Ali Gordon

chris webster wrote:
Today it seems the executive classes no longer want to share even a small proportion of the fruits of the labours or ordinary working people - in terms of better pay or shorter hours - and insist on grabbing an ever larger slice of the cake for themselves: the average pay ratio of CEOs to average workers in US companies was around 30:1 in the 1970s, and it's now more like 300:1. The ratios are similar if slightly less extreme here in the UK, and this even applies to companies where the performance of the company - and implicitly of its executives - has been truly dismal, and executives continue to enjoy vast pay-offs even when they're fired for poor performance. If I had a choice between working harder for less pay at IT (as I'm doing right now) or taking a job as a CEO of a big bank I know which I'd choose - I'm sure I could f**k it up as badly as the last guy and then enjoy a similarly fat pension for the rest of my days!
But if growing numbers of ordinary workers can no longer support their families and enjoy at least a reasonable quality of life through their own labours, you have to ask yourself whether the current version of capitalism is sustainable in the longer term?

To add to your point, here is an example I saw recently at the Business Insider. BI is good. http://www.businessinsider.com/tyrel-oates-letter-to-wells-fargo-ceo-2014-10

Portland, Oregon-based Wells Fargo branch employee Tyrel Oates emailed the bank's CEO asking for a $10,000 raise for himself and his colleagues, the Charlotte Observer reported.
He also CC'd 200,000 other Wells Fargo employees on the email to CEO John Stumpf. Talk about some chutzpah!
Oates confirmed to The Oregonian that a copy of the letter posted on Reddit was authentic.
In the letter, Oates brought up the issue of income inequality. He pointed out that Stumpf took home $19 million in compensation for 2013.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tyrel-oates-letter-to-wells-fargo-ceo-2014-10#ixzz3HHybjpwj

Roger Sterling wrote:

Pat Farrell wrote:

Roger Sterling wrote:

Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:I'm afraid to ask .... What's a Kano?

If the U. S. were to eliminate the guest worker program here, there would be very little unemployment for U. S. citizen Millennials, especially in IT.

I see very little unemployment for US Citizen millennials already.

The tone of these two postings about "kanos" bothers me. It feels most than a little racist.

Hi Pat - There are 318,000 hits on Google regarding IT unemployment for Millennials. One IT staffing firm, Adecco advocates a positive outlook, but recognizes the problem. If you view my previous posts through a neutral prism, without prejudicial bias, you may see them in a more informative light. Putting blinders on to pretend that discrimination does not exist in the workplace, whether overt or covert, won't help improve the situation. For us to really address the issue honestly , which in the context of my two previous posts, pinpoints guest worker preference (ie. reverse-discrimination) over that of the country's citizens in hiring practices , vacation enforcement policy , promotion opportunity and others. Do we, as a country, really need 1.4 million documented guest workers, and 22 million undocumented guest workers ? Since you are employed, your employment rate is 100 percent for you. This cannot be said for the under-employed or the un-employed in our country. Can you clarify what you mean by "I see very little unemployment for US Citizen millennials already."? Are you saying that all these college graduates have the jobs they need and there is no employment crisis?

I don't know anything about the discrimination, so I have no comments on it. Can you please tell us how many of the millennials are even employable for the jobs that you speak of ? If all the unemployed millenials (UMs) have the skills and experience that guest workers (GWs) have, then yes, something must be done to address this situation. Perhaps we can stop issuing work visas or reduce them significantly. Without evidence, "n number of UMs" is just a number which does not prove anything.

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:I can't help but think that we've become hopelessly spoiled when we think 40 hours a week is too much. My grandfather was a coal miner who worked 12 hours a day, six days a week for his entire life starting at the age of 13. He never, ever had a vacation. If he were around today he would be appalled at our attitude.

Having said that, there is no way I could work like he did. I think there are very few people who are that tough anymore, except maybe farmers and soldiers. I know I'm not that tough. It's all indicative of the "wussification" of America, I guess.

Could he do coding+meeetings+etc for 12 hours ? Probably not. Wussification of US & A ??? How is it being wussified ?

chris webster wrote:#1. Yes, agreed. The "de-regulation" of the financial services industry and 35 years of blind faith in voo-doo "trickledown economics" continues to stifle any attempt to force these parasitic crooks to deliver any meaningful benefit to wider society, so they continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny elite.

#3. Western democracy is already obsolete. We are reduced to sham elections where we are supposed to choose between Pepsi and Coke - political frontmen and apologists for global corporate interests, or media-friendly charlatans like bloody Nigel Farrago, the Arturo Ui of our times. It hardly matters who you vote for when it's business as usual for the real elites (see #1).

There is some hope as I learned from this article which reports that Wells Fargo shared some of its profits with its non-ceo employees - http://www.businessinsider.com/tyrel-oates-letter-to-wells-fargo-ceo-2014-10

Maneesh Godbole wrote:A true WTF product (Link SFW)

Quite handy for shopping, public transport, helping the needy etc.

I made a really lame mistake in logic. Have you seen anything as lame as this ?

I was making a password validator class. Requirements were - check for min pass size, max pass size, min number of capital letters, min number of digits etc. I decided to have only a default, no args constructor. For the the min pass size and max pass size, I had setter methods. These setter methods had the following logic -

setMin(int min){throw exception if the min > this.maxSize} setMax(int max){throw exception if the max < this.minSize}

Also, you are not allowed to set the value below 1 for minSize or maxSize. After I finished adding the logic above, and ran the tests which I hoped would pass, Junit threw the error "cannot initialize" the password validator. Duh ! Makes sense now. The minSize = 1 and maxSize = 1 by default. So, if you set any of those variables with a value > 1 using the setters, an exception will always be thrown and you can never set them. I feel so stupid now. But, the consoling fact is that I did not write any more validation methods and then discover this huge elephant size bug. Maybe I should have a constructor or single setter method that takes minSize and maxSize and does the checking instead of having separate setters.

Was this my stupidity or just the benefits of TDD ?

The campaign failed only collected $406/5000. Perhaps a FB, Twitter e-mail campaign would have helped.

Can a windows system be vulnerable if it uses cygwin ? I have seen this point on many news websites.

Junilu Lacar wrote:In contrast, other introductory books about security may start off with academic discussions of basic security concepts like confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, authorization, auditing, non-repudiation, etc. While it's good to have a foundation of basic security concepts and secure coding principles, I really like the "cut to the chase" approach in this book.

Thanks for your informative review Junilu. It helped me. Can you please recommend some book(s) from which I can learn the basics of security (theory and programming) before I read the Iron-clad-java book ?

Tim Cooke wrote:An advantage of using descriptive test method names is observed when a test fails. Your CI server sends you an email with the following:
.....................test report so is not as useful as you'd think.

Tim cooke, +1 for the continuous integration server example. Thanks. Maybe I'll use underscores as word separators in method names instead of using camel case. Camel case is a pain to read when method names are very long.

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:I like the long method names. Comments tend to get out of sync. Ugly is in the eyes of the reader.

Yes, but after a certain number of chars, it gets difficult to read the method name because of the camel case.

This is about Java and not about Junit. In a Junit book "Practical Unit Testing with JUnit and Mockito", the author encourages us to use descriptive method names like constructorShouldThrowExceptionForIllegalNbOfGames(int illegalNbOfGames), even if they are too long and ugly. Is this really acceptable to professional software developers ? Would it not be better to use one line comments and a short test method name like constructorIllegalArgs... ?

Paul Clapham wrote:

Ali Gordon wrote:Most of the answers I found on the internet either dont meet this requirement or load all file names into an array which can consume too much memory when no. of files = 20,000+

An array of 20,000 files isn't very big at all. Did you try one of those solutions and experience a problem?

Not yet. But, I want to use as little memory as possible, while being practical.