I really think PHP5 changes a lot of that. I am building a couple of apps right now in php with front controllers and a true MVC arch. With php 5 you can create a command factory or whatever cool stuff you need. Caching is still a sore point, but I think it is a very powerful tool for small to medium size projects. When the projects get huge....maybe not so much, except maybe Yahoo style with PHP as a front end language and the back end in Perl/Python and c++.
-1 non sequiter...things don't just appear in the media. News outlets don't have the cash anymore to do much reporting...especially when PR firms fax it to them for free. This investor-FUD about apple is a plant of some kind. And no, it isn't as big of a deal as toture and war and whatnot...
I am a mass transit hawk. But I think you are making the wrong point here. The interstate highway system was a critical piece of infrastructure and an excellent investment the taxpayers made in this nation. The problem is that many cities in the west decided that highways could be all things to all people and that urban planning should be car-centric. The ideal is intermodal transit...as sibling post mentioned, the right tool for the right job. In many western cities there is no transit choice. If I want to get to work I have to drive. In greater new york I can take commuter rail, busses, subways, ride my bike or drive, depending on my needs. There is no transit silver bullet. But economically the interstate system was a great investment.
Ok, as everyone has said on this site A MILLION GODDAMN TIMES. If there is a good chance that we are causing global warming and also a good chance the results could be catastrophic, we should do something about it! The consequences of doing nothing if scientists are right are much higher than those of doing something and being wrong.
I DID and DO pay for it. The libertarian minded seem to forget that taxes aren't all just lit on fire. I (and all other taxpayers) spend a good amount of money maintaining the roads I drive on and building new ones. If we had waited for the car companies to build interstates we would still be driving on dirt between cities. We need to spend some tax dollars investing in the future of energy and transportation. Its going to cost some money to solve this problem, more than the private sector is willing to spend.
We can't seem to get over the not profitable == bad issue. Newsflash:transit is (almost)never profitable. The Paris Metro/RER system, for example, has cost many billions over the last century to build and more to operate. No one in Paris is running around demanding the system be dismantled because it is a money loser. People know that without it the city would fall apart. This is the take away from the EV1 story. We can't always count on the free market to solve out problems. Because sometimes are problems can't be solved profitably.
Oh, and do you think the car companies would have been able to make the money they did without the massive taxpayer investment in car transportation? By which I mean the interstate system, traffic lights, safety regulation, traffic cops, paving roads, yearly maintenance, etc, etc. Total cost to taxpayers in 2005 dollars since 1957? At least 5 trillion dollars by my hasty calculations.
I hate conspiracy theories as much as the next guy. But sometimes there actually is a conspiracy. This seems to happen whenever what makes companies bigger profits is not necessarily in the public interest. Classic example: streetcars and freeways. Just because something is not going to be a money maker doesn't necessarily make it bad. I think a lot of americans (especially in the west) seem to think that if something is not profitable it is by definition bad. We went through this here in Denver as the city started building out light rail and commuter rail. Opponents argued that is wasn't going to make any money. Which completely misses the point, if mass transit made money private companies would do it. But mass transit makes cities better and improves the quality of life of the citizens. It can also be argued that intermodal transportation improves the economic viability of a city, but that is not proven.
Ok, so we all agree then that GM killed the product because it wasn't going to be particularly profitable compared to other products (trucks/suvs). In fact, if they knew it wouldn't make any (or enough) money they would do whatever it took to make sure the product failed. The problem was that they had already hyped their involvement. They had a strong incentive to kill the project, but from a PR standpoint they had to make sure it wasn't obvious. There really was a conspiracy here, but the problem isn't GM. They did what big companies do.
The problem is that in this country we are so worried about big companies making money that we aren't worrying about the consequences. The government needs to actively invest in energy and transportation alternatives because business is just not going to do it on their own. Maybe if GM invested 15 billion dollars they could come up with a nice green care that made them money, but the up-front R&D is so costly they can't afford it. This is what governments are for. They allow all of us, as a county, to invest in something that may not generate profits next quarter, or next year. But twenty years down the line we will all be glad we made the investment.
Speculation is one of the reasons for high gas prices
The argument people are making here is exactly the one you are making. GM did not want to sell and electric car. They thought that the products that would make them the most money would be traditional cars and especially trucks. They didn't WANT people to want electric cars so they did whatever it took to keep it that way. The company has no incentive to market electric vehicles, so they don't. But the issue here is that higher margin products for GM are not what necessarily benefit the consumer or anyone else in this country or the world. I don't think electric cars are the future because they are going to make a bunch of investors rich. Sometimes the things society needs aren't going to make anyone rich,
I'm using Zend studio right now on windows and launched fast and runs great. This is the app that convinced me that java/swing is a legit way to write desktop apps. Unless its a game or a graphics app interpreted code works. And java/swing is portable, so it doesn't matter what os you run on.
Uhh, the display layer? That is a great architecture a lot of people with huge apps are using. Backend in compiled c (including the RDMS of course) and display layer in php/perl/python. Scales all the way up to the size of yahoo and google.
I get designs from print people that require using absolute. I think part of the process of turning a design in to a template is for better or worse doing what the designer intended. So I would say fully relative positioned "bullerproof" layouts are the ideal, but in practice aren't always possible.
That and $100 million of five years is NOTHING for a company like BofA. They pull in $16 billion a year in profit. They improved their margins by one tenth of a percent. That has to be worth it.
Yes, but BofA is insanely profitable. Saving 100 million a year counts for little to nothing in a company that pulls in $16 billion in profit every year. The fact that they are getting rid of a 100 good paying jobs in america so their profit margin improves by one tenth of a percent is pretty damn insulting. This kind of behavior is going to bite theses companies in the ass one day, because as their customers are middle class americans. And they are slowing getting rid of middle class jobs. It really pisses me off when public companies feel the need to cut jobs, salaries and move overseas to improve their profits.
Insult to injury, Ken Lewis (BofA CEO) is making $20 million a year. In 1999 they gave the old CEO $76 million. And to save a pathetic 20 million a year they are moving hundreds of jobs to india? Man screw those people.
I have to agree with you. In the bay area there are 20 new jobs in web dev every day on dice.com. And they pay six figures (in Bay Area dollars that is a lot less of course). My company in Denver is doing a healthy business, and demand is quite low by national standards here.
If you can put years of experience with the right buzzwords on your resume you should be good to go. My only other theory is that the poster lives in the wrong place and there really is no work. With a family relocation can be daunting.
Man, screw those people. That is our new policy at our company. If someone tells us we cost to much and someone else can do it better, cheaper we let them go. I don't need people that are going to nickle and dime. If they really think that web dev is easy and shouldn't cost money they can do it on their own.
I started out doing 3d graphics and slowly I ended up in web dev and I love doing it. But I am the kind of person that like to learn new languages and frameworks on the weekend. I just happen to really like doing it, it pays well and there are plenty of jobs. Not only that, but the competion isn't ultra-fierce like it is in 3d, which I like. 3d graphics is a glamorous but underpaid overworked hell that will never get you anywhere. Web dev is a huge industry that continues to grow. It pays well and has room for growth. No, you mostly likely will never be a millionare, but its a job that can always challenge you and pay you a real middle class salary.
One catch, however. The jobs aren't everywhere. The majority of the work seems to be concentrated in texas, Silicon Valley, LA and greater NYC.
ha you are right. I am working on a new job. interviewed for one on solaris/jsp and the other on lamp. have to relocate though. oddly there are very few web jobs in denver
mod_rewrite. Absolutly essential. I know you can do this with asp.net now, but it is nowhere near as powerful as apache mod-rewrite or ISAPI rewrite. And I know this is unfair, but my experience with windows has been that people in a windows environment do not trust open source. Here we are 100% windows and even installing the OSS IIS mod_Rewrite is a no go. I think for me IIS and windows server hatred is really just an aesthetic thing. I don't like it. I log in through terminal services and click around to do things and it just makes me unhappy. I never even knew there was a text way of doing things, but I don't get to decide how to use the server because I am not the admin. I can log in and create websites and directories, but I have to suffer through that clicktastic hell.
I admit I am biased. But that is the issue. I am biased against IIS. I want to work with LAMP as much as possible, which is why I fear IIS adoption. Not because it is objectively worse, but because I don't like it.
For people like myself that work in web dev, this isn't religion. Its practical. Most of us have to work on what our employers work on. More gains for IIS mean more chances we have to work with it. If you have experience with apache IIS is like stabbing yourself in the head. If you want any extra features you often have to buy them, everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell and ISAPI hurts my brain. I'm sure that IIS is perfectly capable, but I just don't like it. So when I hear more people are switching it fills me with dread.
Slashdot Mirror
I really think PHP5 changes a lot of that. I am building a couple of apps right now in php with front controllers and a true MVC arch. With php 5 you can create a command factory or whatever cool stuff you need. Caching is still a sore point, but I think it is a very powerful tool for small to medium size projects. When the projects get huge....maybe not so much, except maybe Yahoo style with PHP as a front end language and the back end in Perl/Python and c++.
-1 non sequiter...things don't just appear in the media. News outlets don't have the cash anymore to do much reporting...especially when PR firms fax it to them for free. This investor-FUD about apple is a plant of some kind. And no, it isn't as big of a deal as toture and war and whatnot...
I am a mass transit hawk. But I think you are making the wrong point here. The interstate highway system was a critical piece of infrastructure and an excellent investment the taxpayers made in this nation. The problem is that many cities in the west decided that highways could be all things to all people and that urban planning should be car-centric. The ideal is intermodal transit...as sibling post mentioned, the right tool for the right job. In many western cities there is no transit choice. If I want to get to work I have to drive. In greater new york I can take commuter rail, busses, subways, ride my bike or drive, depending on my needs. There is no transit silver bullet. But economically the interstate system was a great investment.
Finally! A practical solution to this problem.
We just move the planet. What could be easier?
Ok, as everyone has said on this site A MILLION GODDAMN TIMES. If there is a good chance that we are causing global warming and also a good chance the results could be catastrophic, we should do something about it! The consequences of doing nothing if scientists are right are much higher than those of doing something and being wrong.
Oh and your scientist...there is also a Dissenting view of him.
I DID and DO pay for it. The libertarian minded seem to forget that taxes aren't all just lit on fire. I (and all other taxpayers) spend a good amount of money maintaining the roads I drive on and building new ones. If we had waited for the car companies to build interstates we would still be driving on dirt between cities. We need to spend some tax dollars investing in the future of energy and transportation. Its going to cost some money to solve this problem, more than the private sector is willing to spend.
We can't seem to get over the not profitable == bad issue. Newsflash:transit is (almost)never profitable. The Paris Metro/RER system, for example, has cost many billions over the last century to build and more to operate. No one in Paris is running around demanding the system be dismantled because it is a money loser. People know that without it the city would fall apart. This is the take away from the EV1 story. We can't always count on the free market to solve out problems. Because sometimes are problems can't be solved profitably.
Oh, and do you think the car companies would have been able to make the money they did without the massive taxpayer investment in car transportation? By which I mean the interstate system, traffic lights, safety regulation, traffic cops, paving roads, yearly maintenance, etc, etc. Total cost to taxpayers in 2005 dollars since 1957? At least 5 trillion dollars by my hasty calculations.
I hate conspiracy theories as much as the next guy. But sometimes there actually is a conspiracy. This seems to happen whenever what makes companies bigger profits is not necessarily in the public interest. Classic example: streetcars and freeways. Just because something is not going to be a money maker doesn't necessarily make it bad. I think a lot of americans (especially in the west) seem to think that if something is not profitable it is by definition bad. We went through this here in Denver as the city started building out light rail and commuter rail. Opponents argued that is wasn't going to make any money. Which completely misses the point, if mass transit made money private companies would do it. But mass transit makes cities better and improves the quality of life of the citizens. It can also be argued that intermodal transportation improves the economic viability of a city, but that is not proven.
Ok, so we all agree then that GM killed the product because it wasn't going to be particularly profitable compared to other products (trucks/suvs). In fact, if they knew it wouldn't make any (or enough) money they would do whatever it took to make sure the product failed. The problem was that they had already hyped their involvement. They had a strong incentive to kill the project, but from a PR standpoint they had to make sure it wasn't obvious. There really was a conspiracy here, but the problem isn't GM. They did what big companies do.
The problem is that in this country we are so worried about big companies making money that we aren't worrying about the consequences. The government needs to actively invest in energy and transportation alternatives because business is just not going to do it on their own. Maybe if GM invested 15 billion dollars they could come up with a nice green care that made them money, but the up-front R&D is so costly they can't afford it. This is what governments are for. They allow all of us, as a county, to invest in something that may not generate profits next quarter, or next year. But twenty years down the line we will all be glad we made the investment.
You are right about a couple of things:
The argument people are making here is exactly the one you are making. GM did not want to sell and electric car. They thought that the products that would make them the most money would be traditional cars and especially trucks. They didn't WANT people to want electric cars so they did whatever it took to keep it that way. The company has no incentive to market electric vehicles, so they don't. But the issue here is that higher margin products for GM are not what necessarily benefit the consumer or anyone else in this country or the world. I don't think electric cars are the future because they are going to make a bunch of investors rich. Sometimes the things society needs aren't going to make anyone rich,
I'm using Zend studio right now on windows and launched fast and runs great. This is the app that convinced me that java/swing is a legit way to write desktop apps. Unless its a game or a graphics app interpreted code works. And java/swing is portable, so it doesn't matter what os you run on.
Uhh, the display layer? That is a great architecture a lot of people with huge apps are using. Backend in compiled c (including the RDMS of course) and display layer in php/perl/python. Scales all the way up to the size of yahoo and google.
I get designs from print people that require using absolute. I think part of the process of turning a design in to a template is for better or worse doing what the designer intended. So I would say fully relative positioned "bullerproof" layouts are the ideal, but in practice aren't always possible.
That and $100 million of five years is NOTHING for a company like BofA. They pull in $16 billion a year in profit. They improved their margins by one tenth of a percent. That has to be worth it.
Yes, but BofA is insanely profitable. Saving 100 million a year counts for little to nothing in a company that pulls in $16 billion in profit every year. The fact that they are getting rid of a 100 good paying jobs in america so their profit margin improves by one tenth of a percent is pretty damn insulting. This kind of behavior is going to bite theses companies in the ass one day, because as their customers are middle class americans. And they are slowing getting rid of middle class jobs. It really pisses me off when public companies feel the need to cut jobs, salaries and move overseas to improve their profits.
Insult to injury, Ken Lewis (BofA CEO) is making $20 million a year. In 1999 they gave the old CEO $76 million. And to save a pathetic 20 million a year they are moving hundreds of jobs to india? Man screw those people.
I have to agree with you. In the bay area there are 20 new jobs in web dev every day on dice.com. And they pay six figures (in Bay Area dollars that is a lot less of course). My company in Denver is doing a healthy business, and demand is quite low by national standards here. If you can put years of experience with the right buzzwords on your resume you should be good to go. My only other theory is that the poster lives in the wrong place and there really is no work. With a family relocation can be daunting.
Man, screw those people. That is our new policy at our company. If someone tells us we cost to much and someone else can do it better, cheaper we let them go. I don't need people that are going to nickle and dime. If they really think that web dev is easy and shouldn't cost money they can do it on their own.
I started out doing 3d graphics and slowly I ended up in web dev and I love doing it. But I am the kind of person that like to learn new languages and frameworks on the weekend. I just happen to really like doing it, it pays well and there are plenty of jobs. Not only that, but the competion isn't ultra-fierce like it is in 3d, which I like. 3d graphics is a glamorous but underpaid overworked hell that will never get you anywhere. Web dev is a huge industry that continues to grow. It pays well and has room for growth. No, you mostly likely will never be a millionare, but its a job that can always challenge you and pay you a real middle class salary.
One catch, however. The jobs aren't everywhere. The majority of the work seems to be concentrated in texas, Silicon Valley, LA and greater NYC.
ha you are right. I am working on a new job. interviewed for one on solaris/jsp and the other on lamp. have to relocate though. oddly there are very few web jobs in denver
mod_rewrite. Absolutly essential. I know you can do this with asp.net now, but it is nowhere near as powerful as apache mod-rewrite or ISAPI rewrite. And I know this is unfair, but my experience with windows has been that people in a windows environment do not trust open source. Here we are 100% windows and even installing the OSS IIS mod_Rewrite is a no go. I think for me IIS and windows server hatred is really just an aesthetic thing. I don't like it. I log in through terminal services and click around to do things and it just makes me unhappy. I never even knew there was a text way of doing things, but I don't get to decide how to use the server because I am not the admin. I can log in and create websites and directories, but I have to suffer through that clicktastic hell.
I admit I am biased. But that is the issue. I am biased against IIS. I want to work with LAMP as much as possible, which is why I fear IIS adoption. Not because it is objectively worse, but because I don't like it.
For people like myself that work in web dev, this isn't religion. Its practical. Most of us have to work on what our employers work on. More gains for IIS mean more chances we have to work with it. If you have experience with apache IIS is like stabbing yourself in the head. If you want any extra features you often have to buy them, everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell and ISAPI hurts my brain. I'm sure that IIS is perfectly capable, but I just don't like it. So when I hear more people are switching it fills me with dread.
That's right, ten inches in a foot. 100 inches in a yard and 1000 yards in a mile. What could possibly go wrong?
Dr science posts to slashdot! He's not a real doctor you know...
Sorry, we aren't going to make that. Love, The manufacturers
Ahh! to much crap! Stop with the crap microsoft! I want an os that works reliably. That should be job one. Extra features just mean extra bugs.
But wouldn't it be nice if WordPad output clean xml with XSLT styles?