Trust me, MS doesn't give the slightest concern about any broken Java apps.
Trust me, they do. Windows 10 won't fly if they can't get corporate types to adopt it. The corporates won't adopt it if their large number of custom (and frequently very shoddy) Java apps (in use in 90% of large corporations according to a recent survey) won't run. MS cares about making sure Java apps work OK.
for whatever reason, a lot of Java code checks the "os.name" property to determine the OS version instead of "os.version".
Because Java's API design is fucked up.
Windows NT 4.0: os.name = "Windows NT", os.version = "4.0"
Windows 95 (= MSDOS 7.0): os.name = "Windows 95", os.version = "4.0"
Windows 98: (also MSDOS 7.0): os.name = "Windows 98", os.version = "4.1"
Windows 2000 (aka NT 5): os.name = "Windows 2000", os.version = "5.0"
Given these 4 versions as the likely target platforms, how do I determine if I'm running on Windows-the-DPMI-DOS-Extender or Windows NT?
...with Windows 100.
I've seen at least one suggestion that all future versions of Windows will be Windows 10. So, that would presumably be Windows 10.90 you're looking forward to?
So you're telling me that Microsoft decided/had to skip a version number because of existing Java code? Rly? Srsly?
Yes, I can believe it. Microsoft needs to sell the latest version of Windows to all of its big corporate clients, and almost all of them run custom Java applications. Java applications are quite likely to have bugs like this because Java doesn't provide an easy way to get the operating system version number.
So, it basically makes no sense using a Java example of getting the OS version string, as essentially nobody uses Java for any tightly integrated desktop app where you need to know exactly what version of Windows you're on.
The code I see in almost all of the search results isn't really trying to determine an exact version: it's trying to work out which basic operating system family is in use, i.e. distinguish between Windows-which-was-a-DPMI-DOS-Extender and Windows NT.
And looking at the code examples like 90% of the cases where in the Java sources.
Exactly.
The problem isn't Windows, the problem is incompetent programmers. Instead of calling the proper API to get the version number, morons are doing things like
if (os.startsWith("Windows 9")
Right. And what is that proper API in Java?
Because only Java attracts bad programmers?
Because only Java was designed to discourage operating-system-version-dependent code and therefore intentionally lacks a way of checking the operating system version except through a string; most other languages provide an API that gives you major & minor version numbers in integers, which is much more convenient.
What's more interesting is why the OS detection is being done in the first place - the cynic in me says it's probably because they're using the OS version to make assumptions about file system locations.
Most of them are trying to choose between "sh -c", "command.com
No.... this really comes down to not knowing, and not using, the API provided to you by the OS for handling version detection.
Almost all of the results in the search are Java applications. Java doesn't provide access to the specified API. The only way you can do it is with System.getProperty("os.name") and System.getProperty("os.version") which both return strings.
This is exactly why all modern Javascript libraries do feature detection instead of relying on User-Agent strings.
The code that turns up in most of the search results is trying to determine the correct executable and arguments to execute a command line (i.e. it picks the right one of "sh -c", "command.com
more porn, which will continue to destroy families and relationships by commoditizing sex, spreading promiscuitity, and creating unreal expectations of sex.
[citation needed]
It isn't terribly surprising that adding a cartoonish rendering effect to both real and virtual objects would make them more difficult to discern as such. I certainly wouldn't call it more immersive - quite the opposite, in fact. It is extremely obvious that what you are looking at has been altered and that you are not looking at "reality".
Right, but "immersive" doesn't mean "difficult to distinguish from reality" but rather "easy to treat as if it were real". I mean, I used to find playing Elite on my Sinclair Spectrum "immersive", but there's not a chance I'd ever fail to know it wasn't real. Being immersive means allowing people to retain what's often called "willing suspension of disbelief" -- as long as the system I'm looking at behaves consistently, I can treat it as if it were real, so I can (at least sort-of) believe in its existence as a real thing. And maintaining that sense of existence is what people mean when they say immersion.
The filters they applied in the video make the scenes look less realistic overall, but they make them more consistent, and that lets me believe in them as real in a way I can't easily believe in the unfiltered scene.
"The only way to stop it, is to shut down the internet. Basically cut power to every networked hard drive on Earth." - _Transcendence_
And even then you'll fail. Ever heard of offline backups?
Or, at the very least, sue Google for something that actually makes sense, such as allowing Google Drive accounts to be accessed by hackers as part of this attack. Dropbox, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others were all compromised during these attacks.
Unfortunately for somebody contemplating such an action, AIUI these attacks were based either on guessing weak passwords, or using passwords that were leaked in hacks on other sites and were used on multiple sites. As all of these companies have a requirement to keep your password secure as part of their TOS, they can't be held responsible as the clients are in breach of contract.
It doesn't matter because "nude" is not porn. Porn is sometimes defined inexactly by that "you know it when you see it" trope, but usually it entails being created for prurient interest - and nude selfies don't count as porn.
Really? Do you have any kind of reference to back that assertion up, or are you just making this shit up as you go along? Why is a "selfie" classified any differently to, say, a photo taken to be included in an adult magazine, e.g. Playboy, which I think most people would classify as "soft porn"?
I'll completely agree that nude and porn are not equivalent, but there's a significant overlap, and at least some photos of the type we're talking about is included in that.
The flip side is the rights of say Blogger users. If I post photo X as a blogger user, it should be up to me to decide if I want to take it down or not, not Google (except maybe in extreme cases, of which this doesn't seem to fall into).
The Blogger user (poster) should be the legal entity responsible for a given blog's content, not Google. Sue the Blogger user if you don't like their content, not Google.
Unfortunately, the DMCA only extends immunity from such actions to Google if they take the content down on receipt of a properly formatted request. That is, legally speaking, an ISP is only considered a common carrier as long as nobody has asked for it not to be. The Internet needs stronger protections of hosting providers, but unfortunately the IP industry has too much lobbying power to let that happen.
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
