Anyone who can't find lots of qualified workers in this market is completely incompetent. But mostly, they are looking for developers who will slave away according to their misconceptions instead of being able to improve and take ownership in the project and at their preferred wage scales, so they go after immigrants who don't know any better.
Any job where they allow you to think, much less encourage you to do so is few and far between. I cannot find such work after much effort, and I have directed many dozens of people interested in such work over the years to find a real job in another career. I will do other non-computer work before I sign up for the computing sweat-shops that won't even allow me to make house payments or significantly improve their infrastructure -- that and I will work on my own computing innovations on the side that are risky but far less so than the migrant-worker treatment most people get from the industry these days.
The smaller the registrar, the more-likely they would be able to reserve the name you want since every registrar got one connection regardless of how many names they served.
Big mistake because they apparently just held the registration until April 7th instead of helping with any sort of actual registration, so I discover that half a dozen businesses are ahead of me now in the queue.
Evil Microsoft aside. Let us suppose that this is the same level of documentation Microsoft's internal development teams get.
With one advantage. Most Micosoft teams have been on the same campus so they can go around and talk to the team that developed it or to others who have talked to the team that developed it.
But the very requirement that it be high-priced and obscenely profitable warps the development to an extreme degree at various levels, both in the value of the drug to the masses who cannot afford it, after such huge moneys were spent on it that might have been spent on a more-rational approach if one of the requirements had not been developing something so different from traditional approaches that no one else would be allowed to copy it when it was completed.
People might make the same argument about an operating system, that no one would produce one given the high costs if it were not possible to earn high profits from every copy sold. If (and this is a big if) it were impossible to do the research in any other way, charitable organizations could easily help, if it weren't for all the patent minefields and money of the drug cartel that obstructs them today. Research would not be done in the same way as today, and that would be a good thing. If drug research is the best argument you have, your argument is lost.
Like their illegal drug counterparts, if it were not for the laws restricting their development and production, the free market would reduce the prices and they would be developed anyway. I'd like to see how much of the actual money for all the supporting research aids drugs came from public coffers anyway, only to have the resulting drugs patented and exploited by the few.
I wonder what it would be like if everyone who invented the same device could receive their own patents as long as their applications were filed before any were published.
But this still cuts out all those who legitimately develop something obvious after it has been patented. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to a patent examiner. Just because it was not obvious to a patent examiner does not mean it would not have been obvious to any number of others who are at the top of their fields and should have the right to do research without the landmines laid everywhere for them by the government-granted monopolies or even oligopolies you propose. It would still be badly broken. It denies others the right to independently develop without paying taxes to the one who hired the lawyers first.
Now, if he could apply the same wisdom to SQL, etc
on
Exploring Active Record
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What turns me off is forcing you to store all your data persistence into SQL and relational tables, when it is clearly a hierarchy of objects. Why does everyone think they have to do that? The software would function much more simply and the data would typically work better without it.
Now all we need is a company that stands behind it
on
MacBook Pro Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As owner of a G4 PowerBook, AppleCare does not happily repair the many defects discovered during the warranty periods of their hardware.
The list of defective parts is long, and there are some things broken by simple use that they refuse to fix under warranty.
Every user experience is different, but it makes me sad I encouraged our research project to use a lot of Apple hardware from XServers to powerbooks and desktops.
The result with generic hardware (which I have used often in the past) or Dell hardware would have cost less and hardly could have been worse from a support or defect perspective. How is switching to a new CPU going to affect the basic experience that Apple really sucks as a hardware producer and as a support company.
Take away the patents they worship that make them waste all their efforts on new patents for things that already have effective cures and I guarantee you that development priorities will change.
I think research might be better motivated by charitable institutions saying: "we offer $X reward to companies working on these problems, or as a prize to the one who can come up with the cure.
Charitable organizations are part of the free market too, and their operation in this domain is greatly hindered by patents.
Losing a patented cure that I and my children cannot afford anyway doesn't worry me in the slightest. Government monopolies are not free market.
Other elected governments get compared with Hitler by the neocons in the administration when they consolidate power. (for example Rumsfeld or Bush referring to Chavez or the Iranian leader, apparently in the desire to run up to another war).
Many interpret the acts of Bush as not much different, even some real conservatives.
GPL only relies on copyright in the first place to combat abusiveness of copyrights with respect to software.
Copyright was originally supposed to be given back to the public domain after N years. Fix copyright, don't destroy GPL's ability to combat it's abuses. It needs these protections just as much after N years, because the abuses of copyright exist just as much then. If copyright were fixed, it would be a fixed in a much better way for GPL.
Certainly Thomas Moore, as depicted in "A Man for All Seasons", was referring to the verses in the Bible. He was, in amazing good humor, addressing a man who had just lied about him in court and caused him to be sentanced to death, in exchange for being appointed as an official over Wales, also poking fun at Wales in the process. He actually said something like:
"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...But for Wales?"
I just substituted Oswald for Wales because I thought it was appropriate. The joke, if it was any good at all, is completely lost on people not familiar with the Thomas Moore, because no humor seems inherent intended in the biblical verse as you cite it. It took the situation of Thomas Moore to make good humor of it.
Amen, preach it. I recognized the Republican party leadership was doing (practically) nothing but lying ever since they went after Clinton. Bush has only reinforced my view of this. I for one am glad the Democratic party is becoming more conservative, I have a home where I am comfortable and the leaders don't lie.
I only see the Democratic party becoming more conservative in a neoconservative sort of way, not caring about individual liberties. As for the leaders not lying, while Clinton was not caught lying about National Security, such blatant perjury is still alarming (just because Bush was an order of magnitude worse, does not make him not bad) and Hillary is caught up in the Iran WMD scam that is a repetition of Iraq, helping give Bush all the cover he could want. If Iran never had a legitimate reason for wanting nuclear weapons before, they clearly have one now. Disarm Israel and Pakistan, which are arguably at least as dangerous with nuclear weapons as Iran, and then you might have some credibility. At this point, someone who thinks there should be a balance of power in the world might find themselves secretly cheering for Iran, because nuclear weapons would hopefully make militant fascists like Bush think twice before invading more and more countries.
A choice in 2008 between McCain and Hillary is no choice. Democrats have sold out at least as badly as the Republicans, but just as the Republicans looked much better when they were out of power and pretending to stand on principle, it is as hard to find a Democrat with actual integrity and a sense to stick up for the rights of all people who is in office as it is to find a Republican.
I believe all the intelligence agencies I've listed came down with the same
conclusion and have heard quotes (C-Span and radio)from the late 90's with all the Democrats I listed saying exactly what the Bush administration said right up until the invasion.
Because you have said you believe it, we all need to just accept it as truth and stop calling the statements lies. You ignore the repeated statements by these agencies about how the Bush administration distorted their information, by removing all the cateats, just because these statements don't make it into Fox news. The Bush administration and you only listened to the liars and privately or publicly smeared or destroyed everyone who was telling the truth. You a bunch of pathological liars, with a lot of blood on your hands, both of Americans, Iraqis, etc today and of the many Americans who fought to secure our freedom which you are so happy to surrender. You have fought a war of agression with no supportable justification ever expressed.
You also completely fail to cite any checkable reference for your information that these sources were 100% behind the Bush cherry-picked position. Bush and neocons even went so far as to try to claim that the UN weapons inspectors were 100% behind their position, which was also a lie. You have presented nothing of any credibility to refute. Every intelligence agency had questions. That is what they do. But serious allegations were discredited by everyone who bothered to check up on them. That is also what real intelligence agencies do. To claim they "were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's" is a lie, and the reason your logic is irrefutable to you is your approach which is partisan and would never question any action Bush might take, which is what scares those concerned with rights and civil liberties, which used to be legitimate Republican concerns.
Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's. Maybe they were all wrong (you really think everyone worldwide was so misled?), however if you believe recent reports from certain Iraqi sources about mass movements of materials to Syria just prior ot the invasion then the jury is still out on this. But lying?
This is a lie. And for many of us, becoming anti-Bush (I have been a conservative Republican for 25 years) has to do with the obvious lies of the Bush administration (that we elected the first time) that you insist on propagating. You lie to members of all parties and your lie is often repeated by members of both parties, but it is a lie, even to those who are conservative but no longer have a party to turn to.
It is reasonable to assume that fewer and fewer people will
be killed there as time goes on from now, so the end result is that
more people would have died had we not gone to war.
That is no more reasonable than many other assumptions on which this war rests, and your numbers are questionable in the first place. And from what I generally know of Sunni and Shiite people, I would rather deal with the Sunnis, as did the administrations for many years, than another Iran. The problems, from the beginning have always been made worse by our interventions and you have no credible evidence that this will not continue to be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who can't find lots of qualified workers in this market is completely incompetent. But mostly, they are looking for developers who will slave away according to their misconceptions instead of being able to improve and take ownership in the project and at their preferred wage scales, so they go after immigrants who don't know any better.
Any job where they allow you to think, much less encourage you to do so is few and far between. I cannot find such work after much effort, and I have directed many dozens of people interested in such work over the years to find a real job in another career. I will do other non-computer work before I sign up for the computing sweat-shops that won't even allow me to make house payments or significantly improve their infrastructure -- that and I will work on my own computing innovations on the side that are risky but far less so than the migrant-worker treatment most people get from the industry these days.
The smaller the registrar, the more-likely they would be able to reserve the name you want since every registrar got one connection regardless of how many names they served.
GoDaddy had no link to landrush or sunrise, but only added .eu as a domain you could purchase.
Big mistake because they apparently just held the registration until April 7th instead of helping with any sort of actual registration, so I discover that half a dozen businesses are ahead of me now in the queue.
If the two founders never sold any stock, they wouldn't have any visible riches.
Do not confuse leveraged market share with any real contribution they are making to peoples' experience.
Evil Microsoft aside. Let us suppose that this is the same level of documentation Microsoft's internal development teams get.
With one advantage. Most Micosoft teams have been on the same campus so they can go around and talk to the team that developed it or to others who have talked to the team that developed it.
and even probe about a kilometre beneath its surface to hunt for water
This was the fallback mission in case it deorbited by mistake.
But the very requirement that it be high-priced and obscenely profitable warps the development to an extreme degree at various levels, both in the value of the drug to the masses who cannot afford it, after such huge moneys were spent on it that might have been spent on a more-rational approach if one of the requirements had not been developing something so different from traditional approaches that no one else would be allowed to copy it when it was completed.
People might make the same argument about an operating system, that no one would produce one given the high costs if it were not possible to earn high profits from every copy sold. If (and this is a big if) it were impossible to do the research in any other way, charitable organizations could easily help, if it weren't for all the patent minefields and money of the drug cartel that obstructs them today. Research would not be done in the same way as today, and that would be a good thing. If drug research is the best argument you have, your argument is lost.
Like their illegal drug counterparts, if it were not for the laws restricting their development and production, the free market would reduce the prices and they would be developed anyway. I'd like to see how much of the actual money for all the supporting research aids drugs came from public coffers anyway, only to have the resulting drugs patented and exploited by the few.
I wonder what it would be like if everyone who invented the same device could receive their own patents as long as their applications were filed before any were published.
But this still cuts out all those who legitimately develop something obvious after it has been patented. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to a patent examiner. Just because it was not obvious to a patent examiner does not mean it would not have been obvious to any number of others who are at the top of their fields and should have the right to do research without the landmines laid everywhere for them by the government-granted monopolies or even oligopolies you propose. It would still be badly broken. It denies others the right to independently develop without paying taxes to the one who hired the lawyers first.
What turns me off is forcing you to store all your data persistence into SQL and relational tables, when it is clearly a hierarchy of objects. Why does everyone think they have to do that? The software would function much more simply and the data would typically work better without it.
As owner of a G4 PowerBook, AppleCare does not happily repair the many defects discovered during the warranty periods of their hardware.
The list of defective parts is long, and there are some things broken by simple use that they refuse to fix under warranty.
Every user experience is different, but it makes me sad I encouraged our research project to use a lot of Apple hardware from XServers to powerbooks and desktops.
The result with generic hardware (which I have used often in the past) or Dell hardware would have cost less and hardly could have been worse from a support or defect perspective. How is switching to a new CPU going to affect the basic experience that Apple really sucks as a hardware producer and as a support company.
New laws aren't going to change that fact.
Take away the patents they worship that make them waste all their efforts on new patents for things that already have effective cures and I guarantee you that development priorities will change.
I think research might be better motivated by charitable institutions saying: "we offer $X reward to companies working on these problems, or as a prize to the one who can come up with the cure.
Charitable organizations are part of the free market too, and their operation in this domain is greatly hindered by patents.
Losing a patented cure that I and my children cannot afford anyway doesn't worry me in the slightest. Government monopolies are not free market.
Other elected governments get compared with Hitler by the neocons in the administration when they consolidate power. (for example Rumsfeld or Bush referring to Chavez or the Iranian leader, apparently in the desire to run up to another war).
Many interpret the acts of Bush as not much different, even some real conservatives.
GPL only relies on copyright in the first place to combat abusiveness of copyrights with respect to software.
Copyright was originally supposed to be given back to the public domain after N years. Fix copyright, don't destroy GPL's ability to combat it's abuses. It needs these protections just as much after N years, because the abuses of copyright exist just as much then. If copyright were fixed, it would be a fixed in a much better way for GPL.
Godwin naziism is its own attempt at censorship.
Certainly Thomas Moore, as depicted in "A Man for All Seasons", was referring to the verses in the Bible. He was, in amazing good humor, addressing a man who had just lied about him in court and caused him to be sentanced to death, in exchange for being appointed as an official over Wales, also poking fun at Wales in the process. He actually said something like:
"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ...But for Wales?"
I just substituted Oswald for Wales because I thought it was appropriate. The joke, if it was any good at all, is completely lost on people not familiar with the Thomas Moore, because no humor seems inherent intended in the biblical verse as you cite it. It took the situation of Thomas Moore to make good humor of it.
The home was 400 million. The taxes were 8 million.
"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ...But for Oswald?" (Thomas Moore, sort of)
Apologies in advance for the attempt at humor, but it was what popped in to my head.
Amen, preach it. I recognized the Republican party leadership was doing (practically) nothing but lying ever since they went after Clinton. Bush has only reinforced my view of this. I for one am glad the Democratic party is becoming more conservative, I have a home where I am comfortable and the leaders don't lie.
I only see the Democratic party becoming more conservative in a neoconservative sort of way, not caring about individual liberties. As for the leaders not lying, while Clinton was not caught lying about National Security, such blatant perjury is still alarming (just because Bush was an order of magnitude worse, does not make him not bad) and Hillary is caught up in the Iran WMD scam that is a repetition of Iraq, helping give Bush all the cover he could want. If Iran never had a legitimate reason for wanting nuclear weapons before, they clearly have one now. Disarm Israel and Pakistan, which are arguably at least as dangerous with nuclear weapons as Iran, and then you might have some credibility. At this point, someone who thinks there should be a balance of power in the world might find themselves secretly cheering for Iran, because nuclear weapons would hopefully make militant fascists like Bush think twice before invading more and more countries.
A choice in 2008 between McCain and Hillary is no choice. Democrats have sold out at least as badly as the Republicans, but just as the Republicans looked much better when they were out of power and pretending to stand on principle, it is as hard to find a Democrat with actual integrity and a sense to stick up for the rights of all people who is in office as it is to find a Republican.
I believe all the intelligence agencies I've listed came down with the same conclusion and have heard quotes (C-Span and radio)from the late 90's with all the Democrats I listed saying exactly what the Bush administration said right up until the invasion.
Because you have said you believe it, we all need to just accept it as truth and stop calling the statements lies. You ignore the repeated statements by these agencies about how the Bush administration distorted their information, by removing all the cateats, just because these statements don't make it into Fox news. The Bush administration and you only listened to the liars and privately or publicly smeared or destroyed everyone who was telling the truth. You a bunch of pathological liars, with a lot of blood on your hands, both of Americans, Iraqis, etc today and of the many Americans who fought to secure our freedom which you are so happy to surrender. You have fought a war of agression with no supportable justification ever expressed.
You also completely fail to cite any checkable reference for your information that these sources were 100% behind the Bush cherry-picked position. Bush and neocons even went so far as to try to claim that the UN weapons inspectors were 100% behind their position, which was also a lie. You have presented nothing of any credibility to refute. Every intelligence agency had questions. That is what they do. But serious allegations were discredited by everyone who bothered to check up on them. That is also what real intelligence agencies do. To claim they "were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's" is a lie, and the reason your logic is irrefutable to you is your approach which is partisan and would never question any action Bush might take, which is what scares those concerned with rights and civil liberties, which used to be legitimate Republican concerns.
Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's. Maybe they were all wrong (you really think everyone worldwide was so misled?), however if you believe recent reports from certain Iraqi sources about mass movements of materials to Syria just prior ot the invasion then the jury is still out on this. But lying?
This is a lie. And for many of us, becoming anti-Bush (I have been a conservative Republican for 25 years) has to do with the obvious lies of the Bush administration (that we elected the first time) that you insist on propagating. You lie to members of all parties and your lie is often repeated by members of both parties, but it is a lie, even to those who are conservative but no longer have a party to turn to.
There would have had to have been a choice.
It is reasonable to assume that fewer and fewer people will be killed there as time goes on from now, so the end result is that more people would have died had we not gone to war.
That is no more reasonable than many other assumptions on which this war rests, and your numbers are questionable in the first place. And from what I generally know of Sunni and Shiite people, I would rather deal with the Sunnis, as did the administrations for many years, than another Iran. The problems, from the beginning have always been made worse by our interventions and you have no credible evidence that this will not continue to be the case.