Pangloss

As I understand it, you're only "overriding" if you actually change what the method will do in the subclass. If you're just interfacing with a higher class from a subclass, that's an implementation of the concept of information hiding, but it's not an example of "overriding". This is exactly what I was talking about above, so you may want to read it carefully. I think you may be confusing a functional term that refers to something you do with code (overriding) with a larger concept that's used in a more expository way (information hiding).

FWIW, I'm using Mozilla 1.7. I've downloaded Firefox but I've been reluctant to install it, just because I love Mozzie so much. (sniff)

Really? Let's see.....

First of all, yourdadonapogos, you haven't demonstrated that you're qualified to answer technical questions. All you've demonstrated so far is that you're capable of being a jerk to people who don't like Linux. On the subject of browser compatibility: Sayo's situation is the exception, not the norm. In most cases IE is more compatible than Firefox/Mozilla, and you're more likely to run into display errors in Firefox/Mozilla than you are in IE. That's not because IE is a superior product, it's because IE is more common. This is well known to the Mozilla team and they're improving compatibility with each release, which proves the point. But it's not unusual for Mozilla users to have to stop and pop up and IE window to display a site correctly, less they miss content or features they need to complete a task. This happens to me frequently on my school web site, for example, when I go to turn in assignments. It's also something I run across frequently in my work as a web designer (I've done quite a few professional sites, going back to 1995). On the subject of security holes: This is a function of market share, not engineering. As we have SEEN, Mozilla and Firefox are arguably also "riddled with security holes", and if they had Microsoft's market share they would likely see the kind of attacks by hackers that Microsoft is dealing with today. Does that answer YOUR question at all?

Recomposing.

By the way, a better debate (because it really cuts to the heart of THIS argument) is the subject of whether open source is better than proprietary development. The traditional argument from the "Linux side" (if you don't mind the generalization for the moment) is that open source is better, and in fact a lot of devs in the Microsoft world have recently "come over", developing .NET products the "open source way". But I've actually argued it from the other side as well -- i.e. proprietary does offer advantages to consumers. In fact Microsoft's entire success story is a case in point. The lack of recognition that the second point of view has value as well is a key indicator of how badly we've failed to educate the second generation of computer geeks in this country. It just galls me to see how the current generation goes off shouting about "competition" when in fact what they're demanding is exactly the opposite. I feel like Treebeard trying to figure out hobbits with only Merry and Pippin as examples. ;-) Perhaps it has something to do with the political climate in the country right now, I don't know.

I thought your points were valid, Klaynos, and I don't think you came across as a fanboy. I imagine we're pretty much on the same page, you and I. This thread started as a discussion on desktop systems, though, not web servers. I think in the web server department Microsoft is at a severe disadvantage, for the reasons you named (even the memory bit -- that makes a big difference when you're a web hosting company, for example). And of course this is reflected in the market share. (Note the complete and utter LACK of Microsoft "monopoly" in this area.) As far as desktop advantages are concerned, there's the bit you mentioned about how Linux comes with more apps, which is typically true, and it certainly costs less (free). But those aren't really technical issues. In terms of the underlying structure of each OS, I don't think Linux has any major advantages over Windows. The advantages are almost entirely in the realm of perception and applications. What we have now is a positive situation, because the two entities fight it out for market share. That's GOOD FOR US. If either one of them wins, it's BAD FOR US. It doesn't matter which one does the actual "winning" -- either way we LOSE. That's my point.

What does that have to do with the technical advantages or disadvantages of Windows? See, this just makes my point. It's just another straw man argument. Deny it? I SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS, guys. I've been tracking Microsoft excesses since before some of you were a gleam in your daddy's drunken eye. I've done post-grad presentations on the subject. I've got one paper that I did on Microsoft's monopolistic practices attached to my online Vita/Resume. It's probably safe to say I know more about Microsoft's specific unfair trade practices in the 1980s and 1990s than most of you. See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Anybody who doesn't stand up and identify themselves as a Linux lover gets declared to be some kind of Microsoft stooge. Ridiculous! Just because I tout Windows doesn't make me a Microsoft fanboy. But saying that somebody else is a Microsoft fanboy just because they don't declare Microsoft to be always bad and always wrong DOES make YOU a stooge. (I don't mean you, Dak, I'm just ranting about hypothetical Linux-only dweebs. I don't know if that applies to you or not.) Again, you cannot make two wrongs a right, or use straw man arguments, to say that Linux is better than Microsoft. At the very most, you can use that sort of reasoning to say that BOTH are flawed. But my argument is that they both have value! Punch a hole in THAT, and I'm all ears. Keep touting Linux as the end-all, be-all, on the other hand, and all your doing is displaying your ignorance and closed-mindedness for all to see.

That's a perfect example of the kind of bullsh*t I'm talking about above, by the way. "Let's exaggerate the situation all out of proportion just to make Microsoft look evil, completely ignoring any contributions they may have made, even if we have to use two-wrongs thinking, straw men, or any other kind of logical fallacy we can think of. The important thing is that people listen to 'The Truth'." It's sad and tragic the extent to which that kind of thinking not only permeates the computer industry, but the readership at Science Forums, both entities which ought to know better than to fall for such closed-minded nonsense.

Microsoft rules the world? So how are able to run Linux, then?

I grow weary of theoretical arguments of one operating system used to attack real-world issues that another one has to deal with. It's so ridiculous, but EVERYONE does it, from Linux fanboys to Microsoft marketing weenies, and everyone in between. Just to give a couple of examples, the lack of existence of viruses and spyware in Linux has nothing to do with superior engineering, and everything to do with market share. All the security features in the world don't amount to a hill of beans if you invite a virus into your system with root access. And it makes no difference that your Apache browser can do everything in 50mb of RAM when RAM is $50/gig. Wake up, people, this is nonsense. And it CERTAINLY doesn't make any difference how much RAM it uses when you're being denied service by a malicious attacker, who, by the way, also doesn't give a rat's ass what corporate logos you prefer! I think Dave makes a good point about IE being a design that lacks substance, and challenging Microsoft's reluctance to adopt standards (except the ones they can "embrace and extend"). Those are valid criticisms. I think there's a counterpoint to be made about the way some of these "standards" are developed, but that's another argument for another day, perhaps. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out weaknesses in design. All I'm saying is, fan-boy cheerleading doesn't save a company millions on infrastructure. I've been supporting networks for twenty years, and I can tell you from personal experience that what I intend to use in a network is a function of (a) what the money managers will let me get away with, and (b) what works. That's it. Any admin who says otherwise needs to refresh their resume. You Linux fanboys need to wake up and realize that competition is a TWO-way street! Stop declaring the enemy (which is whatever happens to not be cool this week) to be evil and closing your minds to PERFECTLY VALID avenues of competition. RUE the day when Linux takes over the world and all we have to work with is Linux. You get three guesses how badly that will suck, and the first two don't count. Bah humbug. All intended in good fun, of course.

Well this is just my take on it, such as it's worth, but I would say that "overriding a method" is a subset of the concept of information hiding. Or to be more thorough, overriding is a subset of the concept of polymorphism which is a subset of information hiding. From a functional perspective... I'm not sure that it makes any difference. These are concepts intended to help us to understand the various capabilities of object-oriented programming, and it doesn't really matter when it comes time to putting the nuts and bolts together. But I guess what you're asking is whether there are examples of information hiding that are not examples of overriding a method, and the answer to that question is a very simple "yes". There are many examples of information hiding in a language, and overriding a method is just one of them. One example may be seen any time you make a class "private" instead of "public". You've now hidden its contents from any client of that class, right? They can only access it through an interface. That's information hiding, but it's certainly not overriding. Make sense?

ROFL! Hey, it never hurts to learn something new, that's my motto. Worst that can happen is you end up going back to Windows. At least you'll have added something to your skill set. Competition only works when people are willing to try different things.

Pfft, why not say 2010? It certainly sounds worse than 2008.

Well one of the areas you may wish to explore with this is the idea of justice not being an act of retribution, but rather an act of redress. There are a number of issues surrounding this thorny issue, such as whether or not you really want the state involved in making moral judgements. The idea that punishment acts as a deterent is seen here as more of a secondary effect -- the primary effect of law being to simply enforce contracts by providing a method of redress for one's grievances. There are a lot of pros and cons and ins and outs here, but that might be enough to get things started.

You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it during the physical act of love. Yes, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred. Women women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women. But I do deny them my essence.

I've used Privoxy, which is pretty good. My biggest complaint about proxy is that it slows performance substantially. But I've not seen a good solution for that problem yet. Interestingly, a proxy server does not guarantee anonymity. Your packets could still be collected and analyzed. The EFF is sponsoring a new attempt at an onion server concept called Tor which looks promising. I've been following the chatter in the dev email list and they seem to have it right this time (the onion server concept failed in the past). What it does is multiply the proxy effect by scattering individual packets amongst a disparate server farm of volunteer participants, so you can't be collected. I've used the early betas they're working on (and run a Tor server myself) and it seems to work pretty well -- they definitely lose your IP address. You can read more about it here: http://tor.eff.org

What did you score on the Ordinary Wizarding Levels? Oh sorry, I need to put the book DOWN when I start typing....

Sure you can, and it doesn't take "cool spy stuff" at all. Fingerprint ID is a very simple (and very superficial) system, easily stored and traded. Identity theft today is all about comprehensive identification. Credit card and Social Security numbers are just the beginning of the process. They form databases with those numbers, and then fill them in with extraneous info they pick up however they can. So, for example, if you get a guy's name and 3-digit card ID, then you can match it with a CC#/name entry in the database and you're off to the races. Fingerprint access can add another type of confirmation to the profile. How long will it be before you can buy something at the grocery store by sticking your finger on a pad? How important will that scan at Disney be then? Why worry about the loss of the three-digit code on the back of your credit card? Why worry about the theft of credit card numbers from retailers when you're not liable beyond $50 anyway? Why worry about errors in your credit report when you have all the credit you need? None of these individual factors, by themselves, is particularly important. The barn is empty so there's no point in closing the door. What matters is that we're not being careful about how this information is handled and secured. Regulations may be necessary, but more importantly, we need some sort of comprehensive picture or guidelines about how companies deal with this information, how they secure it, what people expect in terms of privacy, and so forth.

Probably the same sorts of things they do with your credit card and social security numbers. (I.E. leave them on a server where hackers can steal them.) ;-)

Disney World (Orlando) now requires a fingerprint scan for all visitors entering the park. Universal Studios and SeaWorld are planning to implement similar systems soon. And once your fingerprints are in the system, there's not a single thing you can do about it, because you've voluntarily given that information to a private enterprise. Your ONLY option is not to go. But now that Disney is doing it, it's only a matter of time before everyone else is doing it as well. Full story here.

I'm not sure!

Did I need to add a "your mileage may vary" caveat to that? It wasn't obvious? Cast the net a bit wider, please.

Cool web site. Thousands of Londoners have uploaded pictures of themselves holding up banners and signs that read "we're not afraid". Check it out. http://www.werenotafraid.com/