Hm. What index would that be? There are many of them, but I just can't see Sweden at the highest places anywhere? Or even high? Or even not low?
I would also like to remind you that there are huge problems with the reliability of many of those indexes.

Also, why would poverty NOT be a reason for crime?

Does it run linux?

Hm.
I would like to apologize for really sloppy writing in the parent article..strange grammar all over, there was.
A bit tired there.

Actually, the problem is not singularly the calculation of the payroll which usually is nothing more than some reports. Of course, they might be heavy and all but database engines nowadays can really push data. It is about the fact that there are lots of similar stuff. Like when someone changes something historically, handling "tainting" and generate new accounting instructions. There are soo many use cases.
And you will do most of it in the database. Why? Because to not use set-based logic a la SQL when you handle huge amounts of data is not very smart.
If you wouldn't, you would have to dump ALL the data to the business layer structure and do advanced data operations like joins and so forth there.
Which, while obviously being possible, sucks and kills your mind. Also database client libraries consume lots of memory, and usually they are not the smartest memory allocators(because they don't have to be).
You will probably want to store states during execution and do it in parts, a huge batch either locks up the entire system for an unacceptable duration or makes you end up with a possibly corrupt dataset. Or at least not one you can always trust. So you cannot really do it in total isolation.
It is all in the little horrible details. Details that dawn on you when a system grow. Because it is all about detail.

No, really, there is nowhere else there are as many parameters and settings as in those cases where law is the logic.
The problem is also not their number, but the fact that they cut through abstraction levels the way they do.
Therefore problems often occurs just because you accidentally tried to do good. :-)
You really have to work with this kind of development for a while to realize its specifik set of problems.
On the contrary, the CAD example is one where you kan make beautifully generic code.

With regards to O calculations, they are not very useful in larger systems, they are great for evaluate algorithms. Systems are systems, and delays are far less about optimizing algorithms but knowing how databases indexing, database queries and their client libraries work, how memory is managed and doing stuff in the right order. Normally there are actually very few places where you do anything very advanced, algorithmically or mathematically(if we are talking about accounting).

Believe it or not, I have actually studied computer science and sorry, there are so many times one has to sidestep design principles in these cases.

To translate a syntax into logical constructs is really easy(ANTLR kicks aass, yay) . And actually, the language itself could be considered a programming language.
The problem is that all that haven't gotten you *anywhere* because law is about interpretation and systems about customer demands.
At some point, the law is interpreted, applied to your customers and translated into if...then...else.. . And you and your system will usually not be the ones that interprets it.
The driver is regulations and customer demand, and that often that translates into designing the system in such a way that it, for example generates the least taxation within the applicable legal constraints.
And here you just can't go wild with Monte Carlo simulations, but have to follow the usually very specific methods the certified accountant has specified as being OK. Compliance issues. And every larger customer has their own model...it is really problematic sometimes to try and cram them into the same system.

Building business systems is less about programming and more about system design, designing a system that can survive and even thrive containing with the madness it contains. Because it is by law required to contain it.

Let me guess..you haven't done much in the way in developing of large financial/business applications, have you?

It is certainly more complex than you think, and likely in a different way from what you think.

The problem is that it has to apply an insane amount of rules and exceptions to all calculations, which make the programming quite difficult and unclean.
For example, a pretty simple calculation may have 50 or 60 parameters or more, most of which are completely illogical and difficult to understand because they stem from law. Law is an utter mess of compromise, shortcuts and exceptions and as such very, very badly suited to provide the logical framework for an application. Still, it has to be applied when it is supposed to. Or incarceration will ensue.

For example, writing large functions is a definite no-no everywhere in development. It reduces unit testability and so much more.
However, in a financial applications, there are so many parameters and exceptions for everything that code becomes completely impossible to follow if you break if up like that.
However, that doesn't matter anyway since the complexity and fantastic amount of exceptions makes unit testing, though used of course, somewhat less effective. Most testing instead happens in the integration level.
It is very hard to optimize, and writing it in machine language would be quite insanely difficult. And off-the-charts silly.
Especially considering the efficiency of compilators of today.

In the old days systems were way simpler, had way less features(more of calculator replacements than systems) and was allowed to cost fortunes.

And juggling critical data in RAM is not something I'd suggest doing, the system has to keed serving clients and you need transactional support.
Even though such database engines exists, they are not normally used for these kinds of applications.

And NOTHING is inherently safe and productive. I assure you.

That's very, very strange.
However, http://blog.zimbra.com/ has stuff from november 2011 and they are obiously hiring : http://jobs.vmware.com/search?q=zimbra.com%2Fcareers
But still, it is owned by VMWare, I mean they must be aware of the impression a 2 year old "latest news" item gives to a visitor.

No, it is your argument that is fundamentally flawed, for several reasons:
1. The possibility to accumulate wealth isn't, luckily, the only incentive in society. If that was the case, we would have no other values or considerations, have no friends, and harvest each others corpses for organs to sell. Just the fact the emergency of social security systems has been proven incredibly important for the development of society as we know it, proves that it isn't.
2. It is VERY EASY to agree on a minimum cost of living. Usually it boils down to pretty small stuff, like if a cell phone and internet is considered basic(it usually is, since it would be a serious impediment in the current society to not have them). It has very little to do with desires.

Either, you have a society. Or you don't. A society inherently designed to accentuate income differences eventually create class structures and immobility. The United States has been very lucky in this regards, as there has been a constant availability of natural resources, influx of talent, room and war elsewhere, it has worked anyway. Now that many of these factors has been taken away, the U.S. cannot continue with the same model, as it depended on them. The current economic situation is obviously a symptom of this. The U.S. society has to modernize. And as much as that may hurt, that means more social security. It can be done right, or it can be done wrong.
Done wrong it sucks, done right, it is great. And I suppose that is the real problem.

I can't see how this matches anything else you have written? Your reasoning seems rather to be based on the everyone for themselves-attitude.

No, that's because they are affected less by the same percentage of taxation.
As this obviously isn't obvious to everyone, I'll explain:

Say the minimum cost of living for a certain time is 100, and citizen A earns 150, then person a has 20 left.
If we then introduce citizen B, who earns 200, then that person has 100 percent left.
If we tax them equally, say 20%, citizen A pays 30 and citizen B pays 40.

As this might sound fair, it really isn't. Why?
Because citizen A:s "discretionary income", as it is called, has shrunk by 60% and citizen B:s with only 40%.
So citizen A:s life will be far more more affected by the "fair" taxation than citizen B:s.

Also, the citizen with the higher salary will significantly benefit from the system, as that person will be able to invest his income, an yield a return, far easier than the one with the lower income.
As a consequense, most people over a certain income will almost certainly become richer, and most people under a certain income will almost certainly become poorer.

Widening income gaps has a number of other detrimental effects on countries, the most obvious, of course, is discontent but also a lessened interest in education. Why educate yourself when it won't make you make enough money to pass that barrier? Whatever, your parents can't afford college for you anyway, they have enough just sustaining the family.
This is an issue everywhere but especially in the "developed" world, where it simply isn't sufficient to have only a well-educated elite. Almost the entire population has to be well-educated to be able to compete internationally as a country.

The only solution is a progressive taxation system. And setting the level of progressivity is a simple math problem, easy to adjust to the effects of other taxes and to the taste of the current administration.
This especially kills off a host of counter arguments, since they were concieved before these things could be easily calculated(before spreadsheets, computers).

Personally, I pay the highest level of taxes in my country, and I don't wine about it.
There are upsides to paying taxes, too. In a working society, you get stuff back now and then.
Especially when you really need it. For example, if I get sick. Or if I need to hire educated people.

No. It is actually WAY harder.

You have to:
* get physical access to the wire(even if it is IP telephony, there will be problems getting to the packets), likely involving breaking and entering.
* get signal from the line without affecting signal strength and trigger faults at switches. If a line behaves physically flaky, someone will come check it out.
* to dump the modem data, which is not as easy as you'd might think, there are tricks with frequencies and stuff.
* interpret that data.
* interpret the (quite possibly encrypted) fax messaging.
* manually read the document.

We are actually talking expensive or heavily modified hardware to be able to do this.

I mean, how many knows how to do this? I sure don't. Also, how much software is available for it? Not much.

By comparison, it is pretty much a walk in the park to intercept and consume E-mail on a huge scale.

Fax is ACTUAL security, at least compared to e-mail, where security is almost non-existent due to the many possible ways of interception.
I have not heard of botnets consisting of fax machines, have you? Encryption doesn't help if either of the computers are 0wn3d..

Although mine didn't have exactly the same cover:
http://www.amazon.com/Programming-6502-Rodnay-Zaks/dp/0895880466

A fantastically to-the-point and useful book. In -84, -85.
Or whatever year it was, I don't remember. To me it felt like opening a treasure chest.

As I said: "at least those that push open source and openness vs those who don't."
No, you are right. They are not open.
But they generally build base their stuff upon open source(Android is built on a linux kernel).
They contribute directly in countless open source projects.
They fund countless open source projects.
And they push open source politically.

Actually MS contributes quite frequently too, but not nearly in the same scale and width Google does. Sometimes it feels like everyone works at Google.
I am sorry that Google could not continue work for free and had to grow up and make money, but it had to happen.
So far they have made mistakes but not gone E V I L in my book.

I'd rather say that their PR department has been sucking big time convincing tech crowds that they are about technical openness, likely because that is not what they are about.
They are about making money like every other company, it is just that their business model contains a whole lot of open source software and software projects.
And that is basically about how far a company can be expected to go in that direction.
Unless they actually make their money on consulting not technology.

Hardly.
Satisfying the implied morals of your comment would require the abolishment of free trade.

I'd rather call it closed vs open. Or at least those that push open source and openness vs those who don't.
It will be interesting who'll win.
Personally, I hope no one does, competition is best for consumers.

:-)

(reposting as non-anon)

Thank you for your concern.
But to the contrary of your beliefs, it depends on what kind of software is being tested, not so much about the size of the company.
There are huge companies that churns out gigantic systems with almost no testing methodology at all. Because that actually works, too.
What I was referring to is the common business application developer or the internal development department of a company, the subject of probably >99 percent of all software development and relevant to most here.
Of course, if the software you are testing is a flight simulator, or worse, an actual flight control system where the software is far more integrated and reacting with the hardware, there are huge amounts of testing and qualification being done in ways that go far beyond what you are describing. And believe it or not, such testing is not uncommon to occur at small subcontractors.

If virtual environments interfere when they are not supposed to, they are either badly configured, or not up to specifications. On the contrary, using virtualization, you can emulate lack of memory, I/O performance issues, anything. Don't forget that one can have more than one host for the VMs.
I personally feel that the interaction problems are minor, especially when all servers have a gazillion cores, as seems to the case nowadays. But then again, I am not a tester.

If one wants to certify and performance test a certain hardware configuration, yes then you need the hardware. Otherwise no.
Of course, there are certain times when stuff like a hardware dependent I/O quench can really screw up the system, but that can be proactively detected using stress testing by using restrictions like above.
But again, almost all development is done with regards to operating systems coupled with loosely stated hardware requirements.
What hardware the customer chooses is completely up to the customer as long as it exceeds the aforementioned requirements, in which case it will be supported.
And this is coming to the larger systems as well, as more and more problems can be solved with more and more general hardware. The only ones, except real-time or near real-time systems, that need special equipment, is trading systems, logistics, and perhaps MMOs. I am sure that there are many others, but they are also moving to of-the-shelf stuff.

1. The amount of energy wasted by old servers is huge. Useful time is perhaps not the correct word.
2. Many of them contain very dangerous toxins that really shouldn't be in the wild.
3. Yes, there are the odd system here and there that just keeps on ticking. True. But when you realise that no one knows how to fix bugs in them, that they drive their users crazy because of some bug that have been there forever. Like that you have to enter all product codes in upper-case for them to be found, that a search for some certain erroneous product codes hangs a world wide system. I have actually experienced these things first hand.