Aaah, a true killer application, the year of GNU/Linux on your favourite weapon of choice :)

Right, of-course the biggest source of bugs in the code is fairly complex business logic and coupling of data structures / models between processing components, where limitations on data that one component requires and processes are different from limitations on same/similar data processed by other components. Really in order to avoid bugs we have to have full awareness of all business logic in every step in programming, which cannot be done in large enough projects where more than one person is working on a project and project takes more time than just a few days of work.

As to how to reduce number of bugs in simple code, I say write code generators that generate simple code if that type of code is used over and over again across the application, that's my approach, but YMMV.

Troll?

- is that the 'Troll'? Only if you do not run a business and do not know what the employer's actual costs are when their employee makes that 18K net.

Is this troll? - Well, I guess a link to a Washington Post can be considered one, I give you that.

However it doesn't change the fact, 31% of Americans have 0 savings, 19 of those between 55 and 64 have 0 savings. Maybe the USA economy is a Troll with those numbers.

- is this the troll? So 324.5 Million dollars (or more eventually) taken from the companies is somehow not a cost of labour in USA? What is it the cost of then if not labour cost, imposed by unauthorised government rule?

Yeah, well, I guess if you are not here supporting what the court did you are a troll, there is no difference of opinion here, just those who are RIGHT and those who are TROLLS.

It should be legal to discriminate based on anything. Whether people would do it or not is irrelevant, it should be completely legal. Government making it illegal is an unauthorised power grab, usurpation of power that was not granted to government under USA Constitution.

Would some people discriminate based on race, religion sex? Sure. Would they be rewarded or punished in a free market capitalist system? They would be punished, they would not have access to the best workers (based on their prejudice), they would lose many customers, since there are plenty of people who would not patronise such establishments.

Government does not have authority but it usurped the power to dictate how people are hired and fired. Government has no role in any of it. Employers must be able to hire and fire employees, and the only thing that matters is a contract. Same with employees, if an employee wants to go work to another company and the other company is willing to have him or her, he should be able to, again, subject to the contract between the employee and the employer.

Government has no authority to prevent companies from hiring anybody, domestic or otherwise. The entire concept of national borders is broken. These borders shouldn't be there to prevent people from working. Anybody could come to America 100 years ago and the only thing that they needed to do at the border was register and go right through.

The problem is growth of cancerous government and its destructive welfare system. People feel that their money is stolen from them (they feel this rightfully) in taxes and the welfare state is created, at that point it becomes difficult to maintain individual human rights and freedoms, which are to try and build their own lives as they can best (without murdering and stealing and such). The entire problem is the rise of the welfare state, the theft via the income related taxes, the theft via inflation and laws and regulations and the subsidies from that stolen money to the people unwilling to work. That is what ended normal immigration into USA.

As to being legal not to pay workers, it's legal now, because you can have volunteers that you don't pay anything, but once you start paying the insane, horrific minimum wage laws (price controls on labour) kick in. There are unpaid interns in the White House and in Hollywood, and that's OK, but minimum wage employees in WalMart is not somehow OK.

Government has no authority to dictate any salary to anybody whatsoever, it usurped that power that it didn't have and destroyed individual freedoms.

As to people being out of work, the exact opposite is the case. Without laws that make it extremely expensive and difficult and dangerous (litigation) to hire and fire people, more people have jobs.

I am an employer, I built my own company, I would hire more people if there were no government encroaching into my individual freedoms and freedoms of people I hire to have our own contracts.

Government rules and regulations are expenses, more expenses means higher cost of labour. To hire somebody to pay them 18K after tax, a company spends 28K. The labour cost is high and yet the final after tax salary is low. Talk about people not being able to afford products...

- wrong. The reason that governments exist is our inertia, laziness and jealousy. Originally governments were all nobility with the power in hand to kill you.

Nobility running amok vs. people wanting to live their lives freer from that type of government is what gave rise to Constitutional monarchy, where nobility could not steal from people and kill people at will, there was finally some laws against that type of abuse.

American Republic was supposed to become a better form of government not by making a bigger government, but by protecting more of the FREEDOMS of individuals, this is the only reason to reform governments - better governance in our progression means freer individuals, which is what allowed USA to become biggest manufacturer and creditor nation on the planet before 1908 (*before politicians figured out how to use all of the wealth generated by that system to start a class warfare that eventually destroyed the most productive economy since the dawn of men*).

Goal of a company is to make profits.

Goal of a politician is to stay in power.

Making profits in a free market capitalist system means providing products and services to the willing market participants.

Staying in power for politicians means building a bigger and bigger army around himself, so that to dominate against other politicians in that version of the Game of Thrones and it has nothing to do with serving people whatsoever. Staying in power means building an army and the people are the ones that are feeding that army through stolen work and through reduced standard of living.

Profits in a free market capitalist society are the most moral goal that can be, since it does not use any coercion, it uses desire of other participants in that economy to trade with the company.

As to slavery, thievery, murder all of those concepts are government concepts first and foremost and in a free market economy people don't need governments to deal with any of it, private courts and private security is enough to deal with aberrations.

- what does that have anything to do with the question at hand? Nothing at all, CPUs will use more power when they actually have to process something and less when they idle, what are you talking about? The only interesting question here may be that CPUs need to know about each other and distribute the load in a way that would reduce power consumption while still providing the necessary processing, but this algorithm does that exactly and it's probably simpler than setting up CPUs in such a way that they would do that work on their own without knowledge of the context of the requests that are being executed!

- so start your own company and give all the respect to anybody you want. No, what you are after is worse than any 'Ferenge' or whatever, you want oppression of individual freedoms by government, that is not authorised at all actually to regulate businesses.

Newsflash, something you may learn here: "regulating interstate commerce" does not provide a blanket permission to regulate business, it means preventing States from setting up monopolies, forbidding people from out of State to do business there. Regulating interstate commerce meant to UPHOLD the free market principles, not destroy them.

There should be no government regulations, the reason government usurped all this unauthorised power is laziness and jealousy of people who would rather see government steal from others to subsidise themselves than try and compete in the actual free market environment, providing fellow citizens with products and services they would be willing to trade for voluntarily.

Achieving business profits in free market capitalism is the most moral way to run an economy, since profits in a free market economy only come from voluntary exchange and participation rather than coercion that fascists and socialists (basically thieves and oppressors) want.

"Flamebait"?

Ok, let's look at the statements above:

- Flamebait, I see.

- oh, total Flamebait.

- nightmarish Flamebait.

- that's not only a Flamebait, that's probably a Troll.

- HERESY.

- Oh, humanity, hyper Flamebait.

- Obvious Troll. Talking about supply and demand curves.

- clearly Flamebait.

- Awful unbelievable Flamebait.

No, you are right, /. moderators, you figured it all out.

It's funny how people, who are probably pro-union, are so vehemently against companies (people who own and run companies) coming to their own agreements as to who they will hire and fire and not hire, etc. Government has no authority to have any role in any of this, this is an illegal (unconstitutional) power grab by the government and by the courts.

Anybody should be able to come to an agreement with any other willing party to hire or not to hire any specific person, etc. "Freedom sucks", that's what your statement is all about, you think freedom sucks and should be stolen from people.

It's not about who is dispensable or not, companies do not exist to hire people, they exist to make products / provide services that allow the owners to make money, that's the purpose of a company. Hiring employees becomes necessary when there is more work that can be done, where the cost of hired labour is lower than the value produced by that labour. If you make labour cost too high, less of it will be bought, because the value produced by that labour may not be enough to cover the cost and to make some profit, and the whole point of business is to generate profit, otherwise it's not a business but a hobby. Hobbies have their place in life too, nothing wrong with hobbies, but hobbies can lose money, while businesses can only survive if they make money. Making money is the point and labour is just like any other tool or machinery, that's exactly what happens. Labour cost competes with capital cost, make labour cost too high and capital may win, which means automating or outsourcing the labour (capital wins in this case in terms of setting up the infrastructure necessary to outsource labour).

If everybody ran their own company and nobody wanted to work for anybody else, then you'd have the exact situation where everybody was an owner and there would be no employees, but in some situation the cost of labour would be too high, and so the price offered for labour would go up. Then some people who are making less money running their own businesses than what could be offered to them to work for other employees could shut down their businesses and go work for someone else.

The problem in USA is not that Google and Apple had agreements not to hire from each other, it's that there are so few employers at all, and that's a problem of business costs being too high thanks to government rules, taxes, regulations, litigation costs, inflation etc.

In USA labour cost is expensive while what the employee gets after taxes into his hands is not much. For example to pay somebody 18K after tax, employer has to pay what, 28K at least? So where is the delta going? Because it's not going towards the employee and it's not available to hire more employees or to invest in business otherwise. Well, it's going towards the government, preventing employees from having savings (31% of Americans have 0 savings, 19 of those between 55 and 64 have 0 savings) preventing Americans from starting their own companies because they have no savings and from so much more. Imposing enormous costs on the employers as well.

My point is, this 324.5 Million settlement is yet another cost on employment, higher labour costs, lower output. Companies are ran by people, governments shouldn't have any authority whatsoever to prevent people from coming to agreements, even if the agreement is not to hire from each other or whatever. This is another nonsensical grab of unauthorised power of-course by the government.

to sum it up, if a FB server is idle it consumes 60 watts, if CPU is minimally utilised it consumes 130 watts and if it's utilised more it consumes 150 watts.

Instead of round robin use an algorithm that pushes requests to the servers that are already processing other requests, thus allowing many CPUs to remain at 60 watts, while some CPUs to hit 150 watts of power consumption and so instead of doubling or almost trippling power consumption of all servers due to round robin distribution of requests, tripple power consumption of fewer CPUs and let many CPUs to stay at 60 watts.

Sure, it's an interesting thing to optimise, but unless you are running dozens or maybe hundreds and even thousands of servers in a data centre you won't care about this much at all.

All of the complaints about Java (and I have my own) actually show that it is not the language or the runtime that is annoying to use, it is people that are now in it who are annoying like hell.

In my company I dictate the rules of how we code and we use the bare minimum that needs to be used at any moment in time and no more than that. Basically make it as simple as possible to achieve your goal but not simpler than that.

Given this, I prevent people here from using newer syntactic sugar that was added from about version 1.5 (with minor variations), I prevent people from using gigantic libraries, where a tiny method would do the trick without adding 50 million classes and processors and factories and configuration files.

Simplicity and standardisation of code in terms of structure and of process and data flow is the key to being able to release a project successfully into production (at least when it comes to a small team working on large, complex projects).

One thing that we use here that I built and we develop further that TRULY ads value to coding, reduces time it takes to create a new piece of code that can be added to the project is code generation. I built a number of code generators and put them into a single tool that we now have online and it takes a page of Meta Data and provides 80% of code for a standard use case. This includes database code, stubbing for business logic delegates, front end action and form and bean code, jsps even with some rudimentary HTML in it. Our code generators produce vertical stacks, use cases that can be generated from a page of meta code and imported into the project, modified for an hour and become part of the project. This reduces amount of time something like that takes from 4-5 days (with debugging and possible bugs) to 2-4 hours.

This just may be what is actually needed - helping developers to create standard use cases and import them into existing or new projects rather than developing 5 more ways to write the same 'for' loop.

- Sun is dead and Oracle is as rich as ever.

Personally I do not allow my developers to use language features that prevent easier debugging, prevent reuse of objects, prevent knowing what iteration of the loop is running currently in the debugger.

So I do not allow autoboxing, I do not allow 'for each' java constructs, I do not allow generics, things of that nature. They are destructive to the language, not constructive, they allow people to write SHITTIER CODE.

AFAIC Java doesn't need more syntax sugar, it only needs to add new libraries to support missing functionality and to develop better, faster runtime environment.

How about a built in way to talk to USB and other serial ports without installing extra libraries and using JNI? How about more support for different types of hardware? There is so much that can be done to make the environment more productive, but instead people are looking at making programming less efficient and buggier.