If you need help getting some counseling, I'm here for you.
Denial is a tough row to hoe but I'm sure, with therapy, you can make the transition to another language. There's always PHP or Python if the thought of finally breaking down and learning Java is too painful for you. Or perhaps Go or Hack might offer an easier transition for you...
I understand all about Mono but the monkey is still, after three major versions, missing huge chunks of what.NET purports to do, such as complete support for WF 2.0 and any real support for WPF. I understand what a pain it must be to work against the beast from Redmond with the monkey but you know as well as the rest of us that in Mono you are working on another Symbian.
No, but you know as well as I do that to use the Microsoft ecosystem you inevitably get sucked into running an all-Microsoft stack.
Can you point me to the Linux or Mac version of SQLServer?
Can you point me to the Linux or Mac version of IIS?
You know there are support groups out there that can help you with your grief about the immanent collapse of the.NET ecosystem.
Even Microsoft has orphaned you by going with HTML5 and JavaScript for Metro interfaces.
Java is the one. Going on about how nice Visual Studio is to work in is like telling us how nice the deck chairs were on the Titanic. It's too late, friend. Sure,.NET will live on in pockets of diehard iconclasts until finally even they--like Japanese soliders on deserted islands, thinking that WWII was still being fought--wake up to the fact that.NET is a dead man walking. Mono is dead..NET is the Zune and Java is the iPod.
Can't you see the writing on the wall? Starting to open source.NET? That's a desperate Hail Mary ploy by MS to try to resurrect that corpse called.NET. It's dying and you need to get over your denial, and your anger and get on with the bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Now let me clarify —.NET is a dandy language. It’s modern, it’s fancy, it’s got all the bells and whistles. And if you’re doing Windows Mobile 7 apps (which the stats suggest you aren’t), it’s your only choice. But choosing.NET is a choice, and whenever anybody does it, I can’t help but ask “why?”
Don’t get me wrong:.NET on your resume isn’t an instant showstopper. But it will definitely raise questions during the phone screen, for reasons that are best explained by simile:
Programming with.NET is like cooking in a McDonalds kitchen. It is full of amazing tools that automate absolutely everything. Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet.
However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it. The patties are pre-formed in the wrong size. They start out frozen so they can’t be smushed up and reformed, and the thawing machine is so tightly integrated with the cooking machine that there’s no way to intercept it between the two. A McDonalds kitchen makes exactly what’s on the McDonalds menu — and does so in an absolutely foolproof fashion. But it can’t go off the menu, and any attempt to bend the machine to your will just breaks it such that it needs to be sent back to the factory for repairs.
Instead, we look for a very different sort of person....
Because the.NET stack is inherantly more expensive. The tools cost big bugs, it requires a Microsoft server and will only run on SQLServer. All of the Java tools we use are free--every last one--and we run it on CentOS Linux servers. Finally, all our staff is Java oriented.
The City of London is indeed the heart of tax evasion. It directs tax evasion around the world. You are absolutely a liar. I direct you to this Guardian story that explicitly states that as a fact. You ridiculous comments about the Freemasons, etc is subterfuge trying to hide with disinformation the precise fact that the City of London is a world center of lawless scumbaggery and its apologists like you are the worst sort on the planet.
To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the centuryIn David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy
Quote: But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control.
"What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering. The notion of elsewhere (hence the term "offshore") is central. The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the 50,000-odd Caymanians, but help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us."
That is certainly rich. The "City of London" is a lawless square mile in the center of London that is not subject to the laws of England. It is the center of all the tax evasion secrecy jurisdictions around the world. If you think of the rampant and lawless tax evasion that goes on in places such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey, they are all directed from this cesspool of lawless behavior known as the City of London.
For context I direct you to the magnificent book by Nicholas Shaxton called Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens.
But don't stop there. Further evidence of the vile and lawless damage the City of London does to the world:
Exxon care so little about this planet and so much about their own profit that they don't give a damn if they kill off the planet, as long as they get theirs. Bastards.
My experience is they never think creatively. They can come up with one solution and if that does not fly for some reason, they are toast.
I have worked with a few who were okay but with so many who were just not that bright.
Finally, you need to watch your correct use of the English language, guy. When I saw "rote" instead of the correct "wrote", it was hard to take your ideas seriously. Just sayin'...
I have yet to meet a unionized engineer.
When I worked for Bloomberg in New York City, they were constantly firing international employees for theft of intellectual property. Not sure where that charge came from.
Sounds to me that your whole point is that some VC told you how to think. H-1B visa holders are only popular with people like CEOs and VC who really have no experience in the field. Working engineers know that they are wildly overrated. That's why so many companies have abandoned the use of H-1B visa holders. It is a practice valued by people who really don't have any experience in the field. They think it's a good value but in fact it's a myth. Tata produces terrible engineers. They pretend they're going to send experienced engineers here but the people that companies actually get are unexperienced and come here expecting to be trained by US engineers. Then, they produce terrible work and US engineers have to silently rewrite it. I say "silently" because management doesn't want to hear that fact because they want to push the fiction that they're saving money. So, then, the cycle continues where management believes it's saving money while domestic engineers have to actually rewrite the crappy code produced by Tata. I have seen this play out in several companies, especially ones located in NYC.
Obviously someone does not know that we in America have a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that has been on the books for over 100 years. Please take your Ayn Rand fantasies into some right wing hothouse where you belong, "Lucky One". Or better yet: Pah-shole na hooey.
Clearly a lie motivated by your politics. The entire case would not exist without the attorneys working on it for contigency fees. Then, at worst, the attorneys get 1/3. That means the class-action defendents will get 2/3rds of whatever is recovered. Then, going forward, every engineer in the United States will benefit in perpetuity by the increased salaries that are an absolute result of this. If any companies had wanted to expatriate, they would have already done so. They stay in an expensive place such as Silicon Valley precisely because of the quality of the talent there.
Many US companies have tried moving overseas, only to see that it's ineffective. Offshoring is not new. If it were the panacea that you're implying, every single company would have already done it--but that hasn't happened. For the same reason, most startups occur in the United States. You are just pushing a political opinion that is not based on any facts or reality.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
I will leave it to the jury whether or not you're a crackpot based on your other comments, Lonnie.
But you fail here to note that a company like Swiss RE bases its entire business on measuring and appraising risk. Second, they do indeed have data they use to assess the change in risk they face--and that is the history of claims they have been paying. Swiss RE and other re-insurance companies such a Lloyds of London now require insurance companies they back to take into account the impact of climate change.
The point of this is not to construe their interest as some scientific absolute on the existence of antropogenic climate change--it is merely to combat the notion that is put forward by the non-scientific climate change deniers like you who want to act like nothing strange at all is happening to the climate. The reality that these large corporations whose lifeblood is assessing risks on pain of going out of business, do indeed take the risk of a worldwide calamity driven by climate change serious as a heart attack. Nothing further can be inferred from their interest other than their serious and factual opinions that climate change remains a true and actual risk that our planet faces.
"Jane"--Lonnie--you're a crackpot.
None of your canards explain why Swiss RE, a non-American company and huge re-insurer, also has concluded that Greenhouse Warming is a significant recognised risk that they are not ignoring. To wit, from the MIT article: "Swiss Re identified climate change as an emerging risk more than 20 years ago, long before most financial and insurance companies -- or most businesses in general. A vocal advocate of mitigation strategies, climate change is now a significant component of the company’s long-term risk management strategy."
Swiss RE.
Headquarters: Zürich, Switzerland
Despite the shorter longevity of methane in the atmosphere, the danger it poses for runaway greenhouse warming well overwelms any benefit from its short lifespan, as is well recognised, such as its triggering of ground-level ozone, yet another potent greenhouse gas. As you note, fracking is yet another voluminous source of methane, so its short lifespan in the atmosphere is no comfort. In short, it's a runaway effect because CO2 releases lead to Methane releases, which lead to more and more Methane release, which dominoes to other potent greenhouse gases. Textbook runaway warming. So, what was your objection?
You're referring to Blue Cross, which is a health insurer. Health insurance is regulated differently than property and casualty insurance, which is the insurance that is most affected by global warming. (I have professional experience with both types). However, through their investment portfolios, both types of insurance company are affected primarily by the damage to coastal real estate that these companies--and the re-insurers--own as investment vehicles. And, as I'm sure you know, most of the premium income taken in by these companies is used for investments.
Finally, you call global warming a "convenient excuse" while the insurance companies, their underwriters and the actuaries for the big re-insurers call it a "recognised risk". There is a difference as, your appelation implies the risk is ficticious while these insurance companies do not consider it a fictional risk--which was my original point.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need help getting some counseling, I'm here for you.
Denial is a tough row to hoe but I'm sure, with therapy, you can make the transition to another language. There's always PHP or Python if the thought of finally breaking down and learning Java is too painful for you. Or perhaps Go or Hack might offer an easier transition for you...
I understand all about Mono but the monkey is still, after three major versions, missing huge chunks of what .NET purports to do, such as complete support for WF 2.0 and any real support for WPF. I understand what a pain it must be to work against the beast from Redmond with the monkey but you know as well as the rest of us that in Mono you are working on another Symbian.
No, but you know as well as I do that to use the Microsoft ecosystem you inevitably get sucked into running an all-Microsoft stack.
Can you point me to the Linux or Mac version of SQLServer?
Can you point me to the Linux or Mac version of IIS?
I'm waiting...
You know there are support groups out there that can help you with your grief about the immanent collapse of the .NET ecosystem.
.NET will live on in pockets of diehard iconclasts until finally even they--like Japanese soliders on deserted islands, thinking that WWII was still being fought--wake up to the fact that .NET is a dead man walking. Mono is dead. .NET is the Zune and Java is the iPod.
.NET? That's a desperate Hail Mary ploy by MS to try to resurrect that corpse called .NET. It's dying and you need to get over your denial, and your anger and get on with the bargaining, depression and acceptance.
.NET programmers. Don't worry, you don't have to click on that link, I'll quote the relevant part for you:
...Everything, that is, but .NET.
.NET is a dandy language. It’s modern, it’s fancy, it’s got all the bells and whistles. And if you’re doing Windows Mobile 7 apps (which the stats suggest you aren’t), it’s your only choice. But choosing .NET is a choice, and whenever anybody does it, I can’t help but ask “why?”
.NET on your resume isn’t an instant showstopper. But it will definitely raise questions during the phone screen, for reasons that are best explained by simile:
.NET is like cooking in a McDonalds kitchen. It is full of amazing tools that automate absolutely everything. Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet.
Even Microsoft has orphaned you by going with HTML5 and JavaScript for Metro interfaces.
Java is the one. Going on about how nice Visual Studio is to work in is like telling us how nice the deck chairs were on the Titanic. It's too late, friend. Sure,
Can't you see the writing on the wall? Starting to open source
Remember that CEO who said CEO Friday: Why we don’t hire
Now let me clarify —
Don’t get me wrong:
Programming with
However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it. The patties are pre-formed in the wrong size. They start out frozen so they can’t be smushed up and reformed, and the thawing machine is so tightly integrated with the cooking machine that there’s no way to intercept it between the two. A McDonalds kitchen makes exactly what’s on the McDonalds menu — and does so in an absolutely foolproof fashion. But it can’t go off the menu, and any attempt to bend the machine to your will just breaks it such that it needs to be sent back to the factory for repairs.
Instead, we look for a very different sort of person....
Because the .NET stack is inherantly more expensive. The tools cost big bugs, it requires a Microsoft server and will only run on SQLServer. All of the Java tools we use are free--every last one--and we run it on CentOS Linux servers. Finally, all our staff is Java oriented.
Monster:
Dice
So, ONLY on Dice and ONLY in Redmond, WA--Microsoft's home--are there more .NET jobs than Java. Everywhere else Java kills .NET.
Java is killing it all around the United States. My company just had me rewrite a series of apps to remove the entire MS stack from .NET to SQLServer.
The City of London is indeed the heart of tax evasion. It directs tax evasion around the world.
You are absolutely a liar. I direct you to this Guardian story that explicitly states that as a fact.
You ridiculous comments about the Freemasons, etc is subterfuge trying to hide with disinformation the precise fact that the City of London is a world center of lawless scumbaggery and its apologists like you are the worst sort on the planet.
To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy
Quote: But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control.
Further evidence: The tax haven in the heart of Britain
"What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering. The notion of elsewhere (hence the term "offshore") is central. The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the 50,000-odd Caymanians, but help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us."
For context I direct you to the magnificent book by Nicholas Shaxton called Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens . But don't stop there. Further evidence of the vile and lawless damage the City of London does to the world:
Exxon care so little about this planet and so much about their own profit that they don't give a damn if they kill off the planet, as long as they get theirs. Bastards.
Take them to CostCo. They digitized some movies I had taken in Russia in 1997 and they looked great.
My experience is they never think creatively. They can come up with one solution and if that does not fly for some reason, they are toast.
I have worked with a few who were okay but with so many who were just not that bright.
Finally, you need to watch your correct use of the English language, guy. When I saw "rote" instead of the correct "wrote", it was hard to take your ideas seriously. Just sayin'...
Damn well said.
I have yet to meet a unionized engineer.
When I worked for Bloomberg in New York City, they were constantly firing international employees for theft of intellectual property. Not sure where that charge came from.
Sounds to me that your whole point is that some VC told you how to think. H-1B visa holders are only popular with people like CEOs and VC who really have no experience in the field. Working engineers know that they are wildly overrated. That's why so many companies have abandoned the use of H-1B visa holders. It is a practice valued by people who really don't have any experience in the field. They think it's a good value but in fact it's a myth. Tata produces terrible engineers. They pretend they're going to send experienced engineers here but the people that companies actually get are unexperienced and come here expecting to be trained by US engineers. Then, they produce terrible work and US engineers have to silently rewrite it. I say "silently" because management doesn't want to hear that fact because they want to push the fiction that they're saving money. So, then, the cycle continues where management believes it's saving money while domestic engineers have to actually rewrite the crappy code produced by Tata. I have seen this play out in several companies, especially ones located in NYC.
Obviously someone does not know that we in America have a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that has been on the books for over 100 years. Please take your Ayn Rand fantasies into some right wing hothouse where you belong, "Lucky One". Or better yet: Pah-shole na hooey.
Clearly a lie motivated by your politics. The entire case would not exist without the attorneys working on it for contigency fees. Then, at worst, the attorneys get 1/3. That means the class-action defendents will get 2/3rds of whatever is recovered. Then, going forward, every engineer in the United States will benefit in perpetuity by the increased salaries that are an absolute result of this.
If any companies had wanted to expatriate, they would have already done so. They stay in an expensive place such as Silicon Valley precisely because of the quality of the talent there.
Many US companies have tried moving overseas, only to see that it's ineffective. Offshoring is not new. If it were the panacea that you're implying, every single company would have already done it--but that hasn't happened. For the same reason, most startups occur in the United States. You are just pushing a political opinion that is not based on any facts or reality.
Nice try, Jagdish
It's a false name in either case--what does it matter?
I will leave it to the jury whether or not you're a crackpot based on your other comments, Lonnie. But you fail here to note that a company like Swiss RE bases its entire business on measuring and appraising risk. Second, they do indeed have data they use to assess the change in risk they face--and that is the history of claims they have been paying. Swiss RE and other re-insurance companies such a Lloyds of London now require insurance companies they back to take into account the impact of climate change. The point of this is not to construe their interest as some scientific absolute on the existence of antropogenic climate change--it is merely to combat the notion that is put forward by the non-scientific climate change deniers like you who want to act like nothing strange at all is happening to the climate. The reality that these large corporations whose lifeblood is assessing risks on pain of going out of business, do indeed take the risk of a worldwide calamity driven by climate change serious as a heart attack. Nothing further can be inferred from their interest other than their serious and factual opinions that climate change remains a true and actual risk that our planet faces.
But American Express and Discover do not.
None of your canards explain why Swiss RE, a non-American company and huge re-insurer, also has concluded that Greenhouse Warming is a significant recognised risk that they are not ignoring. To wit, from the MIT article: "Swiss Re identified climate change as an emerging risk more than 20 years ago, long before most financial and insurance companies -- or most businesses in general. A vocal advocate of mitigation strategies, climate change is now a significant component of the company’s long-term risk management strategy."
Swiss RE.
Headquarters: Zürich, Switzerland
You're referring to Blue Cross, which is a health insurer. Health insurance is regulated differently than property and casualty insurance, which is the insurance that is most affected by global warming. (I have professional experience with both types). However, through their investment portfolios, both types of insurance company are affected primarily by the damage to coastal real estate that these companies--and the re-insurers--own as investment vehicles. And, as I'm sure you know, most of the premium income taken in by these companies is used for investments.
Finally, you call global warming a "convenient excuse" while the insurance companies, their underwriters and the actuaries for the big re-insurers call it a "recognised risk". There is a difference as, your appelation implies the risk is ficticious while these insurance companies do not consider it a fictional risk--which was my original point.
Good! :) ]
[I guess the I misunderstood it when you wrote: "You have no clue about anything you are talking about."