Some clarification: I wasn't trying to suggest that the characteristics of an alligator are not a result of evolution, because of course, as some have pointed out, everything is rooted in evolution.
What I was trying to say is that it's possible that the alligator had always had these antibiotics since it's initial state of being, and that it didn't obtain these antibiotics somewhere along its course of life.
To repeat: everything about alligators is a product of evolution, but it's entirely plausible they've had the antibiotics since their "beginning". The article suggests that maybe the antibiotics were obtained as a result of their environment (fighting, etc.), but I'm suggesting it's possible they've always had them.
Hence my criticism of linking everything directly to evolution (evolution in the sense that it must have evolved a characteristic after its first "beginning"). I don't know if this confuses the matter worse, but I hope not.
Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing, as alligators are often injured during fierce territorial battles.
Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. Why is it that every interesting or perplexing feature about a species must be somehow attributed to, or be a product of, evolution?
I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution.
Money? And lots of it, I'm sure. Just think of the taxes collected on every penny spent there: airfare, travel, meals, lodgings, souvenirs, equipment, entertainment, and so forth. The Olympics is a giant event with money being poured into all the infrastructure surrounding it.
The difference you missed is that he was talking about executives, you're talking about being the owner of a business. There's a substantial difference between the two positions.
Executives have lower risk. They typically have no responsibility to ensure employees are kept employed, but they are charged with keeping the business flowing, keeping shareholders smiling, etc.
Likewise, owners also do not have the responsibility of ensuring their employees are kept employed. A business owner doesn't conduct business to keep people employed, but it's a byproduct. The owner has the responsibility of ensuring their business succeeds, and that translates into sustainable employment for the hired hands.
You can jump off that horse anytime. The tone of your post is even insulting to me, and I, like you, also run my own business and employ others.
Similarly, I once applied for a contract requiring experience with "RDBMS's". No sweat. On my resume I had listed Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., as databases I have working knowledge/experience with.
I received a response from the agency rep stating that they were concerned because I did not have any experience with an RDBMS. These are people who staff IT positions everyday.
It's these kind of clueless workers who, unfortunately, are usually in the position of determining which applicants are qualified for a job. I'm certain they, at least in some small part, contribute to the perceived shortage.
I would argue that software is different for other reasons. Most software developers/companies cannot be held accountable because changes in the industry are beyond their control.
For example, when engineers design and build, they have to contend with a variety of concerns. Most of these concerns are calculable, limiting, and realistic. As a simple example of the forces of nature, wind power is calculable and only occurs within expected limits. Things are built to withstand extreme winds. But there is a threshold -- we don't build to withstand 5,000mph winds because we know it just won't happen. Wind is wind, it increases or decreases, nothing more.
Software, on the other hand, has the problem of dealing (or not dealing) with unknown circumstances. Developers cannot know that in five years, the platform their product was built on will be obsolete and unusable. Products come and go daily, and support for these products fade just as quickly. Hardware also changes on a daily basis, making it impossible to stand behind your product, the same way an engineer does his. There is no professional obligation for software developers because there are so many unknown variables that come into play.
Here's another way to look at it using the bridge example. If an engineer 50 years ago built a bridge to support the horse and buggy, not knowing that the invention of the modern-day car was on the horizon, he cannot be held accountable for the bridge's collapse under the weight of multiple vehicles.
This is akin to software development. Developers cannot predict the future, consequently cannot plan for it, and ultimately therefore cannot be held accountable for it's failure.
Also... The other big reason is that a blue screen of death doesn't result in actual death.
Actually, depending on the context software is used in, it can quite quickly result in death. Planes and automobiles come to mind.
I never claimed PHP was awesome, but I did say that it isn't so bad that people need to discourage others from using it. You're responses are so riddled with assumptions and misinformation, you're already wasted too much of my time.
No offense, but if you've been using the same language for eight years without any regrets, I don't see you as having enough perspective to offer up much useful information.
So my career path, which lead to developing in a specific language, has somehow excluded me from being eligible to offer up any "useful information"? Where is the logic in that?
As far as I can tell, PHP is popular because it's perfectly adequate language for cranking out some basic dynamic pages, and it's very easy to learn and set up. However, just like Visual Basic, the things that make it useful in the shallow end of the pool keep it from being useful at scale. And from the eternal trickle of security issues and the host of weird issues with it, it was apparently designed by amateurs.
By the sounds of it you hardly have a grasp on what PHP can and cannot do, yet you're using your limited knowledge as basis to challenge my credibility? Brilliant...
And on a technical note, if you're suggesting PHP cannot scale, I advise you to reach just how scalable it is. You can start by informing yourself with how Wikipedia operates.
So because I said I've been using PHP for 8 years, that is conclusive evidence that I don't know any other languages? Great line of thinking, pal.
I can be certain if my response listed C++ instead of PHP, you wouldn't question me the way you have. PHP, to you and many others, has the unfortunate distinction of assuming that everyone who uses it is useless, uninformed, and lost in their ways. This is far from the truth for many of those who make a living in PHP development.
Get over it. PHP is not perfect, but it does a damn good job. If it didn't, it wouldn't be so widely used. You can respectfully disagree, but try to maintain some civility here instead of suggesting we all just avoid PHP as if it's some kind of curse. There isn't a tool in the world that doesn't have it's flaws.
I've been using PHP for eight years and there hasn't been a day where I wished I had chosen another language. Sure, I wish the PHP of today was available eight years ago, but I can't complain with what is available now.
MySQL uses the term distribution loosely. From the license:
Typical examples of MySQL distribution include:
* Selling software that includes MySQL to customers who install the software on their own machines. * Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves on their own machines.
* Building a hardware system that includes MySQL and selling that hardware system to customers for installation at their own locations.
Check out the MySQL commercial license. It's pretty clear that any kind of distribution or connection method falls under the commercial license. The example you mentioned should be requiring the customer to purchase a license for MySQL, but in reality that will rarely happen if it's up to the installer.
Actually, it has less to do with support and more to do with the fact that companies that develop commercial, proprietary, closed-source applications using MySQL are required to purchase MySQL Enterprise if they want to use MySQL. Otherwise, they have to look to completely free alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.
There are certainly customers that adopt MySQL Enterprise purely for the support, but I believe the majority of customers are using MySQL Enterprise for commercial purposes because they have no other choice if they wish to adopt the MySQL platform.
I'm willing to pay $100 for a Dodge Ram. But does my wish define the price? Of course not. Even if I was willing to pay $100,000, the price of the $40,000 truck will not change. This isn't a wishing game.
What someone is willing to pay is a price that resulted from another's work to determine the value of the company. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's determined by someone playing with rand()
Welcome to Mikita's. How may I serve you?
- I'd like 'rullers, 'ugar, 'ucks and a Mikita 'cup... And then I think I would like a large......with 'eam.
- And could I please have 'elly donut and......raspberry and a 'nge drink?
What?
- I'm sorry. And 'eaker 'oken.
Let me recap the order: A cruller, two sugar pucks, a large coffee with cream, a raspberry jelly doughnut,
orange drink, a box of five-holes.
I think you missed his point, and you've also made some pretty ridiculous statements here.
You think the car engines of 10-20 years ago are hardly the same? When was the last time you put your head under the hood? The fundamentals of the combustion engine have not changed. Sure, some of the components have (carburetion to fuel injection, etc.), but the engine is just as much the same as it was 30 years ago. Principally and mechanically, there has been very little change to the internal combustion engine. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Second, the reason why it takes more labour today to build something from yesterday is because today's workforce does not have the intimate knowledge that previous generations had about building planes. It has nothing to do with design or instructions. When critical knowledge isn't passed on, the workers simply have to re-learn what the veterans knew all too well.
A simple example to illustrate: I hand you a sheet of instructions on how to build a fire. You've never done this before. It takes you 5 hours to get a fire going because you lack the technique and learning experience of right from wrong. Although the directions are correct, it takes you a long time because you've never done it before.
Now ask yourself: would it have taken 5 hours if you had already knew the technique to building a fire? No, it might have taken you an hour at most. That's the point -- the instinctual, innate, and intimate knowledge of workers cannot be passed along with just a design sheet. It just doesn't work like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Some clarification: I wasn't trying to suggest that the characteristics of an alligator are not a result of evolution, because of course, as some have pointed out, everything is rooted in evolution.
What I was trying to say is that it's possible that the alligator had always had these antibiotics since it's initial state of being, and that it didn't obtain these antibiotics somewhere along its course of life.
To repeat: everything about alligators is a product of evolution, but it's entirely plausible they've had the antibiotics since their "beginning". The article suggests that maybe the antibiotics were obtained as a result of their environment (fighting, etc.), but I'm suggesting it's possible they've always had them.
Hence my criticism of linking everything directly to evolution (evolution in the sense that it must have evolved a characteristic after its first "beginning"). I don't know if this confuses the matter worse, but I hope not.
Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing, as alligators are often injured during fierce territorial battles.
Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. Why is it that every interesting or perplexing feature about a species must be somehow attributed to, or be a product of, evolution?
I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution.
Sorry for dropping a deuce on your lawn and Twittering about it!
Money? And lots of it, I'm sure. Just think of the taxes collected on every penny spent there: airfare, travel, meals, lodgings, souvenirs, equipment, entertainment, and so forth. The Olympics is a giant event with money being poured into all the infrastructure surrounding it.
The difference you missed is that he was talking about executives, you're talking about being the owner of a business. There's a substantial difference between the two positions.
Executives have lower risk. They typically have no responsibility to ensure employees are kept employed, but they are charged with keeping the business flowing, keeping shareholders smiling, etc.
Likewise, owners also do not have the responsibility of ensuring their employees are kept employed. A business owner doesn't conduct business to keep people employed, but it's a byproduct. The owner has the responsibility of ensuring their business succeeds, and that translates into sustainable employment for the hired hands.
You can jump off that horse anytime. The tone of your post is even insulting to me, and I, like you, also run my own business and employ others.
Fortunately I was not privy to the breeding practices of your mother and father at the time, so my apologies for the misinformed post :)
Not until cow's and whale's breed!!
Don't have a cow, man!
Reminds me of an old joke (not quoted exactly):
"A pussy is a beautiful mound of flesh that you can caress and enjoy. A cunt is the one who owns it"
Similarly, I once applied for a contract requiring experience with "RDBMS's". No sweat. On my resume I had listed Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., as databases I have working knowledge/experience with.
I received a response from the agency rep stating that they were concerned because I did not have any experience with an RDBMS. These are people who staff IT positions everyday.
It's these kind of clueless workers who, unfortunately, are usually in the position of determining which applicants are qualified for a job. I'm certain they, at least in some small part, contribute to the perceived shortage.
I think YouPorn.com has this enormous gap / money hole thing you talk about filled already...
Wait, this sounds a lot like my wife...
Imagine buying a 12 cylinder Lamborghini, getting it home, and then realizing it's only firing on 6 cylinders.
So, you're married too?
I would argue that software is different for other reasons. Most software developers/companies cannot be held accountable because changes in the industry are beyond their control.
For example, when engineers design and build, they have to contend with a variety of concerns. Most of these concerns are calculable, limiting, and realistic. As a simple example of the forces of nature, wind power is calculable and only occurs within expected limits. Things are built to withstand extreme winds. But there is a threshold -- we don't build to withstand 5,000mph winds because we know it just won't happen. Wind is wind, it increases or decreases, nothing more.
Software, on the other hand, has the problem of dealing (or not dealing) with unknown circumstances. Developers cannot know that in five years, the platform their product was built on will be obsolete and unusable. Products come and go daily, and support for these products fade just as quickly. Hardware also changes on a daily basis, making it impossible to stand behind your product, the same way an engineer does his. There is no professional obligation for software developers because there are so many unknown variables that come into play.
Here's another way to look at it using the bridge example. If an engineer 50 years ago built a bridge to support the horse and buggy, not knowing that the invention of the modern-day car was on the horizon, he cannot be held accountable for the bridge's collapse under the weight of multiple vehicles.
This is akin to software development. Developers cannot predict the future, consequently cannot plan for it, and ultimately therefore cannot be held accountable for it's failure. Also... The other big reason is that a blue screen of death doesn't result in actual death.
Actually, depending on the context software is used in, it can quite quickly result in death. Planes and automobiles come to mind.
I never claimed PHP was awesome, but I did say that it isn't so bad that people need to discourage others from using it. You're responses are so riddled with assumptions and misinformation, you're already wasted too much of my time.
No offense, but if you've been using the same language for eight years without any regrets, I don't see you as having enough perspective to offer up much useful information.
So my career path, which lead to developing in a specific language, has somehow excluded me from being eligible to offer up any "useful information"? Where is the logic in that?
As far as I can tell, PHP is popular because it's perfectly adequate language for cranking out some basic dynamic pages, and it's very easy to learn and set up. However, just like Visual Basic, the things that make it useful in the shallow end of the pool keep it from being useful at scale. And from the eternal trickle of security issues and the host of weird issues with it, it was apparently designed by amateurs.
By the sounds of it you hardly have a grasp on what PHP can and cannot do, yet you're using your limited knowledge as basis to challenge my credibility? Brilliant...
And on a technical note, if you're suggesting PHP cannot scale, I advise you to reach just how scalable it is. You can start by informing yourself with how Wikipedia operates.
So because I said I've been using PHP for 8 years, that is conclusive evidence that I don't know any other languages? Great line of thinking, pal.
I can be certain if my response listed C++ instead of PHP, you wouldn't question me the way you have. PHP, to you and many others, has the unfortunate distinction of assuming that everyone who uses it is useless, uninformed, and lost in their ways. This is far from the truth for many of those who make a living in PHP development.
Get over it. PHP is not perfect, but it does a damn good job. If it didn't, it wouldn't be so widely used. You can respectfully disagree, but try to maintain some civility here instead of suggesting we all just avoid PHP as if it's some kind of curse. There isn't a tool in the world that doesn't have it's flaws.
I've been using PHP for eight years and there hasn't been a day where I wished I had chosen another language. Sure, I wish the PHP of today was available eight years ago, but I can't complain with what is available now.
MySQL uses the term distribution loosely. From the license:
Typical examples of MySQL distribution include:
* Selling software that includes MySQL to customers who install the software on their own machines.
* Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves on their own machines.
* Building a hardware system that includes MySQL and selling that hardware system to customers for installation at their own locations.
Check out the MySQL commercial license. It's pretty clear that any kind of distribution or connection method falls under the commercial license. The example you mentioned should be requiring the customer to purchase a license for MySQL, but in reality that will rarely happen if it's up to the installer.
Actually, it has less to do with support and more to do with the fact that companies that develop commercial, proprietary, closed-source applications using MySQL are required to purchase MySQL Enterprise if they want to use MySQL. Otherwise, they have to look to completely free alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.
There are certainly customers that adopt MySQL Enterprise purely for the support, but I believe the majority of customers are using MySQL Enterprise for commercial purposes because they have no other choice if they wish to adopt the MySQL platform.
Not quite that simple.
I'm willing to pay $100 for a Dodge Ram. But does my wish define the price? Of course not. Even if I was willing to pay $100,000, the price of the $40,000 truck will not change. This isn't a wishing game.
What someone is willing to pay is a price that resulted from another's work to determine the value of the company. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's determined by someone playing with rand()
Because dream's don't come true!!!
Welcome to Mikita's. How may I serve you? ...with 'eam. ...raspberry and a 'nge drink?
- I'd like 'rullers, 'ugar, 'ucks and a Mikita 'cup... And then I think I would like a large...
- And could I please have 'elly donut and...
What?
- I'm sorry. And 'eaker 'oken.
Let me recap the order: A cruller, two sugar pucks, a large coffee with cream, a raspberry jelly doughnut, orange drink, a box of five-holes.
- Yeah.
Thank you. Drive around, please.
I think you missed his point, and you've also made some pretty ridiculous statements here.
You think the car engines of 10-20 years ago are hardly the same? When was the last time you put your head under the hood? The fundamentals of the combustion engine have not changed. Sure, some of the components have (carburetion to fuel injection, etc.), but the engine is just as much the same as it was 30 years ago. Principally and mechanically, there has been very little change to the internal combustion engine. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Second, the reason why it takes more labour today to build something from yesterday is because today's workforce does not have the intimate knowledge that previous generations had about building planes. It has nothing to do with design or instructions. When critical knowledge isn't passed on, the workers simply have to re-learn what the veterans knew all too well.
A simple example to illustrate: I hand you a sheet of instructions on how to build a fire. You've never done this before. It takes you 5 hours to get a fire going because you lack the technique and learning experience of right from wrong. Although the directions are correct, it takes you a long time because you've never done it before.
Now ask yourself: would it have taken 5 hours if you had already knew the technique to building a fire? No, it might have taken you an hour at most. That's the point -- the instinctual, innate, and intimate knowledge of workers cannot be passed along with just a design sheet. It just doesn't work like that.