Slashdot Mirror

is wall street of deceit at IT again?

these guise sold gooed old uncle sam 450 (that # IS significant) fingerprint "scanners" (flashy mousepads), so buy stock markup profomulahlah "math", the "company" becomes worth more on payper, than if they'd successfully patentdead cloning.

so, either they're charging way too much for the mosepads, or it just another in a seemingly endless charade of deceptive moneysucking scammages, using the ill eagle kingdumb/gov't. "partnership"? nothing personal, some of US are a little discouraged.

don't blink too fast. whoisit you think 'll be cloned early/often/& exclusively?

mod US DOWn robbIE.

Raëlians are followers of Raël, a French-born former race-car driver who has said he met a four-foot space alien atop a volcano in southern France in 1973 and went aboard his ship, where he was entertained by voluptuous female robots and learned that the first humans were created 25,000 years ago by space travelers called Elohim, who cloned themselves.

So only the rich pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax, car reg tax, amoung other taxes?

No. Where are you getting that from?

Here's another link for you.

The Chinese have simply discovered like Hitler's Germans and the modern Singapore that it is possible to implement capitalism under a totalitarian dictatorship.

What the Chinese have is the purest form of robber-baron capitalism, which pays its taxes and bribes to a bunch of Commies. In order to make it possible for the new companies to pay lots of taxes and bribes, the government is deploying its power in support of these new capitalists to assist them in exploiting their workers. Just as the US government did with its capitalists up to the 1930s.

Communism vs free enterprise isn't necessarily good vs. evil. A person shot dead in a convenience store robbery is just as dead regardless of the ideology of the killer.

Find a decent history of America to read about the activities of the US government in breaking up strikes and using other methods for attacking the early labor movement. The justification for expending taxpayer funds was that "the labor movement is a bunch of COMMUNISTS!" Find out how Pinkerton got its start.

I'm surprised you aren't posting from China, you seem to be the kind of guy who's appreciate this kind of capitalism. I suggest getting your opinions through research more profound than listening to Rush Limbaugh and learn to think for yourself, should you be capable of doing so.

It wasn't until the 20th century that workers were explicitly guaranteed the right to strike in the USA. In China, they don't have this right yet and it's unlikely that they will short of a change in government. Which I regard as a very good idea, there are very good reasons why pure capitalism is no longer practiced in any civilized country.

WARNING: The following are from the New York Times and the San Jose Mercury News, two information sources your leader has forbidden to Limbots.

Here's a quote from a recent article comparing the Indian and Chinese economies:
India's continued backwardness compared with its neighbor across the Himalayas has become a national obsession. The world's two most populous countries, China and India were close economic rivals just two decades ago, each struggling to bring progress to vast numbers of impoverished peasants.

But now China, by quickly converting much of its economy to an unfettered and even rapacious version of capitalism, has surged far ahead. The average Chinese citizen now earns $890 a year, compared with $460 for the typical Indian, according to the World Bank.

From an article about computer recycling in China:
At the back end, the industry downplays its responsibility for the toxic chemicals and metals used in its short- lived products.

In the Pearl River Delta and other regions, spotless new factories have made China the world's premier electronics workshop by drawing young women from the desperately poor countryside to work most of their waking hours for 30 cents an hour. These are the kind of labor practices made notorious by apparel factories used by Nike and the Gap in the 1990s.

In Guiyu, as in similar dumping grounds in India, Pakistan and the Philippines, migrant workers are paid pennies to crack open and sort the parts of monitors and circuit boards, exposing themselves to toxic metals like lead, mercury and cadmium. They burn PVC cables to extract copper, poisoning the air. They dip circuit boards and chips in acid to recover small amounts of gold, inhaling the fumes and dumping the acid into a nearby river that is dying.

Finally, if you want to know what's inside a CPU, reverse engineer it. If you want to know if it's identifying itself for its masters, throw a packet sniffer on it and see if it's trying to phone home.

Since the subject is of passing interest to you, I'll briefly mention the following three factoids:

1) I'm a New Yorker, and as such I defer to the NY Times Style Guide over the Chicago Manual. And I notice that the NY Times' website uses DVDs, which is enough to convince me.

2) If you google the phrase "DVD's", you'll get a message that says, "Did you mean: Dvds" The latter phrase also vastly outnumbers the former.

3) Here's the Chicago Manual Of Style's own FAQ page. I can't imagine you didn't at least peruse their online resource first, only to find that DVDs weren't mentioned. So I'm guessing you missed the subtle yet quite conclusive rebuttal to your argumentum ad verecundiam which is prominently displayed on the "New FAQs" page. Well, in fact, there it is.

The same Japanese universities plan to store the entire Intarnet(tm) on one DoCoMo 6G 10Ghz cell phone using an old bubble gum wrapper and a used condom by the year 2020.

Meanwhile, the US government is passing the planning stages of monitoring Internet, and slowly moving towards a practical implementation.

Enjoy the story.

Google is to the rescue

Can anybody dig up independent confirmation that this has anything at all to do with the DMCA? The RTMark press release mentions it in the context, "Dow was not amused, and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint to Verio, which immediately cut Thing.net off the internet for fifteen hours." But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

More importantly, the New York Times article on the subject (here), makes no reference at all to the DMCA, instead saying that "Dow's lawyers contacted Verio to complain that the site infringed on its trademarks, among other sins." If the DMCA were involved, I'm reasonably sure that the NYT article would mention it.

If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that what probably happened is that Dow simply told Verio that they want the offending web site shut down, and possibly that the site was making unauthorized use of their trademarks or some such. Verio said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

(Incidentally, the NYT article also says, "When [Staehle] called Verio to ask why his entire network had been unplugged instead of the sole offending site, he said, a Verio lawyer told him that the Thing had violated its policies repeatedly and that its contract would be terminated."

The article goes on: "Verio had shut down part of the Thing once before. In 1999 the online toy retailer eToys.com asked a California court to stop an online arts group from using its longtime Web address etoy.com. The Electronic Disturbance Theater, a Thing client, staged a virtual protest by overloading the retailer's site with traffic during the holiday season. Verio blocked access to one of the Thing's computers until the protest site's owners agreed to take it offline."

Sounds like Thing.net isn't merely the mild-mannered parody site it claims to be. Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else altogether. Though they're not commenting, maybe Verio had some really good reasons to do what they did.)

Let me preface this by saying that I know next to nothing about this band, but did anybody catch this article in the New York Times last week? It makes this Phish fans sound like addicted cult members. What struck me particularly odd was this quote:

"The band takes over a crowd," said Megan Leff, 28, who works in advertising in Manhattan. "They throw everyone into a fury. You cannot move or shake quickly enough. Then, suddenly, they will have everyone fall and pretend they are dead."

Does this article conform with anybody's experiences with this band or is it just a hoakey sensationalistic headlining?

And his ass is on the way out...

Google Search

article

another article

ny times

--paul

Well, if this case has anything to say for precedence, it wouldn't surprise me if China gained that right.

Scary, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/movies/18LORD.ht ml

Here's a few of my favorite paragraphs from the review in the ny times:

With the narrative of "Rings," Tolkien was investigating determination, loyalty and, finally, faith, finding innumerable ways to offer up the concept of purity of heart, as found in Matthew 5:8 and in Kierkegaard, whose contention was that purity of heart was the ability to will one thing into being. The pursuit of purity is at the center of "Towers."

Mr. Jackson's mastery of craft in some areas is so powerful that the flaws are more noticeable than in the first film. The little-boy allure of the storytelling in "Towers" is sure to evoke the same reaction that it did in "Fellowship." "Towers" is like a family-oriented E-rated video game, with no emotional complications other than saving the day. Women have so little to do here that they serve almost as plot-device flight attendants, offering a trough of Diet Coke to refresh the geek-magnet story.

Not sure if I should enjoy the movie or write a critical essay about it. But there's a couple of lines in there that are real zingers.

NYTimes article

Good thing parroting disinformation never happens here.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand lazy journalists. Some simply copy press releases into their stories. It is galling when you catch them at it. As soon as you have some expertise in an area, or even read enough, news that previously looked credible falls apart.

That's a reason to be very distrustful of reporting on legal proceedings. It is so easy to blow the details, especially if you're being lobbied by one side or the other and not trying to hard in the first place. Making deadline becomes everything.

There are some great reporters, learn their names, follow them if they change employment. Linda Greenhouse at the Times is a superb legal reporter, and a very good writer for everyone. Here is her 12/11/02 report on a free speech and cross burning case (this has more in common with the DMCA than you might think!).

here

Shares in his company have fallen 53 percent from their 1997 high; under-performing compared to other stocks in his industry. This doesn't sound like he did an excellent job to me. Check out this NY Times article for more details.

Personally, I feel like I am entitled to a bonus at my company. When the CEO is able to get a bonus this year, why can't I?. If our company is doing crappy, then everyone should suck it up and go without bonuses.

I'm afraid killing people takes precendence over informing them. The Pentagon reports that wi-fi networks interfere with their radar and further rollout of the technology must be curtailed. Read this article.

Merkac Dot : 48210

Links to Google Cache(N.B. Not always cached.)

article cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
Public Library of Science(PLoS) cache [Cache link active]
Nobel cache [Cache link active]
Harold Varmus cache [Cache link active]
Pat Brown cache [Cache link active]
Michael Eisen cache [Cache link active]
journals cache [Cache link active]
journals cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation cache [Cache link active]
Licence cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
editorial board cache [Link not cached at time of posting]

Merkac Dot : 48210

Links to Google Cache(N.B. Not always cached.)

article cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
Public Library of Science(PLoS) cache [Cache link active]
Nobel cache [Cache link active]
Harold Varmus cache [Cache link active]
Pat Brown cache [Cache link active]
Michael Eisen cache [Cache link active]
journals cache [Cache link active]
journals cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation cache [Cache link active]
Licence cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
editorial board cache [Link not cached at time of posting]

Is Googling OK?

Some highlights:

Propaganda and 'Lord of the Rings' Area theaters prepare for 'The Two Towers' Lord of the Rings labelled racist Fans gear up for 'Lord of the Rings' release

Try that in the social sciences - has anyone ever heard of a huge scandal where someone faked results in the social sciences?

Professor Bellesiles resigned from Emory in October after an independent panel of scholars strongly criticized his work. Their 40-page report accused him of "unprofessional and misleading work" and said that at times it "does move into the realm of falsification."

Why, do you think there is something special about Unix network traffic that makes it unsniffable?

Oh, and check out this NY Times article from a few months back- apparently cable companies aren't afraid of getting the FBI involved in messing with people who screw with them.

that's funny, The New York Times gave it a pretty good review this morning. When I read it on my way to work I was ready to cringe.

I'm goin' tonight. :)

Triv

The therapeutic cloning approach of the Stanford researchers also has great potential, but the process of creating and destroying embryos to harvest stem cells seems to be more complicated than using adult stem cells. Further, some experiments in which embryonic stem cells were reimplanted ominously gave rise to carcinomas. Many research scientists think both approaches should be pursued.

Back in May 2001, there was an article in the NY Times (copy) and Slashdot (also mentioned on DeadMedia.org) about a project to run fiber optics through pneumatic tubes in New York and other big cities. While the meme is out there, it's not clear that anybody's actually implemented it. One problem, besides the financial issues, and the World Trade Center collapse in the most interesting market area, is that real ownership of the tubes is vary unclear, at least in New York City.

Go through Google News and you don't have to register. Here's a direct link to the story.

GetKarma () {

The NYT Article through Google

}

Google link to article

It's very easy to do a search at news.google.com with some of the words from the story summary and come up with the story elsewhere.

Yes, it's a nytimes.com link, but it's without the registration.

Arguing about who is right in the daily battles obscures the underlying reality.

We can debate "the underlying reality" if you like, but "the superficial reality" is that on one side you have suicide bombers targeting random families and on the other side you have police and soldiers trying to target the suicide bombers. Religion has nothing to do with it, most people are going to see one side as the bad guys and the other side as the good guys.

The fact is that the land of Israel was populated with Arabs before the Jews came. Arabs were moved off the land to make room for Jews.

If the jewish refugees showed up with guns and shipped people off in trains it's the first I've heard of it.

I'm not an expert on history, so feel free to clear up any errors here: For the most part the current population of Israel was born there. I think that's enough to pretty much end it, but I'll continue. The people who immigrated to the area for the most part did so legally, right? It's not like they showed up with guns and broke in. They mostly bought homes, or bought land and paid to have homes built, right? Possibly some of them settled on unused land? (Even in that case, if it was the US they would gain rightful ownership of the land after some number of years.) At some point the vast majority of the population of the area decided modify their government and call it Israel. Pretty much every nation on earth has recognized that government.

Are you suggesting that Israel shouldn't exist? Maybe several million people should be be "driven into the sea"? All Israelis? Or just the jewish ones? You did say they want you to kill them, right?

Osama bin Laden's main complaint is U.S. support for the House of al Saud.

I don't know much about Saudi government. Did the US overthrow the recognized government and install the current government? Or was the current government already the recognized official government?

He wants Saudis to determine their own fate. Logically, U.S. citizens must support that

Have free elections been blocked by the US? Or are you proposing a violent overthrow of the current government? If you're proposing violent revolution you have a pretty tough hurdle to overcome to persuade me, and you'd better have a pretty solid majority of the population demanding it. And even if I agreed with you that a revolution was appropriate, dealing with the current legitimate government would still fall into a grey area.

Arguing about who is right in the daily battles obscures the underlying reality.

We can debate "the underlying reality" if you like, but "the superficial reality" is that on one side you have suicide bombers targeting random families and on the other side you have police and soldiers trying to target the suicide bombers. Religion has nothing to do with it, most people are going to see one side as the bad guys and the other side as the good guys.

The fact is that the land of Israel was populated with Arabs before the Jews came. Arabs were moved off the land to make room for Jews.

If the jewish refugees showed up with guns and shipped people off in trains it's the first I've heard of it.

I'm not an expert on history, so feel free to clear up any errors here: For the most part the current population of Israel was born there. I think that's enough to pretty much end it, but I'll continue. The people who immigrated to the area for the most part did so legally, right? It's not like they showed up with guns and broke in. They mostly bought homes, or bought land and paid to have homes built, right? Possibly some of them settled on unused land? (Even in that case, if it was the US they would gain rightful ownership of the land after some number of years.) At some point the vast majority of the population of the area decided modify their government and call it Israel. Pretty much every nation on earth has recognized that government.

Are you suggesting that Israel shouldn't exist? Maybe several million people should be be "driven into the sea"? All Israelis? Or just the jewish ones? You did say they want you to kill them, right?

Osama bin Laden's main complaint is U.S. support for the House of al Saud.

I don't know much about Saudi government. Did the US overthrow the recognized government and install the current government? Or was the current government already the recognized official government?

He wants Saudis to determine their own fate. Logically, U.S. citizens must support that

Have free elections been blocked by the US? Or are you proposing a violent overthrow of the current government? If you're proposing violent revolution you have a pretty tough hurdle to overcome to persuade me, and you'd better have a pretty solid majority of the population demanding it. And even if I agreed with you that a revolution was appropriate, dealing with the current legitimate government would still fall into a grey area.

Yeah, I'm pretty tired of the drug bigotry. I was a psychobiology major and worked in a psych hospital for 4 years, and am consequently quite unable to judge someone by whether they are "on drugs" -- rather, what kind of person are they, and how hard are they trying? Some of the criticism is condescendingly "well meaning" but is hurtful all the same because of the stigma, and it impedes people from getting the help they need. I think some of it is due to overshoot of the anti-alcoholism anti-smoking movements into a simplistic "drugs are bad" and "drugs show weakness." But that's another topic.

Briefly, on drugs, and as the parent of a perky 6 y.o. I'm keeping an eye on, I should mention I just heard of a next-gen drug for ADHD, more sophisticated than the stimulants used up to now. Ask about it (it would be nice if I remembered the name, wouldn't it?). There has been a lot of press about overuse of Ritalin, which is just the brand name of one of several drugs, but there is also a lot of hype, and there will always be some doctors pressed by time or parents who write a prescription rather than sit down with the child to figure out what's going on. The child may need both. (While I'm "on drugs," I should add there is a more advanced formulation of Ritalin called Concerta which allows precise once-a-day dosing, and avoids the embarrassment of having to go to the school nurse.) A related problem is the lack of studies of drugs in children. (Speaking of studies, there was a good recent article in the NYT Magazine on a relatively novel ADHD study -- sorry it's not free any more. :)

From what you write, in my unexpert opinion, it sounds like your child is a mild case. Serious ADHD children are something altogether different, and I used to work in a psychiatric hospital. My son is having conduct problems -- acting before thinking -- and has attention span issues, either flighty or hyperfocused, both of which are classic symptoms. Still, and as someone with no philosophical reservations about medication, I believe he is subclinical and am taking a wait-and-see approach, despite the two calls I've gotten from school so far. :) (My wife checked also with a psychiatrist who does a lot of work with children and she concurred, so I'm not just being stubborn.)

He too is extremely bright, and some do think there is some correlation, though ADHD is no proof of smarts... I have a theory it is more prevalent in the tech community, also, for social and intellectual reasons I could explore but someone here might get touchy. :)

I also have to acknowledge that dealing my son whom I love dearly has been an exasperating experience. I am tired of yelling at him and feel guilty for yelling at him, it's not my style but on some things like wandering into the street there is not room for negotiation. However much I know there is a biological issue, it is very difficult to not react emotionally to things like the child not listening; the medical is interpreted as behavioral, or even plain insulting. The parents may well go through more pain than does the child.

The question is not whether the problem is serious, but what's in his/her best interest, and even with medication the child has to learn certain self-discipline and organizational skills no matter what. The medicine is neither a crutch nor a magic bullet, and it cures nothing; rather it restores some balance so the kid can take it from there. Untreated ADHD can lead to secondary problems like a sort of learning disability and of course cause social adjustment problems as well. Often the problems go away with age, and in fact there is very little available in the popular press about ADHD/ADD in grown-ups. (Oh, a lot of people don't know about the ADD variant, which lacks the stereotyped hyperactivity -- some people may grow out of ADHD into ADD.)

Finally, my pragmatic view is that while you should not allow the callous comments of uninformed or unprincipled people to affect you, don't tell anyone who does not need to know. Once a label has been attached it can be hard to pry off, and of course kids will seize on anything to ridicule each other. Believe me on this one!

Privately, deal with the issue without qualms, and when necessary explain to a stubborn teacher or school administrator that this is a medical problem, not a fault in your childrearing or character weakness in your child. On the other hand, in some places school officials are too quick to medicalize a problem because it appears to provide an easy way out; there are anecdotes of them insisting a child be medicated. Above all make sure you talk to your child and explain what's going on and why she may have to try a little harder than other kids but is no less a person.

I look back on what I've written and realize I could write a lot more! Read as much as you feel necessary from professional sources, and let me or any of us know if I can help out. A good place to look for reading material is Amazon because of the reader feedback. There are also, of course, entire organizations, Web sites, and discussion groups dedicated to ADHD. The lattermost may be good for commiseration among tired parents -- don't forget your needs along the way.

To end on the upbeat note, ADHD is HIGHLY treatable, and much progress is being made. It was not that many years ago that everything from autism to ADHD was blamed on bad parenting. Here is a short page I put together re ADD, emphasizing the humor in it.

What I mean by spam being theft of service is not the standard "they are stealing my bandwidth" complaint. Rather it is the much more insidious usage of electronic equipment for non-company, non-work related activities. That an email account can "magically" appear on a spammer's list is ridiculous. Obviously, it had to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is usually from mailing lists, newsgroups, or random surfing.

How many people have the NY Times bookmarked in their browser? There's a potential email address leak. How about a Passport account? You're giving away the store, friends.

But wide open email addresses are only the most visible symptom of the problem. The problem is that the computers at work are to be used for the company's work, and usage outside that scope is theft of company services. Sure, it's on par with stealing staplers and note pads, but it is stealing nonetheless.

Perhaps if you feel that you are not being properly compensated for your time at work, you should take that up with your boss (or *shudder* team up with a union and demand better pay). The way to equalize your worker-company relationship is not to steal time from the company.

Not via Google

Of particular note is that the NYT was *not* able to verify that anyone said they carrying a note from a doctor would be useful; rather, it said the police would not accept such a letter as "sole proof" that the person was not trying to pull a fast one on them, and would still conduct a full investigation.

Anybody have an idea why /. would reject a submission regarding this story?

I agree with many of the posts on this thread: this article will not tell you much you didn't already know or couldn't find out googling for 10 minutes. However, there was a recent NY Times article, (relegated to the pay-per-archives on nytimes.com, but still available on GoogleNews) that summarized the material of a new comprehensive Einstein exhibit in New York. The article is a better read than the US News one, and it tells about the exhibit, which should be great. Obviously, a newspaper article is NOT a substitute for an educated and well-written biography. This exhibit might come closer however. Happy reading.

A 1997 Wired story early described how analysts get paid for being quoted (Forrester denies this, sort of).

A 2000 Salon article.

NYT 12/1999 ($$$): The original magazine article titled "$6 Billion in Online Holiday Sales by the End of This Month! $24 Billion in Internet Ads by 2003! 2.3 Trillion E-Biz Predictions by 2010!". :)

NYT 5/2002 ($$$): Jupiter "crumbles" (uh-oh! better get some quotes out)

And yesterday the Times parroted the Reuters story.

Parenthetically the Jupiter founder Josh Harris went on to another interesting project you may have heard of. (Sadly, it's long since disbanded.)

A 1997 Wired story early described how analysts get paid for being quoted (Forrester denies this, sort of).

A 2000 Salon article.

NYT 12/1999 ($$$): The original magazine article titled "$6 Billion in Online Holiday Sales by the End of This Month! $24 Billion in Internet Ads by 2003! 2.3 Trillion E-Biz Predictions by 2010!". :)

NYT 5/2002 ($$$): Jupiter "crumbles" (uh-oh! better get some quotes out)

And yesterday the Times parroted the Reuters story.

Parenthetically the Jupiter founder Josh Harris went on to another interesting project you may have heard of. (Sadly, it's long since disbanded.)

A 1997 Wired story early described how analysts get paid for being quoted (Forrester denies this, sort of).

A 2000 Salon article.

NYT 12/1999 ($$$): The original magazine article titled "$6 Billion in Online Holiday Sales by the End of This Month! $24 Billion in Internet Ads by 2003! 2.3 Trillion E-Biz Predictions by 2010!". :)

NYT 5/2002 ($$$): Jupiter "crumbles" (uh-oh! better get some quotes out)

And yesterday the Times parroted the Reuters story.

Parenthetically the Jupiter founder Josh Harris went on to another interesting project you may have heard of. (Sadly, it's long since disbanded.)

Some Highlights...

Dear Dr. Einstein,

I am a pupil in the sixth grade at Westview School. We have been talking about animals and plants in Science. There are a few children in our room that do not understand why people are classed as animals. I would appreciate it very much if you would please answer this and explain to me why people are classed as animals.

Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Carol
November 12, 1952

The very thoughtful answer...

Dear Children:

We should not ask "What is an animal" but "what sort of thing do we call an animal?" Well, we call something an animal which has certain characteristics: it takes nourishment, it descends from parents similar to itself, it grows, it moves by itself, it dies if its time has run out. That's why we call the worms, the chicken, the dog, the monkey an animal. What about us humans? Think about it in the above mentioned way and then decide for yourselves whether it is a natural thing to regard ourselves as animals.

With kind regards,
Albert Einstein
January 17, 1953

I think that thing that everyone is scared of is a Union coming in and telling them that they're relegated to Jr. SysAdmin while the mainframe guys are trained and promoted.

This is exactly what will happen, tho'. Go look up seniority. Remember the recent dispute between the dockers union and the ports on the West Coast? The union paralyzed Pacific trade in a bid to prevent the introduction of new technology. A union thinks in terms of quantity, not quality - they want as many jobs as possible and that's their only priority, even though they risk destroying the source of those jobs.

It's not like the UAW is going to come in and force their methods of union dirty tricks on the IT industry. Would any of you have a problem with an IT Union that was built by Sage/USENIX, or a like organization?

I'm sure all unions were started quite idealistically, after all, who would join the union in its early days if it wasn't a compelling proposition? The problem is that unions are about quantity not quality, and they hate competition between their members, because they rely on presenting a united front. That means that unions always look after the interest of the lowest common denominator. That's another reason they love the idea of seniority; it protects those who have been union members for longers, and it guarantees even mediocre workers promotions if they simply stick around long enough.

That works on an assembly line where workers are interchangeable, but the difference in productivity between an excellent programmer and a poor programmer can easily bee 100:1. Guess which one the union will look after, and which one it will consider a troublemaker?

If there actually were an IT union and it had some clout who do you think could be lobbying in Washington against DMCA and the like?

What makes you assume a union would do that?

Think about this: for an organization of a given size, the organization would require more sysadmins for an all-NT solution than an all-Unix solution. That means a union is going to be campaigning against Linux! That's what unions do, they try to maximize jobs at the expense of efficiency.

The problem is we all still have some of that cowboy glint in our eyes. "Yeah I can be a CIO by 30, I know more than the doofus sitting in the executive suite does anyway" Grow up a little bit and see that while not perfect, in the face of a declining IT industry a Union is one thing that can give you some power back, on a large economic sized scale.

If you think you are that good, at the moment you are free to take the risk and go for it. In a union world, your age would matter more than your skills and ideas.

The IT industry isn't declining, just changing. All those people who lost their jobs in the dotcom crash? The harsh fact is that their jobs disappeared because they weren't doing anything useful in the first place. Whether you were in marketing or programming, dogfood.com was a bad idea - period. All these people took the risk hoping to get rich on stock options, and none of them have any right to complain when it doesn't pan out.

I think that thing that everyone is scared of is a Union coming in and telling them that they're relegated to Jr. SysAdmin while the mainframe guys are trained and promoted.

This is exactly what will happen, tho'. Go look up seniority. Remember the recent dispute between the dockers union and the ports on the West Coast? The union paralyzed Pacific trade in a bid to prevent the introduction of new technology. A union thinks in terms of quantity, not quality - they want as many jobs as possible and that's their only priority, even though they risk destroying the source of those jobs.

It's not like the UAW is going to come in and force their methods of union dirty tricks on the IT industry. Would any of you have a problem with an IT Union that was built by Sage/USENIX, or a like organization?

I'm sure all unions were started quite idealistically, after all, who would join the union in its early days if it wasn't a compelling proposition? The problem is that unions are about quantity not quality, and they hate competition between their members, because they rely on presenting a united front. That means that unions always look after the interest of the lowest common denominator. That's another reason they love the idea of seniority; it protects those who have been union members for longers, and it guarantees even mediocre workers promotions if they simply stick around long enough.

That works on an assembly line where workers are interchangeable, but the difference in productivity between an excellent programmer and a poor programmer can easily bee 100:1. Guess which one the union will look after, and which one it will consider a troublemaker?

If there actually were an IT union and it had some clout who do you think could be lobbying in Washington against DMCA and the like?

What makes you assume a union would do that?

Think about this: for an organization of a given size, the organization would require more sysadmins for an all-NT solution than an all-Unix solution. That means a union is going to be campaigning against Linux! That's what unions do, they try to maximize jobs at the expense of efficiency.

The problem is we all still have some of that cowboy glint in our eyes. "Yeah I can be a CIO by 30, I know more than the doofus sitting in the executive suite does anyway" Grow up a little bit and see that while not perfect, in the face of a declining IT industry a Union is one thing that can give you some power back, on a large economic sized scale.

If you think you are that good, at the moment you are free to take the risk and go for it. In a union world, your age would matter more than your skills and ideas.

The IT industry isn't declining, just changing. All those people who lost their jobs in the dotcom crash? The harsh fact is that their jobs disappeared because they weren't doing anything useful in the first place. Whether you were in marketing or programming, dogfood.com was a bad idea - period. All these people took the risk hoping to get rich on stock options, and none of them have any right to complain when it doesn't pan out.

I was shocked when I quickly browsed through this thread to find no links to the "No Registration Required" version of the article. So rather than whining (hmmm, isn't that what I am doing now..) here is the link. I complety struggle to keep track of my own username and passwords for different sites, so hence do not really want to sign up for the New York times online. Im sure other people are in this boat. Enjoy!

If you don't know who Brooks is, he's a writer and political commentator who has spent a lot of time in the last couple of years looking at American Bourgeois life [of which he is a part] and his articles are fun and.. not abrasive like the comments most people make when they talk about society. This piece is damn interesting too.

They already did, didn't you know ;-)

&partner=SLASHDOT

and so did you!!!

&partner=krnlpanic