I don't want to sound rude, but C# is for literally retards... Tell him to learn C and C++ so that he knows something about programming...
I started out coding video games in C, then moved on to writing emulators in C++. These days I code in C#, and I think it's significantly more complex and elegant than C++. Pure C *can* have a simplistic beauty to it if you avoid the fucking typedefs, but C++ is the worst of both worlds -- too easy to lose track of what you're doing, and too abstracted to provide maximum performance.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides?
Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse?
And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude. You can tweak the damn rules, improve the situation, and it won't destroy the fucking country. And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias (e.g. the National Guard) the right to bear arms. You don't have a constitutional right to carry a gun for personal protection, that's what we call a 'privilege'.
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
Whatever, most progressives are against prohibition's modern-day equivalent: pot. Most progressives also are not against gun ownership -- we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one.
There is plenty of welfare and food stamps to go around. Why work a shit job when you can sit at home and make more money, especially when you have a dependent child and can get Section 8 housing? Why would anyone deprive her child like that?
So what you're saying is that we should raise the minimum wage to a point where you can make a decent living on it?
My grandfather was an uneducated farmer. He's a smart guy, but his education included only basic math/reading and common sense. He put all six of his kids through college. Two are engineers, two are teachers, one owns a very successful paving company, and one runs a restaurant. They didn't get where they are because my grandfather knew everything and passed it down. They got there because he and his wife created an environment where they could (and had to) learn.
Anyone who knows about small-time farming knows that it can be very hard to make ends meet. If my grandfather could do it and make it look so easy, then there is no reason that all these office and factory drones can't.
Your grandfather also paid for college back when a middle-class American could afford college tuition. Try to imagine him paying $16000/year with 6 kids, and you quickly realize that your grandfather would have to be rich in order to send his kids to college today.
Unless they want to die at 35 of a cancer or something, I wouldn't advise it.
One of the reason those kind of things are banned is because they are dangerous
Hey, we'll have willing participants who understand and disregard the risks. Sounds like a great research study with no ethical problems, if you ask me.
Sweden's success isn't a result of a genetic predisposition for working hard, it's a result of many years of "socialist" lawmakers working in a generally capitalist system, producing a better result that either ideology alone. Look at the Netherlands -- they have a relatively high standard of living, and they're about as heterogeneous as you get -- they have to speak 4 languages just to get by.
The culture of non-work in the US is largely driven by the fact that you cannot live on wages from a low end job, so there's really no point in trying. If you mandate a living wage, suddenly there's an incentive to stop selling drugs or robbing people and instead get a job. And again, you're arguing a straw man here -- nobody except you is talking about making everyone's income equal. I'm saying raise the low end and lower the high end. There won't be any shortage of PHB's just because they can only make $500k/year instead of $2.5m/year -- they'll still work, and they'll do it for less.
Sorry, tough shit for the CEO, he'll have to take a pay cut. We can incentivize this with 80-90% marginal tax rates above $500k/year. The managers and IT consultants and whatnot will have their pay largely unchanged. If society ends up having too many people for not enough jobs, we simply cut the length of the work week. Employers will be just fine, because the single payer system cuts out the huge cost of employee healthcare for them. This kind of thing is being done in northern Europe with great success, so spare me your hypothitical dystopia when we have real world analogues for these ideas.
I'm cool with that idea too. I'm not married to a simgle implementation, I just want to see some meaningful reforms to address the wealth disparity, and that's something I've never seen happen in my lifetime.
That's magical thinking and hand waiving. I fully agree that there are variables I have not accounted for, but many countries have significantly higher minimum wage and have not suffered an economic collapse because of it.
What exactly are you trying to say? That the small increase in minimum wage caused an exponential increase in wealth of the rich? I agree that wages drive inflation, but keeping inflation low isn't my number one goal in this. I said that we could make the minimum wage $50k/year based on the value of money now, and that ratio of wages/GDP could be maintained regardless of what the actual value of a single dollar is. Again, this is done across western Europe with no detrimental effect. The Netherlands has an especially interesting taxation model -- they tax you on your income, and then tax you again on any wealth over a certain amount. This means that you have to keep earning a living, rather than just hording.
Look into inflation, before you think it is a modern thing, check 15-16 century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
Simple rise in amount of gold and silver from oversea colonies to Europe caused 6x increase in price over 150 year.
sigh... Once more, for those in the back -- we are not talking about creating more money. We are talking about making the minimum wage a living wage. This is done in almost all of Western Europe, and their standard of living is much higher than that of Americans, despite having a lower GDP per capita in most places. And before you even start on Greece and Spain, take a look at Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and even France. An economy where the top 20% of earners hold 85% of the wealth is not a healthy economy. We're not a nation of "haves and soon-to-haves", at Mitch McConnell put it. We're a nation of rich and poor. The only "middle class" we have, by income distribution (top 2% + bottom 2% / 2), are doctors, lawyers, and a few of the higher-paid engineers.
the grown-ups call this "communism" and it has proved to be a failure in many parts of the world. Even chinese figured out the state cannot just provide all to the masses, you've got to mix in the greedy capitalism part to get people to work for what they want.
Sure seems to work in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, etc. Hell, even the US has a minimum wage -- its just not enough to live on. Also funny that you mention communism, since it's a system advocated by Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of libertarianism.
Economic understanding fail. A $50k minimum wage will just end up with $50k having the same buying power that $8 an hour has today. Currency only has value determined by scarcity and trust, even if you outlaw the rich earning more than $70k, you will still devalue the currency and luxuries will be exchanged directly instead of with the state currency as a pathway.
No, you fail to understand. The US GDP is ~$15 trillion, and there are ~100m working adults. That's $150k each. If you set the minimum wage to $50k, the wealthier people will still make 4-5 times as much as the poor, rather than the 100x to 1000x more that they make now. Now, you could argue that there would be a productivity drop, and you'd probably be right, but my point here isn't about exact figures, but rather that we live in a society that, if equitable, could provide a pretty good standard of living to all, rather than a shitty standard of living for most and a ridiculous standard for a select lucky few.
Having a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage would be pretty easy, actually. We could easily provide every adult with a $50k minimum income and still have twice that to spare. The reason we don't is that the powers that be want to make the little guy scrape for everything he/she can get so that the super rich can feel special.
Eh, I don't think it's a huge deal. The curious types will tend to look under the hood and discover how it really works, and the rest will do the minimum needed to get by, just like they always have.
We don't write our schemas twice, but that's largely because we built a code generator to build the schema, packages, constraints, etc. along with the NHibernate mappings based on our data objects. We then just run a couple scripts and voila! instant database. And if devs need to work on data changes without affecting the rest of the team, they can create and test their own schema within minutes. Granted, this will be more complicated once our product is released, but for now it makes data changes extremely easy.
Well in fairness Belgium had by far the best beer I've ever had, and a wide variety. The experience of beer in Belgium (sharing huge bottles with friends, all in their own special glasses) was pretty amazing as well. But you have to look around a bit before finding the right bar.
in europe we make it a sport not to buy any product that advertises too much, like nokia did in europe:D
it doesn't work on us anymore.
Then what's with all the Heineken-only bars everywhere? I had to go kinda far out of the way to get a good beer when I was there (this was in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands)
I can't speak to EF, but NHibernate produces good SQL for Oracle. Are you using Oracle's EF provider? If so, that would likely explain the suckage. Now, keep in mind that the code may not *look* pretty, but still be quite efficient. Also, ORMs are an advanced tool, and I've yet to meet anyone who came to them without spending a few years in SQL hell. The problem with SQL isn't the SQL itself, it's the fact that you have to map that data to your application, and there's a lot of failure potential there. I don't see the problem with increasing developer productivity and reducing errors at the expense of a little performance.
unfortunately, there's a lot of people who seem to want to say "use the best tool" and then try to make everything work in a single language (most commonly Java and.NET programmers).
I see this with the introduction of ORMs - its like programmers don;t want to learn SQL (the tool of choice when using databases) and instead want to make the DB look like a collection of objects. The NoSQL proponents seems also to make the same mistake - that NoSQL is somehow better because you access the data using an API that is native to your language.
Its a sad indictment of the modern programming community (well, those lesser programmers at least), but I think this is the main driving force behind it all. Blame the holy wars for all this, otherwise we'd be (correctly) talking about NoSQL as just another data storage technology along with relational databases and flat files that has specific use cases.
I have quite the background in database development, tuning, and pretty much everything to do with DBA work minus the backups, but I love ORMs. Most ORMs these days produce quite good SQL, and they reduce development time dramatically -- especially if you model your DB from your data classes instead of vice versa. Is there a performance hit? Maybe -- you'd be surprised how often the ORM spits out better code than an experienced SQL developer. If there is a performance deficit, you can take care of that mostly with indexing, which is an automatic or nearly-automatic process on most currend RDBMS's. Unless you need the absolute tightest possible code, there's no reason to sink a bunch of resources into something that takes up all your time and ties your implementation to a specific external dependency.
Slashdot Mirror
Design tools: worthless Hand coding: priceless
I don't want to sound rude, but C# is for literally retards... Tell him to learn C and C++ so that he knows something about programming...
I started out coding video games in C, then moved on to writing emulators in C++. These days I code in C#, and I think it's significantly more complex and elegant than C++. Pure C *can* have a simplistic beauty to it if you avoid the fucking typedefs, but C++ is the worst of both worlds -- too easy to lose track of what you're doing, and too abstracted to provide maximum performance.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides? Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse? And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them? Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude. You can tweak the damn rules, improve the situation, and it won't destroy the fucking country. And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias (e.g. the National Guard) the right to bear arms. You don't have a constitutional right to carry a gun for personal protection, that's what we call a 'privilege'.
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
Whatever, most progressives are against prohibition's modern-day equivalent: pot. Most progressives also are not against gun ownership -- we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one.
*allowed to decide
Yeah, those are your employees, and you should be allowed how much or little medical care they can have!
There is plenty of welfare and food stamps to go around. Why work a shit job when you can sit at home and make more money, especially when you have a dependent child and can get Section 8 housing? Why would anyone deprive her child like that?
So what you're saying is that we should raise the minimum wage to a point where you can make a decent living on it?
Mod parent up.
My grandfather was an uneducated farmer. He's a smart guy, but his education included only basic math/reading and common sense. He put all six of his kids through college. Two are engineers, two are teachers, one owns a very successful paving company, and one runs a restaurant. They didn't get where they are because my grandfather knew everything and passed it down. They got there because he and his wife created an environment where they could (and had to) learn.
Anyone who knows about small-time farming knows that it can be very hard to make ends meet. If my grandfather could do it and make it look so easy, then there is no reason that all these office and factory drones can't.
Your grandfather also paid for college back when a middle-class American could afford college tuition. Try to imagine him paying $16000/year with 6 kids, and you quickly realize that your grandfather would have to be rich in order to send his kids to college today.
Unless they want to die at 35 of a cancer or something, I wouldn't advise it. One of the reason those kind of things are banned is because they are dangerous
Hey, we'll have willing participants who understand and disregard the risks. Sounds like a great research study with no ethical problems, if you ask me.
Does the introduction of 4th edition and 5th edition in any way stop you from using older source books?
I'm still using 3.5, my books didn't suddenly disappear overnight when 4th was released.
Well, it does inhibit your ability to legally acquire said source books.
Sweden's success isn't a result of a genetic predisposition for working hard, it's a result of many years of "socialist" lawmakers working in a generally capitalist system, producing a better result that either ideology alone. Look at the Netherlands -- they have a relatively high standard of living, and they're about as heterogeneous as you get -- they have to speak 4 languages just to get by.
The culture of non-work in the US is largely driven by the fact that you cannot live on wages from a low end job, so there's really no point in trying. If you mandate a living wage, suddenly there's an incentive to stop selling drugs or robbing people and instead get a job. And again, you're arguing a straw man here -- nobody except you is talking about making everyone's income equal. I'm saying raise the low end and lower the high end. There won't be any shortage of PHB's just because they can only make $500k/year instead of $2.5m/year -- they'll still work, and they'll do it for less.
Sorry, tough shit for the CEO, he'll have to take a pay cut. We can incentivize this with 80-90% marginal tax rates above $500k/year. The managers and IT consultants and whatnot will have their pay largely unchanged. If society ends up having too many people for not enough jobs, we simply cut the length of the work week. Employers will be just fine, because the single payer system cuts out the huge cost of employee healthcare for them. This kind of thing is being done in northern Europe with great success, so spare me your hypothitical dystopia when we have real world analogues for these ideas.
I'm cool with that idea too. I'm not married to a simgle implementation, I just want to see some meaningful reforms to address the wealth disparity, and that's something I've never seen happen in my lifetime.
That's magical thinking and hand waiving. I fully agree that there are variables I have not accounted for, but many countries have significantly higher minimum wage and have not suffered an economic collapse because of it.
What exactly are you trying to say? That the small increase in minimum wage caused an exponential increase in wealth of the rich? I agree that wages drive inflation, but keeping inflation low isn't my number one goal in this. I said that we could make the minimum wage $50k/year based on the value of money now, and that ratio of wages/GDP could be maintained regardless of what the actual value of a single dollar is. Again, this is done across western Europe with no detrimental effect. The Netherlands has an especially interesting taxation model -- they tax you on your income, and then tax you again on any wealth over a certain amount. This means that you have to keep earning a living, rather than just hording.
Self-correction -- that was Mitch Daniels.
Look into inflation, before you think it is a modern thing, check 15-16 century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution Simple rise in amount of gold and silver from oversea colonies to Europe caused 6x increase in price over 150 year.
sigh... Once more, for those in the back -- we are not talking about creating more money. We are talking about making the minimum wage a living wage. This is done in almost all of Western Europe, and their standard of living is much higher than that of Americans, despite having a lower GDP per capita in most places. And before you even start on Greece and Spain, take a look at Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and even France. An economy where the top 20% of earners hold 85% of the wealth is not a healthy economy. We're not a nation of "haves and soon-to-haves", at Mitch McConnell put it. We're a nation of rich and poor. The only "middle class" we have, by income distribution (top 2% + bottom 2% / 2), are doctors, lawyers, and a few of the higher-paid engineers.
the grown-ups call this "communism" and it has proved to be a failure in many parts of the world. Even chinese figured out the state cannot just provide all to the masses, you've got to mix in the greedy capitalism part to get people to work for what they want.
Sure seems to work in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, etc. Hell, even the US has a minimum wage -- its just not enough to live on. Also funny that you mention communism, since it's a system advocated by Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of libertarianism.
Economic understanding fail. A $50k minimum wage will just end up with $50k having the same buying power that $8 an hour has today. Currency only has value determined by scarcity and trust, even if you outlaw the rich earning more than $70k, you will still devalue the currency and luxuries will be exchanged directly instead of with the state currency as a pathway.
No, you fail to understand. The US GDP is ~$15 trillion, and there are ~100m working adults. That's $150k each. If you set the minimum wage to $50k, the wealthier people will still make 4-5 times as much as the poor, rather than the 100x to 1000x more that they make now. Now, you could argue that there would be a productivity drop, and you'd probably be right, but my point here isn't about exact figures, but rather that we live in a society that, if equitable, could provide a pretty good standard of living to all, rather than a shitty standard of living for most and a ridiculous standard for a select lucky few.
Having a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage would be pretty easy, actually. We could easily provide every adult with a $50k minimum income and still have twice that to spare. The reason we don't is that the powers that be want to make the little guy scrape for everything he/she can get so that the super rich can feel special.
Eh, I don't think it's a huge deal. The curious types will tend to look under the hood and discover how it really works, and the rest will do the minimum needed to get by, just like they always have.
We don't write our schemas twice, but that's largely because we built a code generator to build the schema, packages, constraints, etc. along with the NHibernate mappings based on our data objects. We then just run a couple scripts and voila! instant database. And if devs need to work on data changes without affecting the rest of the team, they can create and test their own schema within minutes. Granted, this will be more complicated once our product is released, but for now it makes data changes extremely easy.
Well in fairness Belgium had by far the best beer I've ever had, and a wide variety. The experience of beer in Belgium (sharing huge bottles with friends, all in their own special glasses) was pretty amazing as well. But you have to look around a bit before finding the right bar.
They were there. I walked into one before I left to find a real bar.
in europe we make it a sport not to buy any product that advertises too much, like nokia did in europe :D
it doesn't work on us anymore.
Then what's with all the Heineken-only bars everywhere? I had to go kinda far out of the way to get a good beer when I was there (this was in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands)
I can't speak to EF, but NHibernate produces good SQL for Oracle. Are you using Oracle's EF provider? If so, that would likely explain the suckage. Now, keep in mind that the code may not *look* pretty, but still be quite efficient. Also, ORMs are an advanced tool, and I've yet to meet anyone who came to them without spending a few years in SQL hell. The problem with SQL isn't the SQL itself, it's the fact that you have to map that data to your application, and there's a lot of failure potential there. I don't see the problem with increasing developer productivity and reducing errors at the expense of a little performance.
unfortunately, there's a lot of people who seem to want to say "use the best tool" and then try to make everything work in a single language (most commonly Java and .NET programmers).
I see this with the introduction of ORMs - its like programmers don;t want to learn SQL (the tool of choice when using databases) and instead want to make the DB look like a collection of objects. The NoSQL proponents seems also to make the same mistake - that NoSQL is somehow better because you access the data using an API that is native to your language.
Its a sad indictment of the modern programming community (well, those lesser programmers at least), but I think this is the main driving force behind it all. Blame the holy wars for all this, otherwise we'd be (correctly) talking about NoSQL as just another data storage technology along with relational databases and flat files that has specific use cases.
I have quite the background in database development, tuning, and pretty much everything to do with DBA work minus the backups, but I love ORMs. Most ORMs these days produce quite good SQL, and they reduce development time dramatically -- especially if you model your DB from your data classes instead of vice versa. Is there a performance hit? Maybe -- you'd be surprised how often the ORM spits out better code than an experienced SQL developer. If there is a performance deficit, you can take care of that mostly with indexing, which is an automatic or nearly-automatic process on most currend RDBMS's. Unless you need the absolute tightest possible code, there's no reason to sink a bunch of resources into something that takes up all your time and ties your implementation to a specific external dependency.