X++; is premature pessimization AND is less readable.
X++; reads: "create a temporary X and return it. Increment the original X. I shall destroy the temporary.
++X; reads: "increment X. Return it".
++X will almost never produce weird ref-counting side effects, etc that I can run into with X++. There's a whole lot less going on and alot less to think about. Any programmer that thinks X++ is MORE readable than ++X cannot be serious. They are so close in representation that it's simply a toss-up in readability of form. Readability of functionality there is no question that ++X is cleaner and clearer... and non-trivially faster for anything other than primitives.
If you think Windows can do development on a single proc machine than you are obviously not a developer on Windows. Windows doesn't give human interface interrupts schedualing priority or favor not swapping out user interactive processes from RAM. This actually speeds up your compiles (or any processor or RAM hungy process) non-trivially, which is what MS is going for. It also has the unfortunate effect of making your machine nearly unuseable while performing such hungry tasks. On a developer machine, typically, while doing heavy compiles which may take 30 minutes or more, saving 5-10 minutes of compile time is not as important as programming on another part of the system, writing unit tests, researching your next step, etc... A solaris, mac or linux box with a single proc can do these things, but on a windows box your going to be dead in the water on a single proc machine until your compile is done. This isn't a "sea of bitching" just an observation that if your going to be programming under windows, it's a near requirement you have at least a dual proc machine (since a single thread compile will leave a proc open for time schedualing). This requirement is not as stringent on other OS's for development, but a good idea nonetheless as the most processing power bang for your buck will be found with dual proc machines. IN my current situation I have alot of windows and linux machines I compile on interactively and in practice, during compiles, it takes a 3 Ghz quad proc P4 compiling under windows to match the human interface reactiveness of my dual proc 1 Ghz linux box. The windows boxes finish the compile sooner, however, but they simply can't be used. The poster was asking about "developer workstations" and this is my experience.
And a dual proc for your main machine (hyperthreading != dual proc) as you will be glad for the processing power when you have a pig of a compiler thread going. This counts double under windows that can't multi-thread worth a damn. (before you flame, I'm talking about HID priority interrupting, not basic time slicing, and if you don't understand my complaint, shut up now.)
Also get 2 extra machines.. They can be peices of cr*p, but you need 1) A clean test machine with no developer crud on it that can be wiped frequently and 2) A server machine for database testing, etc. The test machine should have it's own keyboard, mouse, monitor or at least be on a kvm... the server you can shove in a corner and ssh/TS to.
There was no assumption made until you made the asumption of a 32 bit platform. Your assumption, if used in the solution automatically creates a bug when the code is compiled on a platform of different word length.
I've also heard great things about the subversion integration with eclipse, in addition to CVS, and I'm about to check that out as I'm starting a new project and planning to use trac (http://www.edgewall.com./ Bust whatever you do, DO NOT use VSS, even for tightly coupled, single platform MS projects, no matter how much you like the interface and integration. That thing will eat your projects and spit them out. No one in Microsoft even uses that abomination. Your better off with RCS.
Your whole statement "You opened it, you close it" is the whole crux of the matter. Memory is just one of a multitude of resources, if I grab it, I should release it. Java takes that responsibility away from me, and does a pretty good job of it, although it breaks down occassionally. C++ gives me a language construct, destructors, that allows me a finer grained control over resource releasing, but with more control comes more responsibility. The downfall of Java's method is that although they provide a decent solution for the most common resource type, memory, they completely ignore all other resource types, which is fine except for the fact that they took away the most useful and simple method of freeing resources, the destructor. Now, when dealing with any resource other than memory, java is MUCH more prone to programming errors and resource leaks, particularly in the case of exception handling, because there is no simple mechanism to ensure they get freed and there is no general purpose resource garbage collection mechanism for non-memory. Forcing you to implement ref counts as a solution to the situation is the symptom of the poor decision to eliminate destructors in the first place. The fact that you can get around the language deficiency doesn't mean that the language doesn't have that deficiency (and ref counts come with alot more gotcha's than simple destructors).
On the downside of.NET... I *TRUST* the Java VM much more than the CLR. It's more mature and more stable right now in a production environment.
And don't go saying I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm on the SQL/Whidbey CLR integration team at A large institution that writes these sort of things in the Northwestern US. I see the CLR go down in flames regularly. It's going to be great, and it's well on it's way, but it's not quite ready to send J2EE packing just yet.
I've got to use the same arguement for Multiple inheritance. It absolutely great when done in a sane fashion. The occassional default implementation of an interface, or even more useful, inheriting from policy classes for decoupling are great uses of multi-inheritance. It's the OOP nightmare of deep, wide inheritance trees that leads to gouging your eyes out insanity and prayers for single inheritance, just like seeing an overloaded comma and tertiary is likely to make you swear off operator overloading. But that's a symptom of crazy programming, not a crazy language construct.
Biggest benefit of eclipse over VS.NET is the price:)
VS.NET has some features that are lacking in eclipse, the biggest one you are likely to miss is the tight integration of VS.NET with the Microsoft development tools. Eclipse is a much more generic IDE which is not so tightly coupled with any toolset (except java, which it is written in). A benefit in this approach you might find is precicely that it is NOT tightly coupled with Microsoft's toolset and other toolsets can be plugged in as easily, or more easily than Microsoft's giving you a wider range of possibilities. Eclipse has some very nice features, particularly in code redactoring, that Microsoft is copying in Whidbey, so the VS.NET won't lack those for long (MS isn't about to lose their competitive edge if they can help it). Also, if you are programming Java, you'd be crazy to use VS, as it just isn't wired to do that.
Overall, if you are programming C# on a Microsoft platform, and cost is not a factor, your probably better off with VS.NET right now, but Eclipse is free, so you can always download it and play aroundwith it and see if you like it. If you are on another OS, or you are programming in a non-microsoft Language, particularly java, Eclipse is almost definately a better IDE than VS. If you are programming in C++, then it's probably going to come down to personal preference, as both IDE's are pretty good for C++, with VS.NET having an edge right now... UNLESS your programming C++ using gcc, then the tight integration with VC++ in VS.NET will annoy you to no end.
Personally, for VC++ the last couple years on Microsoft platforms I've been sticking with Winsdk build.exe, nmake.exe and cl.exe toolset and using source insight and emacs for editing.. The MS IDE has become too clunky and tightly coupled for my tastes and can't handle large projects well. For non-MS development languages I generally use Emacs on whatever platform I'm using, except for java development, where I'm using Eclipse. Eclipse is replacing Emacs for me more and more though for non-java development as it matures. I expect it will completely replace emacs for me in the next 5 years, which is no small feat.
I last longer in bed apparently, according to all these antiwilly-chopper posts I've been reading. That's a plus in my book, and a big plus for me and my zipper wookie.
Overall, I personally have never had a problem with the hacksaw to the joystick I underwent way back when. Some people are shoving sticks and rings through their beaver busters, so what should anyone care what my pork and beans looks like except the people I let play with the ole one-eyed custard chucker. I've never had a woman complain about squirmin' Herman the one-eyed German even though he's long since taken off his cape. So lay off my Twat tickler and worry about your own intrusion protrusion.
- signed a man and his gleaming love sword. 8=====D
Well, I'm rather fond of my mutilated willy. We've been through alot together, much of it not quite normal. The thought of someone cutting away at your dick is quite nauseating to me as well however;)
Still, the idea that upward mobility is rare or impossible is crazy. More people switched classes upward in the 90's than any time in history. Billg himself, the richest man in the world is an example of that. *I* am an example of large class swing... I'm not rich, mind you, but I come from a lower middle class uneducated family, left home at 16, worked minimum wage and had my first child at 19 and here I am at 31 as upper middle class with a good income and huge prospects. 2006 will likely double my 2005 income and move me into upper class.
The lack of mobility in recent years is in traditional employment. No one these days is going to switch classes upward by maintaining a solid job and education. The free market however, is more open than ever as technology continues to rip holes in the competetive balance of power. Hell, I have a friend who went from middle class a couple years ago with a good, solid job to upper class solid 6-digit income *WALKING HER NEIGHBORS DOGS!* Anybody with a half ounce of innovation can move upward.
The fallacy of the American dream is that if you get a good education, good benefits and good employment with a good company and stay there for 40 years you will be better off than when you started. That's bullshit. If you do that you will bring in about 2-3% more each year over inflation until the age of about 33 when the raises no longer keep up with rising inflation, taxation and large ticket interest (housing). At that point of establishment you will begin falling behind in your income by 1-2% per year until you retire (at 70 for us genX tail enders) and begin to try to live on your assets and social security, which in real, post inflationary dollars is about 50-60% what it was during your peak earning years. You end up slightly behind where you started from. Yet that philosophy of work is preached in our schools and by our politicians, and if you look at the numbers from that treadmill, of course it looks like people can't get ahead.
Yes. I am currently liquidating a company with 30 people. These people are mostly lower middle class to upper lower class. This company has teetered on profitablility for 10 years, it has well over $60,000 and it is too high of a risk to keep alive. If the tax burden were just slightly less, the profitability of the company would be such that it would mitigate the risk, but that "small percentage of my income" is now causing those 30 employees to go give all those programs we've been funding a test spin. I've got better things to go spend my time on then sweating blood worrying about getting stuck with a bankruptcy trying to fund social programs for the less fortunate, I'm just going to create some more less fortunate for you to help and go do something else./one of those ex-less fortunate rich bastards//not really rich, but still a bastard///cares about employees enough to keep one of your tax revenue generators alive longer than he probably should have
You had any jobs that started at $10 an hour and most at $15, which were completely unskilled labor. That is my point exactly. According to all the arguments for minimum wage, you are a statistical impossibility. Don't your employers know that they could have paid you minimum wage? Or at least hire someone else to do your job for $8 an hour? Are they stupid? Oh wait... no halfway reliable person will work for that kind of money... I see... So it must be something called MARKET FORCES that keep an EFFECTIVE minimum wage without infringing upon the right of others and requiring no efforts (read overhead and taxes) to maintain.
and there are tons of unneccissary jobs. *I* for instance would hire a maid if I could get one to come 3 times a week for $35. I can't because of market forces keeping the minimum effective wage for maids above my expenditure level. If that line didn't exist, then there would be a whole new job created. If somebody wanted to scrape the moss out of the cracks in my sidewalk for $1 an hour, by all means let him... oh wait... That would be illegal. I guess my sidewalks will stay cruddy and that 18 kid will go without his chewing gum because the government impinges on our freedom just a little bit and it's all ok with you because it's not THAT big of a deal.
Let me tell you.. when your making $10 an hour, and your rent is due tomorrow and your $15 short, and that bit of weeding out in front of the office needs doing, but the office can't justify doing it for the $40 it will cost for 4 hours of work, but is totally happy with the $15 you would be willing to do it for to pay rent TOMORROW and there is no time to look for other work because RENT IS DUE. *NOW* tell me how you feel you live in a free country where men died for a govenment that forces you to choose between breaking the law and eviction of your family because of the giant crime of weeding. It's stupid and it's oppressive. Not Saddam Hussein oppressive, but oppresive nonetheless.
And the dreams to be rich aren't fallacious. Most of the rich used to be middle class and didn't sell out to the belief that their dreams were fallacious. Now they shouldn't be making laws that HURT the middle class, mind you, but you have to question the fact that people are making laws that hurt ANYONE in the first place. Governance isn't a zero sum game and I'm sick of left wingnuts preaching that it is.
Sorry. I'll calm down now... got a little excited there...:)
Assumptions can be made on educated guesses. Just be ready to adjust your assumptions if one proves wrong.
If I let go of this book, I can assume with a fair amount of authority that it will fall towards the center of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. If you are saying that I should also take into account the possibility that a giant worm monster from another dimension will transport itself using balognium to the giant worm pr0n shop, causing a chain reaction and reversing gravity in my frame... well, I guess that's possible, but I am going to hedge my bets and go with the book falling towards the floor.
We might go to mars and find the balognium worms that live on coca-cola, but PROBABLY not. If we do, then I'm sure we will have to come up with new hypothosis as to how things work and new categories for all that pr0n.
Well, actually, we can't be sure that the laws of physics are the same across the universe. They could be different elsewhere within certain margins that still explain what we see in remote places in the universe. The recent "speeding up" of the voyager probes might even be an example of something like that, but I would have to make a wild speculation and say I'm pretty darn sure that there are no major variations of physics between here and our closest neighbors.
None that could account for that sassy, precocious shade of yellow that exists on Magnoria Prime anyway;)
From the wiki:...The constitution, written in 1874, was revised in 1903...
The existing government isn't that old. It's only the parliment, which in times past has been relegated only to tradition, through blood feuds and near monarchies, that is really old.
I ignored the "important points" because they are not my primary concern with minimum wage. There are ample studies and statistics going the other way, however: General Accounting Office, "Minimum Wage Policy Questions Persist," in Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources 1983 to name one such report states that there was a markedly lower employment due to minimum wage, particularly in teenagers and minorities, and again, I could bring in other economic issues such as inflationary pressure to bolster my point. Nowhere does ANYONE claim that minimum wage boosts employment or reduces outsourcing or reduces corporate failure.
My primary objection is not statistical. If I could prove that an increased murder rate could boost the economy, I think we could agree that neither of us would condone murdering people. In my example I bring up the point that I broke the law, as did my boss. There was work to be done and he was willing to pay money to me to do it, and I was willing to do it for that sum, and yet that transaction between 2 consenting adults was illegal even though there was nothing inherently illegal about any part of it. Why on earth should I be disallowed the ability to make money at a wage amicable to me, and why should he be disallowed to give me money when I need it? You say I could move, but right there is the symptom of a bad law! I already have a profitable job, and I have someone who is willing to pay me extra to do extra work. Obviously the work is plentiful where I live, but your solution is to leave my profitable job in a work rich environment in order to try my luck elsewhere. My solution was to break the law and screw the government who was trying there best to "protect me" against my will. That is a moral arguement against a fundamentally flawed policy of a babysitter state. I already had a liveable wage... I wanted a bit more than "livable" and I got it by breaking the law (in a victimless crime. I see nothing unethical about honest employment regardless of what the state has to say about it.)
I don't doubt that other factors contribute much more to unemployment than minimum wage. Only a minute percentage of workers make minimum wage, and among them many are concidered unemployable and statistics aren't kept (minors, elderly). Even taking that into account there are bigger factors to unemployment such as laziness, corruption, economic downswing, industry closure, etc. And my personal story didn't even deal with a matter of unemployment... I was fully employed either way, but I was trying to get ahead with any extra I could do and was blocked by law in my efforts to be a more productive citizen.
This is why I can see giving help to the genuinely underemployed, and unemployed. But to make it more difficult for those who wish to remain or become independant from the welfare condition but who are on the cusp to do so is a outright crime in my opinion. THere are plenty of ways to help the poor without putting undo pressure on the ambitious among them, the employers of the poor, and Keynes himself.
Oh, and Ninety two million people were employed in the United States in 1990 with a total payroll of $2,145 billion. Only 12 million (13%) of these were employed in enterprises with more than 1000 employees while 50 million (54%) were employed in enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. Only 6000 employers (which could be no more than 60% of publicly traded corporations) had more than 1000 employees and these accounted for payrolls of $390 billion. (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994:546). Small and medium sized company dominate the employment field with small (less than 100 employees) companies accounting for over half of all employment. These are the companies minimum wage hurts worst, and remember... by taking out the company you aren't just sending the employees to the unemployment line, but the owners too, in addition to hurting their supliers and supliees (is that even a word? cuz I like it.) And I agree with you about the Republicans being slimey... no arguement there;)
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
You did not just compare that little doggie to grep did you?
McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burgur King, Wall Mart are all monolithic corporations. The majority of Americans are employed by small businesses that we've never heard of. Those are businesses with an already 90% failure rate, and they do indeed forgo basic mantainence if it costs too much and wage hikes do put them out of business. My example was not meant to provide evidence, but rather provide a personal view of how a hard working person gets screwed over by these laws and forced to break the law in order to escape from laws meant to protect him... this evidence isn't statistical it's moral.
And finally, I was refering to the "spend" part of the Republican party (although they have been raising taxes too, but giving high publicity cuts when it counts). The Repubs used to stand for "small government" way back when. Nowdays they preach that philosophy but in practice they have become another large government party. I agree that borrow-and-spend is insane, but it's the "spend" part I find most offensive, as I feel I can do more good with my dollars myself then the beaurocrats who draw salaries off of my money paid to find new ways to spend my money on programs that will cost even more of my money in the future... It's a matter of efficiency and personal responsibility.
1) As for workfare, I couldn't agree with you more. That's an excellent proposal... and far more conservative in the US than current policy I might add.
2) Child care for workfare if it's done right would be a good coverage as part of the system.
3) Again, carrying over medical insurance if it's done properly is fine. I think there should be charges here on a sliding scale, and I think it should only be there if the employer doesn't meet the coverage themselves.
4) Absolutely not. Minimum wage work does not equate directly to unskilled work. Most unskilled work makes higher than minimum wage. Raising minimum wage forces employers to reduce the amount of available jobs because there are many things that an employer would be willing to do, but not if it costs him $10 an hour. Think sweeping parking lots, touching up paint, etc. Minimum wage eliminates these jobs completely which could otherwise be used to suppliment someones job in order to get ahead. Here's a personal example: I worked for a warehouse when I was 19 and I really needed to make some extra cash on top of my non-minimum wage job. The work was not worth the time and a half they would have to pay me to work overtime, forcing me to search for part time employment elsewhere because the laws designed to protect me from being overworked are impeding me from removing myself from the middle class. Being resourcefull I try to get a part time job somewhere else, but work not coinciding with regular full time shifts is scarce. I make myself available to do ANY odd job for just about ANY amount of money.. the problem here is that most of those jobs are not worth minimum wage, so the employers don't offer them. After a while of frustration I was successfully able to make ends meet and get ahead enough to become a profitable software engineer ONLY by blatently breaking the law and going to work for employers at below minimum wage under the table. It all turned out well, because dispite all the governments "help" in trying to make me dependant on them I successfully became a criminal in order to achieve my current, very profitable (and taxable) position of Senior Software Architect. Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they intend to help, and I haven't even factored in inflationary pressures, company bankrupcys, industry elimination, overseas outsourcing and unemployment pressures into my arguement yet. Whether it's price caps or wage minimums, screwing with the fundamentals of Adam's invisible hand is always a bad idea.
5) This would be part of #1. Again, not a bad idea *IF* it's part of a workfare program and *IF* there is sufficient incentive or compulsion for workfare over welfare. Oh, and workfare should not be MORE expensive than current welfare. If anything, cut welfare to fund workfare.
As for your final question, the Republican party has become economically more and more liberal over the years to keep up in the votes, which is why they control all 3 houses, NOT because the population has gotten more conservative (economically). I actually left the Republican party years ago over that and am now certifiably Libertarian.
Um, I'm a journeyman brick mason thank you very much. And the years of packing hod that went into that profession is pretty damn close to picking up pony doo, and alot harder. So take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
X++; is premature pessimization AND is less readable.
X++; reads: "create a temporary X and return it. Increment the original X. I shall destroy the temporary.
++X; reads: "increment X. Return it".
++X will almost never produce weird ref-counting side effects, etc that I can run into with X++. There's a whole lot less going on and alot less to think about. Any programmer that thinks X++ is MORE readable than ++X cannot be serious. They are so close in representation that it's simply a toss-up in readability of form. Readability of functionality there is no question that ++X is cleaner and clearer... and non-trivially faster for anything other than primitives.
I'll feed ya ;)
If you think Windows can do development on a single proc machine than you are obviously not a developer on Windows. Windows doesn't give human interface interrupts schedualing priority or favor not swapping out user interactive processes from RAM. This actually speeds up your compiles (or any processor or RAM hungy process) non-trivially, which is what MS is going for. It also has the unfortunate effect of making your machine nearly unuseable while performing such hungry tasks. On a developer machine, typically, while doing heavy compiles which may take 30 minutes or more, saving 5-10 minutes of compile time is not as important as programming on another part of the system, writing unit tests, researching your next step, etc... A solaris, mac or linux box with a single proc can do these things, but on a windows box your going to be dead in the water on a single proc machine until your compile is done. This isn't a "sea of bitching" just an observation that if your going to be programming under windows, it's a near requirement you have at least a dual proc machine (since a single thread compile will leave a proc open for time schedualing). This requirement is not as stringent on other OS's for development, but a good idea nonetheless as the most processing power bang for your buck will be found with dual proc machines. IN my current situation I have alot of windows and linux machines I compile on interactively and in practice, during compiles, it takes a 3 Ghz quad proc P4 compiling under windows to match the human interface reactiveness of my dual proc 1 Ghz linux box. The windows boxes finish the compile sooner, however, but they simply can't be used. The poster was asking about "developer workstations" and this is my experience.
And a dual proc for your main machine (hyperthreading != dual proc) as you will be glad for the processing power when you have a pig of a compiler thread going. This counts double under windows that can't multi-thread worth a damn. (before you flame, I'm talking about HID priority interrupting, not basic time slicing, and if you don't understand my complaint, shut up now.)
Also get 2 extra machines.. They can be peices of cr*p, but you need 1) A clean test machine with no developer crud on it that can be wiped frequently and 2) A server machine for database testing, etc. The test machine should have it's own keyboard, mouse, monitor or at least be on a kvm... the server you can shove in a corner and ssh/TS to.
There was no assumption made until you made the asumption of a 32 bit platform. Your assumption, if used in the solution automatically creates a bug when the code is compiled on a platform of different word length.
Hehe. No apologies needed.
I've also heard great things about the subversion integration with eclipse, in addition to CVS, and I'm about to check that out as I'm starting a new project and planning to use trac (http://www.edgewall.com./ Bust whatever you do, DO NOT use VSS, even for tightly coupled, single platform MS projects, no matter how much you like the interface and integration. That thing will eat your projects and spit them out. No one in Microsoft even uses that abomination. Your better off with RCS.
.NET is most certainly written in C++, not C.
Your whole statement "You opened it, you close it" is the whole crux of the matter. Memory is just one of a multitude of resources, if I grab it, I should release it. Java takes that responsibility away from me, and does a pretty good job of it, although it breaks down occassionally. C++ gives me a language construct, destructors, that allows me a finer grained control over resource releasing, but with more control comes more responsibility. The downfall of Java's method is that although they provide a decent solution for the most common resource type, memory, they completely ignore all other resource types, which is fine except for the fact that they took away the most useful and simple method of freeing resources, the destructor. Now, when dealing with any resource other than memory, java is MUCH more prone to programming errors and resource leaks, particularly in the case of exception handling, because there is no simple mechanism to ensure they get freed and there is no general purpose resource garbage collection mechanism for non-memory. Forcing you to implement ref counts as a solution to the situation is the symptom of the poor decision to eliminate destructors in the first place. The fact that you can get around the language deficiency doesn't mean that the language doesn't have that deficiency (and ref counts come with alot more gotcha's than simple destructors).
If Sun had done that with Java, Jave wouldn't have superceeded C++, it would have BECOME C++.
Seriously.. what you are proposing is C++ with a single inheritance model and anonymous classes. Not alot of difference there.
On the downside of .NET... I *TRUST* the Java VM much more than the CLR. It's more mature and more stable right now in a production environment.
And don't go saying I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm on the SQL/Whidbey CLR integration team at A large institution that writes these sort of things in the Northwestern US. I see the CLR go down in flames regularly. It's going to be great, and it's well on it's way, but it's not quite ready to send J2EE packing just yet.
I've got to use the same arguement for Multiple inheritance. It absolutely great when done in a sane fashion. The occassional default implementation of an interface, or even more useful, inheriting from policy classes for decoupling are great uses of multi-inheritance. It's the OOP nightmare of deep, wide inheritance trees that leads to gouging your eyes out insanity and prayers for single inheritance, just like seeing an overloaded comma and tertiary is likely to make you swear off operator overloading. But that's a symptom of crazy programming, not a crazy language construct.
Biggest benefit of eclipse over VS.NET is the price :)
VS.NET has some features that are lacking in eclipse, the biggest one you are likely to miss is the tight integration of VS.NET with the Microsoft development tools. Eclipse is a much more generic IDE which is not so tightly coupled with any toolset (except java, which it is written in). A benefit in this approach you might find is precicely that it is NOT tightly coupled with Microsoft's toolset and other toolsets can be plugged in as easily, or more easily than Microsoft's giving you a wider range of possibilities. Eclipse has some very nice features, particularly in code redactoring, that Microsoft is copying in Whidbey, so the VS.NET won't lack those for long (MS isn't about to lose their competitive edge if they can help it). Also, if you are programming Java, you'd be crazy to use VS, as it just isn't wired to do that.
Overall, if you are programming C# on a Microsoft platform, and cost is not a factor, your probably better off with VS.NET right now, but Eclipse is free, so you can always download it and play aroundwith it and see if you like it. If you are on another OS, or you are programming in a non-microsoft Language, particularly java, Eclipse is almost definately a better IDE than VS. If you are programming in C++, then it's probably going to come down to personal preference, as both IDE's are pretty good for C++, with VS.NET having an edge right now... UNLESS your programming C++ using gcc, then the tight integration with VC++ in VS.NET will annoy you to no end.
Personally, for VC++ the last couple years on Microsoft platforms I've been sticking with Winsdk build.exe, nmake.exe and cl.exe toolset and using source insight and emacs for editing.. The MS IDE has become too clunky and tightly coupled for my tastes and can't handle large projects well. For non-MS development languages I generally use Emacs on whatever platform I'm using, except for java development, where I'm using Eclipse. Eclipse is replacing Emacs for me more and more though for non-java development as it matures. I expect it will completely replace emacs for me in the next 5 years, which is no small feat.
I last longer in bed apparently, according to all these antiwilly-chopper posts I've been reading. That's a plus in my book, and a big plus for me and my zipper wookie.
Overall, I personally have never had a problem with the hacksaw to the joystick I underwent way back when. Some people are shoving sticks and rings through their beaver busters, so what should anyone care what my pork and beans looks like except the people I let play with the ole one-eyed custard chucker. I've never had a woman complain about squirmin' Herman the one-eyed German even though he's long since taken off his cape. So lay off my Twat tickler and worry about your own intrusion protrusion.
- signed a man and his gleaming love sword.
8=====D
Well, I'm rather fond of my mutilated willy. We've been through alot together, much of it not quite normal. The thought of someone cutting away at your dick is quite nauseating to me as well however ;)
I wasn't defending Bush either :)
Still, the idea that upward mobility is rare or impossible is crazy. More people switched classes upward in the 90's than any time in history. Billg himself, the richest man in the world is an example of that. *I* am an example of large class swing... I'm not rich, mind you, but I come from a lower middle class uneducated family, left home at 16, worked minimum wage and had my first child at 19 and here I am at 31 as upper middle class with a good income and huge prospects. 2006 will likely double my 2005 income and move me into upper class.
The lack of mobility in recent years is in traditional employment. No one these days is going to switch classes upward by maintaining a solid job and education. The free market however, is more open than ever as technology continues to rip holes in the competetive balance of power. Hell, I have a friend who went from middle class a couple years ago with a good, solid job to upper class solid 6-digit income *WALKING HER NEIGHBORS DOGS!* Anybody with a half ounce of innovation can move upward.
The fallacy of the American dream is that if you get a good education, good benefits and good employment with a good company and stay there for 40 years you will be better off than when you started. That's bullshit. If you do that you will bring in about 2-3% more each year over inflation until the age of about 33 when the raises no longer keep up with rising inflation, taxation and large ticket interest (housing). At that point of establishment you will begin falling behind in your income by 1-2% per year until you retire (at 70 for us genX tail enders) and begin to try to live on your assets and social security, which in real, post inflationary dollars is about 50-60% what it was during your peak earning years. You end up slightly behind where you started from. Yet that philosophy of work is preached in our schools and by our politicians, and if you look at the numbers from that treadmill, of course it looks like people can't get ahead.
that should read "it has well over $60,000 per month of overhead"
Yes. I am currently liquidating a company with 30 people. These people are mostly lower middle class to upper lower class. This company has teetered on profitablility for 10 years, it has well over $60,000 and it is too high of a risk to keep alive. If the tax burden were just slightly less, the profitability of the company would be such that it would mitigate the risk, but that "small percentage of my income" is now causing those 30 employees to go give all those programs we've been funding a test spin. I've got better things to go spend my time on then sweating blood worrying about getting stuck with a bankruptcy trying to fund social programs for the less fortunate, I'm just going to create some more less fortunate for you to help and go do something else. /one of those ex-less fortunate rich bastards //not really rich, but still a bastard ///cares about employees enough to keep one of your tax revenue generators alive longer than he probably should have
You had any jobs that started at $10 an hour and most at $15, which were completely unskilled labor. That is my point exactly. According to all the arguments for minimum wage, you are a statistical impossibility. Don't your employers know that they could have paid you minimum wage? Or at least hire someone else to do your job for $8 an hour? Are they stupid? Oh wait... no halfway reliable person will work for that kind of money... I see... So it must be something called MARKET FORCES that keep an EFFECTIVE minimum wage without infringing upon the right of others and requiring no efforts (read overhead and taxes) to maintain.
:)
and there are tons of unneccissary jobs. *I* for instance would hire a maid if I could get one to come 3 times a week for $35. I can't because of market forces keeping the minimum effective wage for maids above my expenditure level. If that line didn't exist, then there would be a whole new job created. If somebody wanted to scrape the moss out of the cracks in my sidewalk for $1 an hour, by all means let him... oh wait... That would be illegal. I guess my sidewalks will stay cruddy and that 18 kid will go without his chewing gum because the government impinges on our freedom just a little bit and it's all ok with you because it's not THAT big of a deal.
Let me tell you.. when your making $10 an hour, and your rent is due tomorrow and your $15 short, and that bit of weeding out in front of the office needs doing, but the office can't justify doing it for the $40 it will cost for 4 hours of work, but is totally happy with the $15 you would be willing to do it for to pay rent TOMORROW and there is no time to look for other work because RENT IS DUE. *NOW* tell me how you feel you live in a free country where men died for a govenment that forces you to choose between breaking the law and eviction of your family because of the giant crime of weeding. It's stupid and it's oppressive. Not Saddam Hussein oppressive, but oppresive nonetheless.
And the dreams to be rich aren't fallacious. Most of the rich used to be middle class and didn't sell out to the belief that their dreams were fallacious. Now they shouldn't be making laws that HURT the middle class, mind you, but you have to question the fact that people are making laws that hurt ANYONE in the first place. Governance isn't a zero sum game and I'm sick of left wingnuts preaching that it is.
Sorry. I'll calm down now... got a little excited there...
Assumptions can be made on educated guesses. Just be ready to adjust your assumptions if one proves wrong.
If I let go of this book, I can assume with a fair amount of authority that it will fall towards the center of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. If you are saying that I should also take into account the possibility that a giant worm monster from another dimension will transport itself using balognium to the giant worm pr0n shop, causing a chain reaction and reversing gravity in my frame... well, I guess that's possible, but I am going to hedge my bets and go with the book falling towards the floor.
We might go to mars and find the balognium worms that live on coca-cola, but PROBABLY not. If we do, then I'm sure we will have to come up with new hypothosis as to how things work and new categories for all that pr0n.
Well, actually, we can't be sure that the laws of physics are the same across the universe. They could be different elsewhere within certain margins that still explain what we see in remote places in the universe. The recent "speeding up" of the voyager probes might even be an example of something like that, but I would have to make a wild speculation and say I'm pretty darn sure that there are no major variations of physics between here and our closest neighbors.
;)
None that could account for that sassy, precocious shade of yellow that exists on Magnoria Prime anyway
From the wiki: ...The constitution, written in 1874, was revised in 1903...
The existing government isn't that old. It's only the parliment, which in times past has been relegated only to tradition, through blood feuds and near monarchies, that is really old.
I ignored the "important points" because they are not my primary concern with minimum wage. There are ample studies and statistics going the other way, however: General Accounting Office, "Minimum Wage Policy Questions Persist," in Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources 1983 to name one such report states that there was a markedly lower employment due to minimum wage, particularly in teenagers and minorities, and again, I could bring in other economic issues such as inflationary pressure to bolster my point. Nowhere does ANYONE claim that minimum wage boosts employment or reduces outsourcing or reduces corporate failure.
;)
My primary objection is not statistical. If I could prove that an increased murder rate could boost the economy, I think we could agree that neither of us would condone murdering people. In my example I bring up the point that I broke the law, as did my boss. There was work to be done and he was willing to pay money to me to do it, and I was willing to do it for that sum, and yet that transaction between 2 consenting adults was illegal even though there was nothing inherently illegal about any part of it. Why on earth should I be disallowed the ability to make money at a wage amicable to me, and why should he be disallowed to give me money when I need it? You say I could move, but right there is the symptom of a bad law! I already have a profitable job, and I have someone who is willing to pay me extra to do extra work. Obviously the work is plentiful where I live, but your solution is to leave my profitable job in a work rich environment in order to try my luck elsewhere. My solution was to break the law and screw the government who was trying there best to "protect me" against my will. That is a moral arguement against a fundamentally flawed policy of a babysitter state. I already had a liveable wage... I wanted a bit more than "livable" and I got it by breaking the law (in a victimless crime. I see nothing unethical about honest employment regardless of what the state has to say about it.)
I don't doubt that other factors contribute much more to unemployment than minimum wage. Only a minute percentage of workers make minimum wage, and among them many are concidered unemployable and statistics aren't kept (minors, elderly). Even taking that into account there are bigger factors to unemployment such as laziness, corruption, economic downswing, industry closure, etc. And my personal story didn't even deal with a matter of unemployment... I was fully employed either way, but I was trying to get ahead with any extra I could do and was blocked by law in my efforts to be a more productive citizen.
This is why I can see giving help to the genuinely underemployed, and unemployed. But to make it more difficult for those who wish to remain or become independant from the welfare condition but who are on the cusp to do so is a outright crime in my opinion. THere are plenty of ways to help the poor without putting undo pressure on the ambitious among them, the employers of the poor, and Keynes himself.
Oh, and Ninety two million people were employed in the United States in 1990 with a total payroll of $2,145 billion. Only 12 million (13%) of these were employed in enterprises with more than 1000 employees while 50 million (54%) were employed in enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. Only 6000 employers (which could be no more than 60% of publicly traded corporations) had more than 1000 employees and these accounted for payrolls of $390 billion. (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994:546). Small and medium sized company dominate the employment field with small (less than 100 employees) companies accounting for over half of all employment. These are the companies minimum wage hurts worst, and remember... by taking out the company you aren't just sending the employees to the unemployment line, but the owners too, in addition to hurting their supliers and supliees (is that even a word? cuz I like it.) And I agree with you about the Republicans being slimey... no arguement there
You did not just compare that little doggie to grep did you?
bwahahaha!!
McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burgur King, Wall Mart are all monolithic corporations. The majority of Americans are employed by small businesses that we've never heard of. Those are businesses with an already 90% failure rate, and they do indeed forgo basic mantainence if it costs too much and wage hikes do put them out of business. My example was not meant to provide evidence, but rather provide a personal view of how a hard working person gets screwed over by these laws and forced to break the law in order to escape from laws meant to protect him... this evidence isn't statistical it's moral.
And finally, I was refering to the "spend" part of the Republican party (although they have been raising taxes too, but giving high publicity cuts when it counts). The Repubs used to stand for "small government" way back when. Nowdays they preach that philosophy but in practice they have become another large government party. I agree that borrow-and-spend is insane, but it's the "spend" part I find most offensive, as I feel I can do more good with my dollars myself then the beaurocrats who draw salaries off of my money paid to find new ways to spend my money on programs that will cost even more of my money in the future... It's a matter of efficiency and personal responsibility.
1) As for workfare, I couldn't agree with you more. That's an excellent proposal... and far more conservative in the US than current policy I might add.
2) Child care for workfare if it's done right would be a good coverage as part of the system.
3) Again, carrying over medical insurance if it's done properly is fine. I think there should be charges here on a sliding scale, and I think it should only be there if the employer doesn't meet the coverage themselves.
4) Absolutely not. Minimum wage work does not equate directly to unskilled work. Most unskilled work makes higher than minimum wage. Raising minimum wage forces employers to reduce the amount of available jobs because there are many things that an employer would be willing to do, but not if it costs him $10 an hour. Think sweeping parking lots, touching up paint, etc. Minimum wage eliminates these jobs completely which could otherwise be used to suppliment someones job in order to get ahead. Here's a personal example: I worked for a warehouse when I was 19 and I really needed to make some extra cash on top of my non-minimum wage job. The work was not worth the time and a half they would have to pay me to work overtime, forcing me to search for part time employment elsewhere because the laws designed to protect me from being overworked are impeding me from removing myself from the middle class. Being resourcefull I try to get a part time job somewhere else, but work not coinciding with regular full time shifts is scarce. I make myself available to do ANY odd job for just about ANY amount of money.. the problem here is that most of those jobs are not worth minimum wage, so the employers don't offer them. After a while of frustration I was successfully able to make ends meet and get ahead enough to become a profitable software engineer ONLY by blatently breaking the law and going to work for employers at below minimum wage under the table. It all turned out well, because dispite all the governments "help" in trying to make me dependant on them I successfully became a criminal in order to achieve my current, very profitable (and taxable) position of Senior Software Architect. Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they intend to help, and I haven't even factored in inflationary pressures, company bankrupcys, industry elimination, overseas outsourcing and unemployment pressures into my arguement yet. Whether it's price caps or wage minimums, screwing with the fundamentals of Adam's invisible hand is always a bad idea.
5) This would be part of #1. Again, not a bad idea *IF* it's part of a workfare program and *IF* there is sufficient incentive or compulsion for workfare over welfare. Oh, and workfare should not be MORE expensive than current welfare. If anything, cut welfare to fund workfare.
As for your final question, the Republican party has become economically more and more liberal over the years to keep up in the votes, which is why they control all 3 houses, NOT because the population has gotten more conservative (economically). I actually left the Republican party years ago over that and am now certifiably Libertarian.
Um, I'm a journeyman brick mason thank you very much. And the years of packing hod that went into that profession is pretty damn close to picking up pony doo, and alot harder. So take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere.