If I want to move data from here to another location in NZ, it costs very litle. If I want to move data to the US, it costs significantly more.
What do you suggest instead? Some sort of socialist arrangement where we pay more for national traffic and less for international, evening it out? Um... that seems backwards. How about paying more for international traffic, which is expensive to send, and less for national traffic, which is cheap? I suspect you already pay more for international phone calls than for local ones, right? All you have to do to remain neutral is make sure all traffic that crosses that international fiber is charged the same rate, no matter which NZ address it's coming from or which international address it's going to.
Or should we just pay realistic amounts that help offset the utterly gargantuan outlay our telcos made to lay fiber to the US? Yes, exactly. If you think that's incompatible with net neutrality, you don't understand the net neutrality argument.
If the carrier of the NZ to US fiber was somehow forced by law to allow all traffic through for free (the basic argument of net neutrality: eliminate tollbooths) Either this is a strawman, or you've completely missed the point of the net neutrality argument. Neutrality is not about forcing anyone to provide bandwidth for free. It's about charging the same amount to move a packet from one end of a certain fiber to the other, regardless of that packet's source or destination address.
Should there be an award of costs if you sue someone and lose? Damn straight, that's how the British and the Canadians have always done it and it really cuts down on frivolous litigation. Costs in those systems aren't anything near actual solicitor-client costs, but they're high enough to make people think twice about wasting the court's time and the defendant's money. Doesn't it also cut down on legitimate lawsuits?
I mean, suppose a big company (like Microsoft, since this is/.) sells me a defective product (like Vista, just to make the mods happy) and I have a legitimate claim against them. Today, I know that if I lose, I'll only have to pay my own lawyer. But if I might have to pay their lawyers too, and I know their lawyers are damn expensive, then that might be enough to scare me into submission. Even if I know the only way I could lose the suit is on some obscure technicality, I don't want to take that risk because it'd bankrupt me.
You're sitting there asking ME to do all this work for you and I don't even know you. I've supplied information and you don't even want to listen to that. You've given me the name of a book and told me to go look it up myself. I, on the other hand, have given you the exact steps needed to make those sample apps in Visual C#, which didn't take much work at all. Are you saying that it takes more work to make those trivial apps in Xcode?
Surely it's already taken you 10 times as long to insult me over and over as it would've taken to just give me the same kind of explanation I gave you.
you don't want to believe this functionality exists even though many other people have stated otherwise No, actually, you're the only one claiming you can build apps in Xcode without writing any code. Everyone else seems to be aware of Interface Builder's limitations and know that you have to write code if you want the program to do anything even as simple as showing a message box or changing a label.
All the indications I've seen are that it's going to be a lot like Verizon's Get It Now store. You can develop an app for Verizon phones... but you have to go through a lengthy, expensive process to get it tested and signed. Once that's done, people can download it, but of course they'll have to pay for the privilege, because you have to make back the money you just spent getting it certified.
End result: a lot of apps people would like never get written in the first place, because there isn't a big enough market to justify the cost of developing. We get ports of the same old games like Pac-Man, Tetris, Bejeweled, and Zuma, but they still cost more than the Xbox Live Arcade versions.
Your development time must be doubled in.NET just from simply have to explain everything to you 5 million times until you finally understand. No, I get stuff done pretty quickly in.NET because things are documented. I don't have to drive across town to flip through a book every time I have a simple question. If I can't find something with a minute of Googling, I can just ask one of the other developers I know, and they'll give me a straight answer--you know, like the explanation I gave you--because they aren't a bunch of dicks who'd rather argue for days than answer a simple question.
BTW, I asked a few more Mac developers, and they don't believe you either. I've read Mac developer blogs and Apple's tutorials and haven't found anything like what you're describing. I can only conclude that you didn't understand the example in that book, and now you're just trying to save face by not answering my questions about it.
The fact is, if you want to make a Cocoa app that does anything useful at all, you have to create a controller object to handle the events, and that means writing code. The only way you can get away with not writing code is if there's already a pre-made controller that handles the events you want in exactly the way you want them to be handled, but it's not as if Xcode comes with a bunch of predefined controllers called "show a message box with this text", "add these numbers and put them over here", etc. Even for simple stuff like that, you have to code it yourself.
Just remember the next time you rinse with Listerine Citrus Burst that you're swishing crushed dead pregnant beetles in your mouth. You know what's even worse... a lot of people like fruit, but don't realize fruit is basically the reproductive organs of trees. Those seeds inside are like the tree's sperm. Eating an apple is the same as chewing on a tree's balls!
Other plants aren't quite as gross as that, but even still, they all grow in dirt. Just think about that next time you're having a salad. Would you eat food off the floor? Well, everything in that salad used to be on or in the ground, and the ground is nature's filthy floor that never gets vacuumed!
For example, this page describes a new developer walking through one of Apple's sample projects. The program is very simple: it takes two numbers from different text boxes, multiplies them, and puts the result in a third text box. And yet he had to write two methods to do it. Is there a better way than the one he used?
I doubt even the book will help you but it helped me which is why I keep mentioning it over and over and over. You seem to keep missing that fact. No, believe me, I've caught your references to the book, but I don't know why you think I'd make a trip to the book store just to verify something that should be plastered all over the web. I was able to look at some of the pages with Amazon, and there is indeed a simple "hello world" app with a text box and a button laid out in IB... but then, starting on page 22, you have to write code to make it work. That's not what you said earlier.
I've got Xcode installed. If it's so easy to make a program that does something without writing any code, why can't you just tell me give me the basic steps? Is it a secret, or are you making it up?
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe, but the best mileage I've ever gotten has been when I was driving well above the posted speed limit: 85 or higher in a 70 zone. I usually get 36.5 MPG or higher.
Seattle is about 280 miles away from where I live, which means I can cut about 45 minutes off the trip by driving there at 85 instead of 70. But let's suppose I could get 40.1 MPG by driving at 70 (although I'm not sure that's true in practice). Assuming gas is $3/gallon, a round trip would cost $41.89 at 70 MPH, and $46.03 at 85 MPH... so I'm paying just over four dollars to save an hour and a half of driving. Still sounds like a great deal to me.
Mac Xcode2 Book - the first 20 pages. Loads of pictures, loads of explanations. Find a Barnes and Noble and just flip through. No, seriously. Can't you come up with a screenshot anywhere on the web? If this feature is really part of Xcode, and it's really as fundamental and interesting as you say it is, then why should I have to drive to a bookstore to find proof? Surely someone other than you must've written about it online at some point, right? Maybe even Apple themselves - I know they have plenty of developer resources online.
And this feature isn't new as this toolkit has been around for a few years with this functionality. OK. I have Xcode 2.1 running right now. Since you seem to know more about this feature than anyone else, perhaps you could point me in the right direction. I had no trouble explaining how to build those two simple apps in Visual Studio, even without having VS open in front of me, so can you tell me how to do them the point-and-click, no-code-required Xcode way? You're saying it's easier, right?
Can you give me a link to some official documentation for this icon-connecting feature, maybe a screenshot, or a keyword to search for? I can't find anything about it on Apple's Xcode site. The Mac developer I talked to didn't know anything about it either, and he suspected you were confusing Xcode with something else.
I always feel sorry for people who've only ever labored under the Microsoft yoke. Hate to burst your bubble, but that's not me. I've done development on Linux, Mac, and Palm, and on Windows with non-Microsoft tools. In my opinion, RAD is the best thing that has ever happened to UI development, and while patterns such as MVC have their place, in most apps they're not worth the extra trouble.
Judging by the lack of thought and resistance to change evident in your response, it sounds like you wouldn't know tasteful design unless it was the kind of "tasteful" that clobbered you over the head. I suppose some people will always interpret disagreement as "lack of thought", and as for resistance to change, that's just laughable. Sticking with a prescribed pattern just because It's The Pattern - that's resistance to change.
I've worked with several development systems over the years. I'll change when something better comes along, but I see no reason to think it's better to hand-write two or three classes for a simple dialog box than to lay it out with the form designer and write a few event handlers in half the time.
Here's an entry on "double-click and code syndrome". Can't say I'm convinced. His objection there seems to be that the RAD approach of Visual Studio (and Delphi, etc.) isn't as good as the Model-View-Controller pattern because... well, just because. But as he accurately points out, Visual Studio doesn't prevent you from using that pattern, it just gives you a simpler alternative.
Visual C++ with its MFC library enforced the MVC pattern, and in my experience it was terrible. Writing three separate classes for a single window a big pain, and in most apps it just isn't necessary. I've written plenty of GUI apps and never have I wished I'd used an MVC pattern instead of RAD. My clients want results, and they will not be pleased if I take twice as long to put the UI together because I might someday save a few minutes if I ever theoretically need to add another way to view the same data. They'd rather get it working today, and pay me to make those changes (which will probably involve an MVC pattern) if and when that day comes.
Here's another on how flexibility need not be sacrificed for ease of development; that's a fallacy perpetuated by Microsoft's habitually thoughtless design. Apparently this "longtime.NET developer" hasn't heard of ADO.NET. How strange.
Interesting. When was that added, and where it it documented? I'm not seeing anything about it on Apple's site.
I still don't think building apps by connecting icons is going to help developers in the long run, though. At some point you're going to hit the limit of what you can express that way, and then you're going to have to start over from the beginning, learning about methods and so on. (You can already build some.NET apps without writing code, as long as your idea of an app is just a front-end for a database.)
How do I explain the basic principl that people respond better to something when represented visually? How do I explain that a GUI is always friendlier than a command line? That a report with diagrams and pictures is easier to relate to than one without? If this concept is something you cannot grasp, the I cannot help you. It's a tenet of software development. I agree with all of that, I just don't see how Xcode implements any of those principles better than Visual Studio does.
If.NET has something that obfuscates the code development into something driven by drag and drop icons, they have yet to announce it to the world yet. I know they TRY to make software deveopment easy but you are still touching lines of code. MAC has moved development to the next level and though it is a BABY step, it still shows that it the BEGINNINGS of the development process can be done by dragging and dropping elements onto a pallette and then hooking up those icon elements without ever touching a line of code. Does.NET have that? Yes, I think so, but maybe I'm not aware of the full extent to which it's implemented in Xcode. Let me describe a couple simple GUI apps and you can tell me the process for creating them in Xcode.
A simple hello world program. There's a window with a button on it, and when you click the button, an alert box pops up with the message "Hello world!"
A pair of toggle buttons. There's a window with a label for the current state, and two buttons marked "On" and "Off". The initial state is "on" and the On button is initially disabled. When you click the Off button, the label changes to "off", the Off button is disabled, and the On button is enabled. When you then click the On button, the opposite happens.
Here's how I'd make them in Visual C#:
Create a new project, and it automatically comes with a blank form. Drag a button from the palette onto the form. Double click the button and write one line of code for its click handler: MessageBox.Show("Hello world!");
Create a new project as before. Drag a label and two buttons onto the form. Set the label's Text property to "on". For the first button, set the Text property to "On" and the Enabled property to false. For the second, set Text to "Off". Double click the first button and write three lines of code for its click handler: label1.Text = "On"; button1.Enabled = false; button2.Enabled = true; Switch back to the form designer, double click the second button, and write three more lines of code for its click handler.
Can you really do those in Xcode without writing any code at all? If so, maybe my version is out of date, because I sure didn't see a way to do it.
That is, hands-down, the most outrageously funny depiction of InterfaceBuilder that I have ever read. The great thing about InterfaceBuilder is that you're working with live instances of the objects that you're manipulating -- the very same objects that will be running in your resulting application after being unmarshalled from the NIB file. Thanks. As I'm sure you guessed, I'm a novice when it comes to Mac development, so I can only go by my first impression and compare it to other tools I've used. It's nice to know that IB works with live objects, like Visual Studio's form designer also does (and Delphi has done for 12 years), but AFAICT it still isn't integrated with the code editor any more than ResEdit was. You use one program to design the interface, then switch back to another program and write all the code that goes behind it.
Yes but again, the point is that Mac made it easy to start developing with a simple interface so even non-developers can do development. Visual Studio and.NET have not. Can you explain further? In my experience, it's easier to start developing in Visual Studio than in Xcode, because the integration between the form designer and the code editor means you don't have to write any boilerplate code - event handling methods are generated for you, and you just fill in the bodies.
And beyond that, more advanced development can be done in any IDE like Eclipse or whatever you are comfortable with. In the.NET world as well, you can use something like SharpDevelop or even Emacs if it suits you. The compilers are freely available.
You're comparing the user interface of the IDE which is somewhat interesting, but what I find REALLY contributes to ease of use and rapid development is when you have lots of objects and components that you can access "for free" no matter what you are doing. If you are working in Xcode you don't have to do any audio coding because CoreAudio is there, you don't have to do graphics because of CoreImage, you don't have to do animation because of CoreAnimation, and if you want to display any kind of audio or video you have QuickTime, and WebKit gives your app HTML, JavaScript, and all of CSS 2.1, not to mention the way you can work with PDF. Except for PDF, those are all present on Windows in some form. DirectX gives you graphics, sound, and video, and embedded IE gives you HTML/JS/CSS (although IE has its faults). And although the underlying APIs might be daunting, using those features with.NET is pretty easy when you can just download a wrappre component and drop it on your form.
I've used Xcode, and it doesn't seem to provide anywhere near the ease of use of Visual Studio (or Delphi/Kylix, etc.). The interface builder is a glorified ResEdit, comparable to the dialog box editor that has shipped with the Windows SDK since the beginning.
In VB, Delphi, and.NET, you don't just design an interface, you control a vast number of properties and event handlers with the form designer. Double-click on a button and you're immediately taken to the code editor, with the cursor inside a new method that will be executed when someone clicks that button at runtime. Or instead of double-clicking, you can use the event list to do the same for dozens of other runtime events. You can also design your own controls, compile them, and add them to the form editor, with any properties and events you want.
Xcode seems a little closer than ResEdit was, but still not there yet.
No, I don't think so. My understanding is that the GPLv3 would only address situations where a product ships with free software that the manufacturer can replace (via a signed update, for example) but the end user cannot.
We were talking about your fantasy world free of the shackles of IP, not the real world where we have such guarantees. Without IP, you could not enforce your contracts for intellectual labor, period, full stop. You seem to have gotten lost in your delusions. Again, this is simply bullshit with no basis in reality. You have failed to point out a single difference between a contract for cutting hair and a contract for writing code.
If you contract me to write some code, that contract is exactly as enforceable as contracting me to cut your hair (or file your taxes, or perform any other lawful service), whether or not the code I write is covered by copyright. There's really no reason to think it wouldn't be; all you've done is repeat a baseless assertion, but it doesn't get any more true the more you repeat it.
You can change one function and resell your software to someone else. An artist can't change a single word and get a new copyright. The art of equivalence escapes you. There is no equivalence there, because I don't change one function and resell the software. When I'm contracted to change software, I sell the amount of time it takes me to change it, which would be negligible if I only had to change a few lines.
In the system I've proposed, no one would be selling software anyway; they'd be selling the labor they use to write it, and copying an existing program takes far less labor than writing a new one, so it's naturally cheaper.
So that means you're free to disect that data and rebuild it into your own app? As I understand it, no one was dissecting anything. He was serving a page that referenced a chart produced by Amazon, served directly from Amazon's server.
No, it's not. Those digits aren't YOUR speech. When they're coming out of my mouth, they are.
You have no conceivable need to reproduce verbatim chunks of identifiable content. No one really has a "need" to write or say much of anything, but that's beside the point. Freedom of speech isn't just for the speech that you deem necessary.
The requirement of writing original papers for publication is also a restriction on free speech, if that's how you look at it. You're right. The prohibition on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is also a restriction on free speech, but unlike copyright, those restrictions have a legitimate purpose: the former prevents fraud, the latter protects public safety.
Wrong! You can't stipulate to an illegal act, and you can't enforce a contract with no consideration. Try again, Dexter. You've gone off the deep end, buddy. Try this line of argument next time you're at a barber or mechanic, and see how far it gets you: "Yeah, I promised to pay for this service, but so what? You've only lost your time, so the contract is invalid. Ha ha!"
You'll soon become familiar with the term "theft of services".
Your abolishment of IP also means that you didn't actually suffer any damages as a result. There is no legal canon for "time spent thinking" without IP. You've got nothing recoverable in that contract. Once again, you just don't know what you're talking about. If that were true, no one would ever be able to get paid for any service. My time spent writing is exactly as valuable, and protected by contract just as well, as a barber's time spent cutting hair or a mechanic's time spent fixing a car.
No, they wouldn't. There's no money to provide higher salaries. You've eliminated the source of funding and there is no other source to take its place. No, the source of funding is tuition. Remember the students? You know, the people who actually go to university to learn something? They pay for it.
Because we don't need six million Chinese delivery drivers. If we needed more physical labor workers, we'd have them, generally speaking. Ah yes, more worship of the status quo: we already have exactly the right number of each kind of business, and no one will ever open another one, especially not the millions of people who would be looking for opportunities. My mistake.
Show us one truly novel line of programming you've ever written. A line that has never been written before by anyone in your field. This is like asking an author to show you one truly novel sentence he's written, a sentence that has never been written before. On the one hand, it's trivial:
But on the other hand, it misses the point entirely. You can write an original book by stringing together sentences from other books, just like you can write an original sentence by stringing together words from other sentences, and invent an original word by stringing together the same letters that make up every other word. Similarly, you can build an original program by stringing together statements that have appeared in other programs. The sequence is where the originality comes from.
Alternatively, show a finished function that you'll never use again and be paid for. I would, but I don't think my employer would appreciate it, even though the code isn't sold. I can, however, tell you that one of my recent projects has involved analyzing very specific types of images to extract information for the medical field. To the best of my knowledge (and that of the people paying for it), it hasn't been done before, and since I only wrote it once, I've only been paid for it once.
Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself now.
You can have the last word. A wise choice, now that the discussion has touched upon two topics in which your ignorance is laughably obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you suggest instead? Some sort of socialist arrangement where we pay more for national traffic and less for international, evening it out? Um... that seems backwards. How about paying more for international traffic, which is expensive to send, and less for national traffic, which is cheap? I suspect you already pay more for international phone calls than for local ones, right? All you have to do to remain neutral is make sure all traffic that crosses that international fiber is charged the same rate, no matter which NZ address it's coming from or which international address it's going to. Or should we just pay realistic amounts that help offset the utterly gargantuan outlay our telcos made to lay fiber to the US? Yes, exactly. If you think that's incompatible with net neutrality, you don't understand the net neutrality argument.
I mean, suppose a big company (like Microsoft, since this is
I tried to stoke a cat once, but I couldn't figure out which end the coal was supposed to go in.
Surely it's already taken you 10 times as long to insult me over and over as it would've taken to just give me the same kind of explanation I gave you. you don't want to believe this functionality exists even though many other people have stated otherwise No, actually, you're the only one claiming you can build apps in Xcode without writing any code. Everyone else seems to be aware of Interface Builder's limitations and know that you have to write code if you want the program to do anything even as simple as showing a message box or changing a label.
All the indications I've seen are that it's going to be a lot like Verizon's Get It Now store. You can develop an app for Verizon phones... but you have to go through a lengthy, expensive process to get it tested and signed. Once that's done, people can download it, but of course they'll have to pay for the privilege, because you have to make back the money you just spent getting it certified.
End result: a lot of apps people would like never get written in the first place, because there isn't a big enough market to justify the cost of developing. We get ports of the same old games like Pac-Man, Tetris, Bejeweled, and Zuma, but they still cost more than the Xbox Live Arcade versions.
BTW, I asked a few more Mac developers, and they don't believe you either. I've read Mac developer blogs and Apple's tutorials and haven't found anything like what you're describing. I can only conclude that you didn't understand the example in that book, and now you're just trying to save face by not answering my questions about it.
The fact is, if you want to make a Cocoa app that does anything useful at all, you have to create a controller object to handle the events, and that means writing code. The only way you can get away with not writing code is if there's already a pre-made controller that handles the events you want in exactly the way you want them to be handled, but it's not as if Xcode comes with a bunch of predefined controllers called "show a message box with this text", "add these numbers and put them over here", etc. Even for simple stuff like that, you have to code it yourself.
Other plants aren't quite as gross as that, but even still, they all grow in dirt. Just think about that next time you're having a salad. Would you eat food off the floor? Well, everything in that salad used to be on or in the ground, and the ground is nature's filthy floor that never gets vacuumed!
For example, this page describes a new developer walking through one of Apple's sample projects. The program is very simple: it takes two numbers from different text boxes, multiplies them, and puts the result in a third text box. And yet he had to write two methods to do it. Is there a better way than the one he used?
I've got Xcode installed. If it's so easy to make a program that does something without writing any code, why can't you just tell me give me the basic steps? Is it a secret, or are you making it up?
Maybe, but the best mileage I've ever gotten has been when I was driving well above the posted speed limit: 85 or higher in a 70 zone. I usually get 36.5 MPG or higher.
Seattle is about 280 miles away from where I live, which means I can cut about 45 minutes off the trip by driving there at 85 instead of 70. But let's suppose I could get 40.1 MPG by driving at 70 (although I'm not sure that's true in practice). Assuming gas is $3/gallon, a round trip would cost $41.89 at 70 MPH, and $46.03 at 85 MPH... so I'm paying just over four dollars to save an hour and a half of driving. Still sounds like a great deal to me.
Can you give me a link to some official documentation for this icon-connecting feature, maybe a screenshot, or a keyword to search for? I can't find anything about it on Apple's Xcode site. The Mac developer I talked to didn't know anything about it either, and he suspected you were confusing Xcode with something else.
I've worked with several development systems over the years. I'll change when something better comes along, but I see no reason to think it's better to hand-write two or three classes for a simple dialog box than to lay it out with the form designer and write a few event handlers in half the time.
Visual C++ with its MFC library enforced the MVC pattern, and in my experience it was terrible. Writing three separate classes for a single window a big pain, and in most apps it just isn't necessary. I've written plenty of GUI apps and never have I wished I'd used an MVC pattern instead of RAD. My clients want results, and they will not be pleased if I take twice as long to put the UI together because I might someday save a few minutes if I ever theoretically need to add another way to view the same data. They'd rather get it working today, and pay me to make those changes (which will probably involve an MVC pattern) if and when that day comes. Here's another on how flexibility need not be sacrificed for ease of development; that's a fallacy perpetuated by Microsoft's habitually thoughtless design. Apparently this "longtime
Interesting. When was that added, and where it it documented? I'm not seeing anything about it on Apple's site.
.NET apps without writing code, as long as your idea of an app is just a front-end for a database.)
I still don't think building apps by connecting icons is going to help developers in the long run, though. At some point you're going to hit the limit of what you can express that way, and then you're going to have to start over from the beginning, learning about methods and so on. (You can already build some
Here's how I'd make them in Visual C#:
Can you really do those in Xcode without writing any code at all? If so, maybe my version is out of date, because I sure didn't see a way to do it.
I've used Xcode, and it doesn't seem to provide anywhere near the ease of use of Visual Studio (or Delphi/Kylix, etc.). The interface builder is a glorified ResEdit, comparable to the dialog box editor that has shipped with the Windows SDK since the beginning.
.NET, you don't just design an interface, you control a vast number of properties and event handlers with the form designer. Double-click on a button and you're immediately taken to the code editor, with the cursor inside a new method that will be executed when someone clicks that button at runtime. Or instead of double-clicking, you can use the event list to do the same for dozens of other runtime events. You can also design your own controls, compile them, and add them to the form editor, with any properties and events you want.
In VB, Delphi, and
Xcode seems a little closer than ResEdit was, but still not there yet.
No, I don't think so. My understanding is that the GPLv3 would only address situations where a product ships with free software that the manufacturer can replace (via a signed update, for example) but the end user cannot.
If you contract me to write some code, that contract is exactly as enforceable as contracting me to cut your hair (or file your taxes, or perform any other lawful service), whether or not the code I write is covered by copyright. There's really no reason to think it wouldn't be; all you've done is repeat a baseless assertion, but it doesn't get any more true the more you repeat it. You can change one function and resell your software to someone else. An artist can't change a single word and get a new copyright. The art of equivalence escapes you. There is no equivalence there, because I don't change one function and resell the software. When I'm contracted to change software, I sell the amount of time it takes me to change it, which would be negligible if I only had to change a few lines.
In the system I've proposed, no one would be selling software anyway; they'd be selling the labor they use to write it, and copying an existing program takes far less labor than writing a new one, so it's naturally cheaper.
You'll soon become familiar with the term "theft of services". Your abolishment of IP also means that you didn't actually suffer any damages as a result. There is no legal canon for "time spent thinking" without IP. You've got nothing recoverable in that contract. Once again, you just don't know what you're talking about. If that were true, no one would ever be able to get paid for any service. My time spent writing is exactly as valuable, and protected by contract just as well, as a barber's time spent cutting hair or a mechanic's time spent fixing a car. No, they wouldn't. There's no money to provide higher salaries. You've eliminated the source of funding and there is no other source to take its place. No, the source of funding is tuition. Remember the students? You know, the people who actually go to university to learn something? They pay for it. Because we don't need six million Chinese delivery drivers. If we needed more physical labor workers, we'd have them, generally speaking. Ah yes, more worship of the status quo: we already have exactly the right number of each kind of business, and no one will ever open another one, especially not the millions of people who would be looking for opportunities. My mistake. Show us one truly novel line of programming you've ever written. A line that has never been written before by anyone in your field. This is like asking an author to show you one truly novel sentence he's written, a sentence that has never been written before. On the one hand, it's trivial:
FireEventsByNameC(Interp, '<OnMyRCTCP*', Channel, ch + ' ' + cmd + ' ' + Args);
But on the other hand, it misses the point entirely. You can write an original book by stringing together sentences from other books, just like you can write an original sentence by stringing together words from other sentences, and invent an original word by stringing together the same letters that make up every other word. Similarly, you can build an original program by stringing together statements that have appeared in other programs. The sequence is where the originality comes from. Alternatively, show a finished function that you'll never use again and be paid for. I would, but I don't think my employer would appreciate it, even though the code isn't sold. I can, however, tell you that one of my recent projects has involved analyzing very specific types of images to extract information for the medical field. To the best of my knowledge (and that of the people paying for it), it hasn't been done before, and since I only wrote it once, I've only been paid for it once.
Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself now. You can have the last word. A wise choice, now that the discussion has touched upon two topics in which your ignorance is laughably obvious.