" /> kasia in a nutshell: May 2005 Archives

« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »

May 31, 2005

Are null objects equal?

This is really more a philosophical question than a programming question, but one that has been sitting in the back of my mind for a couple of weeks.

If two objects are null, are they equal to each other[0]?

I can see three possible answers:

(a) They're neither equal nor unequal.. because two null objects cannot be compared in the Java world using the good old Object.equals() -- but of course that's only because you cannot call equals() on a null object, so that in itself is not a good enough reason.

(b) They're unequal because we cannot determine any function of equality (usually when we equate objects it's because of some attribute(s)) -- this one breaks down as well, since lack of attributes can be treated as an attribute itself.

(c) They're equal because they lack attributes and all things considered equal, they are identical in the fact that they're null and since Java considers two empty strings as equal (somehow that one is easier to swallow) then it falls within the Java view of the world.

I may be the only person in the world who has a problem just coming up with a simple answer to this one[1], but my gut feeling says it's (c) with a little bit of a mixed in: If the objects are of the same type then they're equal, otherwise it's undeterminable. Which means, two null strings are equal, but a null String object and a null String[] object are not[2].

[0] By equal I mean the Java view of equal, meaning: they're either the same object or their attributes match based on some object-specific function.
[1] Feel free to think me an idiot for even wondering about this.
[2] Of course, there's no way you can tell what an object isn't when it's null.. but it's the intentions that count and this is purely academic anyway.

May 30, 2005

edirectclub.com is a scam

Someone asked this question in a dslr forum.. the site obviously just showed up (Nothing shows in google when searching for the name) but all the warning signs are there:

  1. Too good to be true ($19.99 for a brand new 17" LCD monitor? I don't think so)
  2. In business for over 10 years but domain registered November 2004
  3. They don't take credit cards... only checking account routing numbers to save money? Checking transfers are more expensive than credit card transactions.
  4. They claim the payment form is secured but it isn't (this one should really be enough..)
  5. Search on domain registration info reveals it's the same scammers as closeoutclub.com which has a bettter google following
  6. .

There.. now there should be a google results when searching for "edirectclub.com".

May 29, 2005

All tigered up

It's a long weekend.. a good time to (1) buy an external firewire drive and finally make a solid backup of my entire powerbook.. and (2) upgrade to the newest version of OSX.

All done..

I bought a 200GB maxtor external hard drive for $199.. good deal.. and handy for backups, has a nifty "one touch backup" functionality with OSX, it looks like it may be using rsync underneath.. at least the behaviour is similar.

GPGMail + Tiger

Previous version of GPGMail do not work with tiger.. there is a new version (1.1) that does, but it requires a litlte fix. After installing, mail automatically disables it, easy fix..

  1. Quit mail
  2. Move ~/Library/Mail/Bundles (Disabled) to ~/Library/Mail/Bundles
  3. Using 'defaults' in a term window:
    defaults write com.apple.mail EnableBundles 1 
    defaults write com.apple.mail BundleCompatibilityVersion 2

This also fixes some other plugins..

Firefox on osx download limitation?

I'm trying to download a large file (exactly 2427095245) using firefox, the file cuts of at exactly 2GB. Verified twice now (yah, it's a long weekend).

So it appears that firefox limits the download file size to 2GB? I mean.. what the hell..

May 22, 2005

All is well with the world

A quick look at my spam folder indicates nothing has changed and our world is still dominated by sex and money.

Ah, it's good to know nothing changes.

May 17, 2005

When illustrating your articles..

Do take care.

Someone spent a lot of time making these slides look, er, I guess spiffy is the word? Not sure what they were going for.. but readability is not it.

They're unusable, unreadable and largely useless. I'd much rather see black and white simple slides.. heck, just text would do. It would be more useful.

May 11, 2005

Something

xxxxx [offline 7:24:42 PM]: you should blog SOMETHING
xxxxx [offline 7:25:06 PM]: tell everyone about your floopy condi post run hair or something

hm, yah, I should :)

May 05, 2005

Ever wonder how many people actually use spf?

I've had the dubious distinction lately to be the center of attention of many mail servers. Oh, it's not because I'm witty and fun (and I am) it's because some lowlife spammers (may the fleas of thousand camels infect their beds) decided to use my domain as the return address of their junk.

Fear not some say, just use spf!. So I did.. I switched dns servers on my domain (yah, I was using register.com's and they suck) and generated an spf record.. and now there is one live on the domain as of around 10pm last night. Thanks to all this trouble and work I now have irrefutable, scientific evidence of how well spf works. this well. See that little dent at around 10pm last night? That's about how many servers actually implement spf. Wow, that was so totally worth it. Like, great.

May 04, 2005

Why doesn't oracle support boolean data type?

It's a well-known limitation of Oracle.. but I've never seen a decent explanation as to why exactly they do not support it? I know it's optional in the SQL spec.. and I know some other commercial databases do not support it either.. but one would think a giant like Oracle would do at least what MySQL does (alias to tinyint) and spare me the fight at the office over its implementation. (I want the standard, int (constrained to 1, 0) others want a char 'y' or 'n', bleach).

So anyone know why?