Comment Re:Charities (Score 2) 570
The United Way is terrible. They also strong-arm companies into strong-arming their employees into "100% participation". No, thank you.
The United Way is terrible. They also strong-arm companies into strong-arming their employees into "100% participation". No, thank you.
Wasn't there someone who did this as a psychology experiment a while back? Took out ads in the Enquirer and WWW saying "Send $1 to..." and an address. I forgot how much money the guy got, but it wasn't trivial, as I recall...
And you are absolutely correct - given that you are INFORMED as to both sides of the issue. People are easily swayed by emotional appeals presented on TV, which doesn't present the other side of the story nearly as often. People too easily forget the fiasco after 9/11, when the money given by people that was SPECIFICALLY earmarked to be used for 9/11 victims and survivors was instead used to buy a bunch of shiny new comms gear for ARC.
And that assumption would be wrong.
Until you do a little research. Look into the side of the BOD of ARC and what the executives get paid. It's all public information. I think you'll be surprised.
You obviously didn't actually READ what I posted, did you? ARE was charging enlisted men while giving officers stuff for free. Thats a DIFFERENT issue than you raise, which was American vs. Aussie troops.
A quote from the comments section on Charity Navigator:
I have worked for the ARC for over 11 years now as both a volunteer and a paid staff member. The organization is very top heavy with mostly overpaid executives at the National Headquarters in Washington DC. Generally the volunteers and staff "in the field" are the ones who go to great lengths to serve clients. Many positions in the field have been eliminated in recent years as the executives in the "ivory tower" protect their own salaries and positions. Our Service Members and their families are now served mostly by call centers empoyees who are inexperienced instead of caring employees working alongside our military throughout the world.
3.9% sounds low until you figure it out in dollars.
It should be obvious to someone who posts here. Think about it.
During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized. What wasn't publicized was the fact that ARC would charge enlisted men a dime for the same thing. When my father learned of this (he was an officer), he demanded that his men be given the same deal. When ARC refused, he gave them their doughnuts and coffee back, and spread the story among the other officers.
This is unlawful conduct under Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, as well as RICO statutes.
Confirm. My uncle retired from the ARC with a *very* good pension. I'd never give a dime to ARC.
I've got 30 years of processional experience, so does that make me more of an expert? Snarky comments aside:
The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code).
This is from Wikipedia, and is the most commonly-accepted definition in the industry, academia notwithstanding. I hardly think that JavaScript qualifies.
I'm still not sure why you chose to create monolithic applications, when the clear industry trend is towards more flexibility, particularly by using web services.
That was funny! Bravo!
Actually, client-side code is useful for a number of things: input validation and web page changes without having to reload the web page immediately come to mind. But you don't want to put all your eggs into one basket - client-side code is notoriously bad at security and any sort of serious processing. You *want* to push your database lookups and security and heavy-lifting processing to the back-end.
They both have their uses, and they can both be useful.
The problem is that you've just created a monolithic application that ties one single database to one single front-end. What happens when you want to swap out databases? Opa only runs on Mac or Linux, how about all those corporate applications that need to be written on Windows and talk to SQL Server or Oracle? It's just another language that corporate developers not only need to learn, but need to sell to management - a very hard sell when there is a huge codebase in ASP, ASP.NET, VB6, VB.NET, etc., and I can find ASP or ASP/NET or VB6 developers almost anywhere. I'm not going to mention Java because not only is it dog slow, but Java developers tend to want a huge amount of cash to create what usually is slow, buggy code. Corporate shops want proven technologies - now, if you want to use Opa to generate JS/HTML front-end apps, ASP/ASP.NET apps on the back-end, and a web service layer to let them talk to each other, then maybe you'd have Corporate America sitting up and taking notice. But as it is, it's an interesting idea, nothing more - I'd never let it in my development shop, and even if I did, the architectural committee would hang me out to dry.
And "compiling to JavaScript" is just ignorant - there's no such thing. Maybe the author means "translating to JavaScript"?
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
