I don't think he's digging his hole fast enough. Feel free to borrow my shovel.
Or, perhaps a better solution would be for someone else at BA to clonk him over the head from behind with a little statuette or something so he just stops talking.
The problem (for me) is that those are completely arbitrary judgement calls that don't actually result in more correct output or development.
Sure, XML is verbose, sometimes ridiculously so. But I cannot believe that anyone would consider it less readable and debuggable than a sufficiently complex JSON structure that quickly digs into quote, comma, and bracket hell. JSON is more *concise*, yes. But clearer? I absolutely beg to differ. It's like arguing "Should I put the left curly brace at the end of the line or at the beginning of it's own line". It's a style issue. Not a functional issue.
Simpler and has less specification? Yes, that is true. But look at the tradeoffs. It's a very similar argument as I have with MongoDB. With MongoDB, you can literally do whatever the hell you want, and it's fast, but you throw out all rigour and data integrity. ACID compliance? Fuck that. We don't need no steenking ACID compliance.
With JSON, it's easy to just jump in and start using it. You can do whatever you want... but at a cost of throwing all structure and integrity out the window. If I give you a JSON blob, you have to trust that it corresponds to whatever schema you envisioned. There is no enforceability, unless you use one of many non-standard and incompatible third-party libraries to do your schema validation. XML has schema validation as part of the standard, and every XML validator needs to work with that standard, or be non-compliant. Ditto with data transformation like XSLT.
IMO, JSON is to XML what NoSQL is to traditional SQL databases. A bunch of newbies looked at what exists, screamed, "This is too hard and pointlessly complicated!" and did their own thing, completely throwing out the window all the past lessons that caused those previous solutions to be created in the first place. In the process, they cause a whackton of disruption and headaches while they recommit all those past mistakes and reinvent the wheel all over again.
The only benefit to JSON that I see, is that it lets people whip together a "data structure" without having to think the problem through first, consequences be damned. IMO just because it's easy to jump into a given technology, doesn't necessarily make it better in the long run. Especially when it empowers people to jump first and think later.
Heck, I'm working with a client right now that, thanks to the developers deciding that JSON was the One True Way(tm), we are now having a a monumentally nightmarish time trying to analyze all that unstructured data because the thing is a big effing mess.
This is probably hopeless, but I'm still waiting for someone to explain what this new feed format does above and beyond the XML one. So far the entire argument is "Because it's JSON!!111eleventy!"
The whole complaint about dealing with malformed XML isn't going to be fixed with this new format. If people are malforming their XML, then they're also going to be malforming their JSON too.
The problem is that this phenomenon is hardly new.
Examples: Cable TV Magazine subscriptions
Companies have been eating and keeping their cake for a long time now, and there has yet to be an uproar about it. Of course, there's a big difference between then and now, in that the sheer scope of the data being collection is now mind-boggling, but I still don't anticipate the average person to give enough of a shit about privacy to care.
People don't seem to care about anything until it directly impacts them. For example, how many proselytizers are there for, say, people who have been victims of identity theft? Or whose kids died from drunk driving? Etc etc? Virtually none of these people were up in arms until *after* something truly bad happened to them. Even then, they often refuse to accept that they bore any responsibility for what happened, like a once neighbour of mine who was pissed their ISP cut them off and refused to accept that they were responsible for taking care of the malware on their machine.
I do what I can to protect myself and the immediate people I am responsible for. But I've learned first hand, and repeatedly, that you can't help people who aren't willing to help themselves.
Are we talking about people who have had formal comp sci education? Or people who read an html tutorial once and thought, "Oh yeah this is easy! I am a developer now!"
The number of people I've run into who think they are gods gift to software development, but don't actually know WTF they're doing, is staggering. Worse is when these guys have just enough charisma and knowledge to bullshit their way through interviews with people who don't actually know better, and your project ends up on http://thedailywtf.com/ cause it's so bad.
Just because someone knows how to copy code out of a tutorial or a stackoverflow post, doesn't mean they are actually qualified for the job.
I despise Trump with a passion, but I can't argue with this one.
The visa program has served no purpose other than to cause North American wages for tech workers to stagnate because companies could simply bring someone over for cheap. There have been more than plenty of stories of companies inventing positions that exactly matched the resumes of offshore works *just* so they couldn't be filled by local people.
There has *never* been a shortage of qualified talent in the west. At least, there hadn't been. There may well be so now, since the shenanigans North American companies have been playing have driven candidates right out of the field.
That's actually a good point, and one that I've been waffling on myself.
The primary reason I'm still preferring Hillary to Trump, is because of what Trump has already demonstrated. The polite way of saying it, is that he is causing "uncertainly".
More bluntly, he is obliterating America's reputation on the world stage faster than anyone could have dreamed possible, with the risk of completely tanking the US economy in process. American tourism is already in a nosedive. Other trade may easily follow. And if the US economy collapses, who else will they take with them? Anyone who has very dependent economic ties to the US (eg Canada), may well suffer badly as well if they don't decouple themselves quickly enough.
Hilary has already demonstrated that she's as corrupt as the next cliche politician, but she can play the game better. People already know US politics is ridiculous, but I believe if Hillary was in power, the turnaround would be less painful. Of course, we'd have had the same problem as with Obama, where a republican dominated house would prevent her from really accomplishing anything, and the republicans would use her as a scapegoat for their incompetence like they did with Obama, but at least the US wouldn't be considered quite as much of a psychotic laughing stock as it is now.
TL;DR . Trump is putting a big honking spotlight on the corruption and general ridiculousness of American politics and society, but if it's too much too quickly, they're going to hurt a heck of a lot more countries than just themselves.
A competent mass murder is not a better choice than
You in fact DID say she was a mass murderer. Are you sure you're not Trump himself, typing writing under a synonym? You completely ignored something that you exactly said less than 30 minutes prior.
Setting aside the hilarity of calling Trump a misogynist
O_o Seriously? Did you miss the whole "grab her by the pussy" thing?
Or the "I'd fuck my daughter if she wasn't my daughter" thing?
Or the countless other examples of blatant misogyny?
And who and where is *anyone* defending Clinton? You have to be a troll, because your reading comprehension is so poor that I'm amazed you can interact with Slashdot at all.
And I am not acting "passed over Einstein,The Dalai Lama, and Mother Teresa to elect him.".
The fact of the matter is, despite her own obvious faults, Hillary would *still* have been a better choice than Trump. Trump is absolutely and categorically unfit to be president. Hell, he's unfit to run *anything*, for reasons to numerous to bother stating here. A couple of google searches can easily show how bad of a business man he actually is.
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence. Trump has turned the US into a laughing stock, is destroying international relationships faster than he can build them, and the US tourism industry is *already* hurting badly, and he hasn't even finished his first year yet.
You had a choice between a pile of shit, and a barrel of a rotting, bubonic-ridden mixture of diarrhea and vomit. And you guys picked the latter cause you thought vaccinations were the tools of big brother keeping you down.
You'd be surprised. There were actually a lot of people going on about how great XML ones, both business people and developers alike. I was talking to a coworker recently, and he told me a story where a client actually leaned forward and excitedly asked, "Will your solution have XML?"
Just thinking about it gives me Forrest Whittaker eye.
Translation: I'm an asshole who doesn't have anything constructive to offer, so I'm just going to be a shit disturber instead.
If you honestly think that some homebrew library is equivalent to a formal validation process that is part of an industry-wide spec, your the one who doesn't know what the fuck their talking about.
Now go back to your mom's basement and let us adults talk.
XSLT is a presentation layer component, for translating XML into something else. If you're using it for validation, you're REALLY doing it wrong.
I won't go into details about what you can and cannot do with schemas because there are countless resources that can give far more detailed information than what I can do in a single slashdot post. Suffice it to say, Schemas may not be 100%, but for comparison, JSON has no equivalent to schemas at all.
An AC in another post pointed to a project that is attempting to fill in that gap (http://json-schema.org/), but without something directly in the JSON spec, there best you can hope for are non-standard cobbled together solutions like the above.
I remember when XML was the big thing and everyone was all, "Oooh oooh! Our solution will be so much better if we USE XML!!!11!eleventy"
I also remember then, how stupid this idea was, because there was nothing intrinsic about XML that would improve anything. Sure, XML is a human-readable file format that could be validated against a schema file if you so chose, and that was pretty good, but claiming a file/data format will improve how something functions, is like saying a car will perform better if you put the gas tank on the right side instead of the left.
And here we go, full circle again, except now everyone is ejaculating all over JSON, whose only benefit to XML is that it's slightly less verbose. It has none of the rigour that XML has, but everyone thinks it's great cause it's new and cool, and XML sucks because it's "old".
At least with XML, you can say enforceably say whether the piece of data is malformed or not. With JSON, the best you can do is basic syntax checking. There is no way to enforce the data itself is what it should be.... you have to trust that the other party didn't screw up the contents. The only way to add enforceability is reinvent the wheel in the worst way, by writing your own reference function to validate the data and hope other people use it.
Where "democratized" can be defined as "turned to shit".
Seriously. Almost every single concept that becomes common, gets completely destroyed of it's original meaning and intended purposes.
The most recent and easiest example is "fake news". It used to mean news that was fabricated out of whole cloth, sometimes with just enough truth to make it seem plausable.
meme. Then: a brainworm idea or concept that spread like crazy through a population like wildfire, similarly to a virus. Now: Any stupid image with words added to it
hacker. Then: Someone who cobbled something together, usually computer related. Now: Took on a mutilated meaning of "Cracker" and now means using a remote computer system in an unauthorized way, even if that access was accomplished by a typo.
Terminology of any kind gets completely distorted, if not destroyed, the moment it hits mass interest, and the people who know better DO get pissed, and rightfully so, because something that they cared deeply about has been quickly and irrevocably ruined before their eyes.
Because you still need the skills an knowledge to manage the infrastructure.
The only thing that the cloud does, is save you the nitty-gritty hassle of dealing with the bare metal. You don't have to dick around with iSCSI connections, trying to figure out why your bonded network connection isn't using LACP, etc.
It does not eliminate the decision making required when setting up your cloud infrastructure. You still need to segregate nodes properly, managing user accounts, implementing proper firewall rules, etc. And you still need to manage your instances just like any other server. Updates, proper security configuration, etc. General routine maintenance is still necessary.
Certainly, it will devalue certain specific job categories like network administrators, etc, but it won't eliminate them. Your OS knowledge, etc, are no less valuable now than it was before. The only jobs this will eliminate are those involving physical installation and connectivity, and that's only if they have no other skills. AFAIK, such people don't exist.
Until I got to sysadmin. This is so mindbogglingly stupid that I'm amazed this guy can tie his own shoes in the morning. I didn't even bother looking at the rest of the list.
If you think your company doesn't need sysadmins anymore just because your infrastructure is 'in the cloud', I REALLY REALLY want to see you do that. Just so I can laugh as your entire company collapses.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he's digging his hole fast enough. Feel free to borrow my shovel.
Or, perhaps a better solution would be for someone else at BA to clonk him over the head from behind with a little statuette or something so he just stops talking.
Is it just me or is this whole Essentials enterprise starting to smell a bit fishy?
All these announcements with vague details are making my alarm bells ring.
I have to disagree with most of that.
The problem (for me) is that those are completely arbitrary judgement calls that don't actually result in more correct output or development.
Sure, XML is verbose, sometimes ridiculously so. But I cannot believe that anyone would consider it less readable and debuggable than a sufficiently complex JSON structure that quickly digs into quote, comma, and bracket hell. JSON is more *concise*, yes. But clearer? I absolutely beg to differ. It's like arguing "Should I put the left curly brace at the end of the line or at the beginning of it's own line". It's a style issue. Not a functional issue.
Simpler and has less specification? Yes, that is true. But look at the tradeoffs. It's a very similar argument as I have with MongoDB. With MongoDB, you can literally do whatever the hell you want, and it's fast, but you throw out all rigour and data integrity. ACID compliance? Fuck that. We don't need no steenking ACID compliance.
With JSON, it's easy to just jump in and start using it. You can do whatever you want... but at a cost of throwing all structure and integrity out the window. If I give you a JSON blob, you have to trust that it corresponds to whatever schema you envisioned. There is no enforceability, unless you use one of many non-standard and incompatible third-party libraries to do your schema validation. XML has schema validation as part of the standard, and every XML validator needs to work with that standard, or be non-compliant. Ditto with data transformation like XSLT.
IMO, JSON is to XML what NoSQL is to traditional SQL databases. A bunch of newbies looked at what exists, screamed, "This is too hard and pointlessly complicated!" and did their own thing, completely throwing out the window all the past lessons that caused those previous solutions to be created in the first place. In the process, they cause a whackton of disruption and headaches while they recommit all those past mistakes and reinvent the wheel all over again.
The only benefit to JSON that I see, is that it lets people whip together a "data structure" without having to think the problem through first, consequences be damned. IMO just because it's easy to jump into a given technology, doesn't necessarily make it better in the long run. Especially when it empowers people to jump first and think later.
Heck, I'm working with a client right now that, thanks to the developers deciding that JSON was the One True Way(tm), we are now having a a monumentally nightmarish time trying to analyze all that unstructured data because the thing is a big effing mess.
Now get off my lawn! *waggles cane*
Like someone else said... even a broken clock is right twice a day.
This is probably hopeless, but I'm still waiting for someone to explain what this new feed format does above and beyond the XML one. So far the entire argument is "Because it's JSON!!111eleventy!"
The whole complaint about dealing with malformed XML isn't going to be fixed with this new format. If people are malforming their XML, then they're also going to be malforming their JSON too.
I fail to see how a change in the display technology will reduce the amount of data required to encode the content being displayed.
The problem is that this phenomenon is hardly new.
Examples:
Cable TV
Magazine subscriptions
Companies have been eating and keeping their cake for a long time now, and there has yet to be an uproar about it. Of course, there's a big difference between then and now, in that the sheer scope of the data being collection is now mind-boggling, but I still don't anticipate the average person to give enough of a shit about privacy to care.
People don't seem to care about anything until it directly impacts them. For example, how many proselytizers are there for, say, people who have been victims of identity theft? Or whose kids died from drunk driving? Etc etc? Virtually none of these people were up in arms until *after* something truly bad happened to them. Even then, they often refuse to accept that they bore any responsibility for what happened, like a once neighbour of mine who was pissed their ISP cut them off and refused to accept that they were responsible for taking care of the malware on their machine.
I do what I can to protect myself and the immediate people I am responsible for. But I've learned first hand, and repeatedly, that you can't help people who aren't willing to help themselves.
This depends on what we define as "developers".
Are we talking about people who have had formal comp sci education? Or people who read an html tutorial once and thought, "Oh yeah this is easy! I am a developer now!"
The number of people I've run into who think they are gods gift to software development, but don't actually know WTF they're doing, is staggering. Worse is when these guys have just enough charisma and knowledge to bullshit their way through interviews with people who don't actually know better, and your project ends up on http://thedailywtf.com/ cause it's so bad.
Just because someone knows how to copy code out of a tutorial or a stackoverflow post, doesn't mean they are actually qualified for the job.
I despise Trump with a passion, but I can't argue with this one.
The visa program has served no purpose other than to cause North American wages for tech workers to stagnate because companies could simply bring someone over for cheap. There have been more than plenty of stories of companies inventing positions that exactly matched the resumes of offshore works *just* so they couldn't be filled by local people.
There has *never* been a shortage of qualified talent in the west. At least, there hadn't been. There may well be so now, since the shenanigans North American companies have been playing have driven candidates right out of the field.
That's actually a good point, and one that I've been waffling on myself.
The primary reason I'm still preferring Hillary to Trump, is because of what Trump has already demonstrated. The polite way of saying it, is that he is causing "uncertainly".
More bluntly, he is obliterating America's reputation on the world stage faster than anyone could have dreamed possible, with the risk of completely tanking the US economy in process. American tourism is already in a nosedive. Other trade may easily follow. And if the US economy collapses, who else will they take with them? Anyone who has very dependent economic ties to the US (eg Canada), may well suffer badly as well if they don't decouple themselves quickly enough.
Hilary has already demonstrated that she's as corrupt as the next cliche politician, but she can play the game better. People already know US politics is ridiculous, but I believe if Hillary was in power, the turnaround would be less painful. Of course, we'd have had the same problem as with Obama, where a republican dominated house would prevent her from really accomplishing anything, and the republicans would use her as a scapegoat for their incompetence like they did with Obama, but at least the US wouldn't be considered quite as much of a psychotic laughing stock as it is now.
TL;DR . Trump is putting a big honking spotlight on the corruption and general ridiculousness of American politics and society, but if it's too much too quickly, they're going to hurt a heck of a lot more countries than just themselves.
Okay, you really just hurt my head.
A competent mass murder is not a better choice than
You in fact DID say she was a mass murderer. Are you sure you're not Trump himself, typing writing under a synonym? You completely ignored something that you exactly said less than 30 minutes prior.
Setting aside the hilarity of calling Trump a misogynist
O_o Seriously? Did you miss the whole "grab her by the pussy" thing?
Or the "I'd fuck my daughter if she wasn't my daughter" thing?
Or the countless other examples of blatant misogyny?
And who and where is *anyone* defending Clinton? You have to be a troll, because your reading comprehension is so poor that I'm amazed you can interact with Slashdot at all.
I voted for no one, because I am not American.
And I am not acting "passed over Einstein,The Dalai Lama, and Mother Teresa to elect him.".
The fact of the matter is, despite her own obvious faults, Hillary would *still* have been a better choice than Trump. Trump is absolutely and categorically unfit to be president. Hell, he's unfit to run *anything*, for reasons to numerous to bother stating here. A couple of google searches can easily show how bad of a business man he actually is.
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence. Trump has turned the US into a laughing stock, is destroying international relationships faster than he can build them, and the US tourism industry is *already* hurting badly, and he hasn't even finished his first year yet.
You had a choice between a pile of shit, and a barrel of a rotting, bubonic-ridden mixture of diarrhea and vomit. And you guys picked the latter cause you thought vaccinations were the tools of big brother keeping you down.
You'd be surprised. There were actually a lot of people going on about how great XML ones, both business people and developers alike. I was talking to a coworker recently, and he told me a story where a client actually leaned forward and excitedly asked, "Will your solution have XML?"
Just thinking about it gives me Forrest Whittaker eye.
Translation: I'm an asshole who doesn't have anything constructive to offer, so I'm just going to be a shit disturber instead.
If you honestly think that some homebrew library is equivalent to a formal validation process that is part of an industry-wide spec, your the one who doesn't know what the fuck their talking about.
Now go back to your mom's basement and let us adults talk.
When you prioritize people who enjoy shoving their head up your ass over people who know how to do their jobs, then this is the result.
If Trump actually manages to hang on for the full four years, I think the US will be completely unrecognizable by the end. And not in a good way.
XSLT is a presentation layer component, for translating XML into something else. If you're using it for validation, you're REALLY doing it wrong.
I won't go into details about what you can and cannot do with schemas because there are countless resources that can give far more detailed information than what I can do in a single slashdot post. Suffice it to say, Schemas may not be 100%, but for comparison, JSON has no equivalent to schemas at all.
An AC in another post pointed to a project that is attempting to fill in that gap (http://json-schema.org/), but without something directly in the JSON spec, there best you can hope for are non-standard cobbled together solutions like the above.
Ever heard of Json Schema ?
Nope. Good to know! It would have been infinitely better to have something that was actually part of the JSON spec, but this is a second best option.
http://json-schema.org/
I remember when XML was the big thing and everyone was all, "Oooh oooh! Our solution will be so much better if we USE XML!!!11!eleventy"
I also remember then, how stupid this idea was, because there was nothing intrinsic about XML that would improve anything. Sure, XML is a human-readable file format that could be validated against a schema file if you so chose, and that was pretty good, but claiming a file/data format will improve how something functions, is like saying a car will perform better if you put the gas tank on the right side instead of the left.
And here we go, full circle again, except now everyone is ejaculating all over JSON, whose only benefit to XML is that it's slightly less verbose. It has none of the rigour that XML has, but everyone thinks it's great cause it's new and cool, and XML sucks because it's "old".
At least with XML, you can say enforceably say whether the piece of data is malformed or not. With JSON, the best you can do is basic syntax checking. There is no way to enforce the data itself is what it should be.... you have to trust that the other party didn't screw up the contents. The only way to add enforceability is reinvent the wheel in the worst way, by writing your own reference function to validate the data and hope other people use it.
Where "democratized" can be defined as "turned to shit".
Seriously. Almost every single concept that becomes common, gets completely destroyed of it's original meaning and intended purposes.
The most recent and easiest example is "fake news". It used to mean news that was fabricated out of whole cloth, sometimes with just enough truth to make it seem plausable.
meme. Then: a brainworm idea or concept that spread like crazy through a population like wildfire, similarly to a virus. Now: Any stupid image with words added to it
hacker. Then: Someone who cobbled something together, usually computer related. Now: Took on a mutilated meaning of "Cracker" and now means using a remote computer system in an unauthorized way, even if that access was accomplished by a typo.
Terminology of any kind gets completely distorted, if not destroyed, the moment it hits mass interest, and the people who know better DO get pissed, and rightfully so, because something that they cared deeply about has been quickly and irrevocably ruined before their eyes.
Because you still need the skills an knowledge to manage the infrastructure.
The only thing that the cloud does, is save you the nitty-gritty hassle of dealing with the bare metal. You don't have to dick around with iSCSI connections, trying to figure out why your bonded network connection isn't using LACP, etc.
It does not eliminate the decision making required when setting up your cloud infrastructure. You still need to segregate nodes properly, managing user accounts, implementing proper firewall rules, etc. And you still need to manage your instances just like any other server. Updates, proper security configuration, etc. General routine maintenance is still necessary.
Certainly, it will devalue certain specific job categories like network administrators, etc, but it won't eliminate them. Your OS knowledge, etc, are no less valuable now than it was before. The only jobs this will eliminate are those involving physical installation and connectivity, and that's only if they have no other skills. AFAIK, such people don't exist.
The list was all meh. Maybe. Um...
Until I got to sysadmin. This is so mindbogglingly stupid that I'm amazed this guy can tie his own shoes in the morning. I didn't even bother looking at the rest of the list.
If you think your company doesn't need sysadmins anymore just because your infrastructure is 'in the cloud', I REALLY REALLY want to see you do that. Just so I can laugh as your entire company collapses.
So he issued an open challenge to hack the election two weeks after it was demonstrated hacks were easily possible?
*gets the popcorn* This should be entertaining. I wonder how many meters deep the smoking craters of their servers will be.
That's..... really depressing. :\
That's clearly an oversight on the malware author's part. Usually you have to reinstall windows long before you get to the 90 reboots mark.
I really hope that the majority of those lay-offs were of people who came up with their ridiculous product pricing.
Cisco should change their mission statement to, "You probably can't afford it."