Yep. Risks that most of those people above you--that you are jealous of--took.
Just because you do not have the guts, or the ability, to do it, does not mean that the system is against you and for them. It just means that you are not good enough to do it. And if you're making $100K / year, then that's probably not really a bad thing.
I'm always amazed at the people that seem to think that they are capped by someone else's greed (which is hypocritically exactly what you want to do in return). If that's true, then change jobs; it's really that simple, but it may take effort to find another job in any given economy. If you can't, then you probably don't have very many skills worth paying for anyway and that is not someone else's fault.
Wait, what part of the United States subsidized TheFacebook? ARPAnet? Let it go. Facebook hopefully pays its taxes. They pay their share.
I get and fully support taxes as a manner to continue running the government. Furthermore, I have nothing against him being taxed at the maximum level, as he should be.
Just to be clear, there are two types of 401Ks: pre-tax and post-tax. I don't really care to explain the difference beyond that, but it seems like you only know of one of them.
And, that's moot because you completely sidestepped the entire purpose of my rant: the actual post suggests that there should be some sort of yearly investment tax, rather than when you pull it out (see: the complaint about Steve Jobs). I realize that in your lust to try and tax those that earn more than you that you might have missed this, but I did not. I have no problem with him being charged income tax by him taking it out because of the manner that he is doing it.
The entire system is setup to take from the haves simply because they have what someone--like you--has deemed to be "enough." This is no different from the bandwidth capping crap that AT&T and Verizon have pulled that makes everyone reel. In the top X%? We're going to cap you and charge you more than anyone else. 3GB is enough for anyone, right? That's plenty, right? (The answer is no, and I only use around 500 MB per month)
It's unfair and it's unnecessary. The problem is not that the government does not get enough money (though the number of businesses abusing loop holes is astounding and far worse than individuals abusing the system, which should be fixed; see: GE). No, the problem is that the government overspends.
Yep. The real purpose of this is to destroy investing. It's not fair that you are planning ahead, or have a lot of money, or your business did extremely well (Zuckerburg, Jobs, Gates, etc.). You owe it to someone who is much better at managing and redistributing money: the United States government.
People seem to not realize that the few that get stock through options are far outweighed by those that buy stocks using their already taxed income. Then, when it comes time convert the stock back into cash, they get taxed again for it.
What Zuckerburg is supposedly doing should be infinitely encouraged. He started a business, which has certainly created a lot of wealth that was not there before, and he is about to pay a boatload of money based on his business doing incredibly well; his company has even created successful jobs outside of his own, such as Zynga. Yet that's a bad thing? Jobs was not taking a real salary because he did not need one, and the stocks are only of value if he continued to run a successful company. Seriously, what's wrong with that? Because he might take out a loan on his net worth to buy more property, which is itself taxed on top of the taxes on the product or property itself? Or is it because he paid so little (I have no idea how much he actually paid and frankly don't care as long as it followed the law) while running such a massively successful company that paid enormous amounts in taxes?
This is despicable. People need to get over themselves. You do not deserve money. You do not deserve success. And you do not deserve to deprive anyone else of it either, whether they got it through luck (including birth) or talent. The only justification is through cheating.
It's time that people started competing again rather than begging or complaining, but I think that I might be speaking to the wrong choir on this one.
I disagree because the comparison is not really the same thing.
The Chinese Proview is claiming that the Taiwanese Proview did not represent them in the business deal, and they therefore could not sell the rights to the Chinese trademark. That is different from saying that Apple, or any other company, forgot to work out the agreement. They were told one thing by the business, and then the other arm of the business is abusing the politics of the situation. Proview-China is hoping that a mainland China court will believe them that their Taiwanese counterparts did not speak for them in the transaction, when I would bet that they did at the time. I suspect that this boils down to a classic bait and switch.
Apple supposedly purchase the trademark in 2009 from Proview, but it appears that they may have bought it from their Taiwanese counterparts, which the Chinese portion is using to its advantage. China being China, they are choosing to side with the Chinese-based business.
If China awards the company anything remotely close to $1 billion, then I hope Apple pulls out of China. Wishful thinking as it is, it would be interesting to watch. I also hope all such companies fail, but that's pretty obvious.
A break-in period that consisted of being shipped slowly on a ship compared to a violent launch on the top of a rocket, as well as the re-entry into the atmosphere of a largely mysterious planet, and finally the potentially violent landing.
Then, once in use and with the odometer actually ticking up, the Mercedes gets an oil change every few thousand miles, or every few months; it's also refueled probably every other week, at least. And it's probably not in a hostile environment the entirety of its driven life, at least without serious repair assistance.
So, yes, we really should be proud of the Opportunity for lasting for eight years while 78 million miles from a repair shop.
I think it's ridiculous that AT&T calls their HSPA+ as 4G, but, as an AT&T customer with a "4G" phone, I must say that it is noticeably faster than an iPhone 4, which is the more traditional 3G. It has also spread to a lot more places than 3G used to be at; it now blankets the town that I grew up in when 3G hardly even reached my parent's house before the "4G" rollout.
In fact, it actually got so good at my parent's house that their MicroCell (the internet powered, fake tower for your phones in your house when service isn't actually good enough as-is) became an issue because the real signal would fight it for control on the phone, which was killing their phone's batteries.
Also, since I have moved away from the iPhone 4, I have noticed that my dropped calls have gone away significantly, except in one dead zone near my [highly trafficked, and highly populated] local grocery store. That is to say, they're not gone entirely, but they have been significantly reduced.
Now, with all of that, I will turn around and say, "screw you, AT&T." Their entire reason for buying T-Mobile was to remove the only significant GSM competitor in the US. They have proven that they do not compete on price, rather Verizon and AT&T play a cat-and-mouse game of raising prices, while the other follows shortly afterward. First, they removed Unlimited Data before any other network because they had refused to upgrade their own network while making significant profits. Recently, they raised the stakes again by adding a GB for an extra $5, but removing the existing plans. So, we went from $30 Unlimited Data to $25 2GB data, to $30 3GB data in the course of a year and a half. Only AT&T and Verizon could think that is reasonable. And the low-end data is an aggressive slap to the face. Originally 200 MB for $15, to 300 MB for $20. The minimum cost of entry is $20 for a nearly worthless data plan? My mother, of all people, gets too close to 200-300 MB usage to make that a reasonable plan because overages cost as much as the data plan for the cheaper option, and $10/GB for the higher plan.
AT&T can compete without the merger, and they are doing quite well now that Verizon forced their hands by pushing LTE, which was only because, frankly, CDMA data speeds are garbage. They are just sticking it to the FCC so that people blame them when they raise rates. However, the fact is, anyone with any knowledge of the business knows that it is a bogus money grab that needs to be stopped before it gets even further out of hand.
The entire problem with that theory is that the code only makes sense when you are making the same assumptions. If I go into a blob of code assuming something different from my coworker, then we will expect the code to do two different things.
For me to figure out their assumptions, without comments, then I will have to read far more than many the lead function that could have been documented to explain its constraints.
This includes, but is not limited to:
1. Can I pass in null? (And how many layers do you have to dive in to find out the real answer?) 2. What are the actual range of values? 3. Does the method return null? Under what circumstances? 4. What will cause an exception under reasonable conditions (and, in the case of Java, particularly RuntimeExceptions)?
In practice, I have found that code that is undocumented is rarely reusable by someone other than the original developer. The act of documenting your own code usually brings out design flaws, and hopefully leads to simplified code because you do not want to document too much. I also find that most people holding similar beliefs ignore unit testing as well, or they write only the simplest boilerplate tests that really do not test much at all.
I can also say that I will never intentionally hire someone that holds the belief that well developed code is its own documentation. Well developed code lends itself to documentation, both through easier documentation and requiring less of it, but that is all. It's stupid to require other developers--or even yourself further down the road--to have to jump through hoops to figure out if a NullPointerException is in their future.
First of all, I really do not like Oracle as a company. However, as a company that believes that they are owed money by Google for using a mostly-Java system in Android, how are they at all benefited by not "keeping it up," while Google continues to use the system license free?
There are two sides to it, and I am honestly not entirely sure which side is right:
1. Google thinks that Java is open, and therefore fair game. 2. Oracle thinks that Java is not open, and they also have damning email correspondence showing that Google did not actually believe Java could be used without a license.
As a Java developer that is not paying Oracle a dime, I can sort of see where Google is coming from. However, I am not putting my own twist on Java and putting that on a new--and wildly popular--platform either. I really see both sides of the coin here, but I think Oracle has Google just with that email; Google felt like it needed a license, but decided to go without one in hopes that then-Sun would not sue them. They probably decided that their war chest was big enough in case they were wrong to avoid sending millions of dollars to a company every year.
No, it's not because they are too stupid to disable the seat belt alarm. It's because they are too stupid to wear their seat belt.
There is no "intelligent" excuse--or manner--for avoiding it. If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision.
I actually agree with the assessment, but the idea that they're at least doing 50% of the right thing beats nothing for me, and I generally dislike Google these days.
Now, I will say that I just did a rudimentary Google search for "google chrome," and it did come up with a Google page to download Google Chrome as the top result. Not http://www.google.com/chrome, but effectively identical. Based on their claim and actual result compared to their complete wiping of JC Penny, et al, for the exact same behavior, I must say that I am much less thrilled than I previously was.
They have done much less than slapping themselves on the wrist because the result is the exact same, and it still stays on Google the entire time. I'm not bothered by the ads, but only because I do not know if they also banned JC Penny from that.
The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
I am happy to see the fair business practice here. I do not always like what you're up to Google, but sometimes, like with mostly pulling out of China, and now this, I like what I see.
Only because you already have it installed. Discrediting an entire development suite because it is on the most widely used platform is a pretty huge mistake. You have no idea what you are missing, and that's not a logical position to be in.
I can understand not buying into Windows and, particularly, not buying into Visual Studio. But to act like getting Windows is a show stopper for anyone except the most devoted is a stretch, and to use that reasoning to discredit Visual Studio is a joke. There are free versions of Visual Studio, which are still better than the alternative IDEs out there. I was using Netbeans, but it has gotten worse as time has moved on, and I have moved onto IntelliJ, which is pretty good. However, if I get the chance to do any C# or C++ development at work, then I will be strongly pushing for Visual Studio, even when it's not my C++ compiler.
You seem to be missing out on a lot of things, and you do not even know it. And that blind faith to a platform is a pretty big negative. It's no different than a Windows user proclaiming that Linux sucks without ever using it, simply because they have to go download/get and install it. It's egotistical and down right ignorant. That's not a good position to be in professionally.
It makes me wonder if this is why Netbeans has sagged so poorly recently--so much so that I switched to IntelliJ; I never could get used to Eclipse's way of doing things. This blissful ignorance seems pretty systemic throughout the community. It truly is preventing a lot of good features from appearing in each toolset, and that only serves to slow down the developers using those tools.
I actually think that PHP can be good when it is written like an enterprise Java or ASP.NET application. But, most are not written that way.
However, PHPMQ has no website (the linked one has nothing to do with it), one rating, zero reviews and it was last updated in March, 2010 (though, it has been around since 2004). Being able to find a link to a project matching a description is a lot different than finding a serious alternative.
Buying or acquiring Linux is somehow less hassle than buying or acquiring Windows?
If that's a serious concern for you, then you have no basis for talking about it as a development platform. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE. It's my biggest regret as I code in Java.
Now, MS SQL Server is something I would prefer to avoid. But,.NET does not force you into using MS SQL similar to JDBC in Java.
Why is someone that doesn't understand how to actually write code using MVC being promoted? Because I suppose a lot of moderators both hate Microsoft and have no idea what a good design really represents.
I have not coded with ASP.NET since 2004 and even I know that ASP.NET provides multiple ways to do custom data binding. The poster just didn't figure it out. As was pointed out by other replies, you can spaghetti code your entire ASP.NET application if you want. People don't because that's not how you write good, clean, reusable code. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but most of the time it is avoidable, and doing so just shows developer experience.
In PHP, you should have long-ago written yourself a class or function to spit out that HTML given a list and currently selected value. Instead, you are going to be trapped rewriting the same crud over, and over again. That is why people choose Java or ASP.NET for serious development. PHP is certainly a great prototyping language, and it's more than capable (see Facebook) once you have started coding like Java and ASP.NET encourages you to code. But coding PHP like the above coder is a scary reason to adopt it.
I guess that depends on whether you are picking your candidates based entirely on their unlisted advertising budget, or based on other sources.
If you mandate that all donations must be made public, then you are going to see that Candidate X is donated to by any corporation, or individual in any amount.
I might take it a step further and create a government entity, or a new part to the GAO, whose sole purpose is to monitor political donations and act as a funnel to and from the money. All donations go through this service, untaxed, and they are explicitly selected by would-be donators for candidates. Candidates must register with the service to receive donations.
Then, all political activity must be done with funds from here, and all transactions are publicly displayed immediately. Candidates can self-donate to fuel their own campaigns, but suddenly that too is traceable. All political activity must then be driven from these accounts, which cannot be overdrafted against (requiring candidates to get real loans to go into the red). No exceptions. I would avoid exceptions to avoid gaming the system (e.g., "under a threshold" could be gamed by having multiple people pay for it).
It would likely be hard to prove that a given meeting was or wasn't political, but it would help to keep more people honest, and that could be further developed.
Just as amusing is that all Windows Phones have supported voice to text from the beginning as well, although not for texting as it has since Mango's release.
The unfortunate reality is that non-technical people cannot connect the dots and realize that once the phone can support sending your voice to a server to be interpreted, then it is only a matter of updating the server to better handle your request, with only minor changes necessary for a phone-side API to take advantage of commands (e.g., telling your phone to set an alarm hopefully tells the Alarm app to do it rather than including custom logic for it to do itself).
I had actually forgotten that part. Only the iPhone 4S gets voice to text for texting purposes as well, which Android has supported for a long time and Windows Phone 7 supported in Mango, with most other relevant applications having support at release (e.g., Search). For Apple, it's semi-legitimate under the same guise as not releasing Siri (beta testing and, more importantly, infrastructure), but I just do not buy it. The only way to convince me that Apple is not simply screwing the old-phone users is for Apple to enable it for those phones. Anything shy of release, or a release date is just wishful thinking at this point because Apple has too strong of a track record for not providing support after dropping it; after all, there is no incentive.
I am willing to give Apple some time to roll out its infrastructure to handle the strain of existing iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 users jumping onto Siri's servers, but past experience with vague promises from Apple tends to lead to vapor (again, I must reference the FaceTime protocol, which was incredibly disappointing to me).
But, I am not willing to accept that the iPhone 3GS cannot handle Siri. There is no voice recognition performed on the iPhone itself, except possibly checking for flat noise (nothing spoken, to avoid sending "nothing"), and anything that they could be checking with phone hardware will be minor. This has been proven by the jailbreaking community, similar to how they proved that the iPhone 3G could legitimately not handle multitasking in any way that would be acceptable to most users.
I agree that Siri is a huge marketing draw, but I am not sure that it is too big for Apple to keep it off of older phones. Apple was quite happy to market the iPhone 4S as the phone with Siri, and it definitely helps them sell that phone for more money even though teardowns suggest that the iPhone 4 cost's similar amounts to make. I don't fault them in any way for minimizing costs of their hardware, nor for the price of the phones, which are within the expected range compared to all other phones, but that is all to say that I would only be happily surprised if they choose to release Siri for older iOS 5 phones. I no longer expect it.
I expect we'll see that mid-year, though it may not support the 3GS (that may lack the CPU to handle the audio encoding fast enough to get it to the server in a reasonable time).
It handles it quite well in the FaceTime app while also encoding video, Voice Recorder app, and the [hacked] Siri app before it was pulled during the iPhone 4S launch. There is no reasonable, technical reason that any iPhone running iOS 5 should not support Siri. Encoding the audio is not a struggle on the iPhone 3GS, and the connection will be the same as the iPhone 4's (as opposed to the noticeably faster HSPA+ on AT&T's iPhone 4S, but not on Verizon's comparably slower iPhone 4S).
Anything less is just an excuse. Unfortunately, I do not think Apple will catch much flak when they neglect to add support to at least the 3GS for a similar reason that you claimed, but it will have no basis in reality if they do. After all, everyone quickly forgot about the promise to open up the FaceTime protocol too, but it will be interesting to see how they choose to handle iOS 6 and the iPhone 3GS still being sold at least through Spring of 2012.
I loved my iPhone 3GS, and my iPhone 4, but I recognize the writing on the wall. And that writing is starting to say, "no Siri," and that really bothers me for the same reasons that hardware-unrelated Android fragmentation does.
Using the phrase "Siri is a game changer" in a reason why fragmentation on Android is an issue not faced by iOS is amusing, at best.
Apple took Siri support away from the earlier iPhone when the iPhone 4S was launched simply because they could. It's an arbitrary, software-only limitation that prevents Siri from running on older hardware. Siri offloads the hard work onto Apple's servers, and not the phone, which is why the phone never would be the issue. It is forced fragmentation that Apple will supposedly release to their older line up once it removes the beta tag. They were also supposedly going to open up FaceTime as an open standard, enabling other phones and computers to interact with the protocol, so I would not expect that to actually come true.
Android is on the big stage right now with the lion share of sales ranging from wannabe-smartphones to the highend, but it is going to fail before it can fix itself if they do not change their act soon. Literally everyone that I know that owns an Android phone is fed up with something pretty big about the phone: battery life, speed, complexity, and a lack of supported updates. This only serves to send people to iOS, and it helps get Windows Phone some looks that it otherwise would never have gotten.
Yeah! Damn those evil corporations that invest billions into developing technology, and hoping to recoup that cost.
Me, representing China, one of the most totalitarian regimes around with its Great Firewall, should totally go steal that information because it's, like, totally for the goodness of the people, dude.
Grow up and get a clue. China could have licensed or bought the non-defense technology that they are stealing. They are not going to help the "little guy" in any country--not even their own--with this technology. Instead, they are going to make cheap knock-offs of the tech that they probably do not fully understand that will inevitably result in a lot of failures and death, [non-exclusive] or war with Taiwan.
That's the exact same thing as saying, because your safe can be cracked, then your trade secrets that you held in it are in plain site. In other words, because someone was able to steal them, then they are not covered.
Requiring a spy to steal your details, or for you entire computer system to be hacked in certainly a reasonable-enough effort at protecting your trade secrets.
People should be stopped from illegal downloads as it is stealing, but the level of focus definitely makes no sense in comparison to other issues facing the nation. The entire entertainment industry has a nonsensical amount of power, but that does not change the lunacy of the rest of your--hopefully--sarcastic point.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Risks that most of those people above you--that you are jealous of--took.
Just because you do not have the guts, or the ability, to do it, does not mean that the system is against you and for them. It just means that you are not good enough to do it. And if you're making $100K / year, then that's probably not really a bad thing.
I'm always amazed at the people that seem to think that they are capped by someone else's greed (which is hypocritically exactly what you want to do in return). If that's true, then change jobs; it's really that simple, but it may take effort to find another job in any given economy. If you can't, then you probably don't have very many skills worth paying for anyway and that is not someone else's fault.
Wait, what part of the United States subsidized TheFacebook? ARPAnet? Let it go. Facebook hopefully pays its taxes. They pay their share.
I get and fully support taxes as a manner to continue running the government. Furthermore, I have nothing against him being taxed at the maximum level, as he should be.
Just to be clear, there are two types of 401Ks: pre-tax and post-tax. I don't really care to explain the difference beyond that, but it seems like you only know of one of them.
And, that's moot because you completely sidestepped the entire purpose of my rant: the actual post suggests that there should be some sort of yearly investment tax, rather than when you pull it out (see: the complaint about Steve Jobs). I realize that in your lust to try and tax those that earn more than you that you might have missed this, but I did not. I have no problem with him being charged income tax by him taking it out because of the manner that he is doing it.
The entire system is setup to take from the haves simply because they have what someone--like you--has deemed to be "enough." This is no different from the bandwidth capping crap that AT&T and Verizon have pulled that makes everyone reel. In the top X%? We're going to cap you and charge you more than anyone else. 3GB is enough for anyone, right? That's plenty, right? (The answer is no, and I only use around 500 MB per month)
It's unfair and it's unnecessary. The problem is not that the government does not get enough money (though the number of businesses abusing loop holes is astounding and far worse than individuals abusing the system, which should be fixed; see: GE). No, the problem is that the government overspends.
Yep. The real purpose of this is to destroy investing. It's not fair that you are planning ahead, or have a lot of money, or your business did extremely well (Zuckerburg, Jobs, Gates, etc.). You owe it to someone who is much better at managing and redistributing money: the United States government.
People seem to not realize that the few that get stock through options are far outweighed by those that buy stocks using their already taxed income. Then, when it comes time convert the stock back into cash, they get taxed again for it.
What Zuckerburg is supposedly doing should be infinitely encouraged. He started a business, which has certainly created a lot of wealth that was not there before, and he is about to pay a boatload of money based on his business doing incredibly well; his company has even created successful jobs outside of his own, such as Zynga. Yet that's a bad thing? Jobs was not taking a real salary because he did not need one, and the stocks are only of value if he continued to run a successful company. Seriously, what's wrong with that? Because he might take out a loan on his net worth to buy more property, which is itself taxed on top of the taxes on the product or property itself? Or is it because he paid so little (I have no idea how much he actually paid and frankly don't care as long as it followed the law) while running such a massively successful company that paid enormous amounts in taxes?
This is despicable. People need to get over themselves. You do not deserve money. You do not deserve success. And you do not deserve to deprive anyone else of it either, whether they got it through luck (including birth) or talent. The only justification is through cheating.
It's time that people started competing again rather than begging or complaining, but I think that I might be speaking to the wrong choir on this one.
I disagree because the comparison is not really the same thing.
The Chinese Proview is claiming that the Taiwanese Proview did not represent them in the business deal, and they therefore could not sell the rights to the Chinese trademark. That is different from saying that Apple, or any other company, forgot to work out the agreement. They were told one thing by the business, and then the other arm of the business is abusing the politics of the situation. Proview-China is hoping that a mainland China court will believe them that their Taiwanese counterparts did not speak for them in the transaction, when I would bet that they did at the time. I suspect that this boils down to a classic bait and switch.
Apple supposedly purchase the trademark in 2009 from Proview, but it appears that they may have bought it from their Taiwanese counterparts, which the Chinese portion is using to its advantage. China being China, they are choosing to side with the Chinese-based business.
If China awards the company anything remotely close to $1 billion, then I hope Apple pulls out of China. Wishful thinking as it is, it would be interesting to watch. I also hope all such companies fail, but that's pretty obvious.
A break-in period that consisted of being shipped slowly on a ship compared to a violent launch on the top of a rocket, as well as the re-entry into the atmosphere of a largely mysterious planet, and finally the potentially violent landing.
Then, once in use and with the odometer actually ticking up, the Mercedes gets an oil change every few thousand miles, or every few months; it's also refueled probably every other week, at least. And it's probably not in a hostile environment the entirety of its driven life, at least without serious repair assistance.
So, yes, we really should be proud of the Opportunity for lasting for eight years while 78 million miles from a repair shop.
I think it's ridiculous that AT&T calls their HSPA+ as 4G, but, as an AT&T customer with a "4G" phone, I must say that it is noticeably faster than an iPhone 4, which is the more traditional 3G. It has also spread to a lot more places than 3G used to be at; it now blankets the town that I grew up in when 3G hardly even reached my parent's house before the "4G" rollout.
In fact, it actually got so good at my parent's house that their MicroCell (the internet powered, fake tower for your phones in your house when service isn't actually good enough as-is) became an issue because the real signal would fight it for control on the phone, which was killing their phone's batteries.
Also, since I have moved away from the iPhone 4, I have noticed that my dropped calls have gone away significantly, except in one dead zone near my [highly trafficked, and highly populated] local grocery store. That is to say, they're not gone entirely, but they have been significantly reduced.
Now, with all of that, I will turn around and say, "screw you, AT&T." Their entire reason for buying T-Mobile was to remove the only significant GSM competitor in the US. They have proven that they do not compete on price, rather Verizon and AT&T play a cat-and-mouse game of raising prices, while the other follows shortly afterward. First, they removed Unlimited Data before any other network because they had refused to upgrade their own network while making significant profits. Recently, they raised the stakes again by adding a GB for an extra $5, but removing the existing plans. So, we went from $30 Unlimited Data to $25 2GB data, to $30 3GB data in the course of a year and a half. Only AT&T and Verizon could think that is reasonable. And the low-end data is an aggressive slap to the face. Originally 200 MB for $15, to 300 MB for $20. The minimum cost of entry is $20 for a nearly worthless data plan? My mother, of all people, gets too close to 200-300 MB usage to make that a reasonable plan because overages cost as much as the data plan for the cheaper option, and $10/GB for the higher plan.
AT&T can compete without the merger, and they are doing quite well now that Verizon forced their hands by pushing LTE, which was only because, frankly, CDMA data speeds are garbage. They are just sticking it to the FCC so that people blame them when they raise rates. However, the fact is, anyone with any knowledge of the business knows that it is a bogus money grab that needs to be stopped before it gets even further out of hand.
The entire problem with that theory is that the code only makes sense when you are making the same assumptions. If I go into a blob of code assuming something different from my coworker, then we will expect the code to do two different things.
For me to figure out their assumptions, without comments, then I will have to read far more than many the lead function that could have been documented to explain its constraints.
This includes, but is not limited to:
1. Can I pass in null? (And how many layers do you have to dive in to find out the real answer?)
2. What are the actual range of values?
3. Does the method return null? Under what circumstances?
4. What will cause an exception under reasonable conditions (and, in the case of Java, particularly RuntimeExceptions)?
In practice, I have found that code that is undocumented is rarely reusable by someone other than the original developer. The act of documenting your own code usually brings out design flaws, and hopefully leads to simplified code because you do not want to document too much. I also find that most people holding similar beliefs ignore unit testing as well, or they write only the simplest boilerplate tests that really do not test much at all.
I can also say that I will never intentionally hire someone that holds the belief that well developed code is its own documentation. Well developed code lends itself to documentation, both through easier documentation and requiring less of it, but that is all. It's stupid to require other developers--or even yourself further down the road--to have to jump through hoops to figure out if a NullPointerException is in their future.
First of all, I really do not like Oracle as a company. However, as a company that believes that they are owed money by Google for using a mostly-Java system in Android, how are they at all benefited by not "keeping it up," while Google continues to use the system license free?
There are two sides to it, and I am honestly not entirely sure which side is right:
1. Google thinks that Java is open, and therefore fair game.
2. Oracle thinks that Java is not open, and they also have damning email correspondence showing that Google did not actually believe Java could be used without a license.
As a Java developer that is not paying Oracle a dime, I can sort of see where Google is coming from. However, I am not putting my own twist on Java and putting that on a new--and wildly popular--platform either. I really see both sides of the coin here, but I think Oracle has Google just with that email; Google felt like it needed a license, but decided to go without one in hopes that then-Sun would not sue them. They probably decided that their war chest was big enough in case they were wrong to avoid sending millions of dollars to a company every year.
No, it's not because they are too stupid to disable the seat belt alarm. It's because they are too stupid to wear their seat belt.
There is no "intelligent" excuse--or manner--for avoiding it. If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision.
I actually agree with the assessment, but the idea that they're at least doing 50% of the right thing beats nothing for me, and I generally dislike Google these days.
Now, I will say that I just did a rudimentary Google search for "google chrome," and it did come up with a Google page to download Google Chrome as the top result. Not http://www.google.com/chrome, but effectively identical. Based on their claim and actual result compared to their complete wiping of JC Penny, et al, for the exact same behavior, I must say that I am much less thrilled than I previously was.
They have done much less than slapping themselves on the wrist because the result is the exact same, and it still stays on Google the entire time. I'm not bothered by the ads, but only because I do not know if they also banned JC Penny from that.
The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
I am happy to see the fair business practice here. I do not always like what you're up to Google, but sometimes, like with mostly pulling out of China, and now this, I like what I see.
Only because you already have it installed. Discrediting an entire development suite because it is on the most widely used platform is a pretty huge mistake. You have no idea what you are missing, and that's not a logical position to be in.
I can understand not buying into Windows and, particularly, not buying into Visual Studio. But to act like getting Windows is a show stopper for anyone except the most devoted is a stretch, and to use that reasoning to discredit Visual Studio is a joke. There are free versions of Visual Studio, which are still better than the alternative IDEs out there. I was using Netbeans, but it has gotten worse as time has moved on, and I have moved onto IntelliJ, which is pretty good. However, if I get the chance to do any C# or C++ development at work, then I will be strongly pushing for Visual Studio, even when it's not my C++ compiler.
You seem to be missing out on a lot of things, and you do not even know it. And that blind faith to a platform is a pretty big negative. It's no different than a Windows user proclaiming that Linux sucks without ever using it, simply because they have to go download/get and install it. It's egotistical and down right ignorant. That's not a good position to be in professionally.
It makes me wonder if this is why Netbeans has sagged so poorly recently--so much so that I switched to IntelliJ; I never could get used to Eclipse's way of doing things. This blissful ignorance seems pretty systemic throughout the community. It truly is preventing a lot of good features from appearing in each toolset, and that only serves to slow down the developers using those tools.
I actually think that PHP can be good when it is written like an enterprise Java or ASP.NET application. But, most are not written that way.
However, PHPMQ has no website (the linked one has nothing to do with it), one rating, zero reviews and it was last updated in March, 2010 (though, it has been around since 2004). Being able to find a link to a project matching a description is a lot different than finding a serious alternative.
Buying or acquiring Linux is somehow less hassle than buying or acquiring Windows?
If that's a serious concern for you, then you have no basis for talking about it as a development platform. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE. It's my biggest regret as I code in Java.
Now, MS SQL Server is something I would prefer to avoid. But, .NET does not force you into using MS SQL similar to JDBC in Java.
Why is someone that doesn't understand how to actually write code using MVC being promoted? Because I suppose a lot of moderators both hate Microsoft and have no idea what a good design really represents.
I have not coded with ASP.NET since 2004 and even I know that ASP.NET provides multiple ways to do custom data binding. The poster just didn't figure it out. As was pointed out by other replies, you can spaghetti code your entire ASP.NET application if you want. People don't because that's not how you write good, clean, reusable code. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but most of the time it is avoidable, and doing so just shows developer experience.
In PHP, you should have long-ago written yourself a class or function to spit out that HTML given a list and currently selected value. Instead, you are going to be trapped rewriting the same crud over, and over again. That is why people choose Java or ASP.NET for serious development. PHP is certainly a great prototyping language, and it's more than capable (see Facebook) once you have started coding like Java and ASP.NET encourages you to code. But coding PHP like the above coder is a scary reason to adopt it.
I guess that depends on whether you are picking your candidates based entirely on their unlisted advertising budget, or based on other sources.
If you mandate that all donations must be made public, then you are going to see that Candidate X is donated to by any corporation, or individual in any amount.
I might take it a step further and create a government entity, or a new part to the GAO, whose sole purpose is to monitor political donations and act as a funnel to and from the money. All donations go through this service, untaxed, and they are explicitly selected by would-be donators for candidates. Candidates must register with the service to receive donations.
Then, all political activity must be done with funds from here, and all transactions are publicly displayed immediately. Candidates can self-donate to fuel their own campaigns, but suddenly that too is traceable. All political activity must then be driven from these accounts, which cannot be overdrafted against (requiring candidates to get real loans to go into the red). No exceptions. I would avoid exceptions to avoid gaming the system (e.g., "under a threshold" could be gamed by having multiple people pay for it).
It would likely be hard to prove that a given meeting was or wasn't political, but it would help to keep more people honest, and that could be further developed.
Just as amusing is that all Windows Phones have supported voice to text from the beginning as well, although not for texting as it has since Mango's release.
The unfortunate reality is that non-technical people cannot connect the dots and realize that once the phone can support sending your voice to a server to be interpreted, then it is only a matter of updating the server to better handle your request, with only minor changes necessary for a phone-side API to take advantage of commands (e.g., telling your phone to set an alarm hopefully tells the Alarm app to do it rather than including custom logic for it to do itself).
I had actually forgotten that part. Only the iPhone 4S gets voice to text for texting purposes as well, which Android has supported for a long time and Windows Phone 7 supported in Mango, with most other relevant applications having support at release (e.g., Search). For Apple, it's semi-legitimate under the same guise as not releasing Siri (beta testing and, more importantly, infrastructure), but I just do not buy it. The only way to convince me that Apple is not simply screwing the old-phone users is for Apple to enable it for those phones. Anything shy of release, or a release date is just wishful thinking at this point because Apple has too strong of a track record for not providing support after dropping it; after all, there is no incentive.
I am willing to give Apple some time to roll out its infrastructure to handle the strain of existing iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 users jumping onto Siri's servers, but past experience with vague promises from Apple tends to lead to vapor (again, I must reference the FaceTime protocol, which was incredibly disappointing to me).
But, I am not willing to accept that the iPhone 3GS cannot handle Siri. There is no voice recognition performed on the iPhone itself, except possibly checking for flat noise (nothing spoken, to avoid sending "nothing"), and anything that they could be checking with phone hardware will be minor. This has been proven by the jailbreaking community, similar to how they proved that the iPhone 3G could legitimately not handle multitasking in any way that would be acceptable to most users.
I agree that Siri is a huge marketing draw, but I am not sure that it is too big for Apple to keep it off of older phones. Apple was quite happy to market the iPhone 4S as the phone with Siri, and it definitely helps them sell that phone for more money even though teardowns suggest that the iPhone 4 cost's similar amounts to make. I don't fault them in any way for minimizing costs of their hardware, nor for the price of the phones, which are within the expected range compared to all other phones, but that is all to say that I would only be happily surprised if they choose to release Siri for older iOS 5 phones. I no longer expect it.
It handles it quite well in the FaceTime app while also encoding video, Voice Recorder app, and the [hacked] Siri app before it was pulled during the iPhone 4S launch. There is no reasonable, technical reason that any iPhone running iOS 5 should not support Siri. Encoding the audio is not a struggle on the iPhone 3GS, and the connection will be the same as the iPhone 4's (as opposed to the noticeably faster HSPA+ on AT&T's iPhone 4S, but not on Verizon's comparably slower iPhone 4S).
Anything less is just an excuse. Unfortunately, I do not think Apple will catch much flak when they neglect to add support to at least the 3GS for a similar reason that you claimed, but it will have no basis in reality if they do. After all, everyone quickly forgot about the promise to open up the FaceTime protocol too, but it will be interesting to see how they choose to handle iOS 6 and the iPhone 3GS still being sold at least through Spring of 2012.
I loved my iPhone 3GS, and my iPhone 4, but I recognize the writing on the wall. And that writing is starting to say, "no Siri," and that really bothers me for the same reasons that hardware-unrelated Android fragmentation does.
Using the phrase "Siri is a game changer" in a reason why fragmentation on Android is an issue not faced by iOS is amusing, at best.
Apple took Siri support away from the earlier iPhone when the iPhone 4S was launched simply because they could. It's an arbitrary, software-only limitation that prevents Siri from running on older hardware. Siri offloads the hard work onto Apple's servers, and not the phone, which is why the phone never would be the issue. It is forced fragmentation that Apple will supposedly release to their older line up once it removes the beta tag. They were also supposedly going to open up FaceTime as an open standard, enabling other phones and computers to interact with the protocol, so I would not expect that to actually come true.
Android is on the big stage right now with the lion share of sales ranging from wannabe-smartphones to the highend, but it is going to fail before it can fix itself if they do not change their act soon. Literally everyone that I know that owns an Android phone is fed up with something pretty big about the phone: battery life, speed, complexity, and a lack of supported updates. This only serves to send people to iOS, and it helps get Windows Phone some looks that it otherwise would never have gotten.
Ironic subject, given that you do not understand what a Trade Secret is.
Your entire post is worthless, and wasted. Though, you are right about using the post office to officially timestamp a document.
Yeah! Damn those evil corporations that invest billions into developing technology, and hoping to recoup that cost.
Me, representing China, one of the most totalitarian regimes around with its Great Firewall, should totally go steal that information because it's, like, totally for the goodness of the people, dude.
Grow up and get a clue. China could have licensed or bought the non-defense technology that they are stealing. They are not going to help the "little guy" in any country--not even their own--with this technology. Instead, they are going to make cheap knock-offs of the tech that they probably do not fully understand that will inevitably result in a lot of failures and death, [non-exclusive] or war with Taiwan.
What?
That's the exact same thing as saying, because your safe can be cracked, then your trade secrets that you held in it are in plain site. In other words, because someone was able to steal them, then they are not covered.
Requiring a spy to steal your details, or for you entire computer system to be hacked in certainly a reasonable-enough effort at protecting your trade secrets.
People should be stopped from illegal downloads as it is stealing, but the level of focus definitely makes no sense in comparison to other issues facing the nation. The entire entertainment industry has a nonsensical amount of power, but that does not change the lunacy of the rest of your--hopefully--sarcastic point.
Yeah, because Europe is just a thriving example of greatness right now.