Nonsense, Singapore is an example of my solution doing exactly what my solution does:
provide everybody with extremely high standard of living and non-existing unemployment (people who want to work, work). 1.8% unemployment is no unemployment, that's just people between jobs. Highest income per capita in the world. Very strong currency. Trade and account surpluses, no debt.
No gov't mandated health care for all, mostly free market in health care, something you don't have.
China is another example of MY solution being used by an emerging market in practice, growing affluence of people. Chinese managed to pull more people out of poverty in 30 years than USA has in population.
My solution is to remove YOUR solution. My solution is to remove government power from people's lives. My solution is to remove government from money. My solution is to remove government from business. My solution is to remove government from work.
There should be no income related taxes, there should be no money printing and no central authority that creates fake money and sets price of money, there should be no business regulations and no labour regulations.
My solution is what turned America into the economic powerhouse and now turned China into one.
If you just don't understand it, it doesn't mean that I provide no solution. Maybe all you are looking for is some legislation or regulation or a tax.
I am only looking for people to look after themselves and nothing else. People looking after themselves is what creates the economy, not governments, not business regulations or income taxes or inflation, all those things reduce, destroy the economy. My solution is to stop what destroys the economy.
A doctor looks at the symptoms, finds the root cause of the problem and suggests a way to modify the behaviour to alleviate the symptoms and hopeful to fix the problem at the root. If a doctor tells you to stop smoking, which will improve your health, will you tell him that he is finger pointing?
You act as though people have all these choices. They don't, the reality is many are willing to take any employment they can find. Even if it means damaging their own health. As unemployment increases that only gets worse.
- people have no choices when government does not allow them to have choices.
When gov't stands on the way of free market economics, when gov't prevents economy from building itself up, that's when people remaind poor and desperate. That's what it looked like in China just 30 years ago with the Communist rule without the capitalist economy.
Again and again: unemployment is a function of price.
You make labour expensive enough through laws, regulations, taxes, inflation and just price floors and you'll get your unemployment, and you'll turn people into the poor, the denigrated, the wards of the state. Not self empowered, not ever being able to get out of their bad circumstances in life, just forever being used as a voting block to keep the power that promises to steal and give to them.
I wonder why are you so hell bent on turning people into these creatures, no will of their own, no power of their own, no ability to change their circumstances on their own, nothing that they can do.
All of your comments are completely pessimistic, totally reeking of defeat and despair. Examine your thoughts, you are depressed in some way.
We can look at history and see what happened before. We know that without this regulation workers will be abused.
- the only true abuse comes with government power, all other 'abuse' is only in your mind.
I might, if I had no other options. Thankfully right now I do.
- so what you are saying is that you are not in fact getting hurt by me offering you a position at $1 or at $1000 a year?
Tell me, if you could buy labour for say $10 a day (if you could pay somebody $10 a day to work for you), would you offer them a job?
If you wanted to hire somebody for $10 a day, should you be prevented from making the offer by government?
Think about that for a while, the answer is in YOUR comment, right here:
I might, if I had no other options
Steve Job's was scamming the tax man. He took his income as stocks and other things that are taxed at a lower rate than what working stiffs are forced to pay.
- why do you say that by taking capital gains or dividends he was 'scamming' somebody, anybody?
AFAIC it was a stunt to work for $1 a year, however that's my point - he should be able to do it.
Minimum wage exists for a reason.
- yeah, to hide government created inflation and to buy political capital with the mob. Of-course it also means that many millions of people cannot find even their first job and so they are thrown out of the work force, they can never enter it, they are swept aside, put into "will never have a job" category. As long as the gov't is big enough to force others to pay for their welfare, this scam will keep going.
Else those workers cannot afford the basics of life. Some people will work for anything they can get, even if it means Roman_mir gets rich while they starve on the street. You oddly enough seem fine with that.
- people should work for what they can get.
If all I can get is $10 a day, I will have to work for that, that's my price then. Of-course if gov't dictates that I must be paid $100 a day and because of it I cannot land a job at all, now I am reduced to being ward of the state, I am now relying on gov't to feed, cloth, shelter and treat me in every way.
Of-course the burden is now on the economy not to get the benefit of my employment, but instead to provide me with a completely unsustainable, uneconomical (and immoral) subsidy, and the burden is placed on the working individuals, who will not see any benefit from actually subsidising me but for some reason are forced to.
You seem to be fine with that, denigrating people to living completely wasted lives without any purpose and without ever actually being in a position to HELP others by being part of the productive economy.
Without a price floor on labor we had people starving in the street.
- if anybody was starving on the streets before the minimum wage, you should absolutely thank the gov't and the Fed for it, which caused the Great Depression and the eventual collapse of the dollar in 1971. There is nobody else to thank for any of that.
These laws came about for a reason.
- yeah, it was gov't created inflation that gave rise to the idea that there should be a pricing floor on labour.
If the market was as benevolent as you claim these laws would never have been instated.
- it's quite sad to see somebody so mistaken on so much. The market is not 'benevolent' but it does not create the problem by lowering prices, it solves the economic problems by lowering prices.
It is government that creates the problem by devaluing the money and then using its political power to accuse markets of something that markets have no relation to.
What is hilarious is that you buy the whole "labour productivity" line, you probably also think that GDP means something more than a fictitious number and that CPI actually reflects true rate of inflation.
I read your other comments, I mean, I don't particularly care about arguing with Marxists, I made all the points I wanted to make in this thread already.
Workers that are let go from companies are not magically more productive all of a sudden, they have no productivity at all. They are not 'sharing in productivity gains' because they are not the ones involved in productivity, it's the investment owners, the capitalists that are more productive because they invest more into labour saving devices and do more with less labour.
As to compensation, the government created inflation is a large part of the reason for the real so called 'middle class' wages being stagnant, the inflation causes capital flight and that is what kills jobs. However inflation also causes misallocation of the remaining capital, so as the economy is more and more 'service oriented' the less and less productive workers in it actually are and at the same time the inflation is used by gov't prop up its own spending, and of-course in that situation the people closest to the feeding trough are the ones getting the most benefits from it.
So the politicians and the top financial types, bankers, military industrial complex elite are those who get the most in this type of unproductive economy due to inflation, borrowing, taxes.
Again, you are mistaken if you trust the official nonsensical propaganda about productivity of an average American, that productivity has gone through the floor since the default on the dollar in 1971.
So selling children into sexual slavery is not abuse?
- I didn't know that where you live slavery is not a criminal matter.
Beating your workers is not abuse?
- beating workers... what can I say, some workers may like it when they are getting beaten (I even can think of a few professions where workers are beaten on daily basis and nobody minds). For those who don't like it they don't have to work there, do they? Is somebody forcing you to work for an employer that beats you?
Putting them into harmful circumstances?
- plenty of people are put into harmful situations, life is harmful itself, it leads to death. All we can do is bargain for proper compensation or not work there.
Without regulation no company would bother with safety measures.
- except this is not true at all, companies come up with devices that reduce number of accidents on their own all the time.
Tool makers can even market their tools based on safety. Then again, nobody is forcing you into any particular occupation or employment opportunity.
They can outlive you in the courts.
- so why would you work somewhere that puts you into a position that you have to go to courts? Don't work there. If somebody chooses that place of work, it's their business, not yours.
No, it means that $1/year is all I can get. It does not mean that is enough to eat even.
- so nobody can actually buy you labour at $1 a year, so why do you worry?
Tell me somethign, h4rr4r, would you WORK FOR ME for $1 a year?
I am actually willing to pay you $1000 a year to do some work, would you work for me?
If you would work for me, then you find that offer attractive enough.
If you wouldn't work for me then you are not finding that offer to be good enough.
How am I forcing you to do anything by only proposing something like that? Maybe you think that I should be forced by government to make you an offer that you can never refuse, I don't understand why even you think that it is such a good idea not to allow 2 parties to come together to a mutual agreement on their contract?
Do you know that Steve Jobs was paid $1 a year while working at Apple? He chose that salary, doesn't mean he couldn't eat, he had money.
So if somebody is willing to work for $1 a year, why do you want to make that illegal?
If somebody in a free market without savings and without other income is working for $1 a year that means that is all that the market would pay them based on their experience and abilities (or that it is their choice to be paid a nominal sum for some other reason).
However if $1 a year is a salary that is actually ENOUGH to pay for their living accommodations and food, etc., then where is the problem?
- but you wouldn't allow the market to come up with those things by dictating that there should be some form of a pricing floor on labour as an example.
You are proposing a system under which we will have mass unemployment and your solution is handwaving.
- no, not handwaving, actual economics and history. The more expensive labour is, the less of it is bought. Taxes, regulations and inflation add to the price of labour, this means government is part of cost of labour, this means the bigger the government is the more expensive labour is.
The more labour costs the less productive the economy of that country is, which is exactly what USA and Europe are going through.
I am only cheering for people to pay the taxes they owe.
- and I say that nobody should be taxed on their labour at all. Nobody's income should be taxed, nobody's wealth should be taxed.
Transactions can be taxed, government can tax transactions to fund its operations. I am not even opposed to a sales tax actually as means to fund government. I am opposed to growing government, I am opposed to government that steals individual freedoms and tells people how to live their lives, what to buy, what to eat, what to drink, who to fuck, etc.etc.
If you don't like sales taxes, which I don't, then lets remove them on all purchases.
- I would much rather see sales taxes than income taxes, that's where you are also getting me wrong.
Sales taxes tax consumption, income taxes tax savings and productive capital, which means it reduces ability of the economy to grow itself by coming up with new investment opportunities and businesses.
Cool so now human labor is $1/year, how do I buy land or access to clean water?
- that's the beauty of free market, market free from government regulations. If in fact you are willing to sell your labour at $1 a year, it means that you can actually survive on that, it means that is how cheap the free market made living, that somebody can live on $1 a year.
Somethings there are not ever going to be more of.
- the limits are only in your mind. That's the job of the market to figure out how to satisfy your demand, even if you are not imaginative enough, somebody else is.
Even worse, what do we do with the people who now have no job at all? Do we let them die on the street?
- before 1971 66% of USA women did not have a job, they didn't have to hold a job (though they worked at home of-course), somehow 1 guy without any college degree was making enough money to sustain a family. Once the dollar was destroyed by the government, this turned around of-course, it was the investment capital that starting leaving and eventually the women joined the work force. Today over 60% of women actually work. So the more government and the more taxes and the more regulations and inflation the worse the economy is and the less productive people are the more they have to work to satisfy even basic demands.
Of-course on average women work to pay taxes of their husbands.
If it is the FREE MARKET that creates the situation where people do not have to work, then it means that those people do not actually have to work in order to live and there is no imbalance and no inefficiencies.
When it's gov't regulated destruction of the economy, then people without jobs are really screwed. Of-course for a while they'll live on a gov't subsidy (subsidised by those, still with jobs), but there will be fewer and fewer people pulling the cart so to speak and eventually there will be nobody pulling the cart and everybody will be expecting somebody else to do the work.
But if you don't tax then you don't have base for those businesses you hold so dear to build on and they will eventually die anyway.
- oh, I hold businesses in a much higher regard than any government anywhere on this planet. Businesses give me everything that I have, governments steal from me and from businesses that work hard to give me everything I have. I respect businessmen who are thinking about me, trying to satisfy my demand and I do not respect governments, they are thinking about themselves, only thinking about stealing from those who actually work.
If you don't tax you don't destroy capital, that is all there is to it. "The base" is created by businesses, the actual valuable sustainable infrastructure is created by businesses, not by governments.
You can take any idea to the extreme, and the extreme that there should be NO regulations and NO taxes
- that's what I want, you forgot "NO inflation".
NO limit on how businesses can abuse employees
- nobody is abused in a free market, the only abuse comes from government.
The only difference is that a small number of people will make a lot of money in a limited period of time and then be able to live in Fiji while the plebeians live in an industrial hellhole.
- people who make more money than you gave you everything you bought.
Asides from the point that Marxists ideals have been adopted in other forms (i.e. Libertarianism), your first sentence is completely off-mark. I don't think you are doing this intentionally but are simply unaware.
- Libertarians have no use for Marxism, not even the abolishment of the state itself is on the Libertarian agenda, so you are the one off the mark.
The real narrative today is this: Left-leaning policies overstate the importance of human freedom while free-market capitalism undermines it.
- 180 degree wrong. Modern idea of a 'left-leaning' is the exact opposite of human freedom, it is based on discrimination and theft of private property and growth of government power based on that discrimination and theft.
Free market capitalism is reliance on private property ownership and rule of law, this requires individual freedoms by definition.
Ask any scientist working for a subsidiary for a major corp. Employees and directors are the only ones who create productivity. Even if the investors and owners have made the initial investment, they are not the ones who are "improving" or continue to improve productivity. All they do is fund.
- clearly you don't understand that those people who fund are the ones ultimately responsible for increase in overall productivity of the company.
If the company is not being productive, it should be liquidated, otherwise the capital is not used efficiently, it's not making a return on the investment and it should be dismantled, pieces should be sold to people who know how to use them in a more efficient manner.
Employees are cogs in the machine, the machine itself is the labour saving device that makes the investor productive.
The solution proposed is a direct democracy that restores an individual's freedom and right to chose, participate, and create in community-driven enterprise. Incidentally, it is the only successful model of government.
- direct democracy restores freedom? No it does not, it subjugates some minority to the wishes of a majority, it destroys capitalism as a principle, we can observe this in action in places where it is in fact practised, like California. I would not call that a 'successful model of government'.
Economy should be "destabilized" if that means lowering prices, we want lower prices.
The lower the prices are the more we can buy, this is true of everything, including labour. We want as low prices as are possible, but not because of any gov't intervention but because people have built enough labour saving devices that labour is dismissed from many of the existing positions.
This lowers the cost of living for everybody, that's actually what 'trickle down economics' is all about. Who could afford to buy their own car in the late nineteenth century? Obviously the cheaper it is to build cars the more likely it is that more people will be able to afford them.
Who could afford their own washing machine 200 years ago? Nobody. That's because there was no washing machine, but the rich didn't need the washing machine, they never did their own washing anyway. It was the capitalism, not any type of socialism or Marxism that built the washing machine and distributed it and made it cheaper and cheaper until everybody had one.
What is stopping you from starting your own business and building your own tools of production? Cost of labour. However the cheaper labour becomes the more likely that people with less and less capital can actually afford to hire labour and to build their own business, which in turn improves lives of everybody in the economy.
That's what trickle down economics is, that's why Marxism is complete hogwash.
Your comment is wrong on the same points as pretty much every other comment that is left in response to mine.
There is no fixed amount of labour, labour has a price - the wage. The lower the price, the more people can afford to buy it, the more businesses are created where those businesses were impossible up until the prices came down.
Do you own MORE or LESS electronics today given that they are coming down in price all the time?
The lower the cost of labour is, the more people can actually buy of it with a smaller amount of initial investment, which means more people can try and run their own businesses.
We want more businesses not fewer, we want lower prices, not higher, we want people to try and run more businesses.
That's exactly why regulations, taxes, inflation and laws like minimum wage are so destructive to the economy - they don't allow people to try and actually build the economy.
The owners provide capital that would be worthless without labor.
- the market disagrees with your sentiment completely. History disagrees with you, obviously this story disagrees with you.
The labour is displaced by a labour saving device - the robot, which is a result of capital being applied. How the capital is being applied to create and set up the robot is totally secondary, there is obviously a way to apply capital, a way to pay for the necessary labour to create the labour saving device.
The labour that was used to create the robot was obviously compensated, nobody put a gun to the heads of the engineers that designed the finished robot. The capitalist in question used his ingenuity to come up with the initial design and risked his savings to make the finished product and now the labour is displaced by the machine. The robot IS capital, the labour is fired, that's the point of the capital - to fire the labour and to make the capitalist more productive. This is exactly what the market wants - cheaper and cheaper costs of input and more and more competition and choices at lower prices.
Labour has price associated with it and the machine wins on price so more and more restaurants are buying it.
Brick and mortar stores are pricier than Internet stores (but of-course the politicians can be bought and increase barriers to entry and turn an efficient market into a less efficient market, to raise costs, raise prices, reduce quality and reduce choices, and you are cheering for this it seems.)
I don't think not paying taxes is being more competitive.
- but OF-COURSE IT IS!
Within the existing legal framework a business that found a way to REDUCE ITS INPUT COSTS, including cost of taxes, found a way to be more efficient and allow people to buy goods at lower prices.
The existing businesses didn't like the development and bought the politicians to save their inefficient business model rather than competing on the merits of the business itself.
This labor saving will be really great when they are no more jobs. Then the economy can truly flourish.
- there are no fixed amount of jobs, that's my point.
Labour cost is a PRICE the cheaper it is, the MORE of it will be bought. That's why minimum wage is such a drag on the economy. Labour cost prevents many potential businesses from ever appearing in the first place.
Protip: not everyone cares about the economy more than their fellow man.
- yeah, people without brains or understanding of economics think that they know something about it, which is quite sad that they manage to gather such crowds around themselves.
If you actually cared about your fellow men, you'd want as an efficient market to emerge as is possible.
What is civilisation about? From my perspective (or any person's perspective) isn't it about making our lives better, easier, it means being able to access whatever product or service that exists, that people come up with in a cheaper, more accessible manner? Do you have everything that you want? Maybe you do and that's great, most people do not.
Lowering labour costs when the required cost of living is higher is a problem and not an end goal worthy of being sought
- of-course it is the end goal worthy of being sought, lowering labour costs is a great goal, it means that people with very little capital can attempt and start a business by hiring cheaper labour, something they couldn't do before it was economical enough before labour became much cheaper.
Looks like you want to keep barriers to entry to people who may end up providing society with products and services the society has never experienced before.
Obviously this includes cost of living, cost of rent and food and energy, any one of those costs are addressed by businesses that can start operating because all of a sudden even a smallish savings pool can be used to start and operate a business before it even becomes a profitable one.
Capital doesn't care if it is unused
- it's not capital, it's people who should care if there is unused capital. People are not getting the most efficient market if the resources are not being used due to very high barriers to entry that governments set up and maintain to help the established monopolies, which of-course is just a way for politicians to line up their own pockets, while useful idiots (hint) keep cheering.
Civil society is built with capital, there was no society more civil than was built during free market capitalism.
Politicians delegate money for infrastructure.
- we should all work to ensure that politicians cannot do something like that, destroy productivity by misallocating it in any such manner.
snow removal isn't a right wing or left wing issue
- nice rhetoric, while money is being misallocated obviously and snow is not being removed at all or is being removed with a much higher price tag than it would if the market was doing it and not some politician.
" Capitalism seeks the excess benefits for profit while unfairly leveraging the mutil-millenial lineage of human knowledge
- yeah yeah, it's very unfair that a Chinese noodle restaurant owner used his own savings to design and develop a robot that now makes the market more efficient.
that brought their enterprise to bear fruit.
- sure sure, Ms. Warren, the Chinese guy didn't risk his own money to build the robots and didn't build them, you did.
Its ours, fuck off.
- now you are talking, that's the real Marxist, socialist, communist slogan, none of that other bullshit. "It's ours, fuck off", as they shoot the actual people who created the capital in the head (which inevitably leads to their own demise as they can't do anything without capitalists).
Whenever Marxists talk about economy they like to overstate the importance of labour and understate the importance of capital. They are of-course completely wrong, there is always a cost associated with labour and a cost associated with capital, the more labour costs the more it makes sense to use capital to decrease cost of labour and that's why we get labour saving devices.
The first shovel displaced people from digging holes with their bare hands and sticks.
The first excavator displaced thousands of people with shovels.
Computers displaced untold numbers of individuals, millions upon millions obviously that's because computers are labour savings devices.
In the process we make the operators of the labour saving devices so much more productive because they command these tools. Notice however that without capital (savings used as investments) no person can increase his productivity in any significant manner, you can't just dig with a shovel fast enough to be as productive as a guy operating an excavator.
You can't count numbers with your ruler or an abacus or just a piece of paper and a pen as fast as a computer that runs a program. The person that operates the implement is now much more effective, much more productive than all the manual workers were, but of-course the number of workers that are needed go down dramatically.
It's interesting to hear people talk about "productivity of the economy going up while employees who grow the productivity aren't ripping the reward, instead the owners do". Well excuse me, the owners created the productivity, not the employees.
Employees are not adding to productivity, it is the owners, the investors, the capitalists that are improving their productivity. In case of the noodle restaurants the productivity of the owner (investors) of the restaurant is going up, he can serve more noodles with fewer labourers doing manual work, but it costs him the original investment into the labour saving device - the robot.
People displaced by the robot are not increasing their productivity, they lost all of it, now they have to find a different job. However from POV of the market this is a very good development - the fewer people we need to do things that we do already now, the more supply of labour exists and so prices for labour go down and more businesses can be created because it takes less capital, less investment to hire people at lower prices to do things that were uneconomical while the cost of labour was more expensive before the labour saving devices were added to the economy and replaced these workers.
It is a good thing for any consumer of goods to be able to buy more of them cheaper, to have more choice and to see more competition (even among labour and capital).
The price of the robot is higher than cost of a human noodle cutter, the prices now will come down for human noodle cutter and more restaurants may even open because of this development.
It's possible that most restaurants will eventually have noodle cutting robots and there will be a competitive advantage of having a human cut noodles, maybe somebody will advertise their restaurant as one that does not use robots, some people are gullible enough to prefer that, but that would be a niche item of-course.
More importantly, the restaurant is now more productive, the labour market has more surplus so it may be cheaper for other businesses to hire labour, and that's great. As long as the government does not try to "level the playing field", as it is now in America trying to do for Brick and Mortar stores, that cannot compete with the Internet stores, that are obviously more competitive and can do more for less money.
The government steps in and makes everything more expensive for one reason only: get more money for politicians. They can be on the side of a business that cannot compete in the changing business environment because of all the new labour saving devices (like the Internet, which is a labour saving device).
Saying that you are working in a shop different from mine... obviously. Yet I worked for large communication companies, banks, insurance companies, mid sized manufacturer, utilities, and some others as a contractor. Today I build my own software and sell it to retail chains.
Saying that your shop is different because they work with several external parties... first of all it's hilarious that you believe only you work with people that work with other people.
Secondly this does nothing at all to show how a J2EE solution is preferable, and it's not. There is nothing preferable about it, if you are providing web services nobody on the other side cares what servlet container, what application server, whatever the hell you are using, as long as you are providing the APIs that expose business functionality they need and that is all it is.
It is all about functionality and the integration, and J2EE or JEE5 or anything for that matter is not a substitute at all for an actual document describing behaviour of a the system and the proper API calls that invoke that behaviour.
If your complaint is that you can't get documentation and knowledge passed from one project to another, and simultaneously you are complaining about lack of standards between project teams because you can't rely on your architects to have standards, then you are making my point exactly: J2EE is a crutch that is used to replace an actual architectural thought.
Without documentation and without passing knowledge from one project to the next all you have is the code and the user base to ask them what the code may be doing. If all you have is the code and the user base and no documentation and nobody who worked on other projects can tell you anything then your idea of 'enterprise' is quite disjointed. What is it, a disjointed set of things that happen in vacuum without any thought or standard of implementing a product?
Maybe you should be thinking about that first of all, while you are going through the code, and whatever the code is, whatever the container is around the code, without documentation on use cases, business requirements and system testing you are not better off just because there are some EJBs thrown into the mix.
You can't deduce the actual workings of the code by a cursory observation of its container.
You can't assume that the exposed APIs, be they web services calls or anything for that matter even will do what something that their names suggest (and nothing else or anything at all).
Enterprise systems more than anything require documentation, the technology underneath is irrelevant, it's the approach that is enterprise, not the tech.
They don't grt it. He solved the speed of processing and the lack of long term durability of storage by doing what's described in the original comment... Worked like a charm without needing to rithink the entire problem of a single bus used to retrieve and store data on the physical storage that still accessess data serially.
It's like tons of little fish devouring an elepant carcas rather than one shark doing the same. You asked for a non technical... Of-course it's still harddrives (or sdds today) all the way down.
as the TFS states he uses GPUs to do the data processing, but you are never going to believe what he uses to store the actual data, you won't believe it, that's why it's not mentioned in TFS. Sure sure, it's PostgreSQL, but the way the data was stored physically was in the computer monitor itself. Yes, he punched holes in computer monitors with a chisel and used punch card readers to read those holes from the screens.
The difference between 'enterprise' and anything else is.... money that will be spent, nothing else.
An enterprise solution should be documented well enough for other projects to extend it and integrate with it. The server infrastructure does not make it easier to integrate two solutions together than would any API that is just as documented, the teams that work on different projects do not work in vacuum, they have access to people and or documentation from previous projects.
There is nothing about J2EE or any other set of crutches sold by various tool companies out there that make it any less complex to integrate systems together, in fact whatever needs to be done to integrate components and projects within complex 'enterprise' infrastructure is often more convoluted and complicated than it needs to be and on the background it just uses some Free source library that may, for example, turn some silly Java beans into a set of XML documents with a factory provided by a library that would reflect and instantiate some objects.
A proper architect would put together a solution that only has what is minimally required at any point of time to achieve the current objective. All other considerations are moot, since it's an 'enterprise' environment, every project will have to take care of its own integration and once that is done, the same path can be followed by other projects that may come in later.
hacker going by the name Demon Killer was found to regularly use Tor to anonymize his online activities, like posting of death threats on public message boards
- I can see what they mean, he probably promised to hack somebody with an axe. Somebody should suggest the police ban axes, not onions.
Yeah, those machines are not patched with 'latest patches', correct, so what is your point? I wouldn't want to upgrade kernel or anything on those machines at all.
Local taxes are not within the authority of federal government, federal government cannot force a business to do anything about local taxes. State can force a business to pay taxes to the State.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense, Singapore is an example of my solution doing exactly what my solution does:
provide everybody with extremely high standard of living and non-existing unemployment (people who want to work, work). 1.8% unemployment is no unemployment, that's just people between jobs. Highest income per capita in the world. Very strong currency. Trade and account surpluses, no debt.
No gov't mandated health care for all, mostly free market in health care, something you don't have.
China is another example of MY solution being used by an emerging market in practice, growing affluence of people. Chinese managed to pull more people out of poverty in 30 years than USA has in population.
My solution is to remove YOUR solution.
My solution is to remove government power from people's lives.
My solution is to remove government from money.
My solution is to remove government from business.
My solution is to remove government from work.
There should be no income related taxes, there should be no money printing and no central authority that creates fake money and sets price of money, there should be no business regulations and no labour regulations.
My solution is what turned America into the economic powerhouse and now turned China into one.
If you just don't understand it, it doesn't mean that I provide no solution. Maybe all you are looking for is some legislation or regulation or a tax.
I am only looking for people to look after themselves and nothing else. People looking after themselves is what creates the economy, not governments, not business regulations or income taxes or inflation, all those things reduce, destroy the economy. My solution is to stop what destroys the economy.
A doctor looks at the symptoms, finds the root cause of the problem and suggests a way to modify the behaviour to alleviate the symptoms and hopeful to fix the problem at the root. If a doctor tells you to stop smoking, which will improve your health, will you tell him that he is finger pointing?
You act as though people have all these choices. They don't, the reality is many are willing to take any employment they can find. Even if it means damaging their own health. As unemployment increases that only gets worse.
- people have no choices when government does not allow them to have choices.
When gov't stands on the way of free market economics, when gov't prevents economy from building itself up, that's when people remaind poor and desperate. That's what it looked like in China just 30 years ago with the Communist rule without the capitalist economy.
Again and again: unemployment is a function of price.
You make labour expensive enough through laws, regulations, taxes, inflation and just price floors and you'll get your unemployment, and you'll turn people into the poor, the denigrated, the wards of the state. Not self empowered, not ever being able to get out of their bad circumstances in life, just forever being used as a voting block to keep the power that promises to steal and give to them.
I wonder why are you so hell bent on turning people into these creatures, no will of their own, no power of their own, no ability to change their circumstances on their own, nothing that they can do.
All of your comments are completely pessimistic, totally reeking of defeat and despair. Examine your thoughts, you are depressed in some way.
We can look at history and see what happened before. We know that without this regulation workers will be abused.
- the only true abuse comes with government power, all other 'abuse' is only in your mind.
I might, if I had no other options.
Thankfully right now I do.
- so what you are saying is that you are not in fact getting hurt by me offering you a position at $1 or at $1000 a year?
Tell me, if you could buy labour for say $10 a day (if you could pay somebody $10 a day to work for you), would you offer them a job?
If you wanted to hire somebody for $10 a day, should you be prevented from making the offer by government?
Think about that for a while, the answer is in YOUR comment, right here:
I might, if I had no other options
Steve Job's was scamming the tax man. He took his income as stocks and other things that are taxed at a lower rate than what working stiffs are forced to pay.
- why do you say that by taking capital gains or dividends he was 'scamming' somebody, anybody?
AFAIC it was a stunt to work for $1 a year, however that's my point - he should be able to do it.
Minimum wage exists for a reason.
- yeah, to hide government created inflation and to buy political capital with the mob. Of-course it also means that many millions of people cannot find even their first job and so they are thrown out of the work force, they can never enter it, they are swept aside, put into "will never have a job" category. As long as the gov't is big enough to force others to pay for their welfare, this scam will keep going.
Else those workers cannot afford the basics of life. Some people will work for anything they can get, even if it means Roman_mir gets rich while they starve on the street. You oddly enough seem fine with that.
- people should work for what they can get.
If all I can get is $10 a day, I will have to work for that, that's my price then. Of-course if gov't dictates that I must be paid $100 a day and because of it I cannot land a job at all, now I am reduced to being ward of the state, I am now relying on gov't to feed, cloth, shelter and treat me in every way.
Of-course the burden is now on the economy not to get the benefit of my employment, but instead to provide me with a completely unsustainable, uneconomical (and immoral) subsidy, and the burden is placed on the working individuals, who will not see any benefit from actually subsidising me but for some reason are forced to.
You seem to be fine with that, denigrating people to living completely wasted lives without any purpose and without ever actually being in a position to HELP others by being part of the productive economy.
Without a price floor on labor we had people starving in the street.
- if anybody was starving on the streets before the minimum wage, you should absolutely thank the gov't and the Fed for it, which caused the Great Depression and the eventual collapse of the dollar in 1971. There is nobody else to thank for any of that.
These laws came about for a reason.
- yeah, it was gov't created inflation that gave rise to the idea that there should be a pricing floor on labour.
If the market was as benevolent as you claim these laws would never have been instated.
- it's quite sad to see somebody so mistaken on so much. The market is not 'benevolent' but it does not create the problem by lowering prices, it solves the economic problems by lowering prices.
It is government that creates the problem by devaluing the money and then using its political power to accuse markets of something that markets have no relation to.
What is hilarious is that you buy the whole "labour productivity" line, you probably also think that GDP means something more than a fictitious number and that CPI actually reflects true rate of inflation.
I read your other comments, I mean, I don't particularly care about arguing with Marxists, I made all the points I wanted to make in this thread already.
Workers that are let go from companies are not magically more productive all of a sudden, they have no productivity at all. They are not 'sharing in productivity gains' because they are not the ones involved in productivity, it's the investment owners, the capitalists that are more productive because they invest more into labour saving devices and do more with less labour.
As to compensation, the government created inflation is a large part of the reason for the real so called 'middle class' wages being stagnant, the inflation causes capital flight and that is what kills jobs. However inflation also causes misallocation of the remaining capital, so as the economy is more and more 'service oriented' the less and less productive workers in it actually are and at the same time the inflation is used by gov't prop up its own spending, and of-course in that situation the people closest to the feeding trough are the ones getting the most benefits from it.
So the politicians and the top financial types, bankers, military industrial complex elite are those who get the most in this type of unproductive economy due to inflation, borrowing, taxes.
Again, you are mistaken if you trust the official nonsensical propaganda about productivity of an average American, that productivity has gone through the floor since the default on the dollar in 1971.
So selling children into sexual slavery is not abuse?
- I didn't know that where you live slavery is not a criminal matter.
Beating your workers is not abuse?
- beating workers... what can I say, some workers may like it when they are getting beaten (I even can think of a few professions where workers are beaten on daily basis and nobody minds). For those who don't like it they don't have to work there, do they? Is somebody forcing you to work for an employer that beats you?
Putting them into harmful circumstances?
- plenty of people are put into harmful situations, life is harmful itself, it leads to death. All we can do is bargain for proper compensation or not work there.
Without regulation no company would bother with safety measures.
- except this is not true at all, companies come up with devices that reduce number of accidents on their own all the time.
Tool makers can even market their tools based on safety. Then again, nobody is forcing you into any particular occupation or employment opportunity.
They can outlive you in the courts.
- so why would you work somewhere that puts you into a position that you have to go to courts? Don't work there. If somebody chooses that place of work, it's their business, not yours.
No, it means that $1/year is all I can get. It does not mean that is enough to eat even.
- so nobody can actually buy you labour at $1 a year, so why do you worry?
Tell me somethign, h4rr4r, would you WORK FOR ME for $1 a year?
I am actually willing to pay you $1000 a year to do some work, would you work for me?
If you would work for me, then you find that offer attractive enough.
If you wouldn't work for me then you are not finding that offer to be good enough.
How am I forcing you to do anything by only proposing something like that? Maybe you think that I should be forced by government to make you an offer that you can never refuse, I don't understand why even you think that it is such a good idea not to allow 2 parties to come together to a mutual agreement on their contract?
Do you know that Steve Jobs was paid $1 a year while working at Apple? He chose that salary, doesn't mean he couldn't eat, he had money.
So if somebody is willing to work for $1 a year, why do you want to make that illegal?
If somebody in a free market without savings and without other income is working for $1 a year that means that is all that the market would pay them based on their experience and abilities (or that it is their choice to be paid a nominal sum for some other reason).
However if $1 a year is a salary that is actually ENOUGH to pay for their living accommodations and food, etc., then where is the problem?
I want people to have the things they need.
- but you wouldn't allow the market to come up with those things by dictating that there should be some form of a pricing floor on labour as an example.
You are proposing a system under which we will have mass unemployment and your solution is handwaving.
- no, not handwaving, actual economics and history. The more expensive labour is, the less of it is bought. Taxes, regulations and inflation add to the price of labour, this means government is part of cost of labour, this means the bigger the government is the more expensive labour is.
The more labour costs the less productive the economy of that country is, which is exactly what USA and Europe are going through.
I am only cheering for people to pay the taxes they owe.
- and I say that nobody should be taxed on their labour at all. Nobody's income should be taxed, nobody's wealth should be taxed.
Transactions can be taxed, government can tax transactions to fund its operations. I am not even opposed to a sales tax actually as means to fund government. I am opposed to growing government, I am opposed to government that steals individual freedoms and tells people how to live their lives, what to buy, what to eat, what to drink, who to fuck, etc.etc.
If you don't like sales taxes, which I don't, then lets remove them on all purchases.
- I would much rather see sales taxes than income taxes, that's where you are also getting me wrong.
Sales taxes tax consumption, income taxes tax savings and productive capital, which means it reduces ability of the economy to grow itself by coming up with new investment opportunities and businesses.
Cool so now human labor is $1/year, how do I buy land or access to clean water?
- that's the beauty of free market, market free from government regulations. If in fact you are willing to sell your labour at $1 a year, it means that you can actually survive on that, it means that is how cheap the free market made living, that somebody can live on $1 a year.
Somethings there are not ever going to be more of.
- the limits are only in your mind. That's the job of the market to figure out how to satisfy your demand, even if you are not imaginative enough, somebody else is.
Even worse, what do we do with the people who now have no job at all? Do we let them die on the street?
- before 1971 66% of USA women did not have a job, they didn't have to hold a job (though they worked at home of-course), somehow 1 guy without any college degree was making enough money to sustain a family. Once the dollar was destroyed by the government, this turned around of-course, it was the investment capital that starting leaving and eventually the women joined the work force. Today over 60% of women actually work. So the more government and the more taxes and the more regulations and inflation the worse the economy is and the less productive people are the more they have to work to satisfy even basic demands.
Of-course on average women work to pay taxes of their husbands.
If it is the FREE MARKET that creates the situation where people do not have to work, then it means that those people do not actually have to work in order to live and there is no imbalance and no inefficiencies.
When it's gov't regulated destruction of the economy, then people without jobs are really screwed. Of-course for a while they'll live on a gov't subsidy (subsidised by those, still with jobs), but there will be fewer and fewer people pulling the cart so to speak and eventually there will be nobody pulling the cart and everybody will be expecting somebody else to do the work.
But if you don't tax then you don't have base for those businesses you hold so dear to build on and they will eventually die anyway.
- oh, I hold businesses in a much higher regard than any government anywhere on this planet. Businesses give me everything that I have, governments steal from me and from businesses that work hard to give me everything I have. I respect businessmen who are thinking about me, trying to satisfy my demand and I do not respect governments, they are thinking about themselves, only thinking about stealing from those who actually work.
If you don't tax you don't destroy capital, that is all there is to it. "The base" is created by businesses, the actual valuable sustainable infrastructure is created by businesses, not by governments.
You can take any idea to the extreme, and the extreme that there should be NO regulations and NO taxes
- that's what I want, you forgot "NO inflation".
NO limit on how businesses can abuse employees
- nobody is abused in a free market, the only abuse comes from government.
The only difference is that a small number of people will make a lot of money in a limited period of time and then be able to live in Fiji while the plebeians live in an industrial hellhole.
- people who make more money than you gave you everything you bought.
Asides from the point that Marxists ideals have been adopted in other forms (i.e. Libertarianism), your first sentence is completely off-mark. I don't think you are doing this intentionally but are simply unaware.
- Libertarians have no use for Marxism, not even the abolishment of the state itself is on the Libertarian agenda, so you are the one off the mark.
The real narrative today is this: Left-leaning policies overstate the importance of human freedom while free-market capitalism undermines it.
- 180 degree wrong. Modern idea of a 'left-leaning' is the exact opposite of human freedom, it is based on discrimination and theft of private property and growth of government power based on that discrimination and theft.
Free market capitalism is reliance on private property ownership and rule of law, this requires individual freedoms by definition.
Ask any scientist working for a subsidiary for a major corp. Employees and directors are the only ones who create productivity. Even if the investors and owners have made the initial investment, they are not the ones who are "improving" or continue to improve productivity. All they do is fund.
- clearly you don't understand that those people who fund are the ones ultimately responsible for increase in overall productivity of the company.
If the company is not being productive, it should be liquidated, otherwise the capital is not used efficiently, it's not making a return on the investment and it should be dismantled, pieces should be sold to people who know how to use them in a more efficient manner.
Employees are cogs in the machine, the machine itself is the labour saving device that makes the investor productive.
The solution proposed is a direct democracy that restores an individual's freedom and right to chose, participate, and create in community-driven enterprise. Incidentally, it is the only successful model of government.
- direct democracy restores freedom? No it does not, it subjugates some minority to the wishes of a majority, it destroys capitalism as a principle, we can observe this in action in places where it is in fact practised, like California. I would not call that a 'successful model of government'.
Economy should be "destabilized" if that means lowering prices, we want lower prices.
The lower the prices are the more we can buy, this is true of everything, including labour. We want as low prices as are possible, but not because of any gov't intervention but because people have built enough labour saving devices that labour is dismissed from many of the existing positions.
This lowers the cost of living for everybody, that's actually what 'trickle down economics' is all about. Who could afford to buy their own car in the late nineteenth century? Obviously the cheaper it is to build cars the more likely it is that more people will be able to afford them.
Who could afford their own washing machine 200 years ago? Nobody. That's because there was no washing machine, but the rich didn't need the washing machine, they never did their own washing anyway. It was the capitalism, not any type of socialism or Marxism that built the washing machine and distributed it and made it cheaper and cheaper until everybody had one.
What is stopping you from starting your own business and building your own tools of production? Cost of labour. However the cheaper labour becomes the more likely that people with less and less capital can actually afford to hire labour and to build their own business, which in turn improves lives of everybody in the economy.
That's what trickle down economics is, that's why Marxism is complete hogwash.
Your comment is wrong on the same points as pretty much every other comment that is left in response to mine.
There is no fixed amount of labour, labour has a price - the wage. The lower the price, the more people can afford to buy it, the more businesses are created where those businesses were impossible up until the prices came down.
Do you own MORE or LESS electronics today given that they are coming down in price all the time?
The lower the cost of labour is, the more people can actually buy of it with a smaller amount of initial investment, which means more people can try and run their own businesses.
We want more businesses not fewer, we want lower prices, not higher, we want people to try and run more businesses.
That's exactly why regulations, taxes, inflation and laws like minimum wage are so destructive to the economy - they don't allow people to try and actually build the economy.
The owners provide capital that would be worthless without labor.
- the market disagrees with your sentiment completely. History disagrees with you, obviously this story disagrees with you.
The labour is displaced by a labour saving device - the robot, which is a result of capital being applied. How the capital is being applied to create and set up the robot is totally secondary, there is obviously a way to apply capital, a way to pay for the necessary labour to create the labour saving device.
The labour that was used to create the robot was obviously compensated, nobody put a gun to the heads of the engineers that designed the finished robot. The capitalist in question used his ingenuity to come up with the initial design and risked his savings to make the finished product and now the labour is displaced by the machine. The robot IS capital, the labour is fired, that's the point of the capital - to fire the labour and to make the capitalist more productive. This is exactly what the market wants - cheaper and cheaper costs of input and more and more competition and choices at lower prices.
Labour has price associated with it and the machine wins on price so more and more restaurants are buying it.
Brick and mortar stores are pricier than Internet stores (but of-course the politicians can be bought and increase barriers to entry and turn an efficient market into a less efficient market, to raise costs, raise prices, reduce quality and reduce choices, and you are cheering for this it seems.)
I don't think not paying taxes is being more competitive.
- but OF-COURSE IT IS!
Within the existing legal framework a business that found a way to REDUCE ITS INPUT COSTS, including cost of taxes, found a way to be more efficient and allow people to buy goods at lower prices.
The existing businesses didn't like the development and bought the politicians to save their inefficient business model rather than competing on the merits of the business itself.
This labor saving will be really great when they are no more jobs. Then the economy can truly flourish.
- there are no fixed amount of jobs, that's my point.
Labour cost is a PRICE the cheaper it is, the MORE of it will be bought. That's why minimum wage is such a drag on the economy. Labour cost prevents many potential businesses from ever appearing in the first place.
Protip: not everyone cares about the economy more than their fellow man.
- yeah, people without brains or understanding of economics think that they know something about it, which is quite sad that they manage to gather such crowds around themselves.
If you actually cared about your fellow men, you'd want as an efficient market to emerge as is possible.
What is civilisation about? From my perspective (or any person's perspective) isn't it about making our lives better, easier, it means being able to access whatever product or service that exists, that people come up with in a cheaper, more accessible manner? Do you have everything that you want? Maybe you do and that's great, most people do not.
Lowering labour costs when the required cost of living is higher is a problem and not an end goal worthy of being sought
- of-course it is the end goal worthy of being sought, lowering labour costs is a great goal, it means that people with very little capital can attempt and start a business by hiring cheaper labour, something they couldn't do before it was economical enough before labour became much cheaper.
Looks like you want to keep barriers to entry to people who may end up providing society with products and services the society has never experienced before.
Obviously this includes cost of living, cost of rent and food and energy, any one of those costs are addressed by businesses that can start operating because all of a sudden even a smallish savings pool can be used to start and operate a business before it even becomes a profitable one.
Capital doesn't care if it is unused
- it's not capital, it's people who should care if there is unused capital. People are not getting the most efficient market if the resources are not being used due to very high barriers to entry that governments set up and maintain to help the established monopolies, which of-course is just a way for politicians to line up their own pockets, while useful idiots (hint) keep cheering.
Civil society is built with capital, there was no society more civil than was built during free market capitalism.
Politicians delegate money for infrastructure.
- we should all work to ensure that politicians cannot do something like that, destroy productivity by misallocating it in any such manner.
snow removal isn't a right wing or left wing issue
- nice rhetoric, while money is being misallocated obviously and snow is not being removed at all or is being removed with a much higher price tag than it would if the market was doing it and not some politician.
" Capitalism seeks the excess benefits for profit while unfairly leveraging the mutil-millenial lineage of human knowledge
- yeah yeah, it's very unfair that a Chinese noodle restaurant owner used his own savings to design and develop a robot that now makes the market more efficient.
that brought their enterprise to bear fruit.
- sure sure, Ms. Warren, the Chinese guy didn't risk his own money to build the robots and didn't build them, you did.
Its ours, fuck off.
- now you are talking, that's the real Marxist, socialist, communist slogan, none of that other bullshit. "It's ours, fuck off", as they shoot the actual people who created the capital in the head (which inevitably leads to their own demise as they can't do anything without capitalists).
Whenever Marxists talk about economy they like to overstate the importance of labour and understate the importance of capital. They are of-course completely wrong, there is always a cost associated with labour and a cost associated with capital, the more labour costs the more it makes sense to use capital to decrease cost of labour and that's why we get labour saving devices.
The first shovel displaced people from digging holes with their bare hands and sticks.
The first excavator displaced thousands of people with shovels.
Computers displaced untold numbers of individuals, millions upon millions obviously that's because computers are labour savings devices.
In the process we make the operators of the labour saving devices so much more productive because they command these tools. Notice however that without capital (savings used as investments) no person can increase his productivity in any significant manner, you can't just dig with a shovel fast enough to be as productive as a guy operating an excavator.
You can't count numbers with your ruler or an abacus or just a piece of paper and a pen as fast as a computer that runs a program. The person that operates the implement is now much more effective, much more productive than all the manual workers were, but of-course the number of workers that are needed go down dramatically.
It's interesting to hear people talk about "productivity of the economy going up while employees who grow the productivity aren't ripping the reward, instead the owners do". Well excuse me, the owners created the productivity, not the employees.
Employees are not adding to productivity, it is the owners, the investors, the capitalists that are improving their productivity. In case of the noodle restaurants the productivity of the owner (investors) of the restaurant is going up, he can serve more noodles with fewer labourers doing manual work, but it costs him the original investment into the labour saving device - the robot.
People displaced by the robot are not increasing their productivity, they lost all of it, now they have to find a different job. However from POV of the market this is a very good development - the fewer people we need to do things that we do already now, the more supply of labour exists and so prices for labour go down and more businesses can be created because it takes less capital, less investment to hire people at lower prices to do things that were uneconomical while the cost of labour was more expensive before the labour saving devices were added to the economy and replaced these workers.
It is a good thing for any consumer of goods to be able to buy more of them cheaper, to have more choice and to see more competition (even among labour and capital).
The price of the robot is higher than cost of a human noodle cutter, the prices now will come down for human noodle cutter and more restaurants may even open because of this development.
It's possible that most restaurants will eventually have noodle cutting robots and there will be a competitive advantage of having a human cut noodles, maybe somebody will advertise their restaurant as one that does not use robots, some people are gullible enough to prefer that, but that would be a niche item of-course.
More importantly, the restaurant is now more productive, the labour market has more surplus so it may be cheaper for other businesses to hire labour, and that's great. As long as the government does not try to "level the playing field", as it is now in America trying to do for Brick and Mortar stores, that cannot compete with the Internet stores, that are obviously more competitive and can do more for less money.
The government steps in and makes everything more expensive for one reason only: get more money for politicians. They can be on the side of a business that cannot compete in the changing business environment because of all the new labour saving devices (like the Internet, which is a labour saving device).
The gover
Saying that you are working in a shop different from mine... obviously. Yet I worked for large communication companies, banks, insurance companies, mid sized manufacturer, utilities, and some others as a contractor. Today I build my own software and sell it to retail chains.
Saying that your shop is different because they work with several external parties... first of all it's hilarious that you believe only you work with people that work with other people.
Secondly this does nothing at all to show how a J2EE solution is preferable, and it's not. There is nothing preferable about it, if you are providing web services nobody on the other side cares what servlet container, what application server, whatever the hell you are using, as long as you are providing the APIs that expose business functionality they need and that is all it is.
It is all about functionality and the integration, and J2EE or JEE5 or anything for that matter is not a substitute at all for an actual document describing behaviour of a the system and the proper API calls that invoke that behaviour.
If your complaint is that you can't get documentation and knowledge passed from one project to another, and simultaneously you are complaining about lack of standards between project teams because you can't rely on your architects to have standards, then you are making my point exactly: J2EE is a crutch that is used to replace an actual architectural thought.
Without documentation and without passing knowledge from one project to the next all you have is the code and the user base to ask them what the code may be doing. If all you have is the code and the user base and no documentation and nobody who worked on other projects can tell you anything then your idea of 'enterprise' is quite disjointed. What is it, a disjointed set of things that happen in vacuum without any thought or standard of implementing a product?
Maybe you should be thinking about that first of all, while you are going through the code, and whatever the code is, whatever the container is around the code, without documentation on use cases, business requirements and system testing you are not better off just because there are some EJBs thrown into the mix.
You can't deduce the actual workings of the code by a cursory observation of its container.
You can't assume that the exposed APIs, be they web services calls or anything for that matter even will do what something that their names suggest (and nothing else or anything at all).
Enterprise systems more than anything require documentation, the technology underneath is irrelevant, it's the approach that is enterprise, not the tech.
They don't grt it. He solved the speed of processing and the lack of long term durability of storage by doing what's described in the original comment... Worked like a charm without needing to rithink the entire problem of a single bus used to retrieve and store data on the physical storage that still accessess data serially.
It's like tons of little fish devouring an elepant carcas rather than one shark doing the same. You asked for a non technical... Of-course it's still harddrives (or sdds today) all the way down.
as the TFS states he uses GPUs to do the data processing, but you are never going to believe what he uses to store the actual data, you won't believe it, that's why it's not mentioned in TFS. Sure sure, it's PostgreSQL, but the way the data was stored physically was in the computer monitor itself. Yes, he punched holes in computer monitors with a chisel and used punch card readers to read those holes from the screens.
Let me cut through the thick layers of bullcrap.
The difference between 'enterprise' and anything else is .... money that will be spent, nothing else.
An enterprise solution should be documented well enough for other projects to extend it and integrate with it. The server infrastructure does not make it easier to integrate two solutions together than would any API that is just as documented, the teams that work on different projects do not work in vacuum, they have access to people and or documentation from previous projects.
There is nothing about J2EE or any other set of crutches sold by various tool companies out there that make it any less complex to integrate systems together, in fact whatever needs to be done to integrate components and projects within complex 'enterprise' infrastructure is often more convoluted and complicated than it needs to be and on the background it just uses some Free source library that may, for example, turn some silly Java beans into a set of XML documents with a factory provided by a library that would reflect and instantiate some objects.
A proper architect would put together a solution that only has what is minimally required at any point of time to achieve the current objective. All other considerations are moot, since it's an 'enterprise' environment, every project will have to take care of its own integration and once that is done, the same path can be followed by other projects that may come in later.
hacker going by the name Demon Killer was found to regularly use Tor to anonymize his online activities, like posting of death threats on public message boards
- I can see what they mean, he probably promised to hack somebody with an axe. Somebody should suggest the police ban axes, not onions.
Yeah, those machines are not patched with 'latest patches', correct, so what is your point? I wouldn't want to upgrade kernel or anything on those machines at all.
Local taxes are not within the authority of federal government, federal government cannot force a business to do anything about local taxes. State can force a business to pay taxes to the State.