G is closer to 25% of Y; C is over 60%. If you don't understand what I've just said (and I expect you don't), you may wish to consider reading an introductory economics textbook before publicly demonstrating your ignorance.
Six senators per state, not five (and two for the territories). A quota is 14.3% - 5% doesn't help that much, although the preference allocation may be relevant.
I quit Goodkind when his fascism became a sledgehammer. Mr Whatshisname (Richard?) slices and dices his way through hordes of innocents in an attempt to murder some supposed bad guy, but gets to remain the hero, in spite of being an obvious psychopath.
"If history does not agree with their conclusions, they modify their conclusions" Actually, they modify the history. The conclusions are never wrong (as can be seen by those in this thread advocating for more free markets even after the current lack of regulation has caused problems worldwide.
You are as ignorant as you are vague. CoS has nothing to do with Mormonism and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was shot, not beaten, and it was by a mob of people he did not defraud, and didn't even know.
Yeah, it saved them the time of getting to know him (and giving him the chance to defraud them) before they shot him.
Because enforcing laws against spam are like enforcing laws against oral sex. How exactly do you plan to track down and punish lawbreakers without big brother style surveillance?
A lot of spam is aimed at getting money. So, follow the money (hey, that sounds like a good catchphrase).
Because, Mr. IT Manager, every time your developers try to push to develop a re-usable wheel API and well-encapsulated library, you say "We don't have time to do all of that, just do a one-off and ship it." That is why you reinvent the wheel in every project.
Now you're just trolling. I never view development as a 'one-off'. There's always a bigger picture, especially as we're an in-house development team. And like Duke Nukem Forever, we deliver when it's ready. Unlike Duke Nuken Forever, 'when it's ready' is typically around when we said it would be. This is because a common language allows for better re-use of code, and a modular development environment (which a common language facilitates) means we have a base level of tools that make every subsequent application half-finished before our staff ask for it, because the core environment's already there. Standardisation is not always the right thing to do, but when you work with a development team, you just can't diversify because developer X prefers one language and developer Y prefers another.
It's somewhat frustrating when people respond to the point they've decided you're making, rather than actually reading a post.
I am not entirely sure that you've understood what's been written on this topic. There will be times where you won't want to standardise. You might use a combination - you might be writing much more complicated applications and Java might be more suitable. You might want to use more than one language. The point, however, is that each additional cost (and every new language is a cost of one sort or another) must be justified. I don't think we're disagreeing here, but I also don't think you've been paying attention.
Do you think it would be reasonable to standardize on PHP for web applications?
I've been in an area where this was done. It was done because the nature of the web applications that were being written did not require both PHP and Cold Fusion. Either language had the same result (as far as we were concerned), staff were trained in both, it was as easy to find PHP developers as it was CF developers, and one didn't cost us anything to run and came packaged already.
There will be times where you won't want to standardise on PHP. You might use a combination - you might be writing much more complicated applications and Java might be more suitable. You might want to use more than one language. The point, however, is that each additional cost (and every new language is a cost of one sort or another) must be justified.
One tool can't do everything. Too many tools lead to organization problems, etc. Generally, a small toolbox with good selection of tools is your best bet.
I'm looking at standardisation, and I'd agree with this, as long as each tool is justified in that toolbox. However, what drove me to comment is this:
Don't worry to much about it though since office politics will just screw it up anyway.
You're part of office politics too, you know. It's a part of working with one or more people - if you don't like it, change it or find somewhere else.
These kinds of things are usually dictated by a CIO who knows nothing. They are usually pushed by a vendor (either MS or Sun) and after a few dinners, a golf outing or two and maybe a nice watch the CIO makes the ruling that everybody is going to use the same language.
That's... one way of looking at it. A wrong way, but a way nonetheless. Did you ever consider that each extra language costs money (whether the environments are free or not) to implement? Why should I have four languages that all produce web applications when any one of those four can perform the same tasks as the other three? What possible reason is there to re-invent the wheel three times?
I'm an IT Manager, pushing standardisation. No dinner, no golf (that'd ensure I didn't use that vendor's language), no watch. As to whether I know anything, I guess you'll have to track down the people in my area. The development manager seems to think we're on the right track though.
The parent is speaking of company-wide decisions. It makes a lot more sense to write a video game in C than in PHP, in the general case. It makes a lot more sense to write a web site in PHP, than in C, in the general case. You don't want to force your developers into an awkward scenario by having a company standard tool.
I'm looking at standardising on one language. The problem with the original post is that we don't know enough about the company. My environment is all web-based programming. One language seems pretty much the same as any other (the disclaimer is that I'm the IT Manager, not a developer). We have four or five different languages in use, and we're paying for training and application servers for each one, as well as using server resources running each of them. As the end result will always be a web application, I can't see a need for those four or five different languages, with the costs that they impose.
'IT' needs access to do its job. We need *total* access to all systems and data or we cant be effective and might as well not goto work.
I reckon this is rubbish. I reckon that user data should be encrypted, so that only the people who the user wants to give access to it gets access to it, and that includes IT staff. If I get my way - and as an IT Manager I just might - I'll be putting in place systems that devolve authority to determine who reads what to the people who own the data, and that's not the IT staff.
Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.
Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that country, or against the US.
We also assist the US in its illegal wars in the (so far) vain hope that we'll score some trade benefits from it.
I'm looking forward to unAmerican thoughts becoming criminalised in the US, so that I can be extradited and tried for this Slashdot post...
I've started my own party (see sig) because quite frankly, I am not enamoured with the policies of most current parties (Greens are probably most along my lines of thought and are probably the exception to this).
Then join the Greens. I did. I found it easier to sign up and deal with the differences, and therefore be a member of a political party that gets people elected.
This is beautiful... you've been in my Friends group for a while, mainly because of comments like this. I may lose karma for it (who cares, I've got some to burn) but it's worth it to congratulate you for your great use of language.
The liberal notion of UHC often ignores the financial and administrative burden that's attached to it.
The administration of our public health system is far cheaper than our private system. From memory, administration costs in the public system are half that of the private system. It takes little effort to see why this must inevitably be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
G is closer to 25% of Y; C is over 60%. If you don't understand what I've just said (and I expect you don't), you may wish to consider reading an introductory economics textbook before publicly demonstrating your ignorance.
Bob's not up for election this time - it's a half-Senate election. Christine Milne is - Bob's up in 2013.
Six senators per state, not five (and two for the territories). A quota is 14.3% - 5% doesn't help that much, although the preference allocation may be relevant.
It's not a high proportion. Donkey votes rank at no more than 1% of valid votes cast. Informal votes come in at around 5%.
Right. They're fucked. Their best hope was that all the dopes would get bored and get out. Now there's not a chance in hell of that happening.
Ratings need to go above 5. That's the funniest thing I'll read all year.
I quit Goodkind when his fascism became a sledgehammer. Mr Whatshisname (Richard?) slices and dices his way through hordes of innocents in an attempt to murder some supposed bad guy, but gets to remain the hero, in spite of being an obvious psychopath.
ad logicam: Claiming an advertisement is false because it was presented using a webcam.
Fixed it for you.
Brandon Stark, not Jon Snow.
"If history does not agree with their conclusions, they modify their conclusions"
Actually, they modify the history. The conclusions are never wrong (as can be seen by those in this thread advocating for more free markets even after the current lack of regulation has caused problems worldwide.
A lot of spam is aimed at getting money. So, follow the money (hey, that sounds like a good catchphrase).
Now you're just trolling. I never view development as a 'one-off'. There's always a bigger picture, especially as we're an in-house development team. And like Duke Nukem Forever, we deliver when it's ready. Unlike Duke Nuken Forever, 'when it's ready' is typically around when we said it would be. This is because a common language allows for better re-use of code, and a modular development environment (which a common language facilitates) means we have a base level of tools that make every subsequent application half-finished before our staff ask for it, because the core environment's already there. Standardisation is not always the right thing to do, but when you work with a development team, you just can't diversify because developer X prefers one language and developer Y prefers another.
It's somewhat frustrating when people respond to the point they've decided you're making, rather than actually reading a post.
Alister
I am not entirely sure that you've understood what's been written on this topic. There will be times where you won't want to standardise. You might use a combination - you might be writing much more complicated applications and Java might be more suitable. You might want to use more than one language. The point, however, is that each additional cost (and every new language is a cost of one sort or another) must be justified. I don't think we're disagreeing here, but I also don't think you've been paying attention.
Alister
I've been in an area where this was done. It was done because the nature of the web applications that were being written did not require both PHP and Cold Fusion. Either language had the same result (as far as we were concerned), staff were trained in both, it was as easy to find PHP developers as it was CF developers, and one didn't cost us anything to run and came packaged already.
There will be times where you won't want to standardise on PHP. You might use a combination - you might be writing much more complicated applications and Java might be more suitable. You might want to use more than one language. The point, however, is that each additional cost (and every new language is a cost of one sort or another) must be justified.
Alister
I'm looking at standardisation, and I'd agree with this, as long as each tool is justified in that toolbox. However, what drove me to comment is this:
You're part of office politics too, you know. It's a part of working with one or more people - if you don't like it, change it or find somewhere else.
Alister
That's ... one way of looking at it. A wrong way, but a way nonetheless. Did you ever consider that each extra language costs money (whether the environments are free or not) to implement? Why should I have four languages that all produce web applications when any one of those four can perform the same tasks as the other three? What possible reason is there to re-invent the wheel three times?
I'm an IT Manager, pushing standardisation. No dinner, no golf (that'd ensure I didn't use that vendor's language), no watch. As to whether I know anything, I guess you'll have to track down the people in my area. The development manager seems to think we're on the right track though.
Alister
I'm looking at standardising on one language. The problem with the original post is that we don't know enough about the company. My environment is all web-based programming. One language seems pretty much the same as any other (the disclaimer is that I'm the IT Manager, not a developer). We have four or five different languages in use, and we're paying for training and application servers for each one, as well as using server resources running each of them. As the end result will always be a web application, I can't see a need for those four or five different languages, with the costs that they impose.
Alister
Alister
Where's your reference? IIRC, 19 Australians were killed by the tsunami. All of them were in affected areas. None of those areas were Australia.
Alister
You know, I reckon those who didn't survive saw it coming too... and had a much better view of it.
Alister
Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that country, or against the US.
We also assist the US in its illegal wars in the (so far) vain hope that we'll score some trade benefits from it.
I'm looking forward to unAmerican thoughts becoming criminalised in the US, so that I can be extradited and tried for this Slashdot post...
Alister
Then join the Greens. I did. I found it easier to sign up and deal with the differences, and therefore be a member of a political party that gets people elected.
YKMV,
Alister
This is beautiful... you've been in my Friends group for a while, mainly because of comments like this. I may lose karma for it (who cares, I've got some to burn) but it's worth it to congratulate you for your great use of language.
The administration of our public health system is far cheaper than our private system. From memory, administration costs in the public system are half that of the private system. It takes little effort to see why this must inevitably be the case.