We release all of our code (if not written for a company) used in our projects, or created during research. However, we are a software engineering group, and computer scientists more often open source their work. In recent years it has become mandatory to do so, as otherwise your claims are not backed. If you publish results and do not provide the means to reproduce the results, you are a blabber.
But, most of code produced in research is lousy, as it is just used to proof something not to actually use it. If you want to produce better quality code and documentation, the artifacts must be used by others and you have to start to incorporate agile concepts to develop the tools.
PHP is a nightmare. However, most problems with PHP and Perl-web-applications are the bugs in those applications and not in the language runtime environment.
Perl is a historically a combination of bash, awk and sed. And for purposes well suited where people would use the former three tools to implement shell scripts to help administration tasks on a daily basis. However, Perl is not so well suited for other purposes, like small and medium sized web applications. Therefore, it will not gain any more ground in that area, as better tools are available. The first Perl enemy was PHP. While PHP sucks in many ways, it was better designed to write simple dynamic web pages. Today it is used for medium sized web applications, which is clearly a dangerous thing, but still it restricts the growth of Perl in that direction, as younger coders came first in contact with PHP and all the hosters support PHP, but not everyone is supporting Perl. Also things like Joomla or Typo3 are PHP based and many people start coding by extending them.
For custom application or other mostly larger system Java-based or.NET-based technologies are used. Perl has nothing to do in that area. It lost its job there many years ago. InterShop was once coded in Perl, but - well - who cares?
As the Unix command shell is only a limited realm (in number of installations), Perl will never become that widespread again. At least that is my assumption considering today software base and structure, as well as the education in programming languages.
When you are a Windows user or a Mac OS user and you have the impression that the new desktops sucks, then you can go back to the old OS version, but that is not a solution for long, or you have to live with it. As a Linux user you can switch distros and you can even brag about it. You are free to make choices. And if things are really bad you can make your own and call it Mint or Arch or Pepper, Chilly (I guess these names are not used)
Why? Are they stupid? How will they ever understand the host culture, if they do not interact with them. Of course you can do the Walmart thing in Germany and fail. Or do the Media-Markt thing in China and fail. It is essential to business to understand the culture. And from a personal perspective it will enrich your live.
You say, that there is not much entertainment (from the US, I guess) available to you in that magical country overseas. Where every you are, the best and greatest adventure is getting out of you house/flat/igloo/hut/tent and communicate with the locals. If you are not able to speak their language, try to learn it. It is much more appealing to interact with real people in real contexts, than to meet digital fellows in a digital tavern, drinking digital beer. You might get your wife to do that.
The proposal comes from a parliamentary committee. This means, it has not gone through a legislation process where lobbyists will sink it. The conservative party will sink it, because the idea supports liberal tendencies and the lobby says so, the liberal party will be against it, because it will hurt the established IT companies (or at least be a threat to them, and those might be part of their election force), the social-democrats will kill it, because the conservatives get an increase in votes out of their behavior and they want also more votes. The green party will love the idea, but are too small to push it forward alone. The socialists will like the idea, basically because the social-democrats are confused and want to sink the idea at first, then change their opinion only to look inconsequential and sink themselves. However, the socialists will not understand want this is really about. The pirate party will sill working on sinking themselves and not discussing the issue, as they have to flame about other pirates.
Modern web-applications are written with frameworks. For Java you use Spring, J2EE, persistence is often handled by a JPA implementation. A relevant test should focus on a test application, e.g., PetStore implemented with the same limits and without hacked short hands (optimization which will not work for normal applications). The use combinations of the technologies, like REST with JSP or REST with JSF and J2EE and JSF etc. Also evaluate different JPA connection with different databases.
However, the biggest problem in modern applications are badly written DB-queries, which fetch data too often or too large sets and do subsequently DB stuff in application's Java code (sorting, selection etc.).
While I listed only Java technologies, the same applies for C# even though the zoo of technologies is smaller.
Performance is important, as it limits scalability. However, the test does not prove that C# or Java is better suited for anything, as they do not compare framework performances.
In a side note: Most performance problems come from bad query code. The rest of performance problems result from software bottlenecks, because developers did not consider parallel access.
At first, they outsource jobs to a country with low labor cost. Now they invent a new replacement for human workers, which allow them to produce closer to the market. Great for the company, it will increase their revenue. But it will not bring one single job back.
On a side note: ABB already has a drop-in replacement robot available, which they sell to Foxconn. They also cooperate with them to improve robots for production lines. Foxconn does that, because Chinese labor is getting too expensive.
If all work is done more productive by robots than by humans, then a lot of humans will be jobless and unable to buy all those products. Furthermore, todays humas would feel unwanted and start to lose their humanity and degenerate. If they are not fed, they will become violent. The only option would to do things robots are not good at. However, not all people can work as programmers, nurses, doctors, researchers, managers/analysts/etc and craftsman. Things which cannot be automated, as they are either too unstandardized, require creativity, total egoism or empathy.
The present system is not able to handle such situation. Outpacing will not work for long, as the robots would become more profitable over time, lowering the potential income level for workers. If the workers cannot life from their work anymore, they die, require state subsidies or get the food and housing through other channels, e.g., steeling it from the rich.
Well. The US citizens elected all those sociapaths. So obviously the the citizens think that is a good system. However, if they are mentally minors and not responsible for their doing, we could blame those who steer the "cattle".
In my country you pay your taxes automatically (if you are employed at a company). you can get money back at the end of the year if you had extra expenses.
In any situation if the opponent is unarmed (or only armed with too many smart phones and a credit card), the police should apply talking first. If the person freaks out, there are plenty of options to constrain her without using a taser. I've seen those options on demonstrations in Germany, it works without any pepper spray or taser or gun or sticks of some sort. However, in a totally controlled situation like that, it would most likely have sufficed to just talk. If communication had not worked out, a translater could have been organized.
Looks like, in the USA they first shot and then ask. Just like the guy with a knife on times square followed by a dozen of policemen. The only solution to that situation was to shot him a couple of times. If shooting would have been the last option, a shoot in the knee or foot would have sufficed. Or they could have used a taser. But what shall I expect when they use a taser on a customer. Really! Get relaxed.
It is allowed, because those who do it can make a lot of profit. And profit made counts as GDP. GDP is the measure for the wealth of you country. While it is totally bogous today, it is still used as the main measure. And the measure indicates that reducing the opportunity to make profits on finance markets will reduce the GDP which will reduce the wealth of y country. No politician wants that. Furthermore, a lot of people previously working for the finance industry are now in government positions in the USA, in Germany, in the UK, in France, in Italy (at least at the moment), in Spain and in the EU. They all are not interested in stopping the game, they played before. That would be something between telling an Junky not to fix and the Pope to become a muslim. Therefore, this will not change any time soon. It even survied the last crash.
Indeed we need another method to distribute wealth and to give people a purpose in live. The purpose can no longer be driven by being more productive in terms of better things with less resource consumption. Or the typical: faster, higher, further will only result in less jobs. We (as in humanity) worked very hard to get back into paradise. Meaning removing stupid jobs from our lives. In the end it will be hell when we are not able to find purpose in something else and in addition find another way to distribute wealth. So es, we have to come up with something different then capitalism or the past versions of communism, as they are both based on labor and GDP. And that new economy must also adhere the three dimension of sustainability (ecological, social, economical).
No ecological sustainability => We all die, either of hunger or suffocate, or we go totally crazy and then die of the previous causes. No social sustainability => We will kill each other until over insignificant disagreements or other inter-social problems until a few people are left. No economical sustainability => We all die, as the distribution of the necessities of live will fail.
Yes this is only a very very brief description.;-)
As this has been done before in the 2000s, it is not a revolution, just a reintroduction. It has been abandoned, because it was too expensive to reconfigure all those robots for every different product. However, smart fab technologies have progressed and matured since then. All the manufacturing systems engineering companies, like ABB, Siemens, General Electric, etc. have progressed in that area. ABB is selling human-like two armed robots with stereo-camera to Foxconn (http://search.abb.com/library/download.aspx?documentid=9akk105408a0162&languagecode=en&documentpartid=&action=launch). At least the robots are real. They could be used as drop-in replacements for humans. Or they can be used instead of humans. Also if you plan your whole factory with robots in the first place, you could use any number of modern robots, as they can be configured directly based on product design and assembly specifications. Car manufacturers do that. Therefore, this is no revolution. It is just a consequence. Of course you have to change of product design so it can be easily assembled by machines. This differs a little bit from the product design you have to use to assemble products with humans. However, different does not mean more limiting.
Of course it is possible to do the assembly with robots. Japanese manufacturers and Samsung already did it for smartphones. Foxconn is replacing people with special robots from ABB, which have two arms and stereo cameras. They can be used as drop-in replacement for humans. In the 2000s companies in Asia switched away from the totally automated factory, because of the cost of re-configuring robots for different product lines. However, progress has been made in the field of smart fabs. Therefore, the switch over time can be minimized and is already part of the product development process (as it is for human based processes as well). Therefore, it is completely possible to do the same, which is possible in the 2000s and today in China, also in the USA.
However, it will not bring jobs back. We have to accept, that manufacturing jobs will be reduced by two effect in the future (ok the same shit happens since the 1970s): First, productivity rises due to better tools, manufacturing processes, and better training. This increases the potential output and as the productivity rise was always higher then the GDP and consumer base rise, the number of people necessary in production is reduced. Second, robots become better suited to do variable tasks. The smart fab is a concept, which is heavily researched and the results are implemented widely in the automobile, smartphone and other electronics industry, as all these industries use platforms, module concepts, and product line methods to reduce development time and allow the production to be adapted in short time to different products of the same kind. For example, car manufacturer are able to produce five different cars on the same product line. So the first car is produced for Jonny Sixpack, it is a yellow Passant, while the second car is a New Beetle in deep blue, for his neighbor. Both cars come with different engines and other stuff like air conditioning, media center etc. (I am absolutely sure that other manufacturers beside VW are also capable of doing that.) Therefore, the jobs are gone for good.
The jobs are not coming back. We have to come up with a different way to distribute wealth in a society in which production is done by machinery. We could do a lot of things which are not destined to be super productive in terms of accuracy and outcomes. For instance, craftsmanship can be very rewarding for people, especially for those who have great potentials in that area. Also in caring for each other, there are a lot of jobs possible. The only problem is. How do we get the money circulating? When products can be produced cheaply, recycled and or disassembled quickly (with low energy consumption and without (much) waste). While craftsmen, may form dishes and furniture, that stuff normally stays in use for decades or centuries (not like that IKEA and Bob's furniture, which disassembles after some time). This results in you need one table in a lifetime. And as the number of people is stagnating (starting to be that way in 10-50 years, depending on the prognosis), the amount of replacement tables is very limited. The same applies for many other things.
So in the end: How will we distribute wealth? And, what will we do with all the free time? After all we only can buy products when we have money. If nobody is working anymore (beside the 10% in product development, 10% administration, 3% farming) the people will not have money and therefore they are not able to buy the products. Therefore the products do not have to be produced, and therefore they have not to be developed. In short: No consumer base => no production => no jobs => no money => no wealth for factory owners => no wealth for people in finance.
You know, I was not bashing the scientists. I was pointing out, that those who put the article with the provided teaser on slashdot seem to have a short memory.
Recently, I visited my doctor. He needed information from my former doctors and hospitals. I asked him, if it would not be easier when he would ask and I would provide the addresses. As I thought the data was owned by those doctors and hospitals. He informed me, that this would be complicated and he would require a permission signed by me for every data record. However, I could get everything just be call or mail, as I am the owner of my data. This is at least valid for Germany. The data is cannot be passed to the health insurance nor to any other organization. Especially not without my permission. Furthermore, other institutions are not allowed to ask for such information. The only exception so far are private/commercial health insurance companies. Thanks god we have that community/state driven system.
Slashdot Mirror
We release all of our code (if not written for a company) used in our projects, or created during research. However, we are a software engineering group, and computer scientists more often open source their work. In recent years it has become mandatory to do so, as otherwise your claims are not backed. If you publish results and do not provide the means to reproduce the results, you are a blabber.
But, most of code produced in research is lousy, as it is just used to proof something not to actually use it. If you want to produce better quality code and documentation, the artifacts must be used by others and you have to start to incorporate agile concepts to develop the tools.
PHP is a nightmare. However, most problems with PHP and Perl-web-applications are the bugs in those applications and not in the language runtime environment.
Perl is a historically a combination of bash, awk and sed. And for purposes well suited where people would use the former three tools to implement shell scripts to help administration tasks on a daily basis. However, Perl is not so well suited for other purposes, like small and medium sized web applications. Therefore, it will not gain any more ground in that area, as better tools are available. The first Perl enemy was PHP. While PHP sucks in many ways, it was better designed to write simple dynamic web pages. Today it is used for medium sized web applications, which is clearly a dangerous thing, but still it restricts the growth of Perl in that direction, as younger coders came first in contact with PHP and all the hosters support PHP, but not everyone is supporting Perl. Also things like Joomla or Typo3 are PHP based and many people start coding by extending them.
For custom application or other mostly larger system Java-based or .NET-based technologies are used. Perl has nothing to do in that area. It lost its job there many years ago. InterShop was once coded in Perl, but - well - who cares?
As the Unix command shell is only a limited realm (in number of installations), Perl will never become that widespread again. At least that is my assumption considering today software base and structure, as well as the education in programming languages.
When you are a Windows user or a Mac OS user and you have the impression that the new desktops sucks, then you can go back to the old OS version, but that is not a solution for long, or you have to live with it. As a Linux user you can switch distros and you can even brag about it. You are free to make choices. And if things are really bad you can make your own and call it Mint or Arch or Pepper, Chilly (I guess these names are not used)
Why? Are they stupid? How will they ever understand the host culture, if they do not interact with them. Of course you can do the Walmart thing in Germany and fail. Or do the Media-Markt thing in China and fail. It is essential to business to understand the culture. And from a personal perspective it will enrich your live.
You say, that there is not much entertainment (from the US, I guess) available to you in that magical country overseas. Where every you are, the best and greatest adventure is getting out of you house/flat/igloo/hut/tent and communicate with the locals. If you are not able to speak their language, try to learn it. It is much more appealing to interact with real people in real contexts, than to meet digital fellows in a digital tavern, drinking digital beer. You might get your wife to do that.
The proposal comes from a parliamentary committee. This means, it has not gone through a legislation process where lobbyists will sink it. The conservative party will sink it, because the idea supports liberal tendencies and the lobby says so, the liberal party will be against it, because it will hurt the established IT companies (or at least be a threat to them, and those might be part of their election force), the social-democrats will kill it, because the conservatives get an increase in votes out of their behavior and they want also more votes. The green party will love the idea, but are too small to push it forward alone. The socialists will like the idea, basically because the social-democrats are confused and want to sink the idea at first, then change their opinion only to look inconsequential and sink themselves. However, the socialists will not understand want this is really about. The pirate party will sill working on sinking themselves and not discussing the issue, as they have to flame about other pirates.
Modern web-applications are written with frameworks. For Java you use Spring, J2EE, persistence is often handled by a JPA implementation. A relevant test should focus on a test application, e.g., PetStore implemented with the same limits and without hacked short hands (optimization which will not work for normal applications). The use combinations of the technologies, like REST with JSP or REST with JSF and J2EE and JSF etc. Also evaluate different JPA connection with different databases.
However, the biggest problem in modern applications are badly written DB-queries, which fetch data too often or too large sets and do subsequently DB stuff in application's Java code (sorting, selection etc.).
While I listed only Java technologies, the same applies for C# even though the zoo of technologies is smaller.
Performance is important, as it limits scalability. However, the test does not prove that C# or Java is better suited for anything, as they do not compare framework performances.
In a side note: Most performance problems come from bad query code. The rest of performance problems result from software bottlenecks, because developers did not consider parallel access.
The problem is, that our current wealth distribution system requires jobs to transfer resource allowances (money) to individuals.
ABB has such a drop-in replacement robot. It can work together with humans on the same production line, side by side.
At first, they outsource jobs to a country with low labor cost. Now they invent a new replacement for human workers, which allow them to produce closer to the market. Great for the company, it will increase their revenue. But it will not bring one single job back.
On a side note: ABB already has a drop-in replacement robot available, which they sell to Foxconn. They also cooperate with them to improve robots for production lines. Foxconn does that, because Chinese labor is getting too expensive.
And the best thing. You are inside the castle and not on top of it.
If all work is done more productive by robots than by humans, then a lot of humans will be jobless and unable to buy all those products. Furthermore, todays humas would feel unwanted and start to lose their humanity and degenerate. If they are not fed, they will become violent. The only option would to do things robots are not good at. However, not all people can work as programmers, nurses, doctors, researchers, managers/analysts/etc and craftsman. Things which cannot be automated, as they are either too unstandardized, require creativity, total egoism or empathy.
The present system is not able to handle such situation. Outpacing will not work for long, as the robots would become more profitable over time, lowering the potential income level for workers. If the workers cannot life from their work anymore, they die, require state subsidies or get the food and housing through other channels, e.g., steeling it from the rich.
Well. The US citizens elected all those sociapaths. So obviously the the citizens think that is a good system. However, if they are mentally minors and not responsible for their doing, we could blame those who steer the "cattle".
In my country you pay your taxes automatically (if you are employed at a company). you can get money back at the end of the year if you had extra expenses.
In any situation if the opponent is unarmed (or only armed with too many smart phones and a credit card), the police should apply talking first. If the person freaks out, there are plenty of options to constrain her without using a taser. I've seen those options on demonstrations in Germany, it works without any pepper spray or taser or gun or sticks of some sort. However, in a totally controlled situation like that, it would most likely have sufficed to just talk. If communication had not worked out, a translater could have been organized.
Looks like, in the USA they first shot and then ask. Just like the guy with a knife on times square followed by a dozen of policemen. The only solution to that situation was to shot him a couple of times. If shooting would have been the last option, a shoot in the knee or foot would have sufficed. Or they could have used a taser. But what shall I expect when they use a taser on a customer. Really! Get relaxed.
It is allowed, because those who do it can make a lot of profit. And profit made counts as GDP. GDP is the measure for the wealth of you country. While it is totally bogous today, it is still used as the main measure. And the measure indicates that reducing the opportunity to make profits on finance markets will reduce the GDP which will reduce the wealth of y country. No politician wants that. Furthermore, a lot of people previously working for the finance industry are now in government positions in the USA, in Germany, in the UK, in France, in Italy (at least at the moment), in Spain and in the EU. They all are not interested in stopping the game, they played before. That would be something between telling an Junky not to fix and the Pope to become a muslim. Therefore, this will not change any time soon. It even survied the last crash.
Indeed we need another method to distribute wealth and to give people a purpose in live. The purpose can no longer be driven by being more productive in terms of better things with less resource consumption. Or the typical: faster, higher, further will only result in less jobs. We (as in humanity) worked very hard to get back into paradise. Meaning removing stupid jobs from our lives. In the end it will be hell when we are not able to find purpose in something else and in addition find another way to distribute wealth. So es, we have to come up with something different then capitalism or the past versions of communism, as they are both based on labor and GDP. And that new economy must also adhere the three dimension of sustainability (ecological, social, economical).
No ecological sustainability => We all die, either of hunger or suffocate, or we go totally crazy and then die of the previous causes.
No social sustainability => We will kill each other until over insignificant disagreements or other inter-social problems until a few people are left.
No economical sustainability => We all die, as the distribution of the necessities of live will fail.
Yes this is only a very very brief description. ;-)
As this has been done before in the 2000s, it is not a revolution, just a reintroduction. It has been abandoned, because it was too expensive to reconfigure all those robots for every different product. However, smart fab technologies have progressed and matured since then. All the manufacturing systems engineering companies, like ABB, Siemens, General Electric, etc. have progressed in that area. ABB is selling human-like two armed robots with stereo-camera to Foxconn (http://search.abb.com/library/download.aspx?documentid=9akk105408a0162&languagecode=en&documentpartid=&action=launch). At least the robots are real. They could be used as drop-in replacements for humans. Or they can be used instead of humans. Also if you plan your whole factory with robots in the first place, you could use any number of modern robots, as they can be configured directly based on product design and assembly specifications. Car manufacturers do that. Therefore, this is no revolution. It is just a consequence. Of course you have to change of product design so it can be easily assembled by machines. This differs a little bit from the product design you have to use to assemble products with humans. However, different does not mean more limiting.
Of course it is possible to do the assembly with robots. Japanese manufacturers and Samsung already did it for smartphones. Foxconn is replacing people with special robots from ABB, which have two arms and stereo cameras. They can be used as drop-in replacement for humans. In the 2000s companies in Asia switched away from the totally automated factory, because of the cost of re-configuring robots for different product lines. However, progress has been made in the field of smart fabs. Therefore, the switch over time can be minimized and is already part of the product development process (as it is for human based processes as well). Therefore, it is completely possible to do the same, which is possible in the 2000s and today in China, also in the USA.
However, it will not bring jobs back. We have to accept, that manufacturing jobs will be reduced by two effect in the future (ok the same shit happens since the 1970s): First, productivity rises due to better tools, manufacturing processes, and better training. This increases the potential output and as the productivity rise was always higher then the GDP and consumer base rise, the number of people necessary in production is reduced. Second, robots become better suited to do variable tasks. The smart fab is a concept, which is heavily researched and the results are implemented widely in the automobile, smartphone and other electronics industry, as all these industries use platforms, module concepts, and product line methods to reduce development time and allow the production to be adapted in short time to different products of the same kind. For example, car manufacturer are able to produce five different cars on the same product line. So the first car is produced for Jonny Sixpack, it is a yellow Passant, while the second car is a New Beetle in deep blue, for his neighbor. Both cars come with different engines and other stuff like air conditioning, media center etc. (I am absolutely sure that other manufacturers beside VW are also capable of doing that.) Therefore, the jobs are gone for good.
The jobs are not coming back. We have to come up with a different way to distribute wealth in a society in which production is done by machinery. We could do a lot of things which are not destined to be super productive in terms of accuracy and outcomes. For instance, craftsmanship can be very rewarding for people, especially for those who have great potentials in that area. Also in caring for each other, there are a lot of jobs possible. The only problem is. How do we get the money circulating? When products can be produced cheaply, recycled and or disassembled quickly (with low energy consumption and without (much) waste). While craftsmen, may form dishes and furniture, that stuff normally stays in use for decades or centuries (not like that IKEA and Bob's furniture, which disassembles after some time). This results in you need one table in a lifetime. And as the number of people is stagnating (starting to be that way in 10-50 years, depending on the prognosis), the amount of replacement tables is very limited. The same applies for many other things.
So in the end: How will we distribute wealth? And, what will we do with all the free time? After all we only can buy products when we have money. If nobody is working anymore (beside the 10% in product development, 10% administration, 3% farming) the people will not have money and therefore they are not able to buy the products. Therefore the products do not have to be produced, and therefore they have not to be developed. In short: No consumer base => no production => no jobs => no money => no wealth for factory owners => no wealth for people in finance.
You know, I was not bashing the scientists. I was pointing out, that those who put the article with the provided teaser on slashdot seem to have a short memory.
I thought so too. Someone must have a very, very short memory. Or non at all.
Thanks. And wasn't this already reported half a year ago or so? Why is this news again? Who has such a short memory? I'm just wondering ...
Recently, I visited my doctor. He needed information from my former doctors and hospitals. I asked him, if it would not be easier when he would ask and I would provide the addresses. As I thought the data was owned by those doctors and hospitals. He informed me, that this would be complicated and he would require a permission signed by me for every data record. However, I could get everything just be call or mail, as I am the owner of my data. This is at least valid for Germany. The data is cannot be passed to the health insurance nor to any other organization. Especially not without my permission. Furthermore, other institutions are not allowed to ask for such information. The only exception so far are private/commercial health insurance companies. Thanks god we have that community/state driven system.