That's not his point, his point is that you're paid to find fault because otherwise many companies would see no point in paying you.

It's like when I worked in public sector many years ago and they consulted with Fujitsu about how to make the IT teams more efficient and the answer was to merge them into one big team... 5 years after they'd consulted with Fujitsu on the exact same thing and Fujitsu had told them to split IT into different teams. The correct option in either case, whichever was correct would've been "It's already optimal, you don't need us" but because their interest was profit, they make up some shit.

Consultancies like yours just come up with nonsense to make it sound like you're providing value. Rather than explaining how the organisation could've hired better developers and provided them an understanding of what was going wrong you just said scrap it, because there was more profit it in it for you to say that than to spend too long actually trying to deal with the problem.

Like it or not, such consultancies as yours have an inherent conflict of interest, you have a conflict of interest in doing what will generate you the most profit, rather than what will actually help the company in question. These two things are nearly always at odds.

"Just a choice example to demonstrate the skill level of "quality" Java programmers: A quadratic (!) sorting algorithm, implemented manually (!) to remove duplicates form a database query result (!) that could have an arbitrarily large (!) response. In Java, that has hash-tables (!) and n log(n) sorting (!) in the standard library, with a database that you just could have told (!) to make the results unique. It really does not get any more incompetent than this."

So what you're saying is if you hire shit programmers you end up with shit code? Who'd have thought it! I bet that company is so glad they're paying you to consult with them on the obvious.

"You also confuse "cost" and worth"

Please explain the difference to us. I'd really like to know more about this unit of value to organise getting things done that is "worth" as a distinct entity from cost.

"And without Java, we would have less programmers, but far, far better software that would still do all the jobs that needed done."

FWIW there was a time without Java back in the 90s, and a time with far less Java for nearly all the 90s. It was a time when we had CGI modules written in C that were rife with full blown server root vulnerabilities and other such silliness. It was a time where Windows was known for it's insecurity, and where buffer overflows were rife in general. Like it or not, the movement to managed code has been a key aspect in improving software security and stability, yet also improved productivity.

Like it or not grandad, the world has moved on for a reason. There's a reason every big player that matters is using managed technologies like .NET and Java every single day to do important things, be it Google, Microsoft, Apple, just about every financial institution. There's a reason C has been relegated to areas it's still best at - close to the metal development, and removed from areas it sucks at like application and web development.

I guess you're just bitter that you never kept your skills up-to-date and just can't compete in the market any more. Sure you can make up your fantasy metrics like "worth" but that doesn't change the fact that almost the entirety of the development world nowadays thinks you're wrong, and thinks that for a damn good reason. Most people are just outright happier with this modern world where more software gets written, where software is more secure, and more stable. Is there room for improvement? sure. Do bad programmers still write a lot of bad code? sure. But at least they're not doing quite as much damage as they were with unmanaged languages.

You realise there are inexperienced developers of every language right?

And that inexperienced developers will always be a problem?

Hint: Java is not your problem, inability to recruit and manage competent staff is. You'd have the same problem whatever the language. In fact, with a language like C it'd be even worse because inexperienced people can do far more damage with that.

Yeah the summary basically sounds like:

"I hired a bunch of really cheap graduates because I was being cheap and didn't want to pay for any kind of experience and now it turns out I have a team full of inexperienced graduates! Why aren't these people the higher tier programmers that I didn't want to pay for?"

You can use Javascript on the server side with node.js but it's a shit language, with shit support for large projects. The overly verbose code you have to write to work around it's deficiencies and the lack of any worthwhile tools for managing massive codebases, coupled with the fact it's not compiled which means entire classes of bugs can be missed until runtime means it's often easier to just accept the barrier and use Javascript on the client and something else that's simply just better on the server and just use a common interchange format like JSON or XML to pass data between them.

Most server side web frameworks do that automatically, if I return an object in ASP.NET MVC to an AJAX call it's automatically converted to JSON and the reverse is true also so there is no effort required to explicitly translate data between technologies, the frameworks often handle it (and if they don't, you can write your own easily).

I think you just need more experience.

No, Fatah is moderate, Hamas are extremist.

If this was simply about rogue groups, then one might wonder why the attacks aren't worse from Fatah controlled territories where it is far easier to move things in and out, and why this sort of thing only repeatedly and regularly occurs on Hamas' watch.

I absolutely agree that if you want to resolve issues you have to improve education, civil liberties and so forth, but how do you make that jump from where they are now to being developed enough to understand that there is a better way without accepting a massive increase in casualties in the meantime as you open up the borders and make it easier for existing would-be suicide bombers to launch more devastating attacks? The whole reason Israel has the blockade in the first place is to stop that happening given that's how things used to be.

The blockade on Gaza is an attempt at containment, the deadliness of attacks in Israel proper have plummeted since it began, so for the Israelis, with the goal of protecting Israelis, it has been a rather resounding success.

Of course, that does nothing to resolve the long term problems, but no one has a workable long term solution that doesn't result in a massive short term escalation that will in itself prevent the long term becoming reality because the cost is deemed too high to accept.

Even if you want to try and spin it as not Hamas' fault and the fault of countless rogue elements in the Gaza strip then ultimately Hamas is the controlling authority in the strip so still bears blame. Hamas has every power and authority in the strip to make sure it happens and due to their iron grip on it any time it does happen it must be with either their implicit (blind eye) or explicit blessing.

If Israel did nothing about some genuinely zionist civilians shelling the shit out of Gaza indiscriminately for years on end would you say it's not the states fault even though for it to occur it would require the state to explicitly avoid acting to stop it?

The fact is, that Hamas is linked directly with the MB (and even Al Qaeda offshoot) Sunni militants.

Because Hamas has been largely isolated now by Iran and Syria because it opted to back ISIS and other Sunni militants and hence sided against Assad's regime and Hezbollah the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and affiliated groups are really the only allies it has left.

A quick search will pull up many 10s of incidents this year alone in Sinai near Gaza. It's no coincidence that this is such a hotbed of Sunni militant activity with Hamas right across the border. Sisi didn't close the border for shits and giggles, he closed it because:

http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/art...

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/mi...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/...

http://www.latimes.com/world/m...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/...

http://english.alarabiya.net/e...

So whilst Hamas and friends are selling folks like you a story about poor Gaza children being bombed whilst playing, Hamas and friends have been bombing poor Egyptian (and trying to bomb) poor Israeli children whilst playing too. When you see a photo about some suffering wounded kids in Gaza at Israel's hand, spare a thought for the suffering kids in Sinai etc. at Hamas and friend's hand too.

Which is why again, Hamas is every bit as bad as the Israelis.

"Contrary to common opinion I think the Muslim Brotherhood has been quite nonviolent. I'm not counting demonstrations but actual armed resistance."

I actually agree with this to an extent, but the Muslim Brotherhood has two faces - it has a political wing, and a militant wing. Officially it's militant wing is no more, but as is always the case you can't just stop extremists being extremists overnight - even in Northern Ireland we still have IRA wannabes causing trouble, setting bombs though it's obvious the bulk of those behind the IRA have been happy to move to political means now. The vast majority of the muslim brotherhood is now political, but the remaining elements that aren't have direct links with Hamas which is the problem. That has resulted in incidents such as this for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

There have been quite a number of other incidents of Egyptian soldiers being killed by MB/Hamas militants so it's most definitely not entirely a non-violent link.

"Then after being beaten up constantly Hamas only fired rockets when being hit exceptionally hard."

That's really not true at all, have a look here at the linked through main articles that document them, many of these attacks are entirely unprovoked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Most definitely not all are unprovoked but a good few are.

"So you think Hamas should disarm in order to take away the excuse. . Ok. And let's not forget all provocations should be ignored and make sure nobody else can react to provocations as well. Also give up all hope to build up an economy because any significant economy can create sophisticated rockets in no time. And learn to do without water because Israel needs it. Actually , best just disappear."

Well it depends if Hamas really wants the moral high ground or not. Of course it doesn't have to have the moral high ground, it can continue being part the problem, but then it doesn't get to play the victim because it's part of the problem. It really can't go both ways.

There's this short sighted view that a bit of pain to gain the moral high ground is something they shouldn't have to accept, but it's self-defeating because the pain is far far worse when not gaining the moral high ground results in the kind of escalation we're seeing now. If there's going to be pain it's better to gain something from it - moral superiority.

Of course don't get me wrong, the same is true of the Israelis, if they want the moral high ground they should just let Hamas bombard their civilian areas without response, but given the rife amounts of anti-semitism I think it's less likely to get them any support - even if Israel did that they'd still be the bad guys in many people's eyes simply because many people genuinely are just outright anti-semitic.

"Nonviolence may work, but there are countermeasures for everything, and demanding nonviolence from the oppressed is ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? It worked for Gandhi. But regardless, I'm not demanding it at all, I really couldn't give a shit, if they want to kill each other and keep carrying out actions that get themselves killed then fine, that's their choice. I'm just saying if that is what they want then they can't also expect to occupy the moral high ground, they have to accept that they're getting exactly what they've asked for.

As I said I'm more than happy to agree that it would be nice if Israel also stopped responding to Hamas provocations just as it'd be nice if Hamas stopped responding to Israel's - I'm not saying that Hamas should be the only player that does that, simply that if Hamas wants us all to fall into line and say "Oh the poor Palestinians!" then maybe they should actually try being the poor Palestinians who don't deserve what's happening to them (which is the case for those in the West Bank for example) rather than a bunch of violent literal terrorists/terrorist supporters who are getting the exact response they've provoked.

You're absolutely right, it's not just on Hamas to stop doing this, it's on Israel too - but we're not constantly being told by the media to view Israel as the victim are we? We're always being asked to view Gazans as the victims, when they're as much the perpetrators as the Israelis.

All I'm saying is if you want to play the victim then be the victim, otherwise accept you're as much an aggressor and part the problem as the other guy and that what's happening is going to continue to happen because that's exactly what you've been asking for - and that applies to both sides.

"Maybe Israelis can be blamed too for voting in a hard line government that doesn't want peace?"

Yes absolutely, they're both as bad as each other, and that's the problem. What I take issue with is this idea that the onus is all on Israel to be the bigger people and that Gazans are poor innocent victims. I don't know where this line of reasoning comes from, but it's utterly warped.

The problem is as per the points you made it wont work if it's just Israel that unilaterally stands down, Hamas will still fire rockets and how long does Israel have to sit and take it for? Weeks? Months? Years?

I suspect Israel could be made to stand down, but it's useless unless Hamas also does so which is my point - all these calls for Israel to stop are meaningless because it could do exactly that but it'd be no better off for it unless Hamas does too.

But whilst Hamas doesn't, my point is that there's no point in pretending Gazans and Hamas are some poor innocent victims. Yes there are some innocent victims in there, but many aren't, many are part the problem in supporting a violent organisation like Hamas. Until both sides disown aggressive leadership then they wont get anywhere, and they're simply reaping what they've sowed.

There really isn't much that can be done, you can sanction the shit out of Israel to stop making it fight back, but all you'll do in the long run is turn Israel into Gaza and the situation will be reversed. Without a will of the people on both sides to see an end to it then you might as well just continue to accept the status quo - the people in Gaza know what they're in for by not acting to stop Hamas, just as the people of Israel in range of Hamas rockets know what they're in for by allowing their government to continuing doing provocative things.

About the only thing that would change things politically is if Israel just stopped fighting back and started just letting more of their civilians die to Hamas attacks. Then politically there'd be more sympathy for them, but from their point of view what's the point? Why should it be their citizens dying rather than Gazans just to appease a bunch of armchair Hamas propagandists in the West eager for a cause to appease what is often genuinely just fed by anti-semitism? Take this guy as an example - to him it's not about the people of Israel or Gaza, to him it's all about the Jews, and Israelis just aren't going to pander to that sort of idiot by accepting more casualties on their side:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

"Not only had Hamas faithfully held to the cease fire since 2012 - despite constant IDF attacks - it was arresting those who had."

This would be a great, fantastic, ground breaking line that puts the whole situation in a new light.

If it were actually true. It's not. Hamas has been firing rockets even when Israel hasn't bothered to respond. The arrests are part of an ongoing tit for tat small scale rocket launches and arrests. What makes this scenario different is that it wasn't the usual odd rocket here, odd rocket there, it was salvos of 60 odd rockets a day. But regardless, when I was speaking of breaking the ceasefire I mean the two in the last couple of weeks, and there's no dispute that Hamas broke them on both occasions, Hamas even admit it.

You can see how wrong your statement that Hamas has abided to a 2012 ceasefire is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

"So now Hamas are also bad people for resisting a violent coup to overthrow an elected government and the resulting, brutal junta? Gotcha."

How is firing rockets at civilian population centres resistance exactly? That's not resistance, that's provocation - in fact, it's the very definition of terrorism - attempting to force political change through terror of a civilian population. Resistance would be attacking Israeli military installations, personnel, and government.

"You left out the Short Skirt while explaining how they were Asking For It. Do you have any posts that aren't sagely repeating western propaganda as if it were fact?"

Wow, that's really low. You actually think someone who wears a short skirt is the same as someone who outright attacks someone? What sick planet do you come from? Hamas isn't the innocent girl, the victim of a sexual assault who has done nothing wrong. They're the terrorist organisation that time and time again (see cited links above) attacks civilians. This isn't like an innocent girl getting raped, this is like a violent thug repeatedly attacking people eventually getting attacked back.

You really need to stop swallowing the Hamas party line, as the links above demonstrate, it just makes you look like a naive fool who has fallen for the very propaganda they wanted to make you fall for.

But then, weren't you the guy defending Putin too? I guess you are incredibly easily suckered by propaganda as you seem to fall hook line and sinker for it time and time again. Don't tell me, you support ISIS too?

Right, and that's precisely why I never used words like absolute and instead used words like majority.

No, the elections were deemed to be free and fair (well actually there was a bit of interference, but it was by the Israelis to try and cut the Hamas vote), which was actually quite a headache for the west at the time because whilst the US et. al. were crying for democracy it led to a result that they just did not want.

As for the result, try reading my post again you seem to have completely glossed over the point I made. You cannot simply take the popular vote and spread it evenly between the West Bank and Gaza. Whilst the overall vote may well have been 44% in favour of Hamas, that doesn't equate to 44% in the West Bank, and 44% in Gaza - that's a gross statistical misunderstanding. Given roughly equal population numbers (they're not too dissimilar) between Gaza and the West Bank you can have a result whereby the overall popular vote is 44% whilst 88% of Gazans support Hamas and 0% of Palestinians in the West Bank. Hopefully this example clears up your inability to understand why that overall figure gives a misleading layout of support for Hamas in Gaza.

Gaza is the Hamas heartland and there's where the majority of their support comes from. This is precisely why Hamas was able to swiftly kick (or kill) Fatah and it's supporters out of Gaza in 2007.

Hamas took over Gaza so rapidly in 2007 precisely because it enjoys massive popular support there and because it gained a massive democratic mandate there (and overall).

So you believe that 3 MPs out of hundreds is "riddled"? I guess you and I have a very different view on what riddled means - to me riddled means enough to actually matter, but in reality to you it seems that a completely negligible irrelevant few is enough to mean "riddled". Meanwhilst, all the hundreds of non-far right MPs have apparently been missed by you.

As an aside, you realise that there are far more actual far right ministers in Russia than that yes?

It's also somewhat amusing that you cite a party being banned under Yanukovych as evidence of it being evil. By your logic Kim Jong Un must run the healthiest country on Earth because he's banned all other parties, which must obviously have been because they were evil.

"People who are under occupation, subject to the whims of a foreign country are supposed to roll over and play dead..."

So your solution is that the Israelis roll over and succumb to Hamas rocket fire and tunnel attacks instead?

"...and cannot, in any way shape or form, defend themselves or retaliate against their oppressors."

So you're an eye for an eye type of guy then? You think it's best to make the whole world blind?

Honestly, if you think the solution to violence is more violence whilst missing the irony of the fact that that viewpoint means that you in fact agree with what the Israelis are doing (because they also believe in an eye for an eye like you do) then there's probably no hope for you. The only hypocrisy is that in your view it's okay for Hamas to retaliate to violence, but it's not okay for Jews to retaliate with violence. I say Jews, not Israelis intentionally, because like most anti-semites you've turned this from a discussion about Israelis, to a discussion about Jews. The fact that you decided to make this about Jews, rather than Israelis speaks volumes about your ignorance.

Let me give you a hint on that - even a non-negligible number of non-Jewish Israelis (including Christians, Muslims, and Atheists) support the current Israeli government's actions because they're also fed up of having Hamas rockets fired at them. Not all Israelis are Jews.