While that may sound good in theory, I have yet to see in practice where any web-fronted application had shown any lower deployment/administration/maintenance costs than a comparable desktop app. What may be saved in deployment (and many good enterprise desktop apps manage deployment nearly as transparently as a web app) seems to get eaten up by slow response and flakiness for users, network issues, web server issues, browser issues, and security issues. Admittedly, in many cases this is a matter of badly designed web apps, but in the world of commercial enterprise software, the quality of browser-based apps seems to be worse than the already pretty dismal quality of enterprise desktop apps.
Browser apps certainly have their place and can be the superior choice in the situations for which they are well-suited, but after the last decade of having way too many utterly painful browser apps forced upon me, I think the reasoning that led so many to the Kool-Aid tub needs to be reassessed.
Re:Because you don't need more cycles in biz
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 5, Funny
It's Moore's other law - once fast enough is achieved, you have to slow it down with shite like rounded 3d-effect buttons, smooth rolling semi-transparent fade-in-and-out menus and ray-traced 25 squillion polygon chat avatars.
Actually, that's Cole's Law, which states that an unused plate space must be occupied with cheap filler that no one really wants.
Oh wow, how illogical of me to assume there's an implication in calling someone a cretinous imbecile that they shouldn't be listened to. Thank you, now I'm clear on the disntinction, you cretinous imbecile.
The source is professor Arthur Herman and other scholars cited in the article, you cretinous imbecile. By the way, I suggest you look up argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominem.
The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age. Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older.
So it would seem in PA that though 14 is under the age of consent for an adult, a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old would not be illegal.
Looking at the rest of the page, this would seem to be typical of most states.
Not nearly far enough. What we can now see with this epiphany is that all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge and allow us to finally achieve a healthy society.
Replying to myself... Sorry! Scratch that...I didn't see the additional provincial taxes below. I thought there was missing taxes somewhere. Still, when it comes down to it my overall payroll taxes on, I'll just sat between $50-$100K, seems to be pretty much the same as the US.
I just wrote a post below about tax brackets and rates, and it just so happens that I'm a dual US-Canadian citizen, living and working in Canada now but most of life was in the US. Out of curiosity I wanted to compare US vs. Canadian income tax rates, I was surprised to find that Canadian income tax rates are slightly lower across the board than the US.
Canada 2009: - 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
- 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
- 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
- 29% of taxable income over $126,264.
US 2008: - 10% of $0 to $8,025
- 15% of $8,025 to $32,550
- 25% of $32,550 to $78,850
- 28% of $78,850 to $164,550
- 33% of $164,550 to $357,700
- 35% of $357,700 and up
The US figures do not count FICA which is 6.2% up to $102,000. My additional taxes on my Canadian payroll check do not come close to matching FICA plus other non-Federal taxes that I paid in the US.
The place where I feel overtaxed in Canada in comparison to the US is not on my income, but with the GST/PST, and the slew of fuel, booze, etc., etc., taxes which contribute overall to higher cost of living here.
Excellent post. I can't tell you how many people I know who misunderstand tax brackets and think they can be substantially penalized for earning an extra $1 if it puts them into a higher bracket.
Another factor I would add that even further detracts from that myth, since I saw you mention it, is FICA. (For non-US residents unaware of FICA, it is a separate federal payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare.) For 2008, an employee pays 6.2% up to $102,000 for FICA. If you compare to the US income tax brackets, any money you earn over that $102,000 up to $164,550 is being effectively taxed at 6.2% less than the $78,850 to $102,000 earned (considering Fed Income Tax plus FICA, the vast bulk of most payroll tax). The $164,550-$357,700 bracket raises the rate 5% on additional dollars earned, which still leaves you paying 1.2% less and only when you enter that top bracket are your additional dollars effectively taxed at a whopping 0.8% more than you were taxed for $78,850 to $102,000.
Bottom line, under the US federal tax system you never lose money by making money. In fact, it really doesn't look so progressive when you spell it out like that.
Is there a named cognitive bias (or something similar) for suddenly liking and missing someone who was universally considered a git prior to his passing? Because that's what happening to Slashdot right now, including me a bit.
Yes.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Latin for: Speak nothing but good of the dead.
Re:All that I need now is google underwear!
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 1
The yellow one is particularly cheesy-looking. Swiss, specifically.
Actually, I was looking more at the first guy's rewrite than the original, and you're right that I'm not bypassing the second check which a goto would. And you are correct that the restructuring could get uglier as complexity increases, although a second bool to determine whether to continue checking further conditions could avoid complex nesting. (I've found that technique useful in edit situations where you may or may not want to keep checking for additional error conditions based on the seriousness of a given error.)
And although, as a poster downstream suggested, I was always taught to avoid gotos in C/C++ like the plague, I do agree that the example in the original code is actually a good example where a goto can indeed be useful.
However, my broader point is that it is generally not too horrendously difficult to get around a goto in C/C++, and more often than not IME, developers who claim they "had to" use the goto could have just as easily and just as readably (if not moreso) done it another way. I'd say the rule of thumb should be, unless a goto makes the code significantly more readable or maintainable, or you are writing some kind of low-level often-executed code where a goto might gain some efficiency, avoid it.
I'm sorry, but how the fuck is this flamebait? This seems very apt, as this is what is causing an increase in this theft. People are starting to lose their jobs and money in all sorts of ways. Desperate people do desperate things. For those living in the fantasy land of never having to be poor for nearly their whole life growing up, I could well imagine they'd take offense to this.
The reality is, this is exactly why this theft is taking place.
...and I'm sure that the commodity price of copper couldn't possibly have any bearing as to why copper thefts would have increased since 2006.
If copper theft continues apace now that copper is worth less than half what is was six months ago, then maybe you might have a case that the "political-economic system" is the exact cause.
I don't think anyone could clearly quantify the economic benefits of having, say, public roads, either. However, without a concrete example of a society which doesn't publicly fund roads or education, but reaps greater economic benefits due to having better transportation infrastructure or a better educated populace and workforce, I think you're on thin ice claiming that those who support the existing public funding of such things as "living a fantasy".
Slashdot Mirror
While that may sound good in theory, I have yet to see in practice where any web-fronted application had shown any lower deployment/administration/maintenance costs than a comparable desktop app. What may be saved in deployment (and many good enterprise desktop apps manage deployment nearly as transparently as a web app) seems to get eaten up by slow response and flakiness for users, network issues, web server issues, browser issues, and security issues. Admittedly, in many cases this is a matter of badly designed web apps, but in the world of commercial enterprise software, the quality of browser-based apps seems to be worse than the already pretty dismal quality of enterprise desktop apps.
Browser apps certainly have their place and can be the superior choice in the situations for which they are well-suited, but after the last decade of having way too many utterly painful browser apps forced upon me, I think the reasoning that led so many to the Kool-Aid tub needs to be reassessed.
It's Moore's other law - once fast enough is achieved, you have to slow it down with shite like rounded 3d-effect buttons, smooth rolling semi-transparent fade-in-and-out menus and ray-traced 25 squillion polygon chat avatars.
Actually, that's Cole's Law, which states that an unused plate space must be occupied with cheap filler that no one really wants.
Where did I say anything about my views, or express any hatred?
Thanks for clearing up for me that you are in fact trolling, though.
Oh wow, how illogical of me to assume there's an implication in calling someone a cretinous imbecile that they shouldn't be listened to. Thank you, now I'm clear on the disntinction, you cretinous imbecile.
See above.
And you appealed to the same source with no substantiation of the source's validity (a.a.v.) and then called him a "cretinous imbecile" (a.h.).
Are you really that obtuse, or simply trolling?
The source is professor Arthur Herman and other scholars cited in the article, you cretinous imbecile. By the way, I suggest you look up argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominem.
Perhaps you should as well.
Appeal to authority
Ad hominem
The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age. Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older.
So it would seem in PA that though 14 is under the age of consent for an adult, a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old would not be illegal. Looking at the rest of the page, this would seem to be typical of most states.
Not nearly far enough. What we can now see with this epiphany is that all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge and allow us to finally achieve a healthy society.
And pray-tell, what real benefits are those?
Vista's Freecell is fully horizontally resizable. I've been waiting 15 years for that feature, if that isn't worth the upgrade I don't know what is.
And based upon what I've seen in more than a few cubicle farms, that may very well be the feature that most improves worker productivity.
Me a clown
Me play joke
Me go #2
In your Coke?
You are of course correct, and I did consider adding to the post, but I didn't want to complicate the information too much.
Replying to myself... Sorry! Scratch that...I didn't see the additional provincial taxes below. I thought there was missing taxes somewhere. Still, when it comes down to it my overall payroll taxes on, I'll just sat between $50-$100K, seems to be pretty much the same as the US.
I just wrote a post below about tax brackets and rates, and it just so happens that I'm a dual US-Canadian citizen, living and working in Canada now but most of life was in the US. Out of curiosity I wanted to compare US vs. Canadian income tax rates, I was surprised to find that Canadian income tax rates are slightly lower across the board than the US.
Canada 2009:
- 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
- 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
- 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
- 29% of taxable income over $126,264.
US 2008:
- 10% of $0 to $8,025
- 15% of $8,025 to $32,550
- 25% of $32,550 to $78,850
- 28% of $78,850 to $164,550
- 33% of $164,550 to $357,700
- 35% of $357,700 and up
The US figures do not count FICA which is 6.2% up to $102,000. My additional taxes on my Canadian payroll check do not come close to matching FICA plus other non-Federal taxes that I paid in the US.
The place where I feel overtaxed in Canada in comparison to the US is not on my income, but with the GST/PST, and the slew of fuel, booze, etc., etc., taxes which contribute overall to higher cost of living here.
Excellent post. I can't tell you how many people I know who misunderstand tax brackets and think they can be substantially penalized for earning an extra $1 if it puts them into a higher bracket.
Another factor I would add that even further detracts from that myth, since I saw you mention it, is FICA. (For non-US residents unaware of FICA, it is a separate federal payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare.) For 2008, an employee pays 6.2% up to $102,000 for FICA. If you compare to the US income tax brackets, any money you earn over that $102,000 up to $164,550 is being effectively taxed at 6.2% less than the $78,850 to $102,000 earned (considering Fed Income Tax plus FICA, the vast bulk of most payroll tax). The $164,550-$357,700 bracket raises the rate 5% on additional dollars earned, which still leaves you paying 1.2% less and only when you enter that top bracket are your additional dollars effectively taxed at a whopping 0.8% more than you were taxed for $78,850 to $102,000.
Bottom line, under the US federal tax system you never lose money by making money. In fact, it really doesn't look so progressive when you spell it out like that.
Is there a named cognitive bias (or something similar) for suddenly liking and missing someone who was universally considered a git prior to his passing? Because that's what happening to Slashdot right now, including me a bit.
Yes.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Latin for: Speak nothing but good of the dead.
The yellow one is particularly cheesy-looking. Swiss, specifically.
Actually, I was looking more at the first guy's rewrite than the original, and you're right that I'm not bypassing the second check which a goto would. And you are correct that the restructuring could get uglier as complexity increases, although a second bool to determine whether to continue checking further conditions could avoid complex nesting. (I've found that technique useful in edit situations where you may or may not want to keep checking for additional error conditions based on the seriousness of a given error.)
And although, as a poster downstream suggested, I was always taught to avoid gotos in C/C++ like the plague, I do agree that the example in the original code is actually a good example where a goto can indeed be useful.
However, my broader point is that it is generally not too horrendously difficult to get around a goto in C/C++, and more often than not IME, developers who claim they "had to" use the goto could have just as easily and just as readably (if not moreso) done it another way. I'd say the rule of thumb should be, unless a goto makes the code significantly more readable or maintainable, or you are writing some kind of low-level often-executed code where a goto might gain some efficiency, avoid it.
The addition of single bool avoids both the specialized cleanup() function and the goto:
bool needs_cleanup = false;
if (condition1 && condition2) {
needs_cleanup = true;
}
if (issue1 || issue2) {
needs_cleanup = true;
}
if (needs_cleanup) {
// clean up local vars exactly as you would have done
// have done under the cleanup: label with the goto
}
Oh great, another usage Nazi... ;-)
I prefer Octopus Pie?
I'm sorry, but how the fuck is this flamebait? This seems very apt, as this is what is causing an increase in this theft. People are starting to lose their jobs and money in all sorts of ways. Desperate people do desperate things. For those living in the fantasy land of never having to be poor for nearly their whole life growing up, I could well imagine they'd take offense to this.
The reality is, this is exactly why this theft is taking place.
...and I'm sure that the commodity price of copper couldn't possibly have any bearing as to why copper thefts would have increased since 2006.
If copper theft continues apace now that copper is worth less than half what is was six months ago, then maybe you might have a case that the "political-economic system" is the exact cause.
.tel it to the .usmc.mil
I don't think anyone could clearly quantify the economic benefits of having, say, public roads, either. However, without a concrete example of a society which doesn't publicly fund roads or education, but reaps greater economic benefits due to having better transportation infrastructure or a better educated populace and workforce, I think you're on thin ice claiming that those who support the existing public funding of such things as "living a fantasy".
That's not a "fertility symbol", it's ur-Porn.