Californians are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this shit: they've got state regulations that do a better job (at least better than anywhere else in the US, with the possible exception of Hawaii) of limiting their exposure to nasty, carcinogenic shit, environmentally-devastating corporate irresponsibility, etc etc... but as long as there are cheaper places with less regulations to run a business (Texas, Mexico, China...), that's where industry's going to go. And California will continue it's steady slide down the economic toilet.
Some of these regulations could use some revamping or revision, and it is within the realm of legality to create exceptions (contingent to other conditions that must be met obviously.) Furthermore, it makes no sense to lump Texas, Mexico and China in the same category of "places with less environmental restrictions". Texas is neither like those two, and Mexico is not China.
There are a lot of other factors that come into play with companies GTFO California: taxation, cost of real state, right to work, etc.
So get rid of the rice farming too. Surely that was your point.
It would actually be a good point. One should farm crops that are sustainable and economical according to the available resources. It would make economic sense to grow valuable crops that do not require such amounts of water, even if it means an additional expense of importing those crops from somewhere else. ECO 101 kind of thing.
Growing rice in the Central Valley is as stupid as trying to grow tropical crops in North Dakota by enclosing hundreds of thousands of hectares in greenhouses, or trying either fish farming or planting sugarcane in the Sahara.
But hey, that's what agricultural incentives are for.
I get the impression you have an opinion. Maybe you should just state what that opinion is.
That would require the skills of elaborating one's thoughts in a cogent manner. Such a skill has been long lost in the/. wastelands for a long time now.
No. Cloud computing has not gone mainstream. Cloud computing was always hype. Hosted services have been around since the beginnings of the internet. Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. Calling it "the cloud" was nothing more than a way to make it sound more amazing and awesome than the same thing that was already being offered.
Hmmmmmm. So,
A. Hosted services have been around since forever. Ergo they are mainstream.
B. "The Cloud" is just another name for said services.
Ergo: "The Cloud" is mainstream.
Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether "The Cloud" or whatever we want to call it is mainstream or not. That is, this statement, while true, it deals solely with the process by which hosted services (or more broadly speaking, hosted capabilities) came into being. By itself, this statement does not deal with the issue of adoption rates and commonality (or rarity) of adoption (vertical and/or horizontal.)
One cannot blame Cisco since, like any company, it will operate at the margin of the law irrespective of the consequences to the national economy. A country's economy is an national strategic asset not a free-for-all playground. Hell, this concept is not anathema to reasonable interpretations of capitalism. A balance must exist between allowing companies to flourish without falling in cannibalism (stakeholder capitalism vs shareholder capitalism kinda thing.)
That balance is lost in this country. Or perhaps it never had it but it was never a problem until globalization and other factors kicked in.
Regardless, this is another reason to tax capital gains the same (or as close) as income. This buy-back (on top of the layoffs) is pretty much a swap from income gains to capital gains which are taxed more favorably.
Or better yet, this is another reason to revamp our entire tax system : close all loopholes (including offshoring ones), lower tax brackets (both capital and income) while broadening the tax base and/or implement a value-added tax, eliminate double taxation, don't penalize companies from moving capital and operations abroad, BUT instead create incentives for *all* companies (national and foreign) to invest locally.
This Cisco thing is just a symptom of a greater malady.
Tools are used to tackle a certain technology. The xml files, property files etc. etc. are not there because of the tool. They are there because the technology requires them. So if your co workers or employees can mot master the technology without tools obscuring them, then that is certainly not the tools fault, regardless what tool is involved.
Well, duh! No fucking shit captain obvious. Neither I nor the OP you originally replied to said otherwise. Strawman #1 for you.
The next tool you want to abolish is a C compiler, because no one using it knows anymore how to code in assembler?
Who said anything about abolishing. The OP didn't say anything about abolishing tools (go back to what he/she said). He/she complained about people not knowing what the tools do, and that he had to clean the mess they leave because of it. And I echoed the sentiment.
I challenge you to quote me WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ABOLISHING A TOOL. Go find that sentence of mine and quote it. Don't reply before doing that first.
That's strawman #2 for you. I don't know if you don't know how to read or you are being deliberately obtuse. Keep building strawmen, whatever floats your boat.
He's doing them a disservice by fixing their problems.
You do not know that because you do not know who the *other* people are, what their capabilities are and what work ethics they possess. If people don't care to know how the stuff they do for a living works, it is hard to help.
Furthermore, the OP is not there to do a service to his peers, but to the company, his employer, the entity that writes him a check. I have been in the same situation, having to fix crap from peers who don't seem to know or care to know.
The following speaks in general terms without describing any of my present or past employers.
And part of me would like to put my teaching hat and do something (anything) that will help some of these people raise their skills for their own benefit (and my sanity.)
But guess what? There are only 24 hours a day, and there is always shit that needs to be done and shipped by deadlines that are external in nature (business changes or whatever), and I have this strange desire to go home every once in a while because I don't find the idea of growing roots at my cubicle appealing (shocking I know.)
So, shit needs to get fixed, I have limited time and the people who never show an interest to raise themselves to a level of competency are not going to fix shit when it needs to be fixed. So I fix shit to the benefit of my employer, or I teach (to people who don't seem to have the desire or ability to learn.)
Now, in general terms, these people are my employer's problem. I can try to assist in any way I can, but I need to first deal with the things I'm directly responsible while avoiding shit to hit the catastrophic fan.
So, I fix shit. And to retain my sanity, I stop caring if people show an inclination to learn or not. I will help anyone with a) the inclination, and b) the capacity to learn. But those people are typically proactive and are not, in general, the constant source of the type of predicaments discussed in this thread.
Erm, if you want to point out that MS IDEs don't put stuff you work with into files, then say so. And if you are at it, explain where they put the stuff you enter (and if you know why, then point that out, too). Sorry, where else than in files should MS visual studio puts its sources?
He/she doesn't have to say anything like that. Said person is giving you a counter-argument to your claim that every IDE does such and such. I can also give you another example IDE that is not MS and which does not necessarily put things in text files: Oracle's JDeveloper.
And even if an IDE puts things in text files, that does not necessarily makes them readable or tractable.
And here is the thing that you are missing when you first replied to jfdavis668. Your reply made references to IDEs whereas jfdavis668's reply made references to tools.
Not all tools are IDEs. The OP is referring to tools that generate heaps of stuff (auto-gen code, property files, xml descriptors and what not) and that there are developers who do not know how all of that is supposed to work. You see that a lot in Java and MS land.
The OP is referring to coders that simply add code snippets to make things run (typically only under the 'happy-case' scenario) - they don't know what exactly grabs their code, where it gets executed, how it access the database, how the views interact with them, how in technical terms users trigger their system (end-to-end) into action.
This is not a problem of IDEs generating a bunch of text files. It is a problem of developers not understanding the software stacks they use on a daily basis.
That is what the OP is complaining about, which is very reasonable. And then you went the IDE-generates-text-files strawman as if that were the issue under discussion. </whooosh>
So basically, your poking fun at the fact that VS users can be productive on a larger scale in a shorter amount of time?
Yeah... let me learn VIM and linux command line to make a program. That'll show those VS users a thing or two *Rolls eyes*
I've worked with VS users, and I'll I can think to say is the following: define productive.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some true geniuses in the C#/C++/C/Win32API land, but those are few and far between. Productivity is not generating/reusing lots of stuff that does magic for you, and only the right magic so long as your needs stay down that nice and tidy narrow path. Well, we can define productivity to be *that*, but then, I can chose to re-define the symbol '3' to mean 'papaya'.
And btw, this is not just a VS pple case. The same crap happens in Java-land.
Modern IDEs help good developers tackle large bodies of code using a bunch of disparate technology stacks. And they make mediocre developers spawn heaps of horror onto this world. Productivity had little to nothing to do with IDE (as it is primarily a function of the developer's skills and the business culture surrounding the activity of development.)
In my 30 years of software management, I was presented exactly once with a black candidate, and I hired him. Excellent programmer and co-worker. I don't know why, but there just aren't many black candidates. How can we achieve parity if there are no candidates?
Bingo. And it is not just with Blacks. It is also with Hispanics (I'm a Hispanic engineer btw). Our communities truly suck at giving our kids the proper STEM role models.
This could be seen as a civil rights issue, but it is not one to be taken by the tech industry. It is one to be tackled by our communities themselves. Jesse Jackson is either an asshole or he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about (with a propensity to look at everything from the "keeping-the-man-down" lenses.)
Not, it is not. Instead of scrutinizing tech companies why they have low % of African American and Hispanic engineers (I'm a Hispanic engineer btw), they should scrutinize those communities (my community included) as of why they produce fewer %s of engineers compared to non-Hispanic Whites (or worse, against Asian/Asian American communities.)
This is not a case of tech companies discriminating against X or Y ethnic group. It is about our communities doing a piss-poor job at ensuring our kids a proper education and get proper role models.
Yes, Hispanic and African American communities have suffered systematic discrimination in the past (specially African Americans). But we past that point a long time ago, and the balance has been pointing towards community responsibility for quite some time.
Jeese Jackson is an asshole and an attention whore. He is stirring up this shit, race baiting the tech industry as a means to stay relevant. Sadly, there will be enough dumb masses that follow him.
So share the apartment. You can certainly live on minimum wage. You just can't have your own place. You might not even have your own bedroom. But be clear: you're implicitly applying a standard of living that simply doesn't exist in most of the world, and has never existed in most of the world, in most of history.
Word. I used to work minimum wage almost a quarter century ago. One could live, just barely, but it was possible. And the key was to share rent. That is how it has been like, forever.
With that said, the fundamental difference now is that, before, you worked minimum wage when you started your adult life. You would climb up the manufacturing/service ladder over time.
This is sort of true even in many developed countries. I worked at bakeries and cigar manufacturing plants south of the border, like industrial gigs (what passes for industrial gigs in our countries) as well as artisan mom-and-pop shops. Your net salary would climb over time (be it by hourly increase, additional benefits or additional expertise to take more work or set up your own shop.)
We do not have that anymore. People worked hard, but were not prepared for the job shift that came with globalization. People were sufficiently trained then for the jobs that existed then (and which do not exist anymore.)
So now we have a significant number of people who should be working at a different salary level being forced to work for minimum wage.
So the situation is complex. On the one hand, minimum wage was never meant for a living wage where "living wage" == "having your own place." It was meant to be a starting point, and the economy was never meant to have the same people living on minimum wage forever.
OTH, people with greater economic responsibilities are forced by circumstances to take minimum wages without any prospect of going back to their previous economic level again. So, from that context, it is fair to say that minimum wages are not living wages.
However, the more precise description of the situation is that:
There is no longer a path to get out of minimum wage land (a suckage for people entering adulthood with economic consequences down the line)
A large number of people that must support a household don't have options other than almost-perpetual minimum wage jobs, most of the time for external circumstances beyond their control (think globalization.)
nice trolling, its a prison, not a concentration camp!
When you have close to millions in such an enclosure based on religion/ethnic exclusion controlling all borders around it, the difference those two terms begin to blur.
And no, I'm not supporting Hamas. I think the group is bone-headed idiot and unnecessarily violent. But that doesn't mean I'm giving a pass to Israel on this either.
No, but then you are limited to writing experimental micro-controllers, or desktop applications. Not knowing CSS does pretty much limit you from being able to write any web application, and most phone apps.
But the limitation of not knowing CSS is ridiculously trivial to overcome compared to not knowing how to program micro-controllers. It is so trivial that it is really not a concern to most competent people. AND THAT IS THE POINT!
I personally know a guy who did nothing but micro-controller programming for over a decade, and in less than 4 months became a competent iOS developer with a successful company that churns kids-oriented apps and who is also working full-time (also as a iOS developer) for a large sports network.
4 months, that's all that it took him. He spent more time learning Google AdSense, the iOS stack and the details of monetizing apps than on CSS. And he did the switch on a whim after seeing another guy (an electrical engineer) doing the same switch increasing his income by 25% on iOS development.
I'm a back-end developer, and I've done a lot of Java EE work, on top of embedded development and even some mobile development (Windows 8). I've never cared to do front-end development and whenever I needed to do use CSS, I just google what I need...
... and then I forget about it. Because it is really that trivial when we take into account everything else that is needed to have a successful application.
So yeah, not knowing CSS limits a developer to the degree that person is unable to use google or stackoverflow.
No, no one ever contacted the bank. Apple's Point of Sale software was configured to accept any number based on length() of the number string. They held the number until the end of the day or some other convenient time, when they'd process it with the banks. That was stupid, and the scam is common. Retailers are starting to learn to call and verify immediately (before clearing tge transaction), not to wait until the end of the day.
Bingo! The way Apple stores were doing baffles the mind. It is so unbelievably stupid. Every store I have known (Sears, K-Mart, Home Depot, etc) has their cashiers phone the banks or credit card agencies themselves from pre-defined 1800 numbers or from the 1800 numbers off the credit cards' backs. Once they establish contact with a representative, they hand over the phone to the complaining customer (or they establish a 3-way conference call or something.)
Such a system, they way stores do in general, is very resilient to the kind of scam being described here. How Apple would think this ridiculous implementation would work is just stupid beyond belief.
That's terrible advice. If you want the big bucks, get into Python, Node.js, or Go and find a startup that just received VC and has tons of money to shove at developers. C++, Java, and C# are great for long-term "comfortable" jobs, but that's not where the seriously good money is.
Terrible advice also. If you want the big bucks, know your shit in several domains, know how to deliver your shit and be good at analytic skills, troubleshooting, design, architecture and project management.
The VC route is a high-stakes one. For each one that cashes it, there are droves that lick their wounds, specially outside of SV.
Going back to languages, no language guarantees good income, not even comfortable jobs. Being able to deliver shit on time, and have deep expertise on something (say, Oracle Enterprise stack, or embedded development), that's where the sweet spot is, meaning, potential to make close to $200K or more, for years, if not decades. Long hours as a consultant, but the rewards are there, and are more predictable and solid than shooting at the VC/startup stars.
Sure, but a programmer that doesn't know CSS is pretty limited!
The fact that you think not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited showcases that your programming experience is limited to front-end development. And that is sad.
Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.
That is not true, not with some industries, in particular energy which you mention. Politics play a pivotal role, even a primary one. No, that's not what I advocate, nor what it should be. But reality is reality, and until politics gets out of moneyland, and money gets out of politics, if people want to run a business on energy, transportation or pharma (just to name a few), CEOs will have to be political savvy and make decisions based on politics.
If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.
That is not what I say ('Murika wtf, what happened to reading comprehension?), but hey, I am not one to judge you if are into building strawman arguments.
A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.
Hahahahaha, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard? Where are you been all this time? Under a rock on Endor? Selling cars directly to customers is highly politicized, and there is no way a good CEO will make decisions without taking that into account.
It would be nice if we had a true free market where companies can sell their products directly to customers (and let the best product win) without interest groups lobbying for their right to be "middle man". But this is 'Murika, land of the free (when you can afford it), home of the brave (when you have the moolah to back it up.)
Tesla is being prevented from selling directly to customers because of politics, not market forces.
This is a huge political battle that Tesla must win for its benefit (and for the benefit of us all.) That requires political awareness and acumen.
A good CEO for Tesla will take politics into consideration when making decisions.
When an industry
This is why you're not a CEO or politician. Building this factory in Texas would make it harder for politicians to fight "Texas Made" cars. Sure the mouth pieces and opposition will still be there, but the mouth pieces promoting the cars would get a lot louder. Once you get Texas on board, a lot of southern states are easier. They are looking how to move forward, not punish for history.
Remember the next round of Tesla cars will be SUVs and bog standard sedans. Not pick up truck territory, but certainly Texas soccer mom and Austin city car markets.
^^^ This. You can't win manufacturing lobbying wars without winning Texas.
I mean, it makes perfect sense to reward a state that makes it as difficult as possible to sell a vehicle with Tesla's sales model.
It makes perfect (business) sense to locate it in a state with depressed wages, huge amounts of available land, little-to-no zoning restrictions, lax environmental regulations, and politicians that are at least a buy-able as the rest. Hell, if it's good enough for the oil and gas industry...
Really? You really want to go there? True that huge chunks of employment in Texas is in the Walmart-like category for people with no specialized skills. But for manufacturing and up, wages are decent and the economy is booming. Go to Austin, Dallas or Houston for good paying jobs without the ridiculous hassles that you see in the Bay area: ageism, gentrification, and most important of all, absurd zoning laws that prevent creation of new housing/rental units to accommodate the growing population (and which causes housing/rental prices to be absurd to anyone except couples where both partners are in IT/STEM/Software.).
The same is true in Seattle, Portland,The Triangle and Denver (in particular Denver.) Texas is doing fine, more than fine. Just because there are a bunch of backwater NIMBY small towns full of folks who thing America's best years were 30-40 years ago, that doesn't mean the state is crap. People are moving there in droves for a reason, small businesses are booming, people in manufacturing are doing well. And most importantly, whether you work in STEM or in a factory plan, you can still afford an actual house that is not a hole in the wall (Sillycon Valleeey, I'm looking at you.)
Texas is doing well, and will be doing well for a long time. It is fair to criticize, but try to give some credit where credit is due every once in a while instead of blindly following the bash-your-favorite-dead-horse crowd.
So, who will be auditing Snowden's code? I wouldn't even consider using anything he wrote without independent third party audits.... lots of audits of the code, design, algorithms, everything. And no binaries that he builds.
Imagine the evasive power of the dual or triple functionality achieved by some of the Obfuscated C content entries combined with the subtle designs of Russian government cryptographers. No threat there, no sir.
Can he actually write code? And I mean code at the level of sophistication required for the type of functionality he is calling for? What he is calling for is way beyond the realm of sysadmin-related programming.
Two other airplanes (non-commercial with much lower loss of life and thus less interesting to news outlets I presume) were shot down within the week in similar airspace. Why aren't we discussing those?
Because non-commercial airplanes being shot down in a war zone is not an out-of-the-ordinary technical news... not unless there were interesting technical attributes to the story.ie. new anti-missile system technology, radar, anti-missile technology failure, etc.
A commercial jet, and a big one at that, being shot down in a war zone, then brings a whole bunch of technical topics to discuss? What lead to the airplane being mis-identified? What technical prevention mechanisms could have been used to prevent this? Would it be worth while to explore temporary expansion of flight routes to avert war zones? Etc, etc.
Go ahead and try to put a techie spin on it, but the point remains that we're only oogling over this because a bunch of people died, which not only seem distasteful, but again, has nothing to with the type of news this site represents.
No, that is only you putting that spin on it so that you can accuse others of distasteful oogling. Stop projecting... or not, whatever rocks your boat and gives you a moment to build faux moral outrage and pass it as your moral accomplishment of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Californians are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this shit: they've got state regulations that do a better job (at least better than anywhere else in the US, with the possible exception of Hawaii) of limiting their exposure to nasty, carcinogenic shit, environmentally-devastating corporate irresponsibility, etc etc... but as long as there are cheaper places with less regulations to run a business (Texas, Mexico, China...), that's where industry's going to go. And California will continue it's steady slide down the economic toilet.
Some of these regulations could use some revamping or revision, and it is within the realm of legality to create exceptions (contingent to other conditions that must be met obviously.) Furthermore, it makes no sense to lump Texas, Mexico and China in the same category of "places with less environmental restrictions". Texas is neither like those two, and Mexico is not China.
There are a lot of other factors that come into play with companies GTFO California: taxation, cost of real state, right to work, etc.
So get rid of the rice farming too. Surely that was your point.
It would actually be a good point. One should farm crops that are sustainable and economical according to the available resources. It would make economic sense to grow valuable crops that do not require such amounts of water, even if it means an additional expense of importing those crops from somewhere else. ECO 101 kind of thing.
Growing rice in the Central Valley is as stupid as trying to grow tropical crops in North Dakota by enclosing hundreds of thousands of hectares in greenhouses, or trying either fish farming or planting sugarcane in the Sahara.
But hey, that's what agricultural incentives are for.
I get the impression you have an opinion. Maybe you should just state what that opinion is.
That would require the skills of elaborating one's thoughts in a cogent manner. Such a skill has been long lost in the /. wastelands for a long time now.
No. Cloud computing has not gone mainstream. Cloud computing was always hype. Hosted services have been around since the beginnings of the internet. Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. Calling it "the cloud" was nothing more than a way to make it sound more amazing and awesome than the same thing that was already being offered.
Hmmmmmm. So,
A. Hosted services have been around since forever. Ergo they are mainstream.
B. "The Cloud" is just another name for said services.
Ergo: "The Cloud" is mainstream.
Taking the brute force approach of using VMs to make the entire "machine" highly available, as opposed to elegantly building such capability directly into ones applications, was an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether "The Cloud" or whatever we want to call it is mainstream or not. That is, this statement, while true, it deals solely with the process by which hosted services (or more broadly speaking, hosted capabilities) came into being. By itself, this statement does not deal with the issue of adoption rates and commonality (or rarity) of adoption (vertical and/or horizontal.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
One cannot blame Cisco since, like any company, it will operate at the margin of the law irrespective of the consequences to the national economy. A country's economy is an national strategic asset not a free-for-all playground. Hell, this concept is not anathema to reasonable interpretations of capitalism. A balance must exist between allowing companies to flourish without falling in cannibalism (stakeholder capitalism vs shareholder capitalism kinda thing.)
That balance is lost in this country. Or perhaps it never had it but it was never a problem until globalization and other factors kicked in.
Regardless, this is another reason to tax capital gains the same (or as close) as income. This buy-back (on top of the layoffs) is pretty much a swap from income gains to capital gains which are taxed more favorably.
Or better yet, this is another reason to revamp our entire tax system : close all loopholes (including offshoring ones), lower tax brackets (both capital and income) while broadening the tax base and/or implement a value-added tax, eliminate double taxation, don't penalize companies from moving capital and operations abroad, BUT instead create incentives for *all* companies (national and foreign) to invest locally.
This Cisco thing is just a symptom of a greater malady.
Tools are used to tackle a certain technology. The xml files, property files etc. etc. are not there because of the tool. They are there because the technology requires them. So if your co workers or employees can mot master the technology without tools obscuring them, then that is certainly not the tools fault, regardless what tool is involved.
Well, duh! No fucking shit captain obvious. Neither I nor the OP you originally replied to said otherwise. Strawman #1 for you.
The next tool you want to abolish is a C compiler, because no one using it knows anymore how to code in assembler?
Who said anything about abolishing. The OP didn't say anything about abolishing tools (go back to what he/she said). He/she complained about people not knowing what the tools do, and that he had to clean the mess they leave because of it. And I echoed the sentiment.
I challenge you to quote me WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ABOLISHING A TOOL. Go find that sentence of mine and quote it. Don't reply before doing that first.
That's strawman #2 for you. I don't know if you don't know how to read or you are being deliberately obtuse. Keep building strawmen, whatever floats your boat.
He's doing them a disservice by fixing their problems.
You do not know that because you do not know who the *other* people are, what their capabilities are and what work ethics they possess. If people don't care to know how the stuff they do for a living works, it is hard to help.
Furthermore, the OP is not there to do a service to his peers, but to the company, his employer, the entity that writes him a check. I have been in the same situation, having to fix crap from peers who don't seem to know or care to know.
The following speaks in general terms without describing any of my present or past employers.
And part of me would like to put my teaching hat and do something (anything) that will help some of these people raise their skills for their own benefit (and my sanity.)
But guess what? There are only 24 hours a day, and there is always shit that needs to be done and shipped by deadlines that are external in nature (business changes or whatever), and I have this strange desire to go home every once in a while because I don't find the idea of growing roots at my cubicle appealing (shocking I know.)
So, shit needs to get fixed, I have limited time and the people who never show an interest to raise themselves to a level of competency are not going to fix shit when it needs to be fixed. So I fix shit to the benefit of my employer, or I teach (to people who don't seem to have the desire or ability to learn.)
Now, in general terms, these people are my employer's problem. I can try to assist in any way I can, but I need to first deal with the things I'm directly responsible while avoiding shit to hit the catastrophic fan.
So, I fix shit. And to retain my sanity, I stop caring if people show an inclination to learn or not. I will help anyone with a) the inclination, and b) the capacity to learn. But those people are typically proactive and are not, in general, the constant source of the type of predicaments discussed in this thread.
Erm, if you want to point out that MS IDEs don't put stuff you work with into files, then say so. And if you are at it, explain where they put the stuff you enter (and if you know why, then point that out, too). Sorry, where else than in files should MS visual studio puts its sources?
He/she doesn't have to say anything like that. Said person is giving you a counter-argument to your claim that every IDE does such and such. I can also give you another example IDE that is not MS and which does not necessarily put things in text files: Oracle's JDeveloper.
And even if an IDE puts things in text files, that does not necessarily makes them readable or tractable.
And here is the thing that you are missing when you first replied to jfdavis668. Your reply made references to IDEs whereas jfdavis668's reply made references to tools.
Not all tools are IDEs. The OP is referring to tools that generate heaps of stuff (auto-gen code, property files, xml descriptors and what not) and that there are developers who do not know how all of that is supposed to work. You see that a lot in Java and MS land.
The OP is referring to coders that simply add code snippets to make things run (typically only under the 'happy-case' scenario) - they don't know what exactly grabs their code, where it gets executed, how it access the database, how the views interact with them, how in technical terms users trigger their system (end-to-end) into action.
This is not a problem of IDEs generating a bunch of text files. It is a problem of developers not understanding the software stacks they use on a daily basis.
That is what the OP is complaining about, which is very reasonable. And then you went the IDE-generates-text-files strawman as if that were the issue under discussion. </whooosh>
So basically, your poking fun at the fact that VS users can be productive on a larger scale in a shorter amount of time?
Yeah... let me learn VIM and linux command line to make a program. That'll show those VS users a thing or two *Rolls eyes*
I've worked with VS users, and I'll I can think to say is the following: define productive.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some true geniuses in the C#/C++/C/Win32API land, but those are few and far between. Productivity is not generating/reusing lots of stuff that does magic for you, and only the right magic so long as your needs stay down that nice and tidy narrow path. Well, we can define productivity to be *that*, but then, I can chose to re-define the symbol '3' to mean 'papaya'.
And btw, this is not just a VS pple case. The same crap happens in Java-land.
Modern IDEs help good developers tackle large bodies of code using a bunch of disparate technology stacks. And they make mediocre developers spawn heaps of horror onto this world. Productivity had little to nothing to do with IDE (as it is primarily a function of the developer's skills and the business culture surrounding the activity of development.)
In my 30 years of software management, I was presented exactly once with a black candidate, and I hired him. Excellent programmer and co-worker. I don't know why, but there just aren't many black candidates. How can we achieve parity if there are no candidates?
Bingo. And it is not just with Blacks. It is also with Hispanics (I'm a Hispanic engineer btw). Our communities truly suck at giving our kids the proper STEM role models.
This could be seen as a civil rights issue, but it is not one to be taken by the tech industry. It is one to be tackled by our communities themselves. Jesse Jackson is either an asshole or he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about (with a propensity to look at everything from the "keeping-the-man-down" lenses.)
Tech Diversity Is Next Civil Rights Step
Not, it is not. Instead of scrutinizing tech companies why they have low % of African American and Hispanic engineers (I'm a Hispanic engineer btw), they should scrutinize those communities (my community included) as of why they produce fewer %s of engineers compared to non-Hispanic Whites (or worse, against Asian/Asian American communities.)
This is not a case of tech companies discriminating against X or Y ethnic group. It is about our communities doing a piss-poor job at ensuring our kids a proper education and get proper role models.
Yes, Hispanic and African American communities have suffered systematic discrimination in the past (specially African Americans). But we past that point a long time ago, and the balance has been pointing towards community responsibility for quite some time.
Jeese Jackson is an asshole and an attention whore. He is stirring up this shit, race baiting the tech industry as a means to stay relevant. Sadly, there will be enough dumb masses that follow him.
So share the apartment. You can certainly live on minimum wage. You just can't have your own place. You might not even have your own bedroom. But be clear: you're implicitly applying a standard of living that simply doesn't exist in most of the world, and has never existed in most of the world, in most of history.
Word. I used to work minimum wage almost a quarter century ago. One could live, just barely, but it was possible. And the key was to share rent. That is how it has been like, forever.
With that said, the fundamental difference now is that, before, you worked minimum wage when you started your adult life. You would climb up the manufacturing/service ladder over time.
This is sort of true even in many developed countries. I worked at bakeries and cigar manufacturing plants south of the border, like industrial gigs (what passes for industrial gigs in our countries) as well as artisan mom-and-pop shops. Your net salary would climb over time (be it by hourly increase, additional benefits or additional expertise to take more work or set up your own shop.)
We do not have that anymore. People worked hard, but were not prepared for the job shift that came with globalization. People were sufficiently trained then for the jobs that existed then (and which do not exist anymore.)
So now we have a significant number of people who should be working at a different salary level being forced to work for minimum wage.
So the situation is complex. On the one hand, minimum wage was never meant for a living wage where "living wage" == "having your own place." It was meant to be a starting point, and the economy was never meant to have the same people living on minimum wage forever.
OTH, people with greater economic responsibilities are forced by circumstances to take minimum wages without any prospect of going back to their previous economic level again. So, from that context, it is fair to say that minimum wages are not living wages.
However, the more precise description of the situation is that:
5 days so they can fire more rockets & move to another hospital? so they can just repeat this over & over and you can never shoot back?
That's what the Geneva convention says. A nation obeys it or does not, that is up to the nation to decide (and live with.)
nice trolling, its a prison, not a concentration camp!
When you have close to millions in such an enclosure based on religion/ethnic exclusion controlling all borders around it, the difference those two terms begin to blur.
And no, I'm not supporting Hamas. I think the group is bone-headed idiot and unnecessarily violent. But that doesn't mean I'm giving a pass to Israel on this either.
No, but then you are limited to writing experimental micro-controllers, or desktop applications. Not knowing CSS does pretty much limit you from being able to write any web application, and most phone apps.
But the limitation of not knowing CSS is ridiculously trivial to overcome compared to not knowing how to program micro-controllers. It is so trivial that it is really not a concern to most competent people. AND THAT IS THE POINT!
I personally know a guy who did nothing but micro-controller programming for over a decade, and in less than 4 months became a competent iOS developer with a successful company that churns kids-oriented apps and who is also working full-time (also as a iOS developer) for a large sports network.
4 months, that's all that it took him. He spent more time learning Google AdSense, the iOS stack and the details of monetizing apps than on CSS. And he did the switch on a whim after seeing another guy (an electrical engineer) doing the same switch increasing his income by 25% on iOS development.
I'm a back-end developer, and I've done a lot of Java EE work, on top of embedded development and even some mobile development (Windows 8). I've never cared to do front-end development and whenever I needed to do use CSS, I just google what I need...
So yeah, not knowing CSS limits a developer to the degree that person is unable to use google or stackoverflow.
No, no one ever contacted the bank. Apple's Point of Sale software was configured to accept any number based on length() of the number string. They held the number until the end of the day or some other convenient time, when they'd process it with the banks. That was stupid, and the scam is common. Retailers are starting to learn to call and verify immediately (before clearing tge transaction), not to wait until the end of the day.
Bingo! The way Apple stores were doing baffles the mind. It is so unbelievably stupid. Every store I have known (Sears, K-Mart, Home Depot, etc) has their cashiers phone the banks or credit card agencies themselves from pre-defined 1800 numbers or from the 1800 numbers off the credit cards' backs. Once they establish contact with a representative, they hand over the phone to the complaining customer (or they establish a 3-way conference call or something.)
Such a system, they way stores do in general, is very resilient to the kind of scam being described here. How Apple would think this ridiculous implementation would work is just stupid beyond belief.
That's terrible advice. If you want the big bucks, get into Python, Node.js, or Go and find a startup that just received VC and has tons of money to shove at developers. C++, Java, and C# are great for long-term "comfortable" jobs, but that's not where the seriously good money is.
Terrible advice also. If you want the big bucks, know your shit in several domains, know how to deliver your shit and be good at analytic skills, troubleshooting, design, architecture and project management.
The VC route is a high-stakes one. For each one that cashes it, there are droves that lick their wounds, specially outside of SV.
Going back to languages, no language guarantees good income, not even comfortable jobs. Being able to deliver shit on time, and have deep expertise on something (say, Oracle Enterprise stack, or embedded development), that's where the sweet spot is, meaning, potential to make close to $200K or more, for years, if not decades. Long hours as a consultant, but the rewards are there, and are more predictable and solid than shooting at the VC/startup stars.
Sure, but a programmer that doesn't know CSS is pretty limited!
The fact that you think not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited showcases that your programming experience is limited to front-end development. And that is sad.
Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.
That is not true, not with some industries, in particular energy which you mention. Politics play a pivotal role, even a primary one. No, that's not what I advocate, nor what it should be. But reality is reality, and until politics gets out of moneyland, and money gets out of politics, if people want to run a business on energy, transportation or pharma (just to name a few), CEOs will have to be political savvy and make decisions based on politics.
If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.
That is not what I say ('Murika wtf, what happened to reading comprehension?), but hey, I am not one to judge you if are into building strawman arguments.
A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.
Hahahahaha, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard? Where are you been all this time? Under a rock on Endor? Selling cars directly to customers is highly politicized, and there is no way a good CEO will make decisions without taking that into account.
It would be nice if we had a true free market where companies can sell their products directly to customers (and let the best product win) without interest groups lobbying for their right to be "middle man". But this is 'Murika, land of the free (when you can afford it), home of the brave (when you have the moolah to back it up.)
Tesla is being prevented from selling directly to customers because of politics, not market forces.
This is a huge political battle that Tesla must win for its benefit (and for the benefit of us all.) That requires political awareness and acumen.
A good CEO for Tesla will take politics into consideration when making decisions. When an industry
This is why you're not a CEO or politician. Building this factory in Texas would make it harder for politicians to fight "Texas Made" cars. Sure the mouth pieces and opposition will still be there, but the mouth pieces promoting the cars would get a lot louder. Once you get Texas on board, a lot of southern states are easier. They are looking how to move forward, not punish for history. Remember the next round of Tesla cars will be SUVs and bog standard sedans. Not pick up truck territory, but certainly Texas soccer mom and Austin city car markets.
^^^ This. You can't win manufacturing lobbying wars without winning Texas.
It makes perfect (business) sense to locate it in a state with depressed wages, huge amounts of available land, little-to-no zoning restrictions, lax environmental regulations, and politicians that are at least a buy-able as the rest. Hell, if it's good enough for the oil and gas industry...
Really? You really want to go there? True that huge chunks of employment in Texas is in the Walmart-like category for people with no specialized skills. But for manufacturing and up, wages are decent and the economy is booming. Go to Austin, Dallas or Houston for good paying jobs without the ridiculous hassles that you see in the Bay area: ageism, gentrification, and most important of all, absurd zoning laws that prevent creation of new housing/rental units to accommodate the growing population (and which causes housing/rental prices to be absurd to anyone except couples where both partners are in IT/STEM/Software.). The same is true in Seattle, Portland ,The Triangle and Denver (in particular Denver.) Texas is doing fine, more than fine. Just because there are a bunch of backwater NIMBY small towns full of folks who thing America's best years were 30-40 years ago, that doesn't mean the state is crap. People are moving there in droves for a reason, small businesses are booming, people in manufacturing are doing well. And most importantly, whether you work in STEM or in a factory plan, you can still afford an actual house that is not a hole in the wall (Sillycon Valleeey, I'm looking at you.)
Texas is doing well, and will be doing well for a long time. It is fair to criticize, but try to give some credit where credit is due every once in a while instead of blindly following the bash-your-favorite-dead-horse crowd.
So, who will be auditing Snowden's code? I wouldn't even consider using anything he wrote without independent third party audits .... lots of audits of the code, design, algorithms, everything. And no binaries that he builds.
Imagine the evasive power of the dual or triple functionality achieved by some of the Obfuscated C content entries combined with the subtle designs of Russian government cryptographers. No threat there, no sir.
Can he actually write code? And I mean code at the level of sophistication required for the type of functionality he is calling for? What he is calling for is way beyond the realm of sysadmin-related programming.
Two other airplanes (non-commercial with much lower loss of life and thus less interesting to news outlets I presume) were shot down within the week in similar airspace. Why aren't we discussing those?
Because non-commercial airplanes being shot down in a war zone is not an out-of-the-ordinary technical news... not unless there were interesting technical attributes to the story .ie. new anti-missile system technology, radar, anti-missile technology failure, etc.
A commercial jet, and a big one at that, being shot down in a war zone, then brings a whole bunch of technical topics to discuss? What lead to the airplane being mis-identified? What technical prevention mechanisms could have been used to prevent this? Would it be worth while to explore temporary expansion of flight routes to avert war zones? Etc, etc.
Go ahead and try to put a techie spin on it, but the point remains that we're only oogling over this because a bunch of people died, which not only seem distasteful, but again, has nothing to with the type of news this site represents.
No, that is only you putting that spin on it so that you can accuse others of distasteful oogling. Stop projecting... or not, whatever rocks your boat and gives you a moment to build faux moral outrage and pass it as your moral accomplishment of the day.