it's not aimed at what you think it is. This is just something I've been thinking about for a while.
Far too often I see member's of a community on any number of websites assuming that just because they don't think the site should run the way it does, it should change, or that a possible decision shouldn't be made because they don't like it on the site.
A website is owned by a person, a group, or a company/organisation.
It is up to the site owners what does and doesn't, can and can't happen on a site.
Yes, most sites value their communities and take them into consideration when considering any changes/additions to the site, but the community DOES NOT RUN the site.
Repeatedly making comments about something when they have been shot down by the community as a whole or by the site owner will not make a difference.
People far too often forget that sites are not a community item, but something owned by someone.
Edit: I'd just like to clarify that this is not strictly aimed at any one site, and chances are if you're reading this, it's not aimed at what you think it is. This is just something I've been thinking about for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)