Slashdot Mirror

I agree with Tom Peters(http://www.tompeters.com/) that says we are in a period of "renewed individual responsibility". If you are seeking a career in software, why not also choose a "domain" to focus on. Almost every industry will continue to be touched by software innovations. By having some expertise in a specific field in addition to software engineering skills, you become a double-threat. You can't predict where the road of life will lead.

Tom Peters responded to falsification charge made here on his website:
http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=009406.p hp

Tom Peters responded to falsification charge made here on his website:
http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=009406.p hp

For a good example of a commercial blog, check http://www.tompeters.com/

the world stops it's need for oil? We are starting to see many alternatives, natural gas, nuclear, current solar tech, new solar (e.g. nano-solar), fuel-cell, etc. Even harnessing the oceans waves are becoming practical. France already gets about 80% of its energy from Nuke power.

At present the Middle East doesn't do anything but sell oil (http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=006683. php, 270 international patents in 20 years). There are approx. 270 million Arabs in the middle east and the majority living off of oil profit. If things like Britain's initiative spill over into all the world's nations, the Middle East could very quickly loose its primary source of income within the next 20 years. Cars are quickly moving to electric engines wich will feed fuel-cell, and I can't imagine new jet tech is far off. The new scientist has pieces on projects to conserve up to 80% fuel costs.

Since the middle east (for the most part) doesn't make anything, do you think they will turn into a society similar to the warring African nations or step up to the plate and joining the world in creating/innovating?

You don't hate using all the things we have invented and brought to the world. Phones, Cars, Planes, the use of Electricity (you know like in EVERYTHING you use, starting with that silly thing, the light bulb), of course we should mention the Internet. Not good enough, how about the equation defining energy, e=mc2. Still not good enough, how about lesser things like Air Conditioning (enjoy food not spoiling?), bi-focal lenses, carbon 14 dating, personal computers, the laser!!!! Shall I list some medical advancements? We both know I could go on for hours. Here is a nice link comparing the entire Middle East to 1 us company.
http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=006683.p hp

By no means am I saying that no other country has invented something or had a huge impact on the world. The Romans and Egyptians were very great innovators. The Russians and Germans have done lots of awesome stuff. I am saying that the US is without a doubt one of the greatest nations to have ever existed.

The vast majority of things that have radically changed the face of the world today came from the US. I'm not listing stuff to say we are better then you, I'm doing it to make the point that you are an ungrateful snot. YOU CAN'T REWRITE HISTORY BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE GEORGE BUSH.

It pisses me off to know end when you little trolls act all high and mighty and ridicule the US as some evil nation. We spend more money on helping other countries then any other nation in the recorded history of the world, including the makeshift organization you call the EU!

We aren't an imperialistic country conquering the world like the Romans, Persians, or even the British when they were top dogs. Nor are we perfect, but certainly have done enough to earn some F****** respect!

We invented the G** DAMM internet, it works well, and why in the hell would we hand it over to UN to F it UP like they do everything else... or give some third world country that hasn't earned a damm thing control over it.

Agreed, but have you tried to read Tom Peters' Reimagine? Here's a sample chapter [PDF, 2.7 MB]. The Daily Show's America (The Book) is much the same: highly non-linear, making for a tough read.

...produced by an organization of one -- or very few.

The issue that we face is that organizations themselves are changing. In Dan Pink's Free Agent Nation and on Tom Peters' website (among other places) there's lots of conversation about the change in organizations. They were an aberration. When this country first got founded we had craftspeople producing goods for themselves because there were no other ways to do it. When the tools needed to produce goods got too expensive (steel mills, cars, etc.) Organizations were created to have custody over those tools, and Organization Men came to use them and then they went home again. But for software, a quick trip to Dell and less than a grand will give you PLENTY of horsepower to produce goods and services in this, the knowledge based age, and the pendulum is swinging back to individuals and small groups that hang together.

If you haven't, read Free Agent Nation. Quite entertaining.

Bottom line is that Pat V. is an organization. An organization of one. And you'd better get used to that, because that's the way things are going (or returning.)

Loyalty still means something, but it may not be what you think it means.

Look, these people were dumb, that much can be argued. They were dumb for using a monitored service to do this, and they were dumb for (ostensibly) stealing their company's resources for the purpose of setting up a competitor.

However, you need to decouple this from the loyalty argument. The loyalty you need to have is not to your company any more. Are they loyal to you if business turns sour and they have to start slashing the payroll? Hell no. The corporate sinecure is dead. "Ma" Bell doesn't evince the image of a benevolent mother any more.

The kind of loyalty you should have is to your projects, to your work, to you as an individual and to your Rolodex (or electronic equivalent.)

If you live every day as if you might be laid off, working on projects that will escalate your worth and making sure that lots and lots of people know what kind of value you contribute, then you'll be better off; your customers (those who are the beneficiaries of your projects) will be better off, and your company will be better off.

And if things should turn sour, then you shrug your shoulders, get your Rolodex out and start calling.

So instead of "Logo Loyalty" you should cultivate "Rolodex Loyalty" (thanks, Tom Peters.)

Do you know of an example where protectionism been successful in the long term? It's been used many, many times. The result is always less competition. Doesn't protectionism, by definition, means you're protecting (coddling) an industry? The topic has been illustrate well in satire: The Candlemaker's Petition.

The justification of a protectionism is always that it'll have some general benefit to society, but it's always really a hidden transfer of wealth from consumers (who would otherwise pay less for the protected good) to local producers. For example, costlier steel (because of tariffs) doesn't help America, it just means our cars cost more.

P.S. I'm just as opposed as the next guy to corporate welfare.

Branding ala Tom Peters' writings seemingly is not the strong suit of the Open Source community. The author is right ... Mozilla is a strong name. But the logo fails because it is only a "partial dinosaur" (the head) that doesn't have enough internal contrast or definitive external outline. Check out this stylized whole dinosaur that scales well to see how this might be resolved.