every time such a revolution has occurred, the common man has ended up right back at the bottom of the socio-economic power structure. The last famous person who said something like that was Marx, and we all know how those revolutions ended up.
Interestingly enough, Marx predicted the failure of the communist revolution in Russia. The issue is that according to Marx, and I'm not saying that I agree or not, a society had to be of a capitalistic nature before revolution could bring about change to communism. The Russian revolution took place while Russian was still feudal.
So far there have been no examples of a people revolution taking place in a capitalistic society, unless that society had been temporarily converted to a police state or military rule.
Again, I'm not drawing any conclusions here, just saying that Marx spelled out a very specific path for transition to communism and it required the phases of capitalism, socialism and then communism (which in marxist terminology is closer to anarcho-communism than it is to socialism).
I'd just like to see something to back up the claim of a 75% failure rate. Even after the 10 years that the PS2 has been around I doubt you'll find a 75% failure rate. Plus when the PS2 first started having the Disk Read Error Sony was fixing them for free (I know because I had one fixed, three years out of warranty, free of charge). I have also had to replace my 60 Gig PS3 because of the Yellow Light of Death. I'm not saying their products don't fail, but 75% with the implication that it happens shortly after the first year, is a bit disingenuous.
I would also like to see something supporting that non-altered saved games where being rendered unusable from multiple firmware updates.
And as for useless over priced accessories. I'm very much certain MS and Nintendo have Sony crushed in that area. I would love to see a list of official Sony accessories that are useless or over priced (though that is clearly subjective).
And trust me I'm not trying to defend Sony, they've certainly rub me the wrong way a time or too ($200 for a refurbished PS3 and I can't keep my freaking data). It's just so hard in this case to take any of these claims seriously without hard data to back it up, when my own experience (including reading comments on the internet) is so much different.
It appears that the first state to Require a Medical School Diploma was Illinois in 1855. New Hampshire was the first state to require their medical schools to be certified in 1875 and that was by a private, unregulated society board or review. The First State Board of Health appeared in 1876 in Illinois. It really wasn't until 1910 that most states required a diploma from a state board certified educational institution (there were still 15 states lagging behind).
So believe it or not, there was quite some time in the United States that a person was able to practice medicine with out any form of regulated license, at least in some states.
Those statistics are looking at all people with or without a degree, not comparing comparable individuals in the same career.
Most people without a degree don't do the work they need to to get into the better paying careers. But if you compare equal jobs you will see that usually the person lacking the degree is higher paid. This is possibly because those without a degree are more self motivated, but I don't know if there have been any studies to prove that.
Getting your foot in the door used to have some meaning. Now people just assume that by posting your resume/cv or a job board will get you a job. There was a time when people had to physically put their foot in the door of an office to get a job. For those of us that started our careers without a degree we still had to put our foot in the door. So we spent more time finding work, but less time sitting in a class room (but still time educating ourselves), which was over all less time as we tended to be employed many years before the college bound student.
This affects income too, as some suggest. So the person lacking the degree starts off at a lower pay, but they do that 4 years earlier and accrue no debt for education. So by the time the 4 years have passed, you now have 4 years of experience (full time employment, not intern), while the degree bound student has a piece of paper and significant debt. The degreed person is actually the higher risk, having no real experience and significant potential credit problem (which companies do look at).
After about 5 years no employer is looking at your degree, except in rare instances but then we are talking about Phd Level education at that point. So in five years you have a person with 5 ears experience or 9 years experience. Do the math and you will see that the individual without the degree is usually better paid in the long run.
Of course this all depends on the career too. You are not going to find many MDs without a degree (not sure it's even legal in this country anymore), and no mater how many degrees you have, your position at McDonald's isn't going to get you ahead.
Actually the hydrogen will get used up when the Nickel is converted to Copper, so you wont be able to reprocess it.
I don't recall stating that the Hydrogen would be reusable. Unless you are inferring from the summary or article that the hydrogen used in the process is the hydrogen contained in the the Water that is being converted to Steam. I didn't see anything implying this and made the assumption that this process uses the standard heat transfer process to produce the resulting steam.
But hey if I missed something in the summary or article I'd appreciate it if you could highlight that oversight.
Call me when they've built a commercial-scale reactor and are giving out free electricity.
Why would it be free? It still consumes Nickle and Hydrogen, while producing less mass in Copper. Please they still need to maintain the plant and distribution system. So sure the price of the copper might counter the cost of the Nickle and Hydrogen, until copper prices plummet, but over all there is a net cost in generating the final electricity.
Call me when they can attach a generator to it, hook the output up to the input, and keep it running by just putting in cold water and getting steam.
I think you mean by putting in Nickle and Hydrogen and getting out Copper and heat. The water itself should not have to be replaced as it just converts back from vapor after it cools and can be reprocessed. The nickle and the hydrogen on the other hand are replaced by the generated Copper.
Some times it's like people don't even read the summary.
The only way they could pull this off legally is to hand me the old screws in a little plastic bag.
I don't think that would cut it legally either.
To abuse the old car analogy. If you took your car into a mechanic for any reason, would it be legal for them to replace the locks on the car and return the car to you without providing you the new keys?
This is theft pure and simple, but you would still have to take them to court, and sadly the cost to you would be far higher than buying the required tools.
The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.
This is absolutely true... if you ignore the high cost of employee absence, training, unpaid bills, loss of tax collection, or anything else you lose when a person gets sick or dies. Public health care is Darwinism. No where does it state that survival of the fittest means, ever man for himself, or else we'd probably have no ants, termites, Meerkats or naked mole rats (or humans).
Wait, now I see your point, it will be cheap once humans are all dead.
If you do your job correctly, then everything runs smoothly and you don't get any attention (or credit) at all. But as soon as something goes wrong, it's obviously because YOU FUCKED UP, and you get LOTS of attention!
There is a flip side to this, that successful IT employees learn to exploit.
Your best bet is to be their and fix something that was going wrong, as this will earn endless praise. In most situations you can even create the horrible situation that you get to be the hero and correct. Simply implement a solution that you know will be acceptable to your boss, or who ever approves solutions, but is still horribly inefficient and the end users will hate it. Then after enough time has passed that the end users are pretty discussed and no one really remembers who's fault it is, you just add some simple improvements. You could probably get away with putting in arbitrary wait states, or random crashes on purpose and still get this process to work.
Luckily you don't even usually have to set up the situation since budget and time constraints usually mean the first implementation of any solution is fairly craptastic to begin with.
The problem is not Spring per-se, IMHO it is the documentation and zealots
I'm not going to argue about documentation of zealotry. Springs Documentation is very detailed, and very easy to understand, though certainly still plagued with the usual open source problems. And as for Zealots, well zealots suck in all walks of life.
While you could debate the merits of the implementation of BeanKeeper, you'd be pretty hard pressed to beat its philosophy. Have a think whether Spring is designed with the same philosophy in mind.
BeanKeepers philosophy is exactly why it's not in widespread use, and most programers would have to look it up, as opposed to Spring or Hibernate which are becoming household names. The BeanKeeper philosophy contains majors flaws that will continually hold back it's adoption. If the BeanKeeper philosophy worked, then most of us developers would be out of work. The problem with BeanKeeper is that they assume two things that are almost universally false. First is that there is one right way to handle object persistence, and second that the application developer has full control of the data store. Nevermind that the philosophy, of keeping things simple, is internally inconsistent. There is nothing simple about the domain specific language they use for data querying, as they seem to base it on well known SQL syntax, but make arbitrary changes to nomenclature with no gain in simplicity.
The basic philosophy of BeanKeeper is, If it's something simple then it should be simple to do. The problem with this is that what the philosophy should be is, If it's something simple, don't build a framework to handle it. Frameworks are for complex problems, easy problems are...well...easy.
Re:Web.xml is the reason I hate Spring
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
When was the last time you used spring? Most of it is configured via annotations now.
Correction, Most of it CAN be configured via annotations. Many people still chose to use other forms of configuration other than Annotations, and for good reasons.
IMHO the plumbing part is like code (if you have to rebuild your WAR to change it then it is the same as code), so prefer to write anything smaller than the huge applications in code alone (or annotations), and minimize the funky XML dialects (Spring included) for the plumbing.
This is true unless you have multiple concurrent version of the same code running with different configurations. I have worked on applications that all shared the same internal api for data access (just as an example) but they connected to different databases with different internal schemas (because the application did not have control over the DB schema). So we would have different OR Mappings for each different implementation of the same application. So even though the OR Mappings where compiled in the final artifact (jar, war, ear, etc.) it does not mean that we should have had different sets of compiled code.
I have seen the same happen with spring, where different implementations of the application needed different spring configurations. Technically we could build these without including the spring context in the deployed artifact, but it's just easier to package it all up into a single artifact.
Mostly people could be using POJOs on the heap instead - which would force the POJOs to have proper getters setters (lots of Spring folk hide these, which hampers testing [wanna set a property to configure it for testing (or even mis-configure it deliberately to test your system robustness/error handling)?] ).
Again, another classic misuse of Spring. First of all spring promotes exposing getters and setters. The fact that by exposing getters and setters and using spring you have just created a fully configurable bean should be enough to push you toward exposing more properties. And more importantly, if you are considering spring while coding you classes, unless using specific spring helper libraries, then you are completely misunderstanding spring. The idea behind spring is to bind code together, in ways that were not explicitly hard coded.
And since you don't seem to get it, a spring bean is a POJO. There are no special API's you have to implement to create a spring bean. There is no special design pattern you have to follow. You don't even need to expose getters and setters if you don't want to, though that would be foolish. And it's up to you how flexible you what your POJOs to be. You can code to interfaces, or just create concrete POJOs, spring doesn't care.
And as I have said before, anyone can misuse a framework, but it takes real ignorance to blame the framework for that misuse.
Sounds like the ever so typical "I hate this framework because when I misuse it, it doesn't work very well," or is to hard to maintain or extend or whatever.
It's like my house, where the designer decided to put the hot water heater on one side of the house and then use a ton of plumbing to pipe it to the shower on the far side of the house which cause a huge waste in water to get hot water out of the shower, rather than build all the hot water appliance around a central location. Now I could blame indoor plumbing for making this possible, or I can accept that this particular design and usage of plumbing is done poorly.
I can make any useful framework into a monstrosity (and at times I have), but that doesn't make the framework any less useful, you just have to learn how to use it correctly.
I used to feel about annotations the way you feel about Spring, because I felt having run time processing directives hardcoded into compiled code was a bad idea. Annotating my bean as a Service, or as an Entity (for JPA/Hibernate) makes no sense, it's just a class and I should be able to use it as a service in one context and as a standard class in another, and the same goes for entities and any other runtime directives. But then I realized it's not the fault of the annotations framework, it's the fault of a specific implementation or usage of that framework. I hated Annotations so much it even turned me off from using spring config (which is annotation based spring configurations), but then I realized that the way spring config works, it doesn't have you putting runtime directives in you code, but only in dedicated configuration files that happen to be type safe and compiled.
If you learn how to use your tools correctly, you will find out that they usually work much better than if you try to use the wrong tool.
If you are going to pay to get life advice from an impartial source, see a therapist.
Unless it's a Logotherapist, your not going to be getting any advice, just a bunch of questions you could have just as easily got from a friend or a bartender, for free.
So they're not running any business apps on their laptop, that's all at the dc on their citrix setup.
That sounds like the worst possible set up. You lose the power of distributed computing. Today every person has a reasonably powerful desktop capable of running multiple threads of execution. Using something like Citrix, you are basically wasting uncountable cycles and wasting memory and bandwidth. This set up probably even has the web apps, the actual HTML rendering, etc, on a central server rather than offloading that onto the client machines.
Never mind the absolute nuisance it would be to require a network connection to be able to do even the most trivial task. I have my box set up so that I don't need a single network connection to carry out all the duties my job entails, except interpersonal communication, which in theory I can handle by phone if I had to. I intentionally unplug my self from the network from time to time so that I can get actual work done without interruption.
Citrix really needs to change their vision from "A world where anyone can work and play from anywhere" to "A world where anyone can work and play from anywhere there is an active, high-speed, low latency, connection to a currently running centralized application server (not currently overloaded by concurrent users)."
He was actually protecting the sanctity of our Election Process. Most candidates spread negative advertising about there opponents instead of revealing the truth about themselves. This kind of negative campaigning is against the sanctity or our Election Process. So this hacker was just trying to help Palin get her own words out to the people, directly, without spin doctors. The actual words and thoughts of our Elected officials is exactly what we need in our Election Process (I'm sure we could have avoided Dubya if we had been able to here him speak directly, before the election).
There is a pretty clear definition of Open Source...
Yes and that definition is that the "Source" is "Open" for anyone to examine. Open Source does not mean free, or that the source can be modified, or that it can even be distributed. Open Source simply means that the source is open for examination. It is possibly to have proprietary open source. A person or company can create a completely proprietary solution covered by the usual restrictive intellectual property rights yet still reveal the source. Just because the source is revealed it doesn't mean you have any special right that you would not have had if the source was closed.
Point being that Open Source is not necessarily Free, in any meaning of the word.
If your solution really is superior, but implementing it and maintaining it is beyond the abilities of your team, then it is not workable.
If it's beyond the ability of the team to maintain it then it's not really superior. Ease of maintenance should be the top priority (even if the product is so important that it needs to be so easy to maintain that it never needs maintenance).
The only time I've ever interviewed someone, walked out of the interview absolutely sure we had to hire them, and been wrong was when we hired one of the three smartest guys I've ever worked with -- who proved to be entirely ineffective in getting anything done because "we have to change everything because you're all a bunch of idiots!"
Hey, Have I worked with you in the past, because I swear you just described me in my youth. Mind you I still think "we have to change everything and you're all a bunch of idiots," I just don't tell you that. Usually.
Actually that's not totally true. I have never let the incompetence of others stand in the way of getting things done. I'm a good multitasker, I can bitch and work at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
every time such a revolution has occurred, the common man has ended up right back at the bottom of the socio-economic power structure. The last famous person who said something like that was Marx, and we all know how those revolutions ended up.
Interestingly enough, Marx predicted the failure of the communist revolution in Russia. The issue is that according to Marx, and I'm not saying that I agree or not, a society had to be of a capitalistic nature before revolution could bring about change to communism. The Russian revolution took place while Russian was still feudal.
So far there have been no examples of a people revolution taking place in a capitalistic society, unless that society had been temporarily converted to a police state or military rule.
Again, I'm not drawing any conclusions here, just saying that Marx spelled out a very specific path for transition to communism and it required the phases of capitalism, socialism and then communism (which in marxist terminology is closer to anarcho-communism than it is to socialism).
Yes because there is no way that any news agency would possibly publish false news reports.
I'd just like to see something to back up the claim of a 75% failure rate. Even after the 10 years that the PS2 has been around I doubt you'll find a 75% failure rate. Plus when the PS2 first started having the Disk Read Error Sony was fixing them for free (I know because I had one fixed, three years out of warranty, free of charge). I have also had to replace my 60 Gig PS3 because of the Yellow Light of Death. I'm not saying their products don't fail, but 75% with the implication that it happens shortly after the first year, is a bit disingenuous.
I would also like to see something supporting that non-altered saved games where being rendered unusable from multiple firmware updates.
And as for useless over priced accessories. I'm very much certain MS and Nintendo have Sony crushed in that area. I would love to see a list of official Sony accessories that are useless or over priced (though that is clearly subjective).
And trust me I'm not trying to defend Sony, they've certainly rub me the wrong way a time or too ($200 for a refurbished PS3 and I can't keep my freaking data). It's just so hard in this case to take any of these claims seriously without hard data to back it up, when my own experience (including reading comments on the internet) is so much different.
Did you miss read the article, it's about a new Sony hand held, not Microsoft.
But you seem to be mixing the companies pretty freely since you did list free online capabilities.
It appears that the first state to Require a Medical School Diploma was Illinois in 1855. New Hampshire was the first state to require their medical schools to be certified in 1875 and that was by a private, unregulated society board or review. The First State Board of Health appeared in 1876 in Illinois. It really wasn't until 1910 that most states required a diploma from a state board certified educational institution (there were still 15 states lagging behind).
So believe it or not, there was quite some time in the United States that a person was able to practice medicine with out any form of regulated license, at least in some states.
But the actual statistics say otherwise.
Those statistics are looking at all people with or without a degree, not comparing comparable individuals in the same career.
Most people without a degree don't do the work they need to to get into the better paying careers. But if you compare equal jobs you will see that usually the person lacking the degree is higher paid. This is possibly because those without a degree are more self motivated, but I don't know if there have been any studies to prove that.
Getting your foot in the door used to have some meaning. Now people just assume that by posting your resume/cv or a job board will get you a job. There was a time when people had to physically put their foot in the door of an office to get a job. For those of us that started our careers without a degree we still had to put our foot in the door. So we spent more time finding work, but less time sitting in a class room (but still time educating ourselves), which was over all less time as we tended to be employed many years before the college bound student.
This affects income too, as some suggest. So the person lacking the degree starts off at a lower pay, but they do that 4 years earlier and accrue no debt for education. So by the time the 4 years have passed, you now have 4 years of experience (full time employment, not intern), while the degree bound student has a piece of paper and significant debt. The degreed person is actually the higher risk, having no real experience and significant potential credit problem (which companies do look at).
After about 5 years no employer is looking at your degree, except in rare instances but then we are talking about Phd Level education at that point. So in five years you have a person with 5 ears experience or 9 years experience. Do the math and you will see that the individual without the degree is usually better paid in the long run.
Of course this all depends on the career too. You are not going to find many MDs without a degree (not sure it's even legal in this country anymore), and no mater how many degrees you have, your position at McDonald's isn't going to get you ahead.
Actually the hydrogen will get used up when the Nickel is converted to Copper, so you wont be able to reprocess it.
I don't recall stating that the Hydrogen would be reusable. Unless you are inferring from the summary or article that the hydrogen used in the process is the hydrogen contained in the the Water that is being converted to Steam. I didn't see anything implying this and made the assumption that this process uses the standard heat transfer process to produce the resulting steam.
But hey if I missed something in the summary or article I'd appreciate it if you could highlight that oversight.
Nickle costs about four times as much per pound as copper.
Sorry I didn't take the time to look it up. That does further back up my statement that this processes is anything but free.
Call me when they've built a commercial-scale reactor and are giving out free electricity.
Why would it be free? It still consumes Nickle and Hydrogen, while producing less mass in Copper. Please they still need to maintain the plant and distribution system. So sure the price of the copper might counter the cost of the Nickle and Hydrogen, until copper prices plummet, but over all there is a net cost in generating the final electricity.
Call me when they can attach a generator to it, hook the output up to the input, and keep it running by just putting in cold water and getting steam.
I think you mean by putting in Nickle and Hydrogen and getting out Copper and heat. The water itself should not have to be replaced as it just converts back from vapor after it cools and can be reprocessed. The nickle and the hydrogen on the other hand are replaced by the generated Copper.
Some times it's like people don't even read the summary.
The only way they could pull this off legally is to hand me the old screws in a little plastic bag.
I don't think that would cut it legally either.
To abuse the old car analogy. If you took your car into a mechanic for any reason, would it be legal for them to replace the locks on the car and return the car to you without providing you the new keys?
This is theft pure and simple, but you would still have to take them to court, and sadly the cost to you would be far higher than buying the required tools.
Unless he shot some Video, he likely does not have 16GB of interesting photos.
Unless he has a Kid.
The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.
This is absolutely true... if you ignore the high cost of employee absence, training, unpaid bills, loss of tax collection, or anything else you lose when a person gets sick or dies. Public health care is Darwinism. No where does it state that survival of the fittest means, ever man for himself, or else we'd probably have no ants, termites, Meerkats or naked mole rats (or humans).
Wait, now I see your point, it will be cheap once humans are all dead.
If you do your job correctly, then everything runs smoothly and you don't get any attention (or credit) at all. But as soon as something goes wrong, it's obviously because YOU FUCKED UP, and you get LOTS of attention!
There is a flip side to this, that successful IT employees learn to exploit.
Your best bet is to be their and fix something that was going wrong, as this will earn endless praise. In most situations you can even create the horrible situation that you get to be the hero and correct. Simply implement a solution that you know will be acceptable to your boss, or who ever approves solutions, but is still horribly inefficient and the end users will hate it. Then after enough time has passed that the end users are pretty discussed and no one really remembers who's fault it is, you just add some simple improvements. You could probably get away with putting in arbitrary wait states, or random crashes on purpose and still get this process to work.
Luckily you don't even usually have to set up the situation since budget and time constraints usually mean the first implementation of any solution is fairly craptastic to begin with.
The problem is not Spring per-se, IMHO it is the documentation and zealots
I'm not going to argue about documentation of zealotry. Springs Documentation is very detailed, and very easy to understand, though certainly still plagued with the usual open source problems. And as for Zealots, well zealots suck in all walks of life.
While you could debate the merits of the implementation of BeanKeeper, you'd be pretty hard pressed to beat its philosophy. Have a think whether Spring is designed with the same philosophy in mind.
BeanKeepers philosophy is exactly why it's not in widespread use, and most programers would have to look it up, as opposed to Spring or Hibernate which are becoming household names. The BeanKeeper philosophy contains majors flaws that will continually hold back it's adoption. If the BeanKeeper philosophy worked, then most of us developers would be out of work. The problem with BeanKeeper is that they assume two things that are almost universally false. First is that there is one right way to handle object persistence, and second that the application developer has full control of the data store. Nevermind that the philosophy, of keeping things simple, is internally inconsistent. There is nothing simple about the domain specific language they use for data querying, as they seem to base it on well known SQL syntax, but make arbitrary changes to nomenclature with no gain in simplicity.
The basic philosophy of BeanKeeper is, If it's something simple then it should be simple to do. The problem with this is that what the philosophy should be is, If it's something simple, don't build a framework to handle it. Frameworks are for complex problems, easy problems are...well...easy.
When was the last time you used spring? Most of it is configured via annotations now.
Correction, Most of it CAN be configured via annotations. Many people still chose to use other forms of configuration other than Annotations, and for good reasons.
IMHO the plumbing part is like code (if you have to rebuild your WAR to change it then it is the same as code), so prefer to write anything smaller than the huge applications in code alone (or annotations), and minimize the funky XML dialects (Spring included) for the plumbing.
This is true unless you have multiple concurrent version of the same code running with different configurations. I have worked on applications that all shared the same internal api for data access (just as an example) but they connected to different databases with different internal schemas (because the application did not have control over the DB schema). So we would have different OR Mappings for each different implementation of the same application. So even though the OR Mappings where compiled in the final artifact (jar, war, ear, etc.) it does not mean that we should have had different sets of compiled code.
I have seen the same happen with spring, where different implementations of the application needed different spring configurations. Technically we could build these without including the spring context in the deployed artifact, but it's just easier to package it all up into a single artifact.
Mostly people could be using POJOs on the heap instead - which would force the POJOs to have proper getters setters (lots of Spring folk hide these, which hampers testing [wanna set a property to configure it for testing (or even mis-configure it deliberately to test your system robustness/error handling)?] ).
Again, another classic misuse of Spring. First of all spring promotes exposing getters and setters. The fact that by exposing getters and setters and using spring you have just created a fully configurable bean should be enough to push you toward exposing more properties. And more importantly, if you are considering spring while coding you classes, unless using specific spring helper libraries, then you are completely misunderstanding spring. The idea behind spring is to bind code together, in ways that were not explicitly hard coded.
And since you don't seem to get it, a spring bean is a POJO. There are no special API's you have to implement to create a spring bean. There is no special design pattern you have to follow. You don't even need to expose getters and setters if you don't want to, though that would be foolish. And it's up to you how flexible you what your POJOs to be. You can code to interfaces, or just create concrete POJOs, spring doesn't care.
And as I have said before, anyone can misuse a framework, but it takes real ignorance to blame the framework for that misuse.
Sounds like the ever so typical "I hate this framework because when I misuse it, it doesn't work very well," or is to hard to maintain or extend or whatever.
It's like my house, where the designer decided to put the hot water heater on one side of the house and then use a ton of plumbing to pipe it to the shower on the far side of the house which cause a huge waste in water to get hot water out of the shower, rather than build all the hot water appliance around a central location. Now I could blame indoor plumbing for making this possible, or I can accept that this particular design and usage of plumbing is done poorly.
I can make any useful framework into a monstrosity (and at times I have), but that doesn't make the framework any less useful, you just have to learn how to use it correctly.
I used to feel about annotations the way you feel about Spring, because I felt having run time processing directives hardcoded into compiled code was a bad idea. Annotating my bean as a Service, or as an Entity (for JPA/Hibernate) makes no sense, it's just a class and I should be able to use it as a service in one context and as a standard class in another, and the same goes for entities and any other runtime directives. But then I realized it's not the fault of the annotations framework, it's the fault of a specific implementation or usage of that framework. I hated Annotations so much it even turned me off from using spring config (which is annotation based spring configurations), but then I realized that the way spring config works, it doesn't have you putting runtime directives in you code, but only in dedicated configuration files that happen to be type safe and compiled.
If you learn how to use your tools correctly, you will find out that they usually work much better than if you try to use the wrong tool.
If you are going to pay to get life advice from an impartial source, see a therapist.
Unless it's a Logotherapist, your not going to be getting any advice, just a bunch of questions you could have just as easily got from a friend or a bartender, for free.
So they're not running any business apps on their laptop, that's all at the dc on their citrix setup.
That sounds like the worst possible set up. You lose the power of distributed computing. Today every person has a reasonably powerful desktop capable of running multiple threads of execution. Using something like Citrix, you are basically wasting uncountable cycles and wasting memory and bandwidth. This set up probably even has the web apps, the actual HTML rendering, etc, on a central server rather than offloading that onto the client machines.
Never mind the absolute nuisance it would be to require a network connection to be able to do even the most trivial task. I have my box set up so that I don't need a single network connection to carry out all the duties my job entails, except interpersonal communication, which in theory I can handle by phone if I had to. I intentionally unplug my self from the network from time to time so that I can get actual work done without interruption.
Citrix really needs to change their vision from "A world where anyone can work and play from anywhere" to "A world where anyone can work and play from anywhere there is an active, high-speed, low latency, connection to a currently running centralized application server (not currently overloaded by concurrent users)."
He was actually protecting the sanctity of our Election Process. Most candidates spread negative advertising about there opponents instead of revealing the truth about themselves. This kind of negative campaigning is against the sanctity or our Election Process. So this hacker was just trying to help Palin get her own words out to the people, directly, without spin doctors. The actual words and thoughts of our Elected officials is exactly what we need in our Election Process (I'm sure we could have avoided Dubya if we had been able to here him speak directly, before the election).
There is a pretty clear definition of Open Source...
Yes and that definition is that the "Source" is "Open" for anyone to examine. Open Source does not mean free, or that the source can be modified, or that it can even be distributed. Open Source simply means that the source is open for examination. It is possibly to have proprietary open source. A person or company can create a completely proprietary solution covered by the usual restrictive intellectual property rights yet still reveal the source. Just because the source is revealed it doesn't mean you have any special right that you would not have had if the source was closed.
Point being that Open Source is not necessarily Free, in any meaning of the word.
If your solution really is superior, but implementing it and maintaining it is beyond the abilities of your team, then it is not workable.
If it's beyond the ability of the team to maintain it then it's not really superior. Ease of maintenance should be the top priority (even if the product is so important that it needs to be so easy to maintain that it never needs maintenance).
The only time I've ever interviewed someone, walked out of the interview absolutely sure we had to hire them, and been wrong was when we hired one of the three smartest guys I've ever worked with -- who proved to be entirely ineffective in getting anything done because "we have to change everything because you're all a bunch of idiots!"
Hey, Have I worked with you in the past, because I swear you just described me in my youth. Mind you I still think "we have to change everything and you're all a bunch of idiots," I just don't tell you that. Usually.
Actually that's not totally true. I have never let the incompetence of others stand in the way of getting things done. I'm a good multitasker, I can bitch and work at the same time.