The new bubble is alive and very well. It's not in the software development industry, per se.
It's the medical industry right now. It's the thing to do if you're going to college. Become a pharmacist, x-ray or ultra sound tech or some other skilled position in a hospital and earn a very healthy living.
Of course, medical software is a huge industry right now as well.
But basically with the supply of old people getting larger and larger it makes sense that the medical industry is really in a boom right now.
How long will it last? I'm not sure. But changed to our health care system will probably bring about change eventually.
I'm not serious man, just making ridiculas statements.
It's agreed they're stupid for "making it harder" to do what you do when it's obvious you're providing a service for them in all reality.
That was the artistic value of my post. It was a (debatably good or bad) satire whose purpose was to illustrate how ridiculas their argument was by creating even more ridiculas arguments.
Maybe they're sick of having this bot program relentlessly DOS them?
Perhaps this Website that uses this service should make some kind of compensation. The 911 dispatch is afterall creating the content. This issue is no different than Napster.
I'm telling you this AJAX stuff is no good. It's all these people grabbing data that ain't theirs.
Although I disagree with this long term, what most people haven't realized is that Google got YouTube for free. On news they might buy last week, their stock rose ~2%. It rose even more today with more news and will probably raise a bit more tomorrow. So, 1.65 billion in stock was given away which is something like 1.5% of the company. If they just increased the companies worth by 5%, did they not just make a profit buy "buying" this company?
Long term it might not turn out that way, but annually this is great.
They bought a money pit because their stock went up 2% on news they might buy it. After buying it they're going to go up another 4% or so thus paying for itself. Since 1.65 billion is worth 1.5% of the company, gaining 5% or so means they just made 3.5%. This is short term though.
"Jumping The Shark" already? I could care less either way but you have to believe that Google has some use for them we're not thinking of yet, but then who knows. Maybe they're just in consume mode at this point and spreading themselves...
Regardless, they got totally ripped off and I'm sure this isn't the last in their path for world monopoli.....I mean domination.
It does seem out of step for them to do this, however.
1.65 bil.....man, that's a lot of scratch for a Website that's a money pit in terms of (storage + bandwidth)/ad revenue.
"Treating all of one's adversaries as liars will not serve you well."
I've never implied that you should. You could be the liar for that matter. Both could be. Neither could be.
Gaining advantage and taking advantage of are not the same thing. For example, someone who works longer hours and takes on more responsibility and doesn't post on Slashdot all day is bound to gain an advantage over the slacker worker. But They didn't take advantage of anyone.
On the other hand, someone who uses someone else's hard work, etc to gain a personal advantage is taking advantage of the other person and is dishonest and thus a liar when regarding their promotion.
If they are being genuine about what they say, that's one thing. But if they are being genuine and simply don't know, then they are liars as they are proclaimed "experts" in what they are selling. So either them or their management or both are lying to you.
This is usually the case, as you've pointed out.
When you go into a store, usually you are being lied to either directly by an immoral salesperson, or a mislead salesperson who is unwittingly lying on the behalf of someone else.
I believe lying is an issue of semantics and not syntax. In other words, lying describes the meaning behind ones words, not the actual words. By law lying has more to do with syntax than intentions, but to a man lying is when you try and trick me.
And often, these adversaries you speak of will say something that is only true in particular contexts and false in the context they speak of, although they don't make aware what context they speak in as ambiguity works to their advantage. The simple word we've developed for this is lying.
He's lying to people. His intentions are not what he presents.
Lying has very little to do with the words and more to do with the meaning. If someone is going to justify what he's saying by arguing the syntax isn't lies, then they are liars. Is he lying by law? Probably not. But our law is by and a large a web of lies.
Lying is a semantic thing, not a syntax thing.
It's odd to think of lying as a black and white thing because many of us (I assume interested in science, computers, math, etc) tend to make things complex and look deeply into things.
But, as simple and fundamental as logical axioms are, as is lying.
You're either being truthful or you're not. You either have good intentions or you don't. Yes, the world *is* this black and white. The world *is* this simple. And you're either lying or you're not. Sometimes it's hard to determine, but it's one way or the other. Any amount of lying makes your whole statement untrue and therefore you're a liar.
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
People like one liners and sound bites. Most people aren't smart or astute enough to actually have a political debate and rely on these things as talking points. They rely on their favorite talk show hosts to bring them up and identify with them and dwell on these simple, often meaningless things. Most people don't even know what matters in their lives, so why would telling the truth take precedence?
And since when does the truth matter? When did we start caring about that? I thought we had the common agreement we would get into a pissing contest about unrelated things and walk our candidates around the national gallary like a poney show.
It's not about the truth. It's about blind conviction and the surefootedness of knowing "I'm right". It's about convincing simple, little people that they actually have a voice in something, however unimportant.
This is potentially the most worthless thing Google has made (and I love Google...in fact I bow to my new corporate overlord!) and nothing more than more media "Look at how cutesy that Google is" hyperbole.
So the scientists are "hoping" they shrink in size? Since when did scientists get all faith based on us? It's time to stop "hoping" and start doing, folks.
Yeah, you can put an allowance on to them and now you can see exactly what your child is spending their money on. (Similar to the reason I use a credit card for everything possible, so I can track my spending habits more easily)
I give my kid a $50.00 credit for a week and I can see he is spending his money on lunch, comic books and stupid things. I give him $50.00 in cash and now I have no idea where it is going. If he *needs* cash for something, I can see what it is for.
I'm sure in the UK there has to be something similar. Here it is just an extension of my credit account with a hard cap on it for the kids.
For the record I don't have kids but I can see why having them use credit is better than giving them cash. It makes one a more effective parent.
" Employers want to make a profit and they will always go with what is cheaper. But on the flip side, as India's economy gets stronger, it will not be so cheap anymore. And then the outsourcing will go to a different place."
You're subtly wrong here. A business will not always go for what's *cheaper*, but what's more *profitable*.
Many businesses are finding outsourcing may be cheaper but it isn't more profitable because of many factors, including:
Costs usually balloon far past what was estimated due to communication complications, poor quality and the resultant bug fixing which is very expensive.
It was thought that software development was like manufacturing which it is not. Software development works better when people work together with the business people. It works better when the developers handle many facets of the companies product beyond just software as it creates an understanding of the entire complex system. Manufacturing is pumping out the same thing over and over. It's simple.
One thing that bothers me, especially with Indian programmers, is you don't see much of their work in the open source community. This implies to me it is made up of a lot of people who don't care much for technology and are doing it for the money right now. I know I work with people like this and their poor quality work shows.
"You can outsource manufacturing and low-skill/low-interaction jobs. But any job that requires communication and significant interaction with the customer (yes, including call centers) is not something that's going to work in an outsourced environment over the long-term. And we're starting to see the pullback I was predicting long ago."
I mainly agree with this, due to experience myself.
The software life-cycle is a constantly evolving, cyclic process that require design, implementation, testing, etc over and over. Requirements constantly change in the subtlest ways but every little detail is important.
In manufacturing, a monolithic design is put into a machine and someone operates it, pumping out the same thing over and over.
In software every piece is unique and usually interacts within a larger system.
My company tried a little outsourcing and it was very late and of very poor quality. It was just not worth the time to try and convey every detail of what was needed, how current fun functionality works, etc because this is what developers are paid to figure out and document.
Outsourcing works in a software engineering course where everything is perfect. In the real world, it doesn't.
Business people don't understand that software is not anything like manufacturing. They thought it was and could be easily moved but it really cannot. It's a difficult process with so many hurdles in the simplest project and since there is no official or real method of software development (mainly ad hoc) there is no common language to design things and implements them.
I don't think there ever will because every project I've ever worked on is so unique.
Slashdot Mirror
The new bubble is alive and very well. It's not in the software development industry, per se.
It's the medical industry right now. It's the thing to do if you're going to college. Become a pharmacist, x-ray or ultra sound tech or some other skilled position in a hospital and earn a very healthy living.
Of course, medical software is a huge industry right now as well.
But basically with the supply of old people getting larger and larger it makes sense that the medical industry is really in a boom right now.
How long will it last? I'm not sure. But changed to our health care system will probably bring about change eventually.
As a dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creature, I take offense to this!
I'm not serious man, just making ridiculas statements.
It's agreed they're stupid for "making it harder" to do what you do when it's obvious you're providing a service for them in all reality.
That was the artistic value of my post. It was a (debatably good or bad) satire whose purpose was to illustrate how ridiculas their argument was by creating even more ridiculas arguments.
Maybe they're sick of having this bot program relentlessly DOS them?
Perhaps this Website that uses this service should make some kind of compensation. The 911 dispatch is afterall creating the content. This issue is no different than Napster.
I'm telling you this AJAX stuff is no good. It's all these people grabbing data that ain't theirs.
Although I disagree with this long term, what most people haven't realized is that Google got YouTube for free. On news they might buy last week, their stock rose ~2%. It rose even more today with more news and will probably raise a bit more tomorrow. So, 1.65 billion in stock was given away which is something like 1.5% of the company. If they just increased the companies worth by 5%, did they not just make a profit buy "buying" this company?
Long term it might not turn out that way, but annually this is great.
They didn't buy this site, they got HOSED on it!
They bought a money pit because their stock went up 2% on news they might buy it. After buying it they're going to go up another 4% or so thus paying for itself. Since 1.65 billion is worth 1.5% of the company, gaining 5% or so means they just made 3.5%. This is short term though.
In the end I think they get hosed but whatever.
"Jumping The Shark" already? I could care less either way but you have to believe that Google has some use for them we're not thinking of yet, but then who knows. Maybe they're just in consume mode at this point and spreading themselves...
Regardless, they got totally ripped off and I'm sure this isn't the last in their path for world monopoli.....I mean domination.
It does seem out of step for them to do this, however.
1.65 bil.....man, that's a lot of scratch for a Website that's a money pit in terms of (storage + bandwidth)/ad revenue.
Yup.
What he said.
"Treating all of one's adversaries as liars will not serve you well."
I've never implied that you should. You could be the liar for that matter. Both could be. Neither could be.
Gaining advantage and taking advantage of are not the same thing. For example, someone who works longer hours and takes on more responsibility and doesn't post on Slashdot all day is bound to gain an advantage over the slacker worker. But They didn't take advantage of anyone.
On the other hand, someone who uses someone else's hard work, etc to gain a personal advantage is taking advantage of the other person and is dishonest and thus a liar when regarding their promotion.
Sales people are liars, in general.
If they are being genuine about what they say, that's one thing. But if they are being genuine and simply don't know, then they are liars as they are proclaimed "experts" in what they are selling. So either them or their management or both are lying to you.
This is usually the case, as you've pointed out.
When you go into a store, usually you are being lied to either directly by an immoral salesperson, or a mislead salesperson who is unwittingly lying on the behalf of someone else.
No I didn't.
You fail to understand semantics.
Was this his intent?
If so, then he's a liar.
If not then he's not.
I felt I made that clear, but once again you look to syntax and semantics to derive your hollow definition.
How did you deceive the kid? He shouldn't have the assumption you will have coins in your pocket as the null set is a subset of every set, right? :)
But, if your intent was to trick him then you were lying to him.
This situation could be either or. You could have been pure of heart and just made a gambling deal with this kid and therefore not lying.
Or, you could have had intent and then, as you pointed out, are not lying.
Semantics.
I believe lying is an issue of semantics and not syntax. In other words, lying describes the meaning behind ones words, not the actual words. By law lying has more to do with syntax than intentions, but to a man lying is when you try and trick me.
And often, these adversaries you speak of will say something that is only true in particular contexts and false in the context they speak of, although they don't make aware what context they speak in as ambiguity works to their advantage. The simple word we've developed for this is lying.
He's lying to people. His intentions are not what he presents.
Lying has very little to do with the words and more to do with the meaning. If someone is going to justify what he's saying by arguing the syntax isn't lies, then they are liars. Is he lying by law? Probably not. But our law is by and a large a web of lies.
Lying is a semantic thing, not a syntax thing.
It's odd to think of lying as a black and white thing because many of us (I assume interested in science, computers, math, etc) tend to make things complex and look deeply into things.
But, as simple and fundamental as logical axioms are, as is lying.
...I can forget RegEx's now.
But honestly, this might have some bells and whistles but I don't see myself getting rid of my regular expression searches any time soon.
Otherwise known as lying.
You're either being truthful or you're not. You either have good intentions or you don't. Yes, the world *is* this black and white. The world *is* this simple. And you're either lying or you're not. Sometimes it's hard to determine, but it's one way or the other. Any amount of lying makes your whole statement untrue and therefore you're a liar.
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
People like one liners and sound bites. Most people aren't smart or astute enough to actually have a political debate and rely on these things as talking points. They rely on their favorite talk show hosts to bring them up and identify with them and dwell on these simple, often meaningless things. Most people don't even know what matters in their lives, so why would telling the truth take precedence?
And since when does the truth matter? When did we start caring about that? I thought we had the common agreement we would get into a pissing contest about unrelated things and walk our candidates around the national gallary like a poney show.
It's not about the truth. It's about blind conviction and the surefootedness of knowing "I'm right". It's about convincing simple, little people that they actually have a voice in something, however unimportant.
This is potentially the most worthless thing Google has made (and I love Google...in fact I bow to my new corporate overlord!) and nothing more than more media "Look at how cutesy that Google is" hyperbole.
Whew,
thought we had a new acronym:; Java And XML Asynchronously.
Actually, kind of like that more than AJAX....
So the scientists are "hoping" they shrink in size? Since when did scientists get all faith based on us? It's time to stop "hoping" and start doing, folks.
Not to mention it ties up a busy court system and costs us, the tax payers, lots and lots of money that could be spent elsewhere.
The people suing in this case should be fined all government court expense (filing, hearings, etc) + 20%. We should start profiting from this.
Yeah, you can put an allowance on to them and now you can see exactly what your child is spending their money on. (Similar to the reason I use a credit card for everything possible, so I can track my spending habits more easily)
I give my kid a $50.00 credit for a week and I can see he is spending his money on lunch, comic books and stupid things. I give him $50.00 in cash and now I have no idea where it is going. If he *needs* cash for something, I can see what it is for.
I'm sure in the UK there has to be something similar. Here it is just an extension of my credit account with a hard cap on it for the kids.
For the record I don't have kids but I can see why having them use credit is better than giving them cash. It makes one a more effective parent.
" Employers want to make a profit and they will always go with what is cheaper. But on the flip side, as India's economy gets stronger, it will not be so cheap anymore. And then the outsourcing will go to a different place."
You're subtly wrong here. A business will not always go for what's *cheaper*, but what's more *profitable*.
Many businesses are finding outsourcing may be cheaper but it isn't more profitable because of many factors, including:
Costs usually balloon far past what was estimated due to communication complications, poor quality and the resultant bug fixing which is very expensive.
It was thought that software development was like manufacturing which it is not. Software development works better when people work together with the business people. It works better when the developers handle many facets of the companies product beyond just software as it creates an understanding of the entire complex system. Manufacturing is pumping out the same thing over and over. It's simple.
One thing that bothers me, especially with Indian programmers, is you don't see much of their work in the open source community. This implies to me it is made up of a lot of people who don't care much for technology and are doing it for the money right now. I know I work with people like this and their poor quality work shows.
"You can outsource manufacturing and low-skill/low-interaction jobs. But any job that requires communication and significant interaction with the customer (yes, including call centers) is not something that's going to work in an outsourced environment over the long-term. And we're starting to see the pullback I was predicting long ago."
I mainly agree with this, due to experience myself.
The software life-cycle is a constantly evolving, cyclic process that require design, implementation, testing, etc over and over. Requirements constantly change in the subtlest ways but every little detail is important.
In manufacturing, a monolithic design is put into a machine and someone operates it, pumping out the same thing over and over.
In software every piece is unique and usually interacts within a larger system.
My company tried a little outsourcing and it was very late and of very poor quality. It was just not worth the time to try and convey every detail of what was needed, how current fun functionality works, etc because this is what developers are paid to figure out and document.
Outsourcing works in a software engineering course where everything is perfect. In the real world, it doesn't.
Business people don't understand that software is not anything like manufacturing. They thought it was and could be easily moved but it really cannot. It's a difficult process with so many hurdles in the simplest project and since there is no official or real method of software development (mainly ad hoc) there is no common language to design things and implements them.
I don't think there ever will because every project I've ever worked on is so unique.
That might not scale well, but then they don't do much work anyways.
There are also things called "Software Testing", "Quality Assurance" and "Risk Management".