It's obviously, The Big O.
Your outdated "value-adding" "service provding" skills are so 20th century. 21st century careerism is about networking. Networking. Networking. Netowrking.
Look at item number one on TFAs list.
1. Take names.
In five to 10 years, that will all be different and the person who you ignored because they were boring and couldn't help you will be the person who could have won you an important opportunity.
Network! Impress people! Dress right! Booze people up! This is how successful companies are made. You will not attract the rright venture capital with your simple abilities. Most companies won't even use those anyway.
2. Problem solving.
Problem solving is essentially the same thing you learned in abstract in seventh or eighth grade or whenever you learned simple algebra.
See! Look at this! The people this guy is writing for don't even know how to solve problems. They just code stuff nobody really needs -- and they're still successful! You think your ability to analyse and abstract is something all the cool kids will pay for? Think again. Your geek/nerd/hipster/bro-grammer cred wil matter far more.
6. Work more than 40 hours per week.
Profession? You think programming is a profession. Get back on that hamster wheel and like it code monkey. And get some hair dye. First sign of a grey hair or stress line from yellow packs like you and we sack you and hire a fresh young grad to suck into a husk.
5. Think in terms of a career, not a series of jobs.
Translation: "You can either join the fed-money, app-cloud bullshit wagon, or you can learn to love foodstamp lines. Either way, it'll still be a superior outcome to any science-fiction fantasy you imagined programmers were capable of making in a rational universe. The Market wants fart-buttons, not robots, so drink the kool-aid or join the lowest caste of contract workers you, you, you..... Loser."
No wonder so many programmers go into management.
Silly rabbit. Property rights and contract laws don't apply in the digital world. Control is 99/100ths of the law.
most of them AOL-tier,
AOL-tier. On a +4 post. Is today the day that
Wow. An "implying" post reaches +4 Insightful on Slashdot. I guess Anonymous and Anonymous Coward really are the same person.
I didn't argue for a money free world. I argued that money is not the relevant factor in the energy debate.
If you thing counting paper dollars and electronic euros is somehow going to meaningfully contribute to the sourcing, production, and distribution of electrical energy over the next five decades, please saddle your own unicorn, ride back to the 1960s and count all the pounds shillings and pence spent back then and their relevancy to energy today. It won't add up to a whole lot.
To properly need to debug such a language, you would need to be aware of all of the possible rules, pitfalls, bugs, and race conditions of every language under its hood.
At a basic level, is your "if else" condition running on it's Java or C++ or C version? Does it catch exceptions? Where is data being handled in memory? Are buffer overruns possible in some of these languages?
No one human could possibly we simultaneously cognisant of all possible sources of error. Programs in such a language would be a security disaster waiting to happen.
The standard NSA tatctic for introducing security holes into a system is to obfuscate things so that holes are hard to spot and find. SELinux is probably such a system, and this polglot language -- which effectviely makes debugging impossible -- is likely another.
We do need to talk about cost but we
need to talk about ALL the costs not just the operating costs but all the externalized costs as well.
We don't need to talk about costs at all. Costs are measured in the monopoly money we call "currency", and subject as they are to the vagaries and panics of the financial classes, are not an indicator or metric which we should rely on when planning our energy policies.
We need to talk about watts, mega-watt hours, materials, hours of labour, and disposal of waste. We need to talk about physical things, things we know, understand, and can do in the physical world. Not about intellectual casino chips which are magicked in and out of existence like pixels in a video game.
Energy policy is a long game that humanity is playing with the forces of the natural world. Our (dysfunctional) systems of money are about as relevant as our spoken languages in this debate.
He probably works in finance now.
None of these or any other internal arcana of c have anything to do with designing algorithms or programming computers.
Data is easy to keep but it's also easy to leak. And given the consequences of leaks, companies need to start asking themselves whether it is worth storing all this data in the first place.
How many times did Mozilla ever actually use all this personal data internally? How many times on average the data for each of the 76,000 developers used? How many records were never accessed at all?
If you don't need all this data, then just don't store it. It's easy!
Property Rights? Trespass to Chattels? No abuse of state powers for private gain? How easily the mask slips when a few cold pounds are involved.
But the people I feel really sorry for are the victims of crime in London, whose cases go unsolved due to precious police resources being wasted on internet nonsense like this.
I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.
There's nothing surprising in this. Most countries hire consultants and advisors from the same international legal/accounting firms, who themselves have been trained in the same schools of thought, and often the same universities. The international ascendancy is mostly a mono-culture.