Yeah, text messages themselves are stupid secondary problems. But waking people up, and forcing them out of the idiocy of news tv talking heads, and forcing them into the cognitive dissonance caused when they realize businesses are hurting them because capitalism ISN'T working as designed... that helps a lot. Otherwise it sounds like a bunch of pompous academics in suits talkin fancy words and talkin smack about god and the president.
Capitalism works just fine... text messaging is too expensive, so I don't use it.
There... capitalism at it's finest. If someone using text messaging is complaining it's too expensive, then maybe they should look at alternatives or STFU. THAT is what capitalism is all about.
I worked at Bath Iron Works as a Unix Admin and DBA. I wasn't allowed to move a computer from one desk to another UNLESS it didn't have to be unplugged and I didn't have to lift anything.
If I could just slide it, then I was OK. Unplugging required an electrician, lifting required a laborer. I would have to stand idly by while they did it.
We also weren't allowed to change parts inside for the same reasons.
So... we used to wait until after 5, and have someone watch the door so we could do it.
The funny thing... the union guys I worked with didn't want to do the work anyway, they considered it a waste of their time.
Second story...
I was driving a fork truck at a paper mill during a strike as a scab. I had to take a water pump from one place to another. The foreman told me that according to union rules, it would have required a fork truck driver to drive to where the pump was, a laborer to put it on the forks, the fork truck driver to take it where it needed to go, a laborer to site it, a plumber to put the hose in the water, and an electrician to plug it in. Of course, only one of those people could be working at a time.
Jobs going overseas are a result of lower costs. And unions have done their best to drive wages up and efficiencies down for years, thus increasing costs.
Go figure.... what was once the savior of the working man is now partly responsible for their jobs disappearing.
Presenting content in a way that requires Flash or Java is a choice, not a requirement.
I remember back in the late 90s when the marketing manager wanted something that was going to require tons of Javascript. I reminded him that our site was for customers to access their account and perform maintenance, not to 'wow' them. I agreed the public pages needed to 'wow' potential customers, but once logged in customers did not need the 'wow'.
We had quite the battle, until I finally provided two quotes... one with the the Javascript and one without. I also included ongoing maintenance costs, percent increase in bandwidth and server calls, estimated support costs, and a few other costs showing how much more expensive his request was going to be than using just plain ole HTML.
The CIO told him to shove it.
I'm not against flash, I've just never worked for a company that gained any benefit from it.
Social Security has become a ghost of it's original intent, as an insurance program. It has now become an entitlement system.
NO ONE has a right to stop working if they can't afford it. Social Security is unneeded EXCEPT as an entitlement/insurance program. I.e. if someone gets becomes unable to work, they can withdraw from it. If they don't, then they have to figure out how to save up enough money to do it themselves.
Get rid of Social Security and call it what it is... welfare. Combine the two systems and get rid of all the extra overhead.
Anyone above specified income (including withdrawl capabilities of 401k/Ira plans) should not be allowed to withdraw from it. Anyone that is capable of working should not be allowed to withdraw from it, except to provide a minimum wage. So... if you want to be a greeter at Wal-mart... go ahead and take out from Social Security to make up the difference.
Medicare is a different program and I'm not talking about healthcare.
Evolution and behavioral sciences can explain why humans evolved religious beliefs. Belief in a god is remarkably like being delusional, or like having an imaginary friend as a child.
Behavioral studies show that people who don't have a belief in a god are as moral as those that use holy books to get their moral values. (And that's very good since the bible is a terrible moral compass.)
The various physical science disciplines provides enough answers to show that there is no need for a god to explain anything in the universe. And that any questions about the universe needing a god are simply circular in nature and really don't provide any answers.
While science cannot prove there isn't a god, it makes the existence of one irrelevant and unnecessary.
Maybe someday everyone will be informed and stop being so delusional.
Nah.. I felt the same way. I fired up some Spike Jones that I hadn't heard in years (before he got/.ed) and liked the hiss. Youngsters that have never listened to records may not like it, but to me it just seemed to belong there.
But.. to be fair.. I also listen to the old time radio shows on XM radio. Digital radio with analog noise that has been digitized... gotta love technology!
I thought I understood myself very well. I must not be explaining myself well. An employer has the right to determine that not competing with that company when or if someone leaves is one of the things that makes them qualified. An employee has the right to not work for a company that requires such things (and had better find out before he agrees to a job.)
Employees learn the inner workings when working for someone. It is very easy for me to leave my company today, go to another company, and tell them all about what types of software is being used. Cry as you will about IP protection, it doesn't cover it. If I go to work for another company, and start to tweak internal programs to improve them, it is highly unlikely my prior employer will ever find out.
This is not a right to work, it is an intrusion into what a business can set as qualification for working for them. I have signed many non-compete clauses in my career, and have no issues signing them going forward.
If someone has so narrowly defined the work they can work in a specific industry, then they have made a very poor career choice. Unless it pays big bucks and they can stand to be out of work for a year or two between jobs.
'Working' is a contract between employers and employees. Employers are willing to pay employees to do something THEIR way. If employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
The state should not be allowed to determine who I think is 'qualified' to work for me. I'll agree to the non-discrimination based on gender or race, but not much more than that. I should be allowed to keep employees from voluntarily leaving my firm and taking my customers with them.
Eliminate non-compete clauses and they will be replaced by something else not called a non-compete clauses that does the same thing. Nothing will change, just the wording.
I think slavery, is forced service without pay, not voluntary service with pay.
Oh.. you're saying if everyone has non-compete clauses, then people are forced to work for me because they can't leave. Hmm...if I work in accounting for a TV station, I can't leave and go work for another TV station. But there are still accounting jobs.
If I develop games but I leave, I can't go work for another game developer. But there are other programming jobs.
If I work as an accountant for a company that provides financial consulting, I can't go work for another financial consultant. But there are still other accounting jobs.
Just more unnecessary government interference and anti-business legislation that stifles competition and choice.
What a bunch of horseshit. No one should have a 'right' to work. One should earn their 'right' to work by gaining knowledge, experience, etc.
I have signed non-compete agreements for years. I have negotiated lower terms for years, sometimes I got it, sometimes I walked away. (Really pissed off an HR manager once when the CEO of a company made him change it.)
If you are good enough, a company will change the terms. If there are a dozen more that are willing to work under those conditions, step aside. This is called COMPETITION and makes the US stronger. Companies that take advantage of their employees will eventually find the good ones go elsewhere, leaving them with the cast offs. Their profits will shrink and they will go under.
If everyone in your profession has a non-compete close, go find a new profession.
Is the system built so that it isn't possible to script the recover points? I.e. run the job with parameters that say 'restart at step x' and then do the file copies and such in the script?
Of course, it all depends on whether or not they it's worth it. For something that fails once or twice a year, probably not worth it. For something that fails once a week, probably worth it.
Of course, if it is failing once a week the same way each time, I'd be looking into fixing the problem. hehe.....
I've never seen a good C++ system either. But I'm willing to accept that somewhere in this world, someone knows how to write it well.
ISAM flat files are wonderful, fast storage mediums that can outperform databases. However, they are not flexible and most do not support transactions (TANDEM supports transactions in their flat files), requiring a backup to be done at specific points. Changes to a file requires changes to all programs that access it. Speed v/s flexibility are choices, not requirements.
If the weekly payroll run takes an hour, taking a backup before it runs is an acceptable cost for programs that rarely fail. Programs fail due to bad code most of the time, hardware failures very rarely. Eliminate the bad code and you eliminate 99% of the failures. For the once a quarter it fails, taking 10 minutes to restore while you are trying to figure out what the problem is and restart is acceptable.
Besides, current COBOL compilers support SQL databases and the associated transaction, so it is an irrelevant discussion. C++ code written 20 years ago against flat files would have the same problem. The problem is the storage media, not the language.
You mean like all the senseless boilerplate crap that you have to use to write C++ GUI programs on Windows??
Crap is crap, either learn it to do your job, or go find another job because you aren't clever enough.
And, just like with C++, once you create a template, it's just fill in the blanks. I had four COBOL skeleton programs back in the 80s that I used, and they covered 90% of all the programs we wrote. The great part was all the programs had the same structure, so a program I wrote was easily understood by someone else.
One of the developer came to me one day and explained a problem he was having. He started to hand me the printout, and I told him what the problem was without even looking at the code. Why?? Because all of our programs looked the same. And I had made the same error before.
Re:Who Cares What Language, It Reeks of Poor Desig
on
Why COBOL Could Come Back
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What a bunch of horse shit. Don't blame poorly designed code on the language. I wrote plenty of COBOL code in the 80s that was able to recover from failures, even those that wrote into ISAM files. It's not about the code, it's about how clever and imaginative the coder is.
Is COBOL suited for everything?? Of course not, nothing is. That is why a good coder will have several tools and be able to use the one that best suits the task at hands. Creating fixed-output reports?? COBOL. Writing applications to process HTML?? I don't think so.
As someone who currently spends his career rewriting 'legacy' code, whether it be COBOL or C or C++ (10 years ago is still legacy in some minds), I can tell you that rewriting a complete system is a recipe for disaster. First, all maintenance on the new system has to stop. Secondly, someone has to go through every program LINE BY LINE and document what they all do, I can guarantee that what people think they do is not what they really do.
Then you have two choices... rewrite, or re-engineer. Rewriting many times ends up with the same garbage that ran before, just in another language. Re-engineering is better, but takes longer and is more difficult to parallel test.
My preferred method is to take subsets and gently migrate. 10 small projects with a one or two failures is much better than one large project with one failure.
Re:Who Cares What Language, It Reeks of Poor Desig
on
Why COBOL Could Come Back
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Payroll is one of the BEST applications for COBOL. It's very table driven and procedurally oriented. There are very specific discrete steps to be taken when calculating gross pay, pre-tax deducations, tax deductions, and final deductions. Then calculate where the net pay is distributed via EFT or paycheck, create files or print checks, and you are done.
I managed a COBOL based payroll system back in the 80s with green-screen interface, and it was one of the easiest systems to work on. It was written in discrete elements that were easily changed without impacting other programs. New programs could be easily added into the stream. Any system that is well designed can be simple to extend.
That crap about not being able to roll back sounds like someone who doesn't know how to write maintainable code. And anyone who doesn't do backups (or make sure the daily ones were done) before installing new code is an idiot.
I just got through migrating an 8 year old C++ system to Java because it was an abysmal failure that no one wanted to touch. Replaced 12 programs that basically all did the same thing with 1 program and 2 stored procedures, reduced complexity, and increased flexibility.
Don't they usually have to do that every year???? Most people get yearly salary adjustments. If this is a union shop, it is probably table driven, and someone has to adjust the table. Which probably happens every time there is a contract change.
The statement about being 'no need for a Cartesian product' reminds me of a guy who said inner joins should never be used because they can bring a system down. Because he wrote one once that was a poor query and it did just that.
Just because a person doesn't know when to use something properly, or uses it improperly from time to time, doesn't mean it has no use.
I've used Cartesian joins before. Not very often, but I do recall using them in the past for very specific requirements. If memory serves me, it was a table that only had one row in it, and data in that row changed from time to time.
The author assumes that this is a problem that needs addressing by doing what?? Making it easier to accept self-signed certs?
As usual, the he can't see a tree because of the forest. SSL is used for two purposes, encryption and authentication. Self-signed certs, as noted above, fail the authentication test.
So the real problem then is that sites that just want to use encryption have to purchase a cert, or get what is claimed to be an obscure warning.
The issue isn't about SSL, it's about the encryption.
My first thought is that it's so much BS. The odds of someone actually listening in on your HTTP transmission is extremely small, unless you are using a wireless transmission that is not secured. To tap an IP stream would require physical access, and unless someone is an employee at a provider is highly unlikely.
But.. there still is a very slight risk.
So.. why doesn't some numb-chuck come up with a new HTTPX method that just does encryption??? Duh!!!! SSL model without the certificate. Coordinate it so that Apache and Firefox have it available at the same time. Sure, IE won't have it but it has to start somewhere.
What a bullshit answer. The majority has no right to tell the minority what to do *if it doesn't affect their health or safety*. What you are saying is that if the majority wanted to, they could outlaw soapbox protesters also, simply because they are rude and obnoxious.
What people are really pissed about is that they can't eavesdrop on both sides of the conversation most of the time. Not everyone talks on the cell phone above the levels of a normal conversation.
What's next, outlawing crying babies?? Or mother's that yell at their kids on a flight??
People who get that upset over cell phone users need to get over their need to control other people and work on learning to live with a variety of different people, including those that are rude and obnoxious.
I think that working while going to school is a viable choice that is overlooked by too many guidance councilors infatuated with getting as many kids into college as possible instead of trying to do what is best. You meet a much broader scope of people, and have to actually work with them. Learning skills that they will never teach in school, like how to order a purple stapler from the supply nazi.
There is no reason a person can't spend 10 years taking half the courses required for a degree, meet girls, and become a well-rounded person. And come out with 4-5 years more job experience and with just as much workable knowledge. And probably no debt.
Most companies have some type of tuition reimbursement program. I started out as a simple office clerk, filling out quote forms and creating production sheets for a factory. An opening occured in the operations area, I applied and was accepted. I took two language courses (FORTRAN and COBOL, this was around 1980) as part of their tuition program, and in two more years was hired by a bank as a full time assembler/COBOL programmer.
Today, it is not uncommon to be able to get a job as a computer operator with minimal skills. You will learn the importance of good error handling and restart capabilities, backups, and offsite retention. Now when you become a programmer, no one will need to explain it to you. Many companies have a 'hire from within' policy, it reduces employment costs.
By the time you hit 23, you've been a computer operator for 2-3 years, and hopefully a programmer for another 2 years. Now you are going up against someone coming out of school who has a degree, but with no experience.
I will hire you first. Another company may not.
Decide what type of company you want to work for, and how much debt you want to be in, and then decide which option works best.
I didn't attend any school to get a degree, I make a 6 figure salary, and manage to seem to know what the hell I'm doing, according to the people I work with. Some of who have degrees and are usually asking me questions, not the other way around.
So.. I call bullshit. People who have spent/are spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars will always try to find ways to justify their choice.
I hire smart people. Smart people can learn any language or any programming theory in a matter of a few weeks. I hire people who learned programming on their own because they enjoy it, not because they can make a buck at it.
So.. you smart people out there... run away from any company that requires a degree. They'll hire just about anyone regardless of skills. Take courses you want that you feel teach you what you need to know, and ignore the rest. Pay attention to what is around you at work, and volunteer to tackle any task, especially those that 'but no one knows how to do that'. Learn business processes, from sales to accounting to marketing so you can talk with those people. You will become the most valuable person in the company and the go-to guy instead of just another programmer.
You not-as-smart people. Spend the money because there are companies out there that won't hire you unless you have a degree.
I see we have reached a stalemate. I keep responding to your arguments with discussions why I disagree, and you just keep repeating the same old tired expressions without any attempt to enlighten other than 'Oh yeah -- well I'm still right' and making statements that you cannot back up with any facts, just conjecture and 'confidence'. Good thing you didn't go to lawyer school, those types of legal discourses would probably get you a job that includes those famous words, 'you want fries with that??'
Maybe someday, when you have matured, you will be able to have discussions with adults. Until then, I will leave you with the only thing that I think you understand based on how you have responded to my posts.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, text messages themselves are stupid secondary problems. But waking people up, and forcing them out of the idiocy of news tv talking heads, and forcing them into the cognitive dissonance caused when they realize businesses are hurting them because capitalism ISN'T working as designed... that helps a lot. Otherwise it sounds like a bunch of pompous academics in suits talkin fancy words and talkin smack about god and the president.
Capitalism works just fine ... text messaging is too expensive, so I don't use it.
There ... capitalism at it's finest. If someone using text messaging is complaining it's too expensive, then maybe they should look at alternatives or STFU. THAT is what capitalism is all about.
As it appears you are.....
I worked at Bath Iron Works as a Unix Admin and DBA. I wasn't allowed to move a computer from one desk to another UNLESS it didn't have to be unplugged and I didn't have to lift anything.
If I could just slide it, then I was OK. Unplugging required an electrician, lifting required a laborer. I would have to stand idly by while they did it.
We also weren't allowed to change parts inside for the same reasons.
So ... we used to wait until after 5, and have someone watch the door so we could do it.
The funny thing ... the union guys I worked with didn't want to do the work anyway, they considered it a waste of their time.
Second story ...
I was driving a fork truck at a paper mill during a strike as a scab. I had to take a water pump from one place to another. The foreman told me that according to union rules, it would have required a fork truck driver to drive to where the pump was, a laborer to put it on the forks, the fork truck driver to take it where it needed to go, a laborer to site it, a plumber to put the hose in the water, and an electrician to plug it in. Of course, only one of those people could be working at a time.
Jobs going overseas are a result of lower costs. And unions have done their best to drive wages up and efficiencies down for years, thus increasing costs.
Go figure.... what was once the savior of the working man is now partly responsible for their jobs disappearing.
Ummm....you can buy a book for that stuff.
Codes change due to a political process. I would rather trust an EE with a book that Joe Bob just doing what he is told to do.
Presenting content in a way that requires Flash or Java is a choice, not a requirement.
I remember back in the late 90s when the marketing manager wanted something that was going to require tons of Javascript. I reminded him that our site was for customers to access their account and perform maintenance, not to 'wow' them. I agreed the public pages needed to 'wow' potential customers, but once logged in customers did not need the 'wow'.
We had quite the battle, until I finally provided two quotes ... one with the the Javascript and one without. I also included ongoing maintenance costs, percent increase in bandwidth and server calls, estimated support costs, and a few other costs showing how much more expensive his request was going to be than using just plain ole HTML.
The CIO told him to shove it.
I'm not against flash, I've just never worked for a company that gained any benefit from it.
Social Security has become a ghost of it's original intent, as an insurance program. It has now become an entitlement system.
NO ONE has a right to stop working if they can't afford it. Social Security is unneeded EXCEPT as an entitlement/insurance program. I.e. if someone gets becomes unable to work, they can withdraw from it. If they don't, then they have to figure out how to save up enough money to do it themselves.
Get rid of Social Security and call it what it is ... welfare. Combine the two systems and get rid of all the extra overhead.
Anyone above specified income (including withdrawl capabilities of 401k/Ira plans) should not be allowed to withdraw from it. Anyone that is capable of working should not be allowed to withdraw from it, except to provide a minimum wage. So ... if you want to be a greeter at Wal-mart ... go ahead and take out from Social Security to make up the difference.
Medicare is a different program and I'm not talking about healthcare.
Evolution and behavioral sciences can explain why humans evolved religious beliefs. Belief in a god is remarkably like being delusional, or like having an imaginary friend as a child.
Behavioral studies show that people who don't have a belief in a god are as moral as those that use holy books to get their moral values. (And that's very good since the bible is a terrible moral compass.)
The various physical science disciplines provides enough answers to show that there is no need for a god to explain anything in the universe. And that any questions about the universe needing a god are simply circular in nature and really don't provide any answers.
While science cannot prove there isn't a god, it makes the existence of one irrelevant and unnecessary.
Maybe someday everyone will be informed and stop being so delusional.
Nah .. I felt the same way. I fired up some Spike Jones that I hadn't heard in years (before he got /.ed) and liked the hiss. Youngsters that have never listened to records may not like it, but to me it just seemed to belong there.
But .. to be fair .. I also listen to the old time radio shows on XM radio. Digital radio with analog noise that has been digitized ... gotta love technology!
I thought I understood myself very well. I must not be explaining myself well. An employer has the right to determine that not competing with that company when or if someone leaves is one of the things that makes them qualified. An employee has the right to not work for a company that requires such things (and had better find out before he agrees to a job.)
Employees learn the inner workings when working for someone. It is very easy for me to leave my company today, go to another company, and tell them all about what types of software is being used. Cry as you will about IP protection, it doesn't cover it. If I go to work for another company, and start to tweak internal programs to improve them, it is highly unlikely my prior employer will ever find out.
This is not a right to work, it is an intrusion into what a business can set as qualification for working for them. I have signed many non-compete clauses in my career, and have no issues signing them going forward.
If someone has so narrowly defined the work they can work in a specific industry, then they have made a very poor career choice. Unless it pays big bucks and they can stand to be out of work for a year or two between jobs.
LIBERAL horseshit playing with words.
'Working' is a contract between employers and employees. Employers are willing to pay employees to do something THEIR way. If employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
The state should not be allowed to determine who I think is 'qualified' to work for me. I'll agree to the non-discrimination based on gender or race, but not much more than that. I should be allowed to keep employees from voluntarily leaving my firm and taking my customers with them.
Eliminate non-compete clauses and they will be replaced by something else not called a non-compete clauses that does the same thing. Nothing will change, just the wording.
I think slavery, is forced service without pay, not voluntary service with pay.
Oh .. you're saying if everyone has non-compete clauses, then people are forced to work for me because they can't leave. Hmm...if I work in accounting for a TV station, I can't leave and go work for another TV station. But there are still accounting jobs.
If I develop games but I leave, I can't go work for another game developer. But there are other programming jobs.
If I work as an accountant for a company that provides financial consulting, I can't go work for another financial consultant. But there are still other accounting jobs.
Just more unnecessary government interference and anti-business legislation that stifles competition and choice.
What a bunch of horseshit. No one should have a 'right' to work. One should earn their 'right' to work by gaining knowledge, experience, etc.
I have signed non-compete agreements for years. I have negotiated lower terms for years, sometimes I got it, sometimes I walked away. (Really pissed off an HR manager once when the CEO of a company made him change it.)
If you are good enough, a company will change the terms. If there are a dozen more that are willing to work under those conditions, step aside. This is called COMPETITION and makes the US stronger. Companies that take advantage of their employees will eventually find the good ones go elsewhere, leaving them with the cast offs. Their profits will shrink and they will go under.
If everyone in your profession has a non-compete close, go find a new profession.
Or start your own company.
Is the system built so that it isn't possible to script the recover points? I.e. run the job with parameters that say 'restart at step x' and then do the file copies and such in the script?
Of course, it all depends on whether or not they it's worth it. For something that fails once or twice a year, probably not worth it. For something that fails once a week, probably worth it.
Of course, if it is failing once a week the same way each time, I'd be looking into fixing the problem. hehe.....
I've never seen a good C++ system either. But I'm willing to accept that somewhere in this world, someone knows how to write it well.
ISAM flat files are wonderful, fast storage mediums that can outperform databases. However, they are not flexible and most do not support transactions (TANDEM supports transactions in their flat files), requiring a backup to be done at specific points. Changes to a file requires changes to all programs that access it. Speed v/s flexibility are choices, not requirements.
If the weekly payroll run takes an hour, taking a backup before it runs is an acceptable cost for programs that rarely fail. Programs fail due to bad code most of the time, hardware failures very rarely. Eliminate the bad code and you eliminate 99% of the failures. For the once a quarter it fails, taking 10 minutes to restore while you are trying to figure out what the problem is and restart is acceptable.
Besides, current COBOL compilers support SQL databases and the associated transaction, so it is an irrelevant discussion. C++ code written 20 years ago against flat files would have the same problem. The problem is the storage media, not the language.
You mean like all the senseless boilerplate crap that you have to use to write C++ GUI programs on Windows??
Crap is crap, either learn it to do your job, or go find another job because you aren't clever enough.
And, just like with C++, once you create a template, it's just fill in the blanks. I had four COBOL skeleton programs back in the 80s that I used, and they covered 90% of all the programs we wrote. The great part was all the programs had the same structure, so a program I wrote was easily understood by someone else.
One of the developer came to me one day and explained a problem he was having. He started to hand me the printout, and I told him what the problem was without even looking at the code. Why?? Because all of our programs looked the same. And I had made the same error before.
What a bunch of horse shit. Don't blame poorly designed code on the language. I wrote plenty of COBOL code in the 80s that was able to recover from failures, even those that wrote into ISAM files. It's not about the code, it's about how clever and imaginative the coder is.
Is COBOL suited for everything?? Of course not, nothing is. That is why a good coder will have several tools and be able to use the one that best suits the task at hands. Creating fixed-output reports?? COBOL. Writing applications to process HTML?? I don't think so.
As someone who currently spends his career rewriting 'legacy' code, whether it be COBOL or C or C++ (10 years ago is still legacy in some minds), I can tell you that rewriting a complete system is a recipe for disaster. First, all maintenance on the new system has to stop. Secondly, someone has to go through every program LINE BY LINE and document what they all do, I can guarantee that what people think they do is not what they really do.
Then you have two choices ... rewrite, or re-engineer. Rewriting many times ends up with the same garbage that ran before, just in another language. Re-engineering is better, but takes longer and is more difficult to parallel test.
My preferred method is to take subsets and gently migrate. 10 small projects with a one or two failures is much better than one large project with one failure.
Payroll is one of the BEST applications for COBOL. It's very table driven and procedurally oriented. There are very specific discrete steps to be taken when calculating gross pay, pre-tax deducations, tax deductions, and final deductions. Then calculate where the net pay is distributed via EFT or paycheck, create files or print checks, and you are done.
I managed a COBOL based payroll system back in the 80s with green-screen interface, and it was one of the easiest systems to work on. It was written in discrete elements that were easily changed without impacting other programs. New programs could be easily added into the stream. Any system that is well designed can be simple to extend.
That crap about not being able to roll back sounds like someone who doesn't know how to write maintainable code. And anyone who doesn't do backups (or make sure the daily ones were done) before installing new code is an idiot.
I just got through migrating an 8 year old C++ system to Java because it was an abysmal failure that no one wanted to touch. Replaced 12 programs that basically all did the same thing with 1 program and 2 stored procedures, reduced complexity, and increased flexibility.
No language is immune to bad development.
Don't they usually have to do that every year???? Most people get yearly salary adjustments. If this is a union shop, it is probably table driven, and someone has to adjust the table. Which probably happens every time there is a contract change.
Just FUD ... nothing more.
The statement about being 'no need for a Cartesian product' reminds me of a guy who said inner joins should never be used because they can bring a system down. Because he wrote one once that was a poor query and it did just that.
Just because a person doesn't know when to use something properly, or uses it improperly from time to time, doesn't mean it has no use.
I've used Cartesian joins before. Not very often, but I do recall using them in the past for very specific requirements. If memory serves me, it was a table that only had one row in it, and data in that row changed from time to time.
The author assumes that this is a problem that needs addressing by doing what?? Making it easier to accept self-signed certs?
As usual, the he can't see a tree because of the forest. SSL is used for two purposes, encryption and authentication. Self-signed certs, as noted above, fail the authentication test.
So the real problem then is that sites that just want to use encryption have to purchase a cert, or get what is claimed to be an obscure warning.
The issue isn't about SSL, it's about the encryption.
My first thought is that it's so much BS. The odds of someone actually listening in on your HTTP transmission is extremely small, unless you are using a wireless transmission that is not secured. To tap an IP stream would require physical access, and unless someone is an employee at a provider is highly unlikely.
But .. there still is a very slight risk.
So .. why doesn't some numb-chuck come up with a new HTTPX method that just does encryption??? Duh!!!! SSL model without the certificate. Coordinate it so that Apache and Firefox have it available at the same time. Sure, IE won't have it but it has to start somewhere.
What a bullshit answer. The majority has no right to tell the minority what to do *if it doesn't affect their health or safety*. What you are saying is that if the majority wanted to, they could outlaw soapbox protesters also, simply because they are rude and obnoxious.
What people are really pissed about is that they can't eavesdrop on both sides of the conversation most of the time. Not everyone talks on the cell phone above the levels of a normal conversation.
What's next, outlawing crying babies?? Or mother's that yell at their kids on a flight??
People who get that upset over cell phone users need to get over their need to control other people and work on learning to live with a variety of different people, including those that are rude and obnoxious.
I think that working while going to school is a viable choice that is overlooked by too many guidance councilors infatuated with getting as many kids into college as possible instead of trying to do what is best. You meet a much broader scope of people, and have to actually work with them. Learning skills that they will never teach in school, like how to order a purple stapler from the supply nazi.
There is no reason a person can't spend 10 years taking half the courses required for a degree, meet girls, and become a well-rounded person. And come out with 4-5 years more job experience and with just as much workable knowledge. And probably no debt.
Most companies have some type of tuition reimbursement program. I started out as a simple office clerk, filling out quote forms and creating production sheets for a factory. An opening occured in the operations area, I applied and was accepted. I took two language courses (FORTRAN and COBOL, this was around 1980) as part of their tuition program, and in two more years was hired by a bank as a full time assembler/COBOL programmer.
Today, it is not uncommon to be able to get a job as a computer operator with minimal skills. You will learn the importance of good error handling and restart capabilities, backups, and offsite retention. Now when you become a programmer, no one will need to explain it to you. Many companies have a 'hire from within' policy, it reduces employment costs.
By the time you hit 23, you've been a computer operator for 2-3 years, and hopefully a programmer for another 2 years. Now you are going up against someone coming out of school who has a degree, but with no experience.
I will hire you first. Another company may not.
Decide what type of company you want to work for, and how much debt you want to be in, and then decide which option works best.
I didn't attend any school to get a degree, I make a 6 figure salary, and manage to seem to know what the hell I'm doing, according to the people I work with. Some of who have degrees and are usually asking me questions, not the other way around.
So .. I call bullshit. People who have spent/are spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars will always try to find ways to justify their choice.
I hire smart people. Smart people can learn any language or any programming theory in a matter of a few weeks. I hire people who learned programming on their own because they enjoy it, not because they can make a buck at it.
So .. you smart people out there... run away from any company that requires a degree. They'll hire just about anyone regardless of skills. Take courses you want that you feel teach you what you need to know, and ignore the rest. Pay attention to what is around you at work, and volunteer to tackle any task, especially those that 'but no one knows how to do that'. Learn business processes, from sales to accounting to marketing so you can talk with those people. You will become the most valuable person in the company and the go-to guy instead of just another programmer.
You not-as-smart people. Spend the money because there are companies out there that won't hire you unless you have a degree.
Sorry .. it was too much fun to see how he would react and if there was anything intelligent that might come out of it.
Guess not....
I see we have reached a stalemate. I keep responding to your arguments with discussions why I disagree, and you just keep repeating the same old tired expressions without any attempt to enlighten other than 'Oh yeah -- well I'm still right' and making statements that you cannot back up with any facts, just conjecture and 'confidence'. Good thing you didn't go to lawyer school, those types of legal discourses would probably get you a job that includes those famous words, 'you want fries with that??'
Maybe someday, when you have matured, you will be able to have discussions with adults. Until then, I will leave you with the only thing that I think you understand based on how you have responded to my posts.
No I'm not .. you are.....Phhhhlllpppptttttt!!!!!!