Dan Gillmor Shares His 'Insider's View' of Silicon Valley

Once again, Dan Gillmor shows us why he is one of the world's most influential IT journalists, this time directly on Slashdot by way of his answers to your questions. Note that Dan reads Slashdot regularly, just like you. He'll surely read any comments you post to this article, although with his killer schedule he may not have time to post any replies.

How much longer will programming stay in the US?
by georgeha

It's getting easier and cheaper to outsource programming jobs to India, Russia and Singapore (among other nations). How much longer can programmers count on a healthy, US based industry?

Dan:

Hmmm, I have to raise eyebrows at the word "healthy" when you look at today's marketplace. These are horrible conditions for average programmers, at least the ones looking for work. Stars are still in demand, as always.

Timely question, though, as this recent story in Mercury News makes clear. It's definitely cheaper to send work offshore, and it's also getting easier. Whether it's sufficiently easy -- or ultimately all that cheap when companies account for the hassles -- is unclear for the moment, though the long-range trend is not good for the U.S.

The cultural differences, not to mention time zones, are always going to be something of a barrier. I've spoken with folks who have tried to manage international engineering projects, and they tell me it can be hugely difficult.

But the communication/collaboration tools are getting much better. English is becoming a default language of business and technology. And as people outside the U.S. get better technical educations -- even as America keeps killing its own educational system -- we're going to see more and more competition from abroad.

I'm also disturbed by what I'd call a "hire 'em young, burn 'em out, discard 'em" tendency among too many tech companies in the U.S. It sends a terrible message to young people, because it tells them that tech careers are foolish. But this is a chronic American problem -- a short-term mentality.

Future directions of technology
by knightwolf

Currently, most of the industry relies on a silicon based technology, using optics to burn silicon wafers. What technology areas do you see the industry looking into, as well as what are areas the industry isn't looking into that it should? Add to this, what technologies are out there that in your opinion aren't looked at heavily enough? As a last part of this, where do you see most of the innovation. Is it in large corporations, such as IBM, or smaller corporations or startup companies?

Dan:

Last question first: Innovation is happening most of all in universities and small companies. Innovation in larger enterprises does occur, but it often gets squashed or modified in order to preserve profitable business models. This is a gross generalization, of course, and many of you will no doubt point out the exceptions that prove (or disprove) the rule.

I'm not as knowledgable about process techniques as I'd like to be, so the rest of this answer is going to be a bit speculative. But I do know this: Every time I look at what's happening with semiconductors I'm amazed at how "out there" the industry stays.

Silicon-based chips have a long future ahead of them. Moore's Law won't hit the wall for another decade or so, as I understand it. Every time someone outside the industry predicts that progress will slow or stop, these guys laugh and speed it up.

I always try to keep the other part of Moore's Law meaning in mind, too. Chip improvements aren't all about how mega-gigahertz processors will look and perform. They're also about how small things can get; I'm at least as interested in miniaturization's benefits as what we can do on the high end. I heard not long ago about someone who'd found a new use for the Z80, for example, and people will be finding great embedded applications for the 386 in years to come. What does it mean when an Itanium-level chip is just a tiny blip inside a communications device? Beats me, but it's gotta be cool.

Will some new kinds of process and materials replace silicon at the high end and revolutionize the field? Sure. I'm intrigued by quantum computing, and am studying hard to understand it.

Intel's plan to add radios to everything strikes me as one of the most important design decisions in a long time, and I think the move deserves even more attention than it's received. I love the idea that we're not just adding intelligence and memory to everything, but also connecting it all. I'm also getting excited at the potential of OLEDs, which could totally transform displays. Nano and MEMS, too, of course.

One of my worries is that the industry is not focusing sufficiently on complexity, however. I don't think we can afford a muddle-through strategy when everything is tied together and interacting in what are likely to be unpredictable ways.

I also worry a lot about trends in the law, particularly in the area of "intellectual property" -- an expression I'd like to ban from the language.

The patent system is out of control. Yes, the USPTO has recognized some of the problems, but it's still issuing far too many overbroad, non-novel and just plain absurd patents. Congress keeps swiping money from application fees and using it for other programs, thereby making it harder for the PTO to have a competent staff. Courts are getting clogged with patent lawsuits, and those are just the cases that make it into the public eye. When companies are hiring lawyers instead of engineers, innovation takes a hit.

The copyright arena is another worrisome area for innovation (and free speech and research, as /. folks know well). Hollywood is asserting the right to decide what IT innovation will be allowed to enter the marketplace. Jack Valenti told me outright recently that Hollywood was going to do something about peer to peer (translation: control it). It's disappointing to see so many technology companies jumping into bed with the entertainment cartel instead of fighting for customers' rights.

Governments are reining in the Net, more successfully than anyone should want to see. Sure, the Slashdot community will always find a way around the barriers, but if China can block 98 percent of average Internet visitors from seeing what they want, freedom loses. Here in the U.S., meanwhile, we're moving toward having two or at most three ways to access the Net in any given community. That's terrifying from an innovation and free speech perspective.

Media Understanding of Technology
by Dr. Bent

While reading articles about new technology from various mainstream media sources, I get the impression that they have absolutly no idea what they're talking about. It's clear to me that the average mainstream journalist has, at best, a minimal understanding of the techology that he or she is reporting on.

What impact does this have on the public's perception and awareness of new technoloy, and will this lack of understanding dissapear as older journalists are replaced by a younger, more tech-savvy breed?

Dan:

I sometimes get that impression, too. But [defensively] I don't think it's as bad as you believe.[/defensively]

Mainstream journalists are generalists, for the most part. At most big newspapers, reporters frequently change beats. This is done for freshness of approach, and to avoid common problems (such as getting too close to sources) that can affect fairness. The downside, of course, is a lack of depth at times. Staying fresh on technology is easier than, say, politics because so much is new all the time.

It's also important to keep in mind the mission of mainstream news media. We tend to be introducing ideas and news to audiences that may or may not know a lot about the specific subject. I don't excuse outright technical errors (one reason I try to run things by people who know more than I do), but I hold general-news media to a different standard than trade publications that are aimed at people who already know a lot. In my own case, even though I'm working for a Silicon Valley audience in the print edition, I assume that readers are smart but don't necessarily know a great deal about the topic at hand. The online audience tends to be more focused on tech issues.

One of the great changes in my business has been the result of technology. I assume that my readers know more than I do. I also think that's a great opportunity, not a threat to my journalism. When we're in this together, we get better results.

It'll be interesting to see how tomorrow's audience and journalists handle this evolution. My sense is that the combination of traditional journalism, tech-savvy reporters, weblogs, etc., will lead to a wider understanding of the issues.

the cycle of things
by Hanno

We all know the economy is going in cycles, but how cyclic is IT, in your experience? When was the last big downturn, what happened back then and what changed because of it?

Right now, most of "us" IT-workers are facing the results of "new economy" bubble and the consecutive downturn of IT.

Here in Germany, I remember that in 1991 when I finished high school, people told me not to go study computer science because back then, the career outlook was bland and many IT academics were unemployed or received low figures. Then came the internet, salaries and everything else exploded, which was nice while it lastet, yet incredibly surreal.

Right now clients are sitting on every single penny. I know highly-skilled IT workers who are nevertheless unemployed because companies stopped hiring and around us and even some of the former key players of the industry are going bust...

So, do you remember a similar economic situation in IT and how did you experience it?

Dan:

I arrived in Silicon Valley just as the 1990s boom was beginning to happen. But I came here from Detroit, where I lived for about 6 years. Both places know business cycles.

Modern Silicon Valley has always had its boom/bust cycles. They're a natural part of an economic sector as dynamic and fast-growing as tech tends to be. The last time was in the early '90s, and the valley was in a distinctly uneasy mode. It was hard to find jobs. Housing prices dropped a lot -- something that hasn't happened this time, to my astonishment -- and no one had a clue what would happen to bring things back. The Mercury News published stories wondering if the valley's best days were behind it.

Then the valley experienced something that's happened before -- it got kickstarted by something out of left field. The most obvious catalyst was Netscape, both its technology and the subsequent IPO. But the expectations that developed were just nutty. I say that as someone who firmly believes that the Internet is changing everything just not as fast as some hypesters wanted us all to believe. What struck me in the late '90s was the ridiculous idea that somehow technology had eradicated the business cycle. Maybe it will someday (and it might once digital communications and nanotechnology become ubiquitous), but no one with a sense of history should have swallowed the hype.

People who've been here for more than a couple of downturns say this one's as bad as they've seen, maybe the worst. We got so far ahead of rationality in the bubble that it's probably going to take more time than usual to restore robust growth. There's plenty of innovation going on, but we now have a huge overhand of public mistrust of markets -- and people are absolutely right to hold the financial community, some VCs and others who helped inflate the bubble in contempt.

I doubt we'll see another boom like the one that just crashed. But we'll come out of this mess. It'll happen when people trust the markets again, because there's lots of innovation going on. Problem: I fear that anyone who trusts the markets right now -- especially when Bush and his crowd are doing everything they can to torpedo essential reform -- is misguided.

Conflict of Interest
by joyoflinux

Have you ever had a conflict of interest; like, what you should write, rather than what would get you promoted or would be better for your career? How do you deal with this?

Dan:

No one has ever told me what I had to write, or what I could not write, within the context of my beat at any paper where I've worked. Naturally, I've had the normal disagreement with editors over how stories and columns have turned out.

I've been lucky in one major respect here: It's my gig to have strong opinions -- even when they're contrary to powerful interests in the valley, as they often are.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that conflicts don't occur. Of course they do. The best andidote, and prevention, is sunlight. Several journalism publications keep an eye out for ethical transgressions, but they're not widely read except inside the trade. I'm encouraged by the Web's growing influence in journalism criticism, and not just in traditional ways. I think it's great, for example, that people who are interviewed are posting transcripts of the interviews on their websites, to provide context for how they've been quoted.

Are there things I won't write about? Sure. I've been dinged for this, but I won't shoot poison darts at my own company, as a rule, though I did publicly criticize my employer when a division of the company endorsed an anti-Microsoft lobbying organization (while I agreed with the views expressed about Microsoft, I thought the endorsement by the company was not helpful for the journalism we do every day).

Is Apple truly against DRM?
by dpbsmith

I'd really LIKE to believe that Apple is taking a conscious and principled stand against digital restrictions management, as suggested in your article here: www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4193833.htm

Your article is, however, basically speculative.

Do you have any evidence that Apple really has an anti-DRM corporate strategy? Gateway has issued a limited but significant public statement of support for fair-use rights. Do you have any ideas why Apple has not done anything like this?

Dan:

Indeed it's speculative, but I tried to base this on the evidence instead of the rhetoric.

To answer directly: I don't think Apple has an anti-DRM strategy, though, even if I wish they'd go for it. I do think Apple has a generally pro-customer stance, which is a heck of a lot better than some other companies out there. Perhaps the company is looking for some balance in a situation where the sides are turning the issue into a binary question, i.e., total control or total anarchy. Example of balance: Apple doesn't enable iPod users to copy to other disks (not directly), but it hasn't done anything as far as I know to stop the third parties who make it easy to do so.

Gateway's campaign was terrific. But Gateway is part of the Wintel ecosystem, and there's no question that Microsoft is moving fast toward a Hollywood-friendly regime that's overtly pro-DRM. When Gateway starts selling nicely configured Linux boxes and promoting them in terms of customer choice and digital freedom, I'll be even more impressed.

Any changes in Valley startup culture?
by Infonaut

Thanks for taking the time to field our questions, Dan.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists in the late 1990s turned their money and attentions to bear on creating dozens of companies that never had any hope of turning a profit.

From personal experience I've seen just how powerful VCs are in shaping the development of the IT market through their iron-grip control of individual startups.

Have you noticed any fundamental power shifts or changes in the way startup IT companies are being funded and created in the Valley over the past couple of years?

Dan:

The major change is that hardly anyone is being funded at the moment. VCs run in herds, too.

I'm generally an admirer of venture capitalists, at least VCs who look far into the future and make risky bets. I do not have much respect for what VCs did in the late '90s, when they and their investment-bank pals pretty much shifted all risk into the public markets.

If there's a shift, I'm hopeful that it's back to the traditional risk-taking that helped spur so much innovation. The valley is returning to the idea of building sustainable businesses before cashing in. In the bubble, cashing in was almost the entire point. Good riddance to that.

The other major shift I've seen is the spreading of entrepreneurial risk-taking outside the valley. This is crucial to global progress. I've met smart VCs in other parts of the world, including places where long-term thinking is part of the culture, and they may have an advantage in the end.

Hidden corruption?
by PhotoGuy

I've seen an awful lot of money spent during the .COM boom, in awfully questionable ways. Ways that were just completely beyond comprehension. I've often thought that a better explanation than sheer stupidity, might be that there were kickbacks and other shady dealings going on (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours).

With so much money having been tossed around, surely there was a lot of corrupt dealings; however, I haven't seen any press or other talk of such happenings.

Is it primarily because these companies weren't public and thus publicly accountable that any mini-Enron's were simply never discovered? In some ways, corruption would be a little more comforting of an explanation than sheer stupidity. I feel like I might be pretty naive in not realizing some of this is going on. What's your take on corrupt dealings, patronage, and such in the industry?

Dan:

You're not naive. I don't doubt at all that there was plenty of beyond-questionable behavior in private companies. But it's difficult for reporters or anyone else to get a handle on how much, and you're exactly right to suggest it's because public accountability brings more sunlight to the process.

Unfortunately, the news from the front pages every day tells me that accountability was in awfully short supply even in the public markets. Too bad the news is coming so late. But every bubble -- every boom -- brings out the financial sharks. It comes with the territory.

This one also brought out the ideologues in politics, funded by the sharks. The result was massive deregulation, which was in general a good idea, accompanied by a deliberate campaign to stop watching for bad behavior. That's why we didn't have cops on the beat, and why even now certain ideologues want to thwart reform. The states pursuing the investment banks are doing the best job at the moment, while the S.E.C. chairman, Harvey Pitt, seems hellbent on proving that he's the corporate lackey many people suspected.

Maybe I'm the one who's naive, but I believe markets need rules, because without enforceable rules no one can have any trust.

Promises, Promises
by gcondon

The IT press has been promising us a variety of malarkey for years - Microsoft innovation, Apple going out of business, Linux on the desktop, flying cars, ...

As I see it, to a large extent this is due to an over-reliance of IT journalists on industry contacts and a highly incestuous meme-pool.

Since industry contacts are driven by their own agendas to poison the meme-pool with hype and FUD, reporters typically serve only to reinforce entrenched concerns in the industry.

This is particularly troublesome given that the IT industry of uniquely reliant upon innovation which has traditionally emerged from smaller players & upstarts.

Therefore, does IT journalism really contribute positively to the industry and, if so, how?

Dan:

Journalism contributes positively to everything. Okay, stop laughing.

I think your premise is somewhat one-sided. It's true that journalists tend to echo the entrenched interests in every field. We also run in herds, for good and bad reasons, and we tend to quote the sources who call us back.

But I also have to say that I see plenty of great reporting, challenging the conventional wisdom and pointing us toward the real future. What fascinates me is that some of the best information, or leads, comes from nontraditional sources (and you're visiting one of them right now).

That's wonderful, because one of the jobs of the journalist is to separate hype from reality. I do this in several ways, including reading everything I can (including Slashdot, where I always spot angles I hadn't considered), talking with as many people as I can and, in general, questioning my own assumptions. I have the luxury of a job where I have the time for all this.

I'll even challenge one of your examples of malarkey. I've been dismissive of desktop Linux, too. For me, Unix on the desktop is called Mac OS X. But the open-source ecosystem doesn't care what I think. It's slowly but surely pulling together the pieces of a desktop environment that will be more than adequate for large numbers of users. Just as we tend to underestimate the long-range impact of Moore's Law, because analog creatures can't really grasp exponential change, I suspect I've underestimated the collective power of the community development process, which is an intellectual barn-raising raised by many orders of magnitude.

Activism?
by Anonymous Coward

IIRC, back in the day you were pretty seriously activist: I seem to remember you at Usenix handing out buttons and carrying signs.

Do you still consider yourself an activist? If not, what changed? Is there still a place for activism in the geek community? What is it?

Dan:

I think you may have confused me with someone else, perhaps John Gilmore, whom I admire but who is not a relative. The last time I can remember carrying a sign was an anti-Vietnam War rally in Washington in the early 1970s.

I guess I'm an activist in a sense, given that I devote much of the column to policy issues such as copyright, competition policy, privacy, etc. I strongly believe geeks need to be much more active. The people who want central control of everything are shutting down innovation and freedom -- and geeks have as much to lose as anyone, maybe more.

Comments

Aww, they skipped my question

[zaren]

Ah well, at least there was an Apple-related question posed to him. 10% Apple-related questions... better percentage than their market share, at least :)

Dan is watching...

[phorm]

He'll surely read any comments you post to this article

Dan read's slashdot, and knows the kind of idiot trolls we get on here, yet is still brave enough to put himself up for questioning, good man!

Though I suppose that as an IT journalist, more people will respect him and refrain from posting "Dan is a moron" or something equally immature.

I would wonder how many times, as an IT journalist, he gets shot down or pushed around while searching for information. A lot of the larger IT companies I know are anything but forthcoming, so perhaps idiotic behavior is something he's used to :-)

Re:Dan is watching...

[__aanqgi3349]

Pushed around, rarely. Shot down, frequently. It goes with the territory.

Some people don't take my calls, ever. But some of the people whose organizations I criticize the most harshly do call back and sit down for interviews.

Re:Dan is watching...

[Anonymous Coward]

reads NOT read's.

If you are using a computer, you should of at least mastered grammar school English.

argh

The future?

[EvilBudMan]

What do you think the future will bring?

Re:The future?

[sharkey]

What do you think the future will bring?

Tomorrow.

Re:The future?

[AUsBandit]

What do you think the future will bring?
And an objective reivew of yesterday.

Re:The future?

[daniel_isaacs]

What do you think the future will bring?

An increasingly distorted perspective of the past.

What I'd Like to Know...

[ackthpt]

What I'd like to know...

What is holding up shipping of new tech toy^H^H^Hitems, e.g.:

Serial ATA Hard drives, Seagate appears to have moved ST380023AS (80G) and ST3120023AS (120G) back to Late November from Late October.

Lagging production of AMD 2700+ and 2800+ CPUs

something else I forgot, too much beer last night...

Is this likely a case of production problems or are manufacturers and distributors trying to clear inventory that's already in the pipe? It seems more items are falling into the vapor category, and I'm not convinced it's production problems. Are there more paper launches in lean times than, say an overheated market like 1999?

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[brulman]

West coast distribution pileups at the ports? Or have they cleared through the masses on the docks yet?

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does ^H^H^H^H^H mean? I see it all the time, but don't have a clue.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the control character for backspace. he wants you to think he typed the word "toy", then thought better of it, backspaced over it, and replaced it with "item". It's a really stupid thing to do.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[alyosha1]

^H means backspace. ('^' signifies the control key.) Try typing something in a dos or a unix terminal and then pressing Control + H

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

^H is the control code for the delete key, so when you see it is means go back and delete the character behind it i.e. someone is showing you they've "corrected" what they typed.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[MrResistor]

I think paper launches are the biggest part of the problem. I don't think it really has anything to do with lean times, but rather the continued expectation on the part of the public that tech should be advancing quickly. That's a really hard expectation to live up to, especially when there is so much more emphasis on getting the design done fast than on getting the design done right. I've done enough design work to know that mentality will always catch up with you and bite you on the ass, but I also have enough experience to know that it's quite difficult to get even clueful management to understand that. But I digress...

With SATA, I think the problem is motherboards. I would love to go SATA in my next machine, but where are the SATA motherboards? I haven't seen any, and to my knowledge none of the current chipsets have SATA pin-outs. I've had bad experiences in the past with controller cards, so I refuse to go that route. I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in this, and that's probably why Seagate is delaying the release of SATA drives. There's just no infrastructure to support them.

AMD has been suckered by Intel, IMHO. Intel made a huge sacrifice in IPC for clock-speed, knowing that's all most people know about computers (If they even know that much; "Hey, how fast is your new PC?" "40 Megabytes!") Intel has defined the contest as one it can't lose, at the moment, and unfortunately AMD doesn't seem to be aware of the hook in its mouth. Hopefully this will change when Hammer is released, but I'm not going to bet on it. Anyway, I don't think the new Athlons are lagging at all, it's just that AMD marketing was a little over-zealous in making the announcement. Intel released something, so they had to release something too, even if it wasn't going to actually ship for a couple of months.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Zathrus]

but where are the SATA motherboards?

Uh... have you looked at any of the new motherboards? Most KT400 and Intel 845PE/GE motherboards have SATA support.

The support is, however, provided by a secondary chip on the motherboard and is not integrated into the South bridge or whatever yet. So you're constrained by the 133 MB/s of the PCI bus. Since no drive approaches even 66 MB/s sustained transfer yet, it's really not an issue though.

Intel made a huge sacrifice in IPC for clock-speed

Yes, and Intel is having problems with that now. The P4M (Mobile) has a lower clock speed and higher IPC. The Itanium even more so. And AMD's strategy of using processor rating has been remarkably successful - what's the actual clock speed of an AMD Athlon XP 2800? What about the forthcoming Barton core Athlon 3000? Only the die hard enthusiasts remember. Everyone else just assumes 2.8 GHz and 3.0 GHz respectively - which is wrong.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[xyote]

Product announcements have been getting progressively more optimistic. Rounding up to the next quarter is a good idea. So when they say Fall 2002 that means 4th quarter which they will barely make. Add 3 to 6 months for general availability. You won't see these things until spring 2003.

Also, check out the controller maker websites like 3ware and Promise. Except for a high end raid cards, they're still talking preliminary. You don't see any mention of plain pci SATA controllers. What you though we were going to throw out all our old motherboards just so we get one with only 2 SATA connectors?

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[MrResistor]

The support is, however, provided by a secondary chip on the motherboard and is not integrated into the South bridge or whatever yet.

So basically it's through a controller card, which I already dealt with in my origional post. The fact that it doesn't take up a PCI slot is irrelevant to me.

What it comes down to is that I need to be able to boot my primary hard drive from whatever OS I happen to be running, and non-integrated controllers simply can't be trusted in that situation. Yeah, most of them are supported in Linux now, but what about, say, QNX?

Also, the main reason SATA interests me at all (currently) is the increased airflow from getting rid of all those ribbon cables. Drive performance is honestly not an issue for me, buit it would be nice if I could put the side panel back on my case without sacrificing stability.

Everyone else just assumes 2.8 GHz and 3.0 GHz respectively - which is wrong.

Performance-wise, the assumption is accurate, and in many cases conservative, so while it's technically incorrect, I wouldn't really say that it's wrong. That's just playing at semantics, though.

I wouldn't really say that AMD's PR strategy has been that successful either, though. Certainly it has kept them in the game, which is a significant success in its own right, but it doesn't seem to have gained them anything.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

On unix systems, different terminals often needed different settings for erase, backspace, and so on. A very common mistake was to have the backspace key generate a "^H" (for 'control-H', ascii code 8, backspace), instead of properly erasing the previous character on the screen.

It became something of a joke to pretend to have written one thing, and "corrected" it to something more political correct, but to have 'accidentally' left the original intact due to a malfunctioning terminal setting.

It's not original, but used occasionally, often by people who don't realize the origins. Technically, the number of ^H characters should match the number of characters to be 'erased', but in modern usage this requirement is often dropped, especially for very long text.

--
AC

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Zathrus]

So basically it's through a controller card

No... controller cards aren't integrated into the BIOS. These are. That's all the difference in the world.

the main reason SATA interests me at all (currently) is the increased airflow from getting rid of all those ribbon cables

Same... it's one of the technologies I've been holding out for (since I'm holding out for the NV30 anyway, holding out for other stuff right now doesn't hurt). But even if the Seagate SATA drives hit the market, there are no SATA CD-RW/DVDs/etc - so it doesn't buy all that much. I may look back into rounded PATA cables, or look at folding my own (doable without cutting).

In a year or so SATA should be able to completely replace PATA for everything. The motherboards with SATA integrated into the chipset will be out in early 2003, which is when it'll really take off. But really there's no reason to not trust one of the current motherboards with SATA support.

Re:What I'd Like to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you up "+1, Informative" but AC's don't get mod points.

Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[MemRaven]

One thing that struck me in one of the responses was that Dan's fixated on trying to find some type of blame for what happened in the internet bubble, and my favorite example of this is where he says that VCs and Investment Bankers shifted all the risk to the public markets, as though that's a terrible thing. But what he doesn't point out is that the markets were screaming to take on that type of risk. Remember, this wasn't a case of a bunch of evil VCs and investment bankers breaking down Aunt Tillie's door in the middle of the night, taking her money, and leaving her with shares in buy.com, this is a case where the markets were paying a risk premium, paying more for riskier plays.

In a situation like that, you have two options:

• Give the market what it wants, regardless of whether that's what the market should actually have in your opinion
• Tell the market how foolish it is for wanting that, and watch other people make money off providing it.

I suppose it really comes down to whether you believe market theorists, who claim that the market is always smarter than any individual. While bubbles can be proven wrong, I think it's hardly facetious to be criticizing VCs for doing what the market demanded of them at the time, since they are chartered with making money for their investors, not making Silicon Valley a nice place to live.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's OK to be immoral or crooked, as long as there is a profit to be made?

It's not that these companies brought companies to the market, it's how they misrepresented the dogs they brought to the market.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[SirSlud]

> who claim that the market is always smarter than any individual

Except doubtless there were some VC's who _did_ sense the rediculousness and opted not to meet that demand. (Not that we'd hear about it as news, but clearly not 100% of all VCs threw money at the public sector.)

In that case, I'd say some individuals were smarter than the market ..

Although the real problem is: define smarter? Do we need bubbles and crashes?

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[unfortunateson]

Certainly there are other lessons to be learned. IMHO, the biggest bubble-blower is the IPO: in one day, a company's stock could increase in value 20 times. Sure it'd deflate the next week, but the rush of investors brought up the cost of every associated stock.

Amazon and Yahoo bought a lot of startups with that cash, other companies execs I'm sure sold out on their newfound paper wealth, while the average customer asked why he couldn't buy at the IPO price.

Who's at fault there? The analysts who priced the stock so low to begin with? Probably not, when the long-term outlook isn't that far from their predictions. The SEC? Maybe a little bit, but Adam Smith is spinning in his grave over the thought that we should hold back the invisible hand.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Ian Wolf]

I think Dan was more than fair. He clearly stated that he respects most VC's, but some clearly passed on ALL their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to the shareholders.

I have had the misfortune of sitting across from VC, loudly proclaiming, to a conference room full of developers words to the effect of, "All we have to do is field a working prototype, IPO, and wait for the suitors to come knocking." I've heard this from different VC's in different conference rooms.

Now, to be fair, I've also been in conference rooms with VC's who have rolled up their sleeves and worked late in to the evening to help us make their client profitable.

A large number of VC, in the waning days of the boom, were nothing more than snake-oil salesman. The good ones were pretty much, previously-engaged.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Coz]

We never hear about the VCs who stay out of companies. "Due diligence" was something the lawyers and accountants argued about during mergers, but there were some select VC groups doing the same thing with their investments.

In the late days of the boom, I got a phone call from a VC who wanted to talk with me about one of our tool vendors; I'd used the tools, referred other people to the company, and reported quite a few bugs, so apparently I showed up in their databases. I ended up spending 3 hours one night talking with a senior guy at the VC firm, who actually knew and understood the business area, had done his homework about the competitors, and wanted honest opinions about the company - it's products, it's staff, it's support, what I thought they'd gotten right, what I thought they were doing wrong... all in all, a very enjoyable experience. I got the impression that these guys were being very careful where they put their multi-million dollar investments.

I hope that's one of the firms that's still out there, keeping the markets afloat (and trolling for bargains, I'm sure). They're the kind of exception that makes the "invest-in-anything-with-a-dot-in-it" VCs look like such fools.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Salsaman]

I think it's hardly facetious to be criticizing VCs for doing what the market demanded of them at the time, since they are chartered with making money for their investors...

But don't you agree that VC's at least have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate whatever they want to invest their clients' money in, before they invest anything ? I would have thought that was a basic part of the job - yet some of the things I saw money being thrown at, I could have told you at a glance would never bring a return for their clients, even without the benefit of hindsight. In other words, when investing in technology it pays to talk to people who actually know the field inside and out.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

I think it's hardly facetious to be criticizing VCs for doing what the market demanded of them at the time, since they are chartered with making money for their investors, not making Silicon Valley a nice place to live.

In that case, I think we obviously need to charter some folks to make Silicon Valley a nice place to live. Screw the investors! I just want to be happy!

-If

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Arandir]

It's neither the fault of the VCs and banks, nor the general public. Generally speaking, the market gets enough information that it works well. But in the case of the dotbomb bubble, accurate information was drowned out by hype.

I place the blame on the media, of which Dan's employer was the worst. The Murky News couldn't print rags-to-riches stories fast enough. The leitmotif of its business section was glowing praise of companies with no business plan other than to go IPO.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Elwood P Dowd]

Well. Dan didn't mention the other things that the ibanks did that were thouroughly fucked up. CSFB got fined heavily for their behavior regarding the VA Linux IPO, but it seemed at the time that they probably weren't the only offenders.

They didn't just offload risk to the market, they artificially raised prices with several different methods. It was, imho, *almost* as bad as breaking down Aunt Tillie's door, taking her money, and giving her VA Linux shares for $200 a pop. The only real difference is that they didn't break her door.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Anonymous Coward]

Artificially raised prices? Can you elaborate? Are you referring to putting the word "Linux" in their company name?

People knew that there was a tulip craze going on; remember all those news articles talking about the coming bomb? The Warren Buffet quotes, about his skepticism of the values of these companies? The only thing is that people wanted to cash out before it hit.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yes, artificially raised prices. They got in serious trouble for it. They gave IPO shares to companies based on their transaction fees to CSFB. So you had large banks selling and rebuying their entire position several times, so they could hike up their transaction fees, and get more IPO shares. This is illegal, although unrelated to the stock price.

They also only gave IPO shares on the condition that the companies that got IPO shares would also be required to purchase the same number of shares on the open market within the first two weeks of the IPO, and they were required to hold those shares for a specified duration (like three weeks or so). This meant that the stock price spike was predetermined, with or without help from individual investors. It also meant that the stock price stayed high for much longer than it would have normally. This strange behavior mislead many many investors.

Still think I was exaggerating? They got convicted of many many counts of securities violations, and paid large fines. Everyone suspected that other ibanks/consulting firms were doing similar things to make money off the dotcom craze.

The really funny thing to me was all the media buzz about the Mafia making fake dotcoms, when it turned out that the regular ibanks were doing similar things.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[3Bees]

You saidIn a situation like that, you have two options:

• Give the market what it wants, regardless of whether that's what the market should actually have in your opinion
• Tell the market how foolish it is for wanting that, and watch other people make money off providing it.

I would add:

• Diversify your investments and caution investors against foolishly gambling their money on a cycle doomed to loose them money while using enormous wealth to cushion the fall

But then, the tactic of moderation in investments wouldn't have allowed the investment banks to make billions of dollars on the backs of individual's retirement funds.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[kcbrown]

It's not that these companies brought companies to the market, it's how they misrepresented the dogs they brought to the market.

It's worse than that, actually. Many, perhaps even most, VCs intentionally sacrificed the survivability of the company they were managing in order to make it look good for an IPO. How many of us heard the mantra "grow now, worry about being profitable later"? That mantra was intentional: its sole purpose was to make the company look good for an IPO. Smoke and mirrors, in other words.

And as a result, it all came crashing down: if your long term viability is questionable, investors will eventually figure it out and your market value will tank. And it did, for so many companies that the ripple effects are still being felt today, a couple of years later.

This is why I believe VCs are much more responsible for today's economy than Dan seems willing to acknowledge. It was rare to hear of a startup company where the mantra wasn't "grow now, be profitable later". That mantra usually came from VC management, not the startups' founders.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[0xdeadbeef]

The last refuge, blame the media...

The culture already existed, the media was only spinning back what people wanted to hear.

It is foolish to single out segments for blame explicitly, because snake oil peddling occured at every level.

The best you can do is try to identify those people who were honest, those who were dishonest, and those who were willing to suspend incredulity simply to ride the wave.

Of course, I'd still say the locus of dishonesty was the VCs and high-profile stock analysts.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[susano_otter]

The leitmotif of [The Mercury News'] business section was glowing praise of companies with no business plan other than to go IPO.

So it's not the VC's fault, for having "IPO" for a business plan. And it's not the fault of the public, for not asking them what their plan was. But it is the fault of the media, for not telling us what the plan was?

That doesn't make much sense. Surely there's enough blame there to cover every group involved?

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Polo]

I think the public markets became a different animal with the advent of ubiquitous online trading.

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think it's hardly facetious"

what does this mean ? pure pedantisism, but what does "hardly" *mean* in this context ?
Do you mean that its very facetious, only slightly faceitous, barely facetious, or somewhat facetious ?

(I am assuming you are a native speaker, perhaps my mother tongue has gotten a bit rusty on me...

Re:Not just the VCs and Investment Bankers

[__aanqgi3349]

Others have responded well to this. I don't lay the blame for the debacle solely at the door of the VCs or investment banks or media or the greedy public. Everyone was involved to some degree.

What makes me furious about the insiders is the way they took advantage of the suckers. Isn't there some obligation to be honest, never mind honorable? How old-fashioned...

Boom and bust cycles

[Jon Erikson]

As a top-flight consultant who has been in the IT industry in one form or another for some fifteen years or so I see this current phase as being a departure from the normal boom and bust cycles that rule any kind of capitalist economic model. It's not going to go back to a time in which any two-bit Perl coder can earn a fat paycheck for knocking out e-commerce systems, because America is no longer a viable place to employ people.

Why? Because there are a dozen or so countries in which labor, even semi-skilled labor such as coding, is far, far cheaper to hire than it is here. There was a time when workers could be paid according to the dictates of the market, but since various socialist "innovations" introduced over the last twenty years have kicked in, companies just can't hire and fire people as and when they need to, and retaining staff is getting more and more expensive... not because of wages, but because of the increased burden of government mandated benefits these people are required to have, despite earning plenty enough to provide for themselves.

In the future I see outsourcing as becoming the number one way in which companies develop software. The only remaining market in the US for programmers will be a small number of inhouse maintainance programmers, and an even smaller number of researchers working for either small startups or large, established players like IBM and Microsoft.

The market is oversaturated, and there isn't going to be another boom, just a slow, steady decline.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[rcs1000]

Jon,

If what you said was true, then Europe would be poverty stricken and starving. In fact, despite crippling taxes, stupidly inflexible labour laws, and crazy unions, Europe is doing OK. (No, I don't mean *well*, I mean OK.) No-one is starving, and these countries have had these same, largely idiotic, rules and laws for 45 years. Sure, they mean higher unemployment and lower secular growth than the US, but they didn't stop Europe from dragging itself to prosperity after WW2.

The IT industry has always suffered periodic booms and busts. In the early 1990s people assumed the market for PCs had gone ex-growth. Whoops.

In the UK in the early 1970s, the country went decimal. There was a huge boom as early computer systems were changed to deal with modern pounds rather than with the ungainly mix of guineas, pounds, shilling and pence. It was the original Y2K problem, and demand soared. Only to decline, and then stagnate for years.

Regards,

Robert

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[frank_adrian314159]

Because there are a dozen or so countries in which labor, even semi-skilled labor such as coding, is far, far cheaper to hire than it is here.

This is less of a factor than you think for a couple of reasons.

First, companies need to be relatively skilled in order to understand and write requirements to a level of detail such that work can be exported. Even then, in-house acceptance testing needs to be run (unless you like handing out blank checks), and, in most cases, project management overhead quickly eats up any savings in labor cost.

Second, the actual cost of software construction is a minimal portion of the overall system cost throughout the product lifecycle and drops more rapidly each day. You're minimizing a rather small upfront cost when all is said and done. Maintenance cannot be assured, since keeping the project structure in place following the initial delivery of code costs too much to allow that to be an option in the maintenance phase and not having access to the people who wrote the code makes maintenance cost more too.

In short, I tell folks who want to do this sort of thing to consider their best and worst experience with onsite contractors. Then you halve the best and double the worst and ask thenm if the savings is still worth it. Once you look at the entire product life-cycle, most will find it isn't...

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[lordmage]

How many years have I heard this gloom and doom. NAFTA will kill jobs, Blah blah blah will never be viable again. Fact is that the markets go in cycles. The US is viable to employ people and still has rising productivity.

The next generations will realize what we wished to realize in new technology to fix current problems. I see a boom in polution fixes and productivity of humanity fixes.

So bottom line, you are spreading stuff that has been heard since before Adam died. Its nothing new, and its nothing true.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because there are a dozen or so countries in which labor, even semi-skilled labor such as coding, is far, far cheaper to hire than it is here.

Not any more. Many programmers are facing the delema of working at Burger King or starving. Most would rather program for min. wage than flip burgers for min. wage.

IOW, we will accept similar wages to what they are paying ex-dirt-farmers overseas because we HAVE NO FLUCKING CHOICE!

The US is becoming a nation of managers. Techies are considered too easy to replace by people who don't understand technology and the importance of long-term design issues. True skill is not appreciated because if you are a dumbass you cannot tell the difference. Any two-bit flunky can make software work for the short-term. If you are not a manager type, then you are no better off than a burger flipper in their eyes.

The Age of Geeks is Dead! Globalism has pissed on us. We are mere urinals for PHB's and if we don't like their shit, they can get plenty more urinals in the form of ex-dirt-farmers from India.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[gradji]

"...I see this current phase as being a departure from the normal boom and bust cycles that rule any kind of capitalist economic model ."

Just a point of clarification: boom-bust cycles are not an idiosyncratic symptom of capitalist systems or capital markets in general. Take the Five-year Plans implemented by the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China during the middle of the 20th Century. The quotas were set years in advance and remained fairly inflexible (especially if the quota erred on the side of being "too much"). Plants would work like mad to meet their all important quota only to find that their output wouldn't / couldn't all be used. Worse were the cases where the plants would salvage their own machinery in order to meet their all important quotas.

These "command" style economies also suffered boom-bust cycles as well.

Karl Marx was one of the first scholars to warn us of the dangers of "overproduction" ... but he too wrongly assumed this was a solely capitalist problem

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Hayzeus]

As a top-flight consultant...

Not to argue from a position of authority -- for that would be wrong, horribly wrong -- but I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant, which implies that you may as well stop reading right now because I am bound by the laws of basic physics to be correct. However, although any explanation is really wasted, I will go further than merely pointing out that you are wrong:

Despite some code I've perused in the past, coding is not really a semi-skilled profession like, say, fry cook.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, offsite contractors are notoriously difficult to work with, even when not overseas. I have seen many of them fired mid-project. This is particularly true when ISVs make the mistake of outsourcing in this way. Ultimately this is because offsite contractors -- particularly larger houses -- tend to have massively different priorities than those who hire them, and are in general in a position to act on those priorities. Not all of my experiences with outsourcing have been bad, but most have.

Anyone who has been downsized recently can testify that there are really few barriers to lightening staff load. Furthermore, even individual firings for nonperformance are really a pretty simple matter, provided such basic measures as periodic performance reviews were implemented by an employer. While anyone can sue for any reason, few of these suits ever get very far. The sole exception would be the civil service.

Finally, of all the industrialized countries on the planet, the US is likely close to the bottom of the list for government-mandated benefits.

Again, bear in mind that I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant; thus any rebuttal is futile.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[spRed]

*Anhhhhhhhh* Wrong!
(what is the accepted onomonopia for that sound?)

The US will continue to dominate in innovative software markets. You are right in that cookie-cutter projects will be moved off shore. For the same reasons that mature industrial manufacturing is. Second and Third world countries excel at immitating cheaply, but are never leaders.

They don't have the memes, they don't have the talent. Talent emmigrates to the US, period [ and we're welcome to have them]. Workers _ARE_ paid according to the dictates of the market. Simple off the shelf tasks are done more cheaply by semi-skilled perl people in India or Russia than by US (slightly inflated prices by the gov't) or EU (highly inflated prices by gov't) techies.

This should be an acceptable situation for everyone, including the pinko population. It is a good deal for everyone, it is called the 'Free Rider Effect'. First world countries leave everyone else in the dust for productivity, innovation, and quality of living. Second and third world countries get something for free - the first world subsidises expensive first generation technologies which then become commodities. Everyone else then gets these at the commodity prices.

The place for the US/EU will always exist. It has shifted, it will shift. Steel, autos, and now some IT are now 'known' and will move production out of the expensive civilized world. Our (US/EU) place is quite secure, however. Just because one sector (take your pick) becomes a commodity doesn't mean the end of the world. No one is garunteed the same job or salary for life. What skills are rare today will not be tomorrow. The benefit of living/working in a first world country is that the rare skills (whatever they are tomorrow) will always be exploitable (lookup exploit/exploitable in the dictionary. Most definitionas are POSITIVE) there. The disadvantage of living in a third world country is that your economy will always be competing in commodity markets. Which is kindof a copout because coutnries that escape that economy are no longer called thrid world :)

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon,

as a long-time troll watcher, I can inform you that you have failed to call Perl "Pearl", as you normally do.

Please correct this error, or alternatively stick a broom up your ass.

Yours,
Agent Isn't

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[michael_cain]

I think this is a valid point; the companies that will be able to best benefit by using overseas developers will be large corporations doing large software projects. A small company would be much harder-pressed to effectively export, say, a two-member programming team working against a tight schedule.

I do worry that exporting jobs on a large scale will result in an actual example of Keynes' "corporate paradox of thrift": if one company saves costs by exporting those jobs, it does well, but if all companies behave that way, the resulting decline in the overall economy may cause their revenues to eventually decrease faster than their costs.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

*Anhhhhhhhh* Wrong!
(what is the accepted onomonopia for that sound?)

I think it's *Bzzzt*, even though if you were to really try to reproduce it with your mouth it would come out more of an *Annnnnnhhh*.

-If

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Bartab]

Sure, they mean higher unemployment and lower secular growth than the US, but they didn't stop Europe from dragging itself to prosperity after WW2.

With direct financial assistance from the US after the war (to which, only one or two countries have paid back) and by relying on military assistance ever since. It's time we cut the cord, and let the entire EU support their own existance.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Simon Garlick]

Dan Gilmore said: as people outside the U.S. get better technical educations -- even as America keeps killing its own educational system -- we're going to see more and more competition from abroad.

This bit deserved to be written in mile-high flaming letters:

"AS AMERICA KEEPS KILLING ITS OWN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM".

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Anonymous Coward]

"AS AMERICA KEEPS KILLING ITS OWN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM".

So whose responsibility in America is it to 'fix' this 'broken' educational system? Please don't tell me the taxpayers and the government schools, else I label you a statist, socialist dolt....and fart in your general direction!

The Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to an education, so saith SCOTUS in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973. If you and Dan Gillmor believe that the taxpayers owe anything to public sector education, then you're both welcome to slob on my knob.

Having an education system supported by public funds is one reason the US is in such a shambles in the first place.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[DoctorFrog]

So start your own company, sans PHBs, geeks only; then your true skill will be appreciated. The question then will be whether the customer appreciates (with spendable applause) the skill you put into your product; if they do, then you can outcompete the PHB-laden competition and the Age of Managers will truly die.

If not, then you'll have an even better scapegoat;a nation of clueless customers who don't appreciate the difference between quality code crafted by skilled professionals, and cheap code by ex-dirt farmers that performs the same functions!

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[Anonymous Coward]

the only reason the US provided us with financial assistance is that they wanted to stop the growing influence of the Soviets. This is the only reason (which does not mean that I don't appreciate it).

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[pjp6259]

If coding is only semi-skilled labor what do you count as skilled labor? For most people to become a good coder requires a combination of probably 8+ years of education and experience.

Re:Boom and bust cycles

[squib697]

Some of the stuff about coding and it being cheaper elsewhere is industrial age thinking. Sure, a lot of 'nerdwork' is no more important in itself that assembly workers on an automobile production line and it is this stuff that gets done where it is cheapest. The added value stuff is the creative work, making new ideas and possibilities - which was what the web was. So OK, yesterday's creativity is today's production line - and this happens faster and faster. To some extent this is a matter of how nerds get managed and 'used'. Take a look at http://www.managementlearning.com/art/leadbala/ind ex.html: "Traditional methods of leadership were designed for supervision by factory workers. They emphasize regularity, measurement, orderly appearance, predictability and control. When leaders attempt to enforce traditional leadership in the new knowledge organization, they impede the flow of information, discourage creativity, inhibit adaptation and undermine productivity. In the new world, traditional power-centered leaders often achieve the opposite of what they intended. Leaders who do not understand this new world try to remedy their declining effectiveness by using power to quash dissent and by imposing tighter controls. Caught in a vicious cycle of decreasing access to knowledge and increasing use of power, they are puzzled by the organization's downward spiral in performance."
and at http://www.managementlearning.com/art/cultnerd/ind ex.html
"Management is orientated towards company goals. Nerds are not. Managers will have to live with this because the nerds are not going to change. You will motivate a nerd by enabling him or her to work on interesting problems in the way that he or she deems satisfactory. You can try to hurry them up -but there is a risk attached. The manager's priorities are not the nerd's. Drive too hard and you will have an empty chair pushed up to the computer screen. Nerds are mobile."
Well they used to be more mobile than they are. The fact remains that management has still not learned how to work in the information age - and nerds don't seem to be able to tell them. While both think that it is about coding, the next step in creativity get's help up.

a breath of fresh air on desktop linux

[moebius_4d]

I'm pleased to see Dan moving away from his position about linux on the desktop. It's really quite odd how many people dismiss it, not just in its present form, but as a possibility of any kind.

All the arguments against such a thing apply equally well to the creation of a linux distribution. No one wants to write docs, no one wants to integrate all these pieces and make them work, and so forth. Well, red hat does, and so does debian. There's no reason why the same forces that can result in a highly integrated distribution can't also result in a highly integrated desktop.

Also, as more corporations embrace linux, and as hardware vendors like Sun choose to make it part of their offerings, even more force comes to bear on the human interface issues.

It just reminds me of the Metcalfe "Open Sores" articles of some years back, when he dismissed the whole idea of high quality free software outright. How blind do you have to be to do this? What force will make it get worse, or stop it from improving?

Congratulations to Dan for keeping his eyes open on this issue, and for a solid interview.

Re:a breath of fresh air on desktop linux

[polyphemus-blinder]

I agree with you; but you've got to admit that an integrated desktop is at least one of the most difficult tasks facing Linux.

High quality server software, individual apps, even Office suites, are much more doable within open source because their scope is limited and deep; the integral unit of these things is tangible--one application, one server, one project with defined limitations.

A desktop environment, on the other hand, must span across the surface of everything in order to integrate all aspects of a user experience. This is difficult in Linux because they guys who make everything don't work together, and you have third party developers like Redhat who get stuck with the somewhat unnatural responsibility of binding everything together to make it look natural.

I'm sure you already know this, but I'm just pointing out that while I agree it can be done, I can see the source of other people's skepticism.

Re:a breath of fresh air on desktop linux

[Monkelectric]

No one wants to write docs, no one wants to integrate all these pieces and make them work, and so forth.

You got that right ... I was "working" (insomuch that I was a voulenteer) for a fairly well known (semi-commerical) linux distro on a compiler tool that would dynamically insert optimization strings into a compiler command line on anything you compiled, transparently, and it could have different settings for each user / instance of the compiler running.

As you can imagine, that was pretty tricky piece of software. Everything worked except for some reason my program caused a single autoconf test to fail. I could disable the test and everything would work fine, but that wasn't a long term solution. So I spent about a week disecting the test script, and couldn't make heads or tails of why it was failing. Finally I e-mailed the maintainer, who was unwilling to even *discuss* the problem with me.

I spent another couple weeks dicking with the script, but I coudln't get anything out of it.

This is the story of why linux can't automatically optimize compiles transparently, and even people who *want* to do the grunt work can't get it done sometimes :)

Hit it right on the head...

[Em Emalb]

"It sends a terrible message to young people, because it tells them that tech careers are foolish. But this is a chronic American problem -- a short-term mentality."

Boy, he hit this one right on the hea....oh, look, a new video game is out. Sweet. Uh, what was I saying? I want a slurpee.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[back_pages]

Yeah, it's a funny comment and all, but it's almost like making jokes about battered wives. Well, not nearly the same, but we ARE talking about the professional futures of many people. You better believe that I would have NEVER considered a degree in computer science if I didn't simultaneously get a degree in something else for specifically the reasons he mentioned.

I'm also a talented musician who could probably scrape by professionally and (when I'm not rambling on at Slashdot) a skillful writer who (with some additional education and breaking the habit of superfluous parenthesis) could probably make a living with that. You better believe that had I not been blessed with these tertiary abilities, I would have NEVER invested the time and money into getting a computer science education.

It's just lunacy for young people to get a BSCS and think they've got it made. A BS is NOT enough to start a career these days. The industry is NOT stable enough to ensure 30 years of employment for your career. The starting wages do NOT always justify a PhD.

A serious change is coming. Whether that means opportunities will open up for BS graduates, or wages will increase to justify PhDs, or the jobs will be sent overseas I couldn't say.

At any rate, it spells very troubling times for your CS kids. It feels like I'm living through an economic catastrophe while people 10+ years older (with ample experience) are buying new cars at 0% APR and mortages with historically low interest rates. I can't even afford new tires for my 93 Ford Escort. It's not funny to me. If not for the opportunity of higher education in the States, I would without a doubt either emmigrate to another country or find an entirely different field. Happy times, happy times.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[InOverMyFeet]

So you go on-and-on about how smart you are and how well educated you've become. Then in the last paragraph of your post its as if you want us to throw you a pitty party ("I can't even afford new tires for my 93 Ford Escort"). How 'bout leaving college and join those people who have jobs and can afford those new cars and houses? You sound like you're scared to fly or lazy. Which is it? When is your resume going to be polished enough for you to stand behind it?

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[back_pages]

That would be "pity party". No, I don't want you to throw one, thanks for asking. Yes, I have taken time of school to join the people with jobs, cars, and houses. Unfortunately, a BSCS and a BS Mathematics, community service experience (the good kind) teaching computer skills to senior citizens, working as a TA, and 4 years of self-managing software development for a GE-owned aircraft component manufacturing facility have not been the polished resume necessary to start a career.

I'm not looking for a dream job here, neither am I looking for a hand out. Scared to fly or lazy? That's your opinion, and I'd never deprive you of it no matter how poorly written. In the meantime, I'll deal with the reality of the job market by pursuing my best opportunities. Currently that would be a graduate degree.

Do you think there is space in the computer science industry for every entry-level applicant to have a graduate degree? I don't think so, yet that is where we seem to be headed. That is a conflict, and from that I predict there will be a change. Seems simple enough to me, but afterall, I only drive a Ford Escort.

Thanks for my time.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[PositiveGround]

qw / It feels like I'm living through an economic catastrophe while people 10+ years older (with ample experience) are buying new cars at 0% APR and mortages with historically low interest rates. I can't even afford new tires for my 93 Ford Escort. It's not funny to me. If not for the opportunity of higher education in the States, I would without a doubt either emmigrate to another country or find an entirely different field. /

Huh? You mean you drive a car that was made AFTER the Cold War ended?

Shhh.. It's not funny.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't hire you.

From your words you sound slightly full of yourself. You don't sound like you would be a team player. You don't sound like you would stick with a company through hard times(Not an Enron, but a smaller company that is actually trying.) If your resume reads anything like your posts here, then I'm not surprised that you haven't found a job.

Your experience consists of 4 years of "self-managing software development" What does that mean? Were you lead for a team? Did you write programs by yourself? How many KSLOC was the project? How are your team skills?

There are many others that have similar skills/experience. What sets you apart? What jobs have you applied to? Are you willing to start entry level?

I also think that you are incorrect about the direction of the computer industry. You will not need a computer science degree to be a programmer. You will need a Software Engineering degree. Which will qualify you to participate in the software manufacturing process.

Although, I'd imagine that with phrases like the following:

That's your opinion, and I'd never deprive you of it no matter how poorly written.

makes it seem like your largest problem in getting a job is annoying the interviewer.

Sorry, but welcome to the real world. Every other job is like this as well.

-- But what do I know, I drive a Toyota --

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[sheWhoWalksWithToesL]

It is possible that the economy we are headed towards is one in which every person must have 2 to 3 apparently unrelated subjects in which they have a degree or the equivalent experience. I read about how successful people become a jack-of-all-trades and a master of all.

There's another possibility, and that is that businesses will be started with the intention of only lasting long enough to satisfy market demand, and then once demand has been satisfied, they break up. It's a scary thought, and yet exciting, because for business to reach that level of efficiency, the systems and management would have to be completely automated and have the ability to be rolled out instantly. The downside would be that you would have to worry more about finding people who could use your services, and saving for the time the job ends and you have to find the next one.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[vsprintf]

At any rate, it spells very troubling times for your CS kids. It feels like I'm living through an economic catastrophe while people 10+ years older (with ample experience) are buying new cars at 0% APR and mortages with historically low interest rates. I can't even afford new tires for my 93 Ford Escort. It's not funny to me. If not for the opportunity of higher education in the States, I would without a doubt either emmigrate to another country or find an entirely different field. Happy times, happy times.

Well, you got part of it right anyway. Those people 10+ years older are likely young MBA managers who are outsourcing your job. There are a lot of 20+ years older IT workers who are sweating it. Some have left the field because they can't get jobs. Some are training their replacements. Some are just waiting for the other shoe to drop. American companies don't want American IT workers. Anyone in the U.S. who doesn't discourage their kids from getting a degree in CS is setting them up for failure. Oh, BTW my car is years older than yours.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

So you decided to choose a risky profession like Engineering, but were smart enough to keep a safety net as an Artist?!

-If

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[back_pages]

Congratulations. I wouldn't hire me either. BASED ON A SLASHDOT POST. I also wouldn't take medical advice, legal advice, emergency advice, critical information, trade secrets, or goddamn recipes from a Slashdot post.

I'm left with serious doubts regarding your evaluation skills.

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[InOverMyFeet]

pitty...pity...I guess that makes you smarter than me. I've never been proud of my spelling skillz.

Look, here's the point. Your spending all this time with higher education and complaining that its not enough. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you should pick up something else? Your obviously not tired of going to school. Why not major in something that ends in Engineering. Or how 'bout relocating. If you are apposed to these options then you don't want it bad enough. So deal with it.

Its not what's on your application that gets you a job. Its all about personality and attitude. I degree tells an employer that you are capable of learning. They'll teach you or provide you with means to learn what you need to know. They are looking for someone who will fit in and promote a healthy team environment.

Hey look at it this way. You could always work as an English teacher conducting spelling bee's. But afterall, I only drive a Ford F-150 SuperCrew that's paid for :)

Re:Hit it right on the head...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a dick...who'd wanna work for any company that your sorry ass ran anyhow

Bad Bush?

[AUsBandit]

What the hell do you mean in your reply to the cycle of things by Hanno where you say "Problem: I fear that anyone who trusts the markets right now -- especially when Bush and his crowd are doing everything they can to torpedo essential reform -- is misguided.

What exactly has Bush done to torpedo reform?

If anyone else has any idea what he is talking about here please feel free to inform us all.

Re:Bad Bush?

[sphealey]

What exactly has Bush done to torpedo reform?

Please review the history of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last three years. Please note that yesterday evening, after he was appointed to the new SEC "watchdog" panel, William Webster admitted that he was on the board of a company being investigated by the SEC for cooking the books.

Any more questions?

sPh

Re:Bad Bush?

[Ian Wolf]

Take a break from /., go to CNN and look for any story on the SEC.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Lurking Grue]

Probably was referring to the administration's refusal to back meaningful accounting reforms. Despite the fraudulent activites of Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and others we've still got an SEC chairman (Harvey Pitt) who is quite chummy with big business. And despite the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the ideal candidate (John H. Biggs) faces opposition by the GOP. Mr. Pitt, who had informally offered Mr. Biggs the position, is now waffling in his support.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that yesterday evening, after he was appointed to the new SEC "watchdog" panel, William Webster admitted that he was on the board of a company being investigated by the SEC for cooking the books.

Actually, he told Harvey Pitt this a while ago, but Pitt decided not to tell anybody at all. Which to me makes Pitt look a lot worse than Webster. Webster did the right thing, Pitt did not. All in all, Pitt is yet another Bushly thief.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Bartab]

Probably was referring to the administration's refusal to back meaningful accounting reforms.

Ok, I'm all for accounting standards, and I agree that current standards are insufficient. Yet, it's the market that needs to require certain standards, not the gov't. At the highest level, trading floors should require useful standards for any company wanting to trade there. Moving down, brokers can require such standards before they suggest them, and individual buyers (of any means) can make such weighing standards part of the buying process.

Yes, the stupid, impulsive, and other ill equipped people will get burned. Just like it should be.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please review the history of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last three years. Please note that yesterday evening, after he was appointed to the new SEC "watchdog" panel, William Webster admitted that he was on the board of a company being investigated by the SEC for cooking the books.

And Bush should have been able to read minds and see this one coming? You're right, he is a shitty president.

Re:Bad Bush?

[metachimp]

Indeed. Pitt seems hell-bent on proving that everything people say about him is true. Even the most die-hard Bush supporter has to at least concede that Pitt's SEC is designed to be totally ineffective (it fits the ideology of Cheney, et. al.). Of course, most die-hard Bush supporters probably believe that the SEC should be eliminated anyway, so I guess there's no disconnect there.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Lurking Grue]

My time spent in public accounting showed me that the industry will not properly monitor itself. Turning a blind eye toward what has happened, and waiting for the "market" to take care of itself is not the prudent thing to do in this case. The market would have a much better chance of working properly if all players had access to the same information. Unfortunately, it's more like a poker game where one side dictates what cards the other side will hold. Until investors can trust that the CFOs, CEOs, and auditors are playing fairly, the "market" will remain stagnant.

Corporate boards need to be composed of members with no ties to the organization, CEOs need to be removed from the boards, and auditors need to prove independence instead of posturing. Stock exchanges need to have stricter reporting requirements of their listed members. There are so many things wrong with the current structure, it's a miracle that things are still stumbling along as well as they are. The magnitude of what is happening cries for governmental intervention. I'm not a fan of government running rampant over free enterprise. But government is responsible for the creation of these intangible entities (corporations). As long as corporations are granted the freedoms that real individuals maintain, then government is obligated to ensure that corporations are held accountable for their actions.

Trading floors and brokers get a cut of the action. Yes, the stock exchanges should implement better standards for their listed members to adhere to. But by virtue of their vested interest in keeping things moving, they cannot be relied upon to do the "right thing." This is where the SEC is expected to step up and make sure things are on the up-and-up. But a Pitt-led SEC is a neutered SEC. Status-quo isn't going to cut it anymore, and the recent appointment of William Webster as head of the PCAOB can fairly be viewed as status-quo.

President Bush had an opportunity to show some leadership here, but instead he cowered. And don't claim that he's just letting markets work themselves out. It's purely a political move. If he were truly a fan of the market, he wouldn't have imposed tariffs on steel imports earlier this year.

Re:Bad Bush?

[Observer]

Please note that yesterday evening, after he was appointed to the new SEC "watchdog" panel, William Webster admitted that he was on the board of a company being investigated by the SEC for cooking the books.

Note also that it's now come out via New York Times and elsewhere that the SEC chairman Mr Pitt was aware of this but hadn't for some reason felt it necessary to disclose the information to the other SEC board members who share with him the responsibility for the appointment of Mr Webster. See this BBC report for an outline of the case.

At least there's now an inquiry (by the SEC - errrrm) being made into the circumstances of Mr Webster's selection, but there does seem to have been, at the very least, a lack of due diligence in the SEC process, and this at the highest level.

Re:Bad Bush?

[MadocGwyn]

Yes, I have one, whats wrong with the torpedo's thats theres so much hoopla about reforming them, are they bad torpedos?

How is deregulation a good idea?

[dasmegabyte]

The result was massive deregulation, which was in general a good idea...

Okay, here's one I don't get, and it's been shoved down my throat a hundred times. How is deregulation a good idea?

When the airlines were deregulated, prices skyrocketed and became more mysterious, new aircraft types became fewer, meals and perks got skimpier, and share value was decreased.

When cable was deregulated, price increase rates shifted from less than 5% per year to 10% or more. The price for extending capacity has shifted to the customer (I was asked to pay a portion of $800 for the cable line to be extended 5 miles down the road, on top of monthly service) and competition is non existant in most markets. And Time Warner, the largest cable provider in the country, is suddenly on the ropes after 30 some odd years of profitability. Similarities can be found in the deregulation of other telecommunications industries.

So despite claims that the opposite is true, deregulation has been proved to increase prices while decreasing competition, innovation, shareholder value and the quality of customer service, and this is a good thing? Need I remind you that the majority of telephone, cable and fibre lines were laid during regulation, as were the majority of communications satelite launches?

There is no impetus to innovate when you're milking your customers dry. A high margin with high sales is an invitation for stagnation. Now, when you have to fight for every customer you have and for every penny to stay alive, suddenly you have a reason to offer more than your competitor.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[AUsBandit]

Deregulation is always a good idea because that is the ultimate goal of Capitolism(an economy that regulates itself). But unfortunatly regulation is necessary as an immediate fix when capitolism is failing in a particular industry. During regulation periods the government should simultainuously stimulate competition and thus new entry into that industry. Sadly though our government has a recnet track history of just deregulating w/o any evedince of increased competition.

IMHO Deregulation is good, regulation is bad, but lack of competition is worse.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Aleatoric]

Deregulation in a competitive market is a good idea, as it allows the competition to work. The sham of pseudo-deregulation (such as what happened with the airlines, etc), is not proper deregulation in that there is still no equal playing field and equal access to all resources to be competed for.

Deregulation doesn't mean no laws concerning behaviour and legal requirements, it means that there are no regulatory barriers that favor one company over any other (and most forms of "deregulation" in recent history still have those barriers, and as a result, are not proper deregulation).

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[kawika]

When the govt (or a union or industry cartel) sets rules about non-essential operations of a business, it limits the market in ways that usually mean higher prices, lower quality, fewer choices, or all of the above.

>> meals and perks got skimpier

Perfect example of how the market appropriately reacts to consumer demands. If customers prefer lower prices over crappy food then they can choose the airlines that offer price over perks. Would you prefer to have the govt regulate the rules on serving meals aboard planes?

>> There is no impetus to innovate when you're milking your customers dry.

Airlines are suffering a triple-whammy of their own stupid management, unrealistic demands from their unions, and post 9/11 traffic drops. Well run companies like Southwest are making money but most others aren't.

If anything, airlines are still suffering under the "regulation" of their unions that won't face reality about the condition of the industry. Congress approved a $20 billion bailout for the airline industry last year but most airlines haven't been able to claim their money because one prerequisite was to cut costs and the unions won't let them.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[IamTheRealMike]

The answer is, like most things, that economics requires a balance.

I've always thought it would be obvious that too much regulation is as bad as too little, and that the sweet spot is somewhere in between, yet I constantly see people spouting opinions about how "government kills efficiency", "the private sector is more innovative", and "privatization will benefit us all". I've even seen sites like that Free State thing a while back that implied that no regulation of the market at all was utopia!

I think that's nuts, nobody, not even the US operates "pure" capitalism, because pure capitalism is a recipe for self-destruction: it puts the benefit of the self above all else. Because we live in groups, we have to bracket and control the free market to serve us, not to rule us. Equally though, too much control can constrict the economy.

This is all obvious, yet New Labour is privatizing everything it possibly can, it's even attempting to get business involved in the NHS! George Monbiot covers this issue superbly - the worlds leaders have a love affair with business, and it's hurting us all. They need to get a balance back.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Ian Wolf]

I think deregulation, in theory, is a great idea. But, it never seems to work out in the end. BTW, Your analysis of the airline industry is incomplete by failing to mention the high fatality rate of businesses in those markets. The problem with these industries is that they are expensive markets to enter, high cost, and generate little profit. In order for the companies to stay in business, they have to drive up consumer rates to the highest acceptable rate and avoid modernization at all costs, just to approach break-even.

Add power to your list. Mine's nearly doubled since deregulation. There still isn't any competition, because the barriers to entry are too high and the new electric company refuses to upgrade its power plants without a grant. The brownouts are just around the corner.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[sien]

Airline fares have dropped since deregulation overall. If you look at the price of an airline ticket in 1975 and now in real terms it has dropped more than just about anything else, a car is still the same percentage of yearly earnings, food and whatnot.

Also, deregulation sent long distance phone calls plummeting. The US set this up.

However, deregulation does not work everywhere. The US mobile phone market has been a testament to this, but on the flipside 3G may be easier in the US than in Europe.

Dergulation is not a panacea, but on the other hand it isn't all bad.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Lumpy]

dereg is NEVER a good idea except for those that titles start with a C.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Lumpy]

YAY slashdot isnt broken anymore I can post!

If cable was properly de-regulated, the Feds would have forced these "franchise agreements" into being illegal. I.E. holland Michigan has a franchise agreement with the cable company, where as the cable company has to pay them a kickback... in return the city of holland ensures that no competition can enter the city....

The feds needed to stop these city and local governments from extorting money out of any company doing business in the city in trade for giving a monopoly (or even existing in most cases) If Comcast,Charter,Time Warner was able to be in every city without having to pay these bribes to the city you would see HUGE competition in cable, and probably better service along with more innovation...

you want someone to blame.... blame your mayor and city commision members. The same problem hit's telco companies and all other utilities or in-home services... Kickback to the city for the privilige of being there...

Local governments hurt these services.... start the change there.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[mxs3549]

Regarding the deregulated airlines stock prices decreasing, this should be expected if deregulation is a sucess. The share price of a monopolistic company that faces the prospect of losing its monoply and high profits will obviously be worth less than it was a monoply. The expecption to this was the complete failure of degregulation in the California electricity market, where Enron and Dynergy, among others, were able to game the system and make more money after "deregulation".

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[IamTheRealMike]

Deregulation doesn't mean no laws concerning behaviour and legal requirements, it means that there are no regulatory barriers that favor one company over any other

Right - the problem being that some things naturally are hard to create level playing fields for. Trains are a good example, the rail network in this country is a mess has been caused largely by privatization. The problem is ensuring competition - do people choose which train to catch based on price? Or how nice the trains are? Or what they think of the company?

No, they choose the train that will get them there when they want, the quickest. Always. The only time this doesn't apply is when you've got very long distance travel so the savings might be worth it, but on those lines there only tends to be one company, so you're stuffed anyway.

Water, another good one. Companies are supposed to compete for "franchises" - but they last 20 years! And who chooses which companies get the franchise? Not the customers.

Proper regulation doesn't mean favouring one company over another, it means enforcing standards and rules upon those companies. The problem is of course that sometimes you have double standards, big corps exploit weakenesses in international law to get the upper hand. News Corps BSkyB digital TV is a good example of this. In the UK there used to be a digital terrrestrial broadcaster (ONdigital/ITV Digital). They faced a lot of problems, some of which were caused by themselves, but one issue that didn't help was that they were strictly regulated and Sky, who broadcast out of Luxembourg, were not. So for instance ONdigital had to meet targets for subtitling, they had to do regional and sub-regional broadcasts (33 mpeg encoders for 1 channel), and they had to pay the government money for the priviledge of existing too. Sky had none of those worries, so in theory this was bad regulation, but if all the companies had been under its juristiction it would have improved TV for all of us, instead of giving Sky the upper hand.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Centinel]

Okay, here's one I don't get, and it's been shoved down my throat a hundred times. How is deregulation a good idea?

Well, I ran a mom-and-pop ISP and remember all the hype about deregulation with the Telco Act of '96 and the FCC taking a laissez-faire attitude during the Internet boom.

On paper, it looked good...local telcos could get into long distance, long distance could get into local tone, CLECs could spring up and provide competitive service, and the Internet was open to everyone. More competition would spur innovation, and customers would have more choices and lower prices.

But what happened in reality was rather different. As long as services were geared on dial-up, where rates for lines had been in place for some time and all the cards were on the table, this sort of worked.

Then came broadband, with huge capital costs associated with network buildout to provision it. Naturally, the cable companies and ILECs weren't about to risk their own capital to give some competitor cheap pricing on their own expensive network, and a big fight ensued at the FCC.

What basically happened was that cable companies were able to lock out everyone from their networks, while ILECs were able to charge premium prices to ISPs and CLECs who wanted to offer DSL. In fact, the price of Telco resources for DSL to ISPs was so high that it wasn't competitive against the retail price of Telco DSL service itself. Anyone remember SBC's "Project Pronto" where monthly DSL was only $39.95 a month with no setup fee and free DSL router?

Still, companies like Covad and others threw their hats into the ring. Once the markets went south, the ILECs and large cablecos were in the catbird's seat. The rule was, whoever had the biggest cash reserves could endure the war of attrition, and we saw CLECs and weaker cablecos go out of business or get absorbed by the big boys, who, meanwhile raised prices and cut back on service.

What telco deregulation accomplished was the appearance of a more competitve marketplace, and for awhile it sort of worked and whole new businesses sprang up to do business in the environment. But when when broadband hit bigtime, deregulation paved the way for unprecedeted mergers and acquisitions.

You can also see a similar trend in media (ie content) mergers and mergers between media and infrastructure. Look at the big media conglomerates we have now and how it's watered down quality journalism. Let me give you one example. In the early 90's populist talk radio was truly changing the political landscape and scared the pants off the power elite. Ross Perot pulling 20% of the popular vote and firebrand freshman GOP candidates getting elected to the House in 1994 was a direct result of the masses getting information from talk radio. So, what the moneyed media barons do? They bought up radio stations across the country at 2x-3x their real value, canned talk show hosts, and replaced them with their own politically-correct syndicated crap. Today Clear Channel and Infinity own about 80% of the radio stations in the country that idiots tune into to hear what they think is 'alternative' news: Rush, Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, and Art Bell. But the hosts who really upset the apple cart like G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Harder and Jeff Rense and others are either off the air completely or have a tiny fraction of stations compared to their heyday in the 90's.

Luckily, we still have the net, but I assure you that powerful, wealthy interests don't like this free exchange of ideas and will, if they can, put fences around it, regulate it, co-opt it, and squelch it.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Monkelectric]

Mine's nearly doubled since deregulation

Doubled? is that all? My last power bill was 961$ in southern california. IN a 3 bedroom house, no jacuzii, just a few computers and 4 people.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[gradji]

"When the airlines were deregulated, prices skyrocketed and became more mysterious, new aircraft types became fewer, meals and perks got skimpier, and share value was decreased."

I am not going to argue against his general premise. But the particular statement above about airlines is misleading and, in some ways, incorrect. (His comments about cable are, however, right on the money).

[1] Prices did not skyrocket: in fact, within a few years, the prices on most airline flights decreased. Under regulation, airline prices were regulated and most flights flew half-empty. Airlines had no discretion: even if they wanted to sell the empty seats at cheaper fares, they couldn't. The price decrease is the main reason why flying has become such a popular mode of transportation in the U.S.

[2] More flights: The poster forgets this benefit from deregulation; almost all industry participants and experts agree that the number of flights have increase dramatically since deregulation. The "Hub-and-Spoke" system has significantly increased the number of possible routes and the regulator barriers that prevent upstart firms from entering routes were largely decreased. Southwest Airlines, the airline most often credited as being the msot consumer friendly, was one of the major beneficiaries of deregulation.

[3] Aircraft types, meals ... one of the things foreign companies have learned about the U.S. market is that the most important product characteristic to an American consumer is ... price. (This is the main reason why Japanese electronics companies such as Sony sell only a small portion of their catalog in the U.S.) We would rather have the airline reduce our airfare than offer us a more fancy meal. Again, Southwest figured this out early and have benefitted immensely. Note also that Southwest is the airline with the fewest number of aircraft types. Why? By focusing on a few aircraft types, they reduce their maintenance/service/training costs substantially: the benefits of standardization. This then allows them to offer very competitive airfare ... which is what most consumers want.

[4] Share Value: remember that in any economic transaction, the total surplus generated from that product/service is split between the firm (shareholder) and the consumer. A low share value is not necessarily a bad thing. This, if anything, shows the competitive nature of the industry and suggests that consumers are doing well. Again, note that currently the most valuable U.S. airline (market value wise) is Southwest. (No, I don't work for Southwest and my frequent flyer miles are with a competing airline)

Blind faith in deregulation is bad. But deregulation in of itself generally does tend to be a good thing. More often than not, the problem is with the particular implementation of deregulation.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the airlines were deregulated, prices skyrocketed and became more mysterious, new aircraft types became fewer, meals and perks got skimpier, and share value was decreased.

Uh, when the airlines were deregulated, prices went down. That's the prime example of a good deregulation.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Analysis Paralysis]

In the UK there used to be a digital terrrestrial broadcaster (ONdigital/ITV Digital). They faced a lot of problems, some of which were caused by themselves, but one issue that didn't help was that they were strictly regulated and Sky, who broadcast out of Luxembourg, were not.

If by "regulation" you mean content control, Sky are (and have always been) regulated by the Independent Television Commission. While it is true to say that the satellites are run from Luxembourg (by SES-Astra), Sky rents space on the transponders and is UK-based in order to be able to run its subscription service (with their main call centre being in Livingston, Scotland if I remember rightly).

ONdigital had to meet targets for subtitling, they had to do regional and sub-regional broadcasts

If you mean regional news channels, Sky does those as well. Not being a subscriber, I cannot comment on subtitling but its cost should be quite small compared to the programming cost (you can do with only one person and relatively straightforward equipment).

OnDigital's failure has been mostly ascribed to a single, naively-negotiated contract for footballing rights, for which they paid an amount they could not afford. I would also suggest that their consumer approach (where you could only *rent* a box with a full-channel subscription rather than buy one to sample the free channels) was flawed. The new regime with Freeview seems more promising with no subscription needed, and cheaper (£99) set-top boxes.

The problem here is that UK (and Europe) satellite broadcasting has been a 'natural' monopoly due to the very high entry costs, plus competing brings the extra costs of a "bidding war" for film rights (this was a major reason for British Satellite Broadcasting's "merger" with Sky in 1990 as well as the demise of u>direct, an independent film channel broadcasting on the Sky platform). For Europe, replace Sky with Canal (in its various incarnations).

Despite this monopoly, Sky is still making a loss (football rights plus the subsidy on supplying free Digiboxes to new subscribers) and I believe that Canal has only recently started to show a profit.

Wandering back on top, for de-regulation it is not what you do but how you do it that is the key issue. It can only be beneficial if the consumer has control, and that means having the opportunity to make a choice and the information to make a "good" choice. The de-regulation of the financial industry in the UK during the 1980s gave people a wider choice for pensions, savings policies and loans but, because of the complexity and lack of independent information, unscrupulous and dishonest salesmen were able to "sell" (ie in many cases lie about) inappropriate and unnecessary products resulting in a multi-billion pound misselling scandal. Enron paupers, you are not alone...

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Gawd, that 'but it wasn't REAL deregulation, so it doesn't count' excuse.

NEXT!

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[vsprintf]

Mine's nearly doubled since deregulation Doubled? is that all? My last power bill was 961$ in southern california. IN a 3 bedroom house, no jacuzii, just a few computers and 4 people.

Deregulation has nothing to do with what happened in California. I left California in '91 because the coming problems were obvious.

The problem in the land of fruits and nuts is OVER-regulation. The state regulated the nuclear power industry out of existence and made it impossible for other energy providers to expand or build new plants. They were so "green", they encouraged some businesses to move out of state. The state government reaped what it had sown, then blamed it on "deregulation." Of course, California is also pursuing legal action against other states who are taking water from a river that begins in Colorado but dumps in California ... so all their water are belong to LA, dude! Hey, man, set the sprinklers on 2X. The Santa Ana winds are blowing, and I don't want the lawn to die.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[musicmaster]

The sham of pseudo-deregulation (such as what happened with the airlines, etc), is not proper deregulation in that there is still no equal playing field and equal access to all resources to be competed for.

Pray and believe and miracles will happen. If miracles don't happen there must be something wrong with your faith!!!

And so we hear it all the time from the believers: if it didn't work it wasn't done right. I think that all those incidents aren't just incidents. They are a symptom of the fact that deregulation makes things more difficult to regulate. Have a nationalized railways: easy and straighforward to manage. Now privatise it: you need rules to prevent the companies from overcharging and otherwise mistreating customers, you need rules and inspections for safety and if you ever want some new railroad built you will spend centuries negotiating it with all the companies involved.

So deregulation means actually more rules. That's why it is such a bad idea to force developing countries to deregulate. They already have trouble enough enforcing their own simple rules. With the new more complicated rules of deregulation it turns into a mess.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[kwerle]

Power dereg in california was just done wrong. It was like having a big damn and deciding "OK, now we're going to get rid of the damn. All at once."

If they'd done something reasonable, like "SLOWLY deregulated": all power suppliers can only up their prices by 10% for the next 7 years, then anything goes. Sure, the cost to enter is high, and the profits are not, but that would have eased the transition:
Year 1: everyone's bill goes up 10% - still no competition.
Year 2: everyone's bill goes up another 10% - ditto
Year 3: Look, ma, there's money to be made in california power; let's build a plant or 2! Meanwhile, everyone's bill goes up another 10%
Year 4: More folks build; some competition goes online, the increases slow down because the new guy on the block will charge less.
etc.

Yeah, years 1-3 suck, but look what we got! I imagine prices will drop as competitors start bringing generators online, but certainly the first year or 2 could have gone easier.

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[Monkelectric]

With that attitude, I think we're all glad that you left :)

Re:How is deregulation a good idea?

[vsprintf]

I'm so glad you agree with me. :)

You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[NDPTAL85]

"There was a time when workers could be paid according to the dictates of the market, but since various socialist "innovations" introduced over the last twenty years have kicked in, companies just can't hire and fire people as and when they need to, and retaining staff is getting more and more expensive... not because of wages, but because of the increased burden of government mandated benefits these people are required to have, despite earning plenty enough to provide for themselves. "

Hmmm. Well you as Mr. Top-Flight Consultant may have enough disposable income to provide for your own healthcare and retirement but that does not mean the rest of the working population does. These systems would not be in place if most people COULD provide these things for themselves. So why don't you stick to the topic at hand instead of veering off into hyper-conservative economic policies that have been rejected due to their inhumane treatment of the citizens of whatever nation got rid of them.

I don't know why you think people exist for the benefit of the market. We're not here to service the economy. The economy, and the government is here to serve us, the people. If that means an extra rule, law or regulation in regards to proper labor practices then so be it. I think the economy will survive. I also don't think anyone wants to go back to nationwide sweatshops just so we can prevent jobs from going overseas.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[mmol_6453]

Corporations are very little more greedy than the executives who run them. And there's hardly a difference between your average greedy corporate executive and your average American citizen, career choice notwithstanding.

Look at worker unions. They used to serve only to protect their members from employers focused on profits(and for whom, the term "margin" wasn't part of the picture). While I'm sure there are some unions that still serve that purpose, I can point out a couple of instances where an American union's action has adversely affected nearly all Americans, while only union members could benefit.

I can't pull up any statistics for you, but I do know someone who earns $50k/year for unskilled labor(drives a hi-lo) at a Ford plant here in Michigan.

And I doubt you've forgotten that one union controls all major West-Coast ports.

There was a story on NPR a few days ago, about a group suing to open protected lakes for jet-ski recreational activities. Jet-skiis typically dump a quarter of their fuel unburned into the water. The woman in charge said she was "all for making jet-skiis pollute less," but did not respond as to why nobody was pressuring businesses to decrease the pollutants coming from the machines.

People have this, er, tendency, to push for legislation that's to their personal advantage, regardless of what it costs other people.

For an example, ask yourself why we haven't seen a law limiting the size of unions. Ask yourself the difference between union membership and extortion. Ask yourself why there are laws that limit personal freedoms that don't harm other people. (like laws on what is legal and illegal for sexual recreation. No, I'm not thinking of child pornography.)

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't think anyone wants to go back to nationwide sweatshops just so we can prevent jobs from going overseas.

Hmm. Let's see:

US sweatshops or gutter-dwelling unemployment

I pick the first I think.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[gid-goo]

Picking on unions might be fun, but the reality is that everyone deserves a decent job with a decent liveable wage. You can thank unions for the weekend, vacation time, health benefits, severance pay, comp time, work safety regulations. Whatever white collar fucks think those who do the work that makes this country function should be paid liveable wages. Whether its unloading cargo containers from ships or driving fork lifts at automotive plants.

FYI, the ILWU controls all the ports in the US. Europe, Canada and Japanese unions are in close contact as well (if you use non-union laborers in Boston, you're ship isn't getting unloaded in Europe). Dock workers have a thankless and dangerous job. They deserve their money.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[mmol_6453]

The only people who deserve "decent jobs and livable wages" are those who earn them.

I'm not saying people should be left out to starve. "Livable" is a vague term. Do you mean, "allows survival" or "provides comfort"? If the former, then, yes, everyone deserves them. If the latter, then, no.

The whole idea behind Welfare reform is to get people to provide for themselves. Far, far too many people (IMO) are comfortable with getting money for being unemployed, while only making a token effort to find a lasting job.

If someone's comfortable, they'll try to stay where they are. If they're not comfortable, they'll try to put themselves in a situation where they are comfortable.

I wasn't picking on unions because it was "fun." I focused on them, rather than the jet-ski lobbyist, because I had more data.

Even if someone fails to "deserve" a decent job, by my standards, I still don't have a problem with them working to improve their situation. I do, however, have a serious problem when they can hang a sword not only over their employer's head, but over the head of anyone who depends on the services their employer provides.

I think unions need to be pushed into obsolesence. That means that something better would have to come along to replace them, like large fines levied against employers deemed to be treating their employees unfairly. If a company goes under for being fined too much, so be it. If the service is needed, another company will step in and take their place.

Enforcement would be easy; just require that a demographically significan portion of a company's employees request a review.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[NDPTAL85]

"Dock workers have a thankless and dangerous job. They deserve their money."

Until they get replaced by machines that is.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[gid-goo]

IMO I think the union members earn their money. They have a right to collective bargaining and standing up for what they feel is reasonable working conditions and wages. Unions are going down the toilet. And the reason is, in many industries, it doesn't matter if they strike. Temp workers can be found to replace them easily enough.

Take Powell's Books in Portland OR. They're unionized. But replacing book store employees isn't tremendously difficult. A few months of massive revenue loss while new employees learn the ropes but then everything runs kind of alright. In the dock workers case, the company won't bring in scabs because the job is too dangerous.

So I argue that unions are a perfect response to the corporation. If a company is the aggregation of resources to produce something, and the management is the manifestation of that concept, aren't they just a union? A collective bargaining tool for the rights of the owners?

In any free market system, a union is a fair and honest way to assert the rights of workers. Like any nice idea, capitalism, corporate responsibility, the US Government, the implementation isn't always as nice as the idea. That doesn't mean it should go away. It just needs work. Like everything else in this run down used car lot we call the world.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dock workers have a thankless and dangerous job. They deserve their money."

They make more than most college grads!

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[PositiveGround]

qw / For an example, ask yourself why we haven't seen a law limiting the size of unions. Ask yourself the difference between union membership and extortion. Ask yourself why there are laws that limit personal freedoms that don't harm other people. (like laws on what is legal and illegal for sexual recreation. No, I'm not thinking of child pornography.)/

We have anti-trust laws, don't we? Why can't something of the same type apply to a union? I'm all for that.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[router]

Dude, I looked in the dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com ) and there were things I should have thanked unions for that I don't get.

1. Weekend - That's when I fix the servers.
2. Vacation - That's when I get paged to fix the servers.
3. Health Benefits - Things I need from being in a freezing room, standing, for 12 hours a day fixing servers.
4. Severance Pay - Something I don't need, the fans on the servers aren't that big.
5. Comp Time - What is this, a joke?
6. Work Safety Regulations - Like, the cones around the hole in the floor when they pull the tiles?

Am I missing something?

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[Bartab]

In the dock workers case, the company won't bring in scabs because the job is too dangerous.

This is not true. The companies would have -loved- to bring in scabs. They are restricted, by law, from doing so. This is where the power of the Unions have exceeded safe limits. Collective bargaining is fine, but there's the risk that if the bargain goes too far south that the entire Union will be replaced wholesale. Since that's not a legal possability, it means that Unions hold -all- the cards.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[susano_otter]

You throw around the idea of "rights" quite a bit. Where do these rights come from? How absolute are they? What characteristic do they have that makes them a fundamental, axiomatic truth?

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[metachimp]

it means that Unions hold -all- the cards.

EXCEPT the employment card. Contrary to public opinion, unions are not out to destroy American companies (think: *Why* would they do that? ), or "rip-off" employers. Whole issue with the ILWU (the union) and the PMA (the port owners) was that the PMA was stalling on their contract. The Longshoremen where working for over three months without a contract. As for the automation, the ILWU isn't stupid, they know that they're going to lose some jobs because of automation. They also know that there will be some new jobs created by automation, and they want to make sure that those workers end up getting the bargaining rights, too. The PMA's response to this dispute was to ignore the union, and refuse to budge one inch on the new contract. They struck, not because they were the lazy, overpaid, hand-out happy slobs you make them out to be, but because they had to. You don't get paid when you're on strike. Striking is bad for workers as well as owners.

Re:You've got a twisted way of looking at things

[mmol_6453]

Like any nice idea, capitalism, corporate responsibility, the US Government, the implementation isn't always as nice as the idea.

I agree completely. Unions are a nice idea. They're essentially the only current way, aside from tragedies like the Triangle Fire, to alter working conditions.

I only have a problem with them when they have nothing to do with me, but they affect my life in a significant manner.

From my understanding, cars are rediculously expensive. The ports strike seriously messed up shipping schedules, so we're going to see higher prices on products this Christmas season. Especially for imported products, or those dependant on imported components or supplies.

I wouldn't be surprised if some oil tankers didn't get unloaded on schedule, either. (Gasoline in my area is $1.60/usgal for "regular" (grade 89), and that's "out in the sticks.")

Where do programmers go?

[namespan]

OK. I'll admit it. I am an average programmer. Maybe a little bit better than average at thinking things through thoroughly, designing intelligently... it's that mathematician's aesthetic where you want things to be as clean and orthogonal as they possibly can. But I am slooow. At most jobs I've had there are definitely people quicker than I am, and a few that are slower.

So... should I bail? Dan's comments about average programmers struggling resonates with me... I've been out of work since May. It won't be long until I'm a balding guy in his mid 30's, so if the use-the-young-hard philosophy is prevalent, I'm double-whammied. Seems like the obvious thing to do is check out. But where to go?

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you on this...I AM that balding 30 year old guy! I am a syadmin and when I really starting learning programming about 8 months ago, I thought that was where my future might be since it seems to take more technical skill and intelligence to program than it does to admin.

However, it seems that aging programmers are often discriminated against, can't find a job in today's economy and are being replaced by foreign outsourcing. Clearly it is too late for me to become one of the "stellar" programmers that can get a job anywhere, so maybe I should just drop it and focus on something that can't be outsourced as easily and often requires on-site support...

PHB????? DBA?????

Re:Where do programmers go?

[AUsBandit]

IMHO: The market will recover.

For those of us with no job a good suggestion is retreat inside a government job or inside a university for more schooling. But for those of us who have jobs I suggest become more mobile and make it your goal to become team leader/management as soon as possible. Government won't be laying off at least untill Bush is gone and additional schooling makes you more marketable. Management skills are something that doesn't change very much but programming languages and other skills are conastantly being changed even as you learn them. So becoming management allows you to use your experiance from IT jobs and not have to relearn at the rate that is best left to the young.

Gone are the days you could work for a giant corp for your whole life and never have to move. Companies are more and more looking outside themselves for people to hire instead of promoting from within. (Grass is greener...) So be loyal to your project not your company. A project you can write on a resume. So when you feel your project is nearing completion start looking for another.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Maxwell]

Yes, bail now. Why be dilbert when you can be the pointy haired boss? You don't have to be good at managing to be a manager, heck make up numbers if you want, everyone else does.

This 30 yr old will have his Business degree before he turns 31. Can't wait!!

JON

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Tony]

Seems like the obvious thing to do is check out. But where to go?

Wherever you want?

Seriously, take this time to do the things you wanted to do all along, especially if you don't have kids. (Children bring a certain level of responsibilty that inhibits risk-taking.)

Me, I am thinking about leaving the tech sector, after 20 years of work. I am the mid-thirties receding-hairline guy you will eventually become. I am considering opening a brewpub one day soon.

I want to do this not because I can't find work, but because I'm fucking tired of the industry. I'm tired of monied interests setting the computer industry back 12 years, and personal rights back 100 years. I'm tired of an industry in which space-time is warped by a single black hole, from which neither light nor innovation ever escapes.

I imagine this is why most big companies go for younger, less-jaded programmers.

Go back to school, get that physics degree for which you've been hankering. Learn a new trade; carpentry is nice (especially finish carpentry). Open a freakin' brewpub.

The world always needs more beer.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Lord Omlette]

But where to go?

I'm planning to commit suicide after I graduate. The biggest obstacle to just killing myself off right now is that I don't want my parents stuck repaying the $120k loans I blew on this worthless college education.

Think about it: reincarnation can't possibly bring you back into a worse situation, right?

Re:Where do programmers go?

[ruzel]

I'm always surprised to hear programmers asking where to go when each and every one of us is not only walking storehouse of ideas, but a production factory of software. Look around the world of software, look to what your friends and family do with computers and use those problem-solving brains of yours to make something new. Make it and put it out there and as you perfect it, sell it. Maybe someone should write a self-help book for programmers off the dole, but I really believe that if you are on the internet, you are connected to the world and there are 4.5 billion people in that world. If 1% of 1% of 1% of the world wants something you make, you have 45,000 customers.

The general trends of the last two decades have been personalization and decentralization. Get out of the mentality that you need to be part of corporation or a business to get anything done. Think small, keep it simple and make something insanely great. If the mantra of the hacker is "figure out how it works" then the mantra of the hacker entrepreneur should be "figure out how to make it better". We are all of us hacker entrepreneurs if that's where we put our minds.

In the tech industry there are too many examples to site of people who just did something they just thought was neat (Mosaic, the web itself, Napster, Lotus 123, the Apple I, Linux, and on and on) and ended up pretty well off. The only difference between a famous programmer and a talented programmer is that one of them is famous. If you're unemplyed anyway, what have you got to lose?
___________

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Coz]

Grad School - in something Not Computer Science. Look at the world, pick something else that you're interested in (that computers are also used for), and go get a grad degree in it. Accounting. Astronomy. Biology. Chemistry. Various types of Engineering. Law. Medicine. Anything that processes data needs computer people, or needs people doing it who can also program, or (even better) lead computer people.
If you can get a job while in grad school (or through grad school), fine - otherwise, live on scholarships/loans/handouts from parents.

It's almost not enought to be able to do one thing, and do it well, unless that one thing is so rare it's almost unrecognizable - and there are way too many folks out there who designed VBScript web pages competing for the jobs with "programmer" in the title.

Good luck.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Tablizer]

For those of us with no job a good suggestion is retreat inside a government job

The government has an odd, slow maze of buerocratic rules and are generally NOT hiring because of tax revenue short-falls. The military and security are about the only boom areas in gov, and they tend to be filled with grads and existing gov employees from shrinking sectors, such as parks and recreation.

Their hiring practices tend to favor grads rather than experience because gov unions want the higher-level slots for their own (existing) members. I am highly surprised there has not been some class-action age-bias suits. They sue for everything else.

The gov is NOT a sanctuary right now.

BTW, the original poster's alleged slowness will come in handy in the gov. Speed is not something valued there in my observation. What is valued is ability to "navigate" the red tape and catch-22 political mindfields you find yourself in.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm planning to commit suicide after I graduate.

Please please take some H-1B's with you

Re:Where do programmers go?

[xyote]

I used to think that. I mean I deliberately got myself laid off in the early ninties because I though being technical was better than stagnating in some coporate drudge job. But I was wrong. This cyclic discard everything old and get only the latest is getting worse and worse. It's job market Russian roulette and statistically you are going to lose because you are not going to have all 20 of those latest leet skills. None of your old skills, no matter how great, will amount for aught.

No, the way to go is to join one of those corporations, if you can suppress your gag reflex, and imbed yourself in the bureaucratic hierarchy which is a self protecting organism. Even when those companies lay off look at who they lay off, the non politically saavy tech types. Middle management stays entrenched and they're surviviors.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the tech industry there are too many examples to site of people who just did something they just thought was neat (Mosaic, the web itself, Napster, Lotus 123, the Apple I, Linux, and on and on) and ended up pretty well off.

And for every one that "took off", 1,000 others failed and you never hear about it. A small business generally takes YEARS to break even.

BTW, Napster, Netscape, and Lotus are money losers right now.

If you're unemplyed anyway, what have you got to lose?

What is left of your measly savings.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Tablizer]

programmers that can get a job anywhere, so maybe I should just drop it and focus on something that can't be outsourced as easily and often requires on-site support...PHB????? DBA?????

DBA's are as easy to outsource as anything else. No local wires to babysit.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[smack_attack]

IMHO: The market will recover.

Not with this mindset ruling the working class. someone still has to pay taxes, tuition, etc for your new job... those people have to have jobs too. We can't all work for the government, otherwise it's socialism.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing you might try to do is find something that a lot of people need doing. I read NANOG fairly regularly; seems there are a lot of people who are looking for alternatives to the products that are made by big companies. They complain about a lack of desired features and security, among other things. More later ...

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up Xenophobe.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Lord Omlette]

Do no harm.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[0xdeadbeef]

Sell your organs.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I am slooow. At most jobs I've had there are definitely people quicker than I am, and a few that are slower.

So... should I bail? Dan's comments about average programmers struggling resonates with me... I've been out of work since May. It won't be long until I'm a balding guy in his mid 30's, so if the use-the-young-hard philosophy is prevalent, I'm double-whammied. Seems like the obvious thing to do is check out.

Yeah... just end it, dude. Wanna borrow my shotgun?

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Just hand it to me stock first... : )

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up Xenophobe

Go fuck yourself, globalist traitor

Re:Where do programmers go?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have done what you suggested and have lost 6 years of time designing and marketing software.

My software was designed for the environmental market. Projections were for thousands of sales at prices in the $1000-$3000 range. The results after 6 years of development and marketing: a total of 20 (twenty) inquiries concerning the product and only a handful of sales. The product is incredibly full-featured, with a rich easy-to-use interface that allows users to learn it quickly themselves. No bugs whatsoever have been found in the software. The customers who bought it *love* the software. Unfortunately all that doesn't make the venture financially worthwhile.

My conclusion: an attempt by an individual to market software is near madness. Get a salaried job instead - almost *any* job would do. Because by the time you realize how badly things can go, you will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in opportunity cost. The odds of winning in the software development game may be even lower than the odds of winning the lottery.

The fraction of developers who write a software package and succeed in building a reasonable income from that software is small indeed.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[DrCode]

Sure, you've named a few successes. I could name a few successful actors too. Does that mean that any one with a talent for acting can become a movie star?

Most people who go into programming do so because they're good at working with machines, NOT because they love working with people. Selling and marketing are both full-time jobs, as are programming, testing, and accounting; that's why people form companies.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[DrCode]

For me in the short term: teaching.

For the longer term, I'm looking into being an actuary. But I can't say yet whether it's a safe thing to go into, or if I've even got the talent for it.

Re:Where do programmers go?

[tyen]

Check out Jay Abraham before you give up. Most people in general, and this is doubly so of technical people, know jackshit about sales and marketing. By applying just a smidgen of sales and marketing principles to my technical specialist work, I trebled my income. I know you said you marketed, but believe me, just as there is an order of magnitude difference between unskilled and highly skilled programmers, there are a lot of crap marketers out there, and only a few gems.

Re:Trick or troll

[x98chn]

Troll Thursday? Crap, and to think I wasted most of it sleeping... Thanks for the warning though...

That's not the fault of the market

[Jon Erikson]

Hmmm. Well you as Mr. Top-Flight Consultant may have enough disposable income to provide for your own healthcare and retirement but that does not mean the rest of the working population does. These systems would not be in place if most people COULD provide these things for themselves.

No, these policies were put in place in order to secure votes from people who were unwilling to work, or unemployable. They certainly weren't done for any other reason.

I don't know why you think people exist for the benefit of the market.

We don't; it's the other way around. But for the market to serve us, it needs to be unfettered from all of the many restrictions and special cases that the Government has kept hitting us with over the last fifty years. Even though Bush has supposedly engaged in a vast program of deregularization, it's just a smokescreen for more special interest politics for his corporate masters.

As long as USian presidents keep spreading their ass cheeks for their corporate paymasters, we'll see this kind of economic irregularities... only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.

Re:That's not the fault of the market

[Ian Wolf]

only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.

The only thing I can say in response to this is...

Laissez-faire in theory is perfect.
Socialism in theory is perfect.
Marxism in theory is perfect.
Trickle-Down Economics in theory is perfect.
Democracy in theory is perfect.

As soon as you insert the human factor, everything goes to shit.

Re:That's not the fault of the market

[SirSlud]

> As long as USian presidents keep spreading their ass cheeks for their corporate paymasters

Let me get this straight. In a free market, there are no regulations. But in a regulated market, we prevent any one company from becoming _too_ big, and generally set some limits and try and prevent any minority from reaping the benifits of the system at the cost of others. (I work in advertising, so you'd have a hard time convincing me that failure in a free market doesn't have anything to do with current market leaders using their marketing clout and screwing with industry standards to create artificially high barriers to market.)

Except we can't get to the free market, because when companies because _too_ big, it becomes _too_ easy to influence the policies set by the government.

The 'free market' is its own worst enemy. It allows entities to reach the kind of unbridled success, wealth, and power that corrupts.

If you believe in democracy, in the checks and balances we _regulate_ in politics (ie, no body as abolute power), I'm not sure why people are so shy about instilling the same kind of rule-based checks and balances in the economy. (Well, we do, but some fight them.) Clearly the fact that you can't achieve _absolute_ power in government hasn't prevented people from wanting to work for it and participate, so why does the idea of regulating the economy through distributed decentralized processes (read: not centrally set policies) scare people so much?

Polyani had much to say about this, I think. Basically, when people hear about regulating markets, they assume one group with no oversight or accountability will make the decisions required to minimize human suffering at the hand of the invisible hand (not all humans that suffer deserve it donchaknow) .. why not make it a decentralized processes with groups of consumers and groups of producers getting together and deciding what regulations are best for everybody?

To me, a free market is simply tantamount to anarchy, where due to a complete lack of limitations and rules allows a small driven minority to use their combined might to create their own 'rules', making the lack of any a moot point.

Re:That's not the fault of the market

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me, a free market is simply tantamount to anarchy, where due to a complete lack of limitations and rules allows a small driven minority to use their combined might to create their own 'rules', making the lack of any a moot point."

On a much smaller scale, doesn't that remind you of what ICANN is doing? To me, free market means free to use position/influence toward your own ends.

Re:That's not the fault of the market

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me, a free market is simply tantamount to anarchy"

anarchy, from an explicitly Hobsian/war-of-all-against-all/right-wing perspective.This Libertarian ideal, the superstitous belief in a market completely *free* of regulation coincides with the policies actively pursued in contemporary neo-liberal politics and their misuse of rhetoric, eg. "free trade" as preached by the Harvards school of economcs Apostels-"free trade" sounds great because its supposedly/purportedly *free*, it kind of sounds a lot like "freedom"-but what it means in economic terms is a political debate over the degree and form of governmental private cooptation. Collusion between the public and private sectors has been the basis of every modern state since at least early 1920's-regulations in a sense form the environment in which coprorations(organims) grow-the biotope, without this there would be no economy-hell if we did away with all regulations we would have to eliminate the regulations imposed in the charters which enable corporations to exist, or the regulations regarding the currency of said economy. As long as the US tax department redirects X% of its potential revenue, through things like the 401k which allows ~60 million americans to invest up to 10% of their income in non-taxable funds which are then invested in the stock market-can we call this a *free* market-the government is underwriting the stockmarket in a BIGGG way.....

"so why does the idea of regulating the economy through distributed decentralized processes (read: not centrally set policies) scare people so much?"

most "left-wing anarchists" would cheer such a move.....

Housing market

[sulli]

Housing prices dropped a lot -- something that hasn't happened this time, to my astonishment

YET. Rents are way down here, and foreclosures are up, which means banks will be dumping property cheap - exactly what this ridiculous housing market needs.

Killer schedule??

[Sanga]

What would that look like?

12:00 Pop off Saddam
13:30 Tea with Mandela (note to self: do NOT kill)
17:00 ..

And what would the secretary say: "Your 2 o'clock cancelled. He died of heart attack last night."

Care to comment, Dan? :-)

Cable and telecom were deregulated badly

[alispguru]

The right way to deregulate a "natural monopoly" industry like cable is:

First add a bunch of regulations that add up to "you may not use your current monopoly to stomp on potential competitors". Add enough monitoring to ensure this is enforced.

Then set threshholds for competition and say that once sufficient competition exists, deregulation happens. Leave open the possibility of reregulation if competition fails.

In the cable and telecom industries, the first step above was generally skipped, allowing cable companies to arbitrarily raise rates and telecom companies to screw DSL providers.

Focus on personalities?

[kawika]

Dan sez: "Mainstream journalists are generalists, for the most part. At most big newspapers, reporters frequently change beats. This is done for freshness of approach, and to avoid common problems (such as getting too close to sources) that can affect fairness. The downside, of course, is a lack of depth at times."

Perhaps not only a lack of depth, but a focus on the commonalities of all news stories like the personalities. That problem seemed particularly bad during the bubble. There was a lot of focus on Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Bezos and the others when perhaps they should have scrutinized the viability of the company's businesses and products. Instead, most "news outlets" became a direct conduit for company PR and analyst disinformation.

Housing Prices in the Silicon Valley

[HaeMaker]

He was talking about housing prices and why they haven't dropped during this latest crash.

The reason is simple. In the early '90s, the crash was localized and mostly based on military cut-backs. Since the rest of the country was not experincing the bust, interest rates were still high.

Therefore, the housing bust was causeed by 10% unemployment (people having to sell because they lost thier job) with 11% 30-yr-fixed mortgage rates (people unable to qualify for mortgages).

Today, with high unemployment we have 6.5% interest rates since the problem is nationwide. Now, people with decent jobs can qualify for mortgages and the houses are flying off the market and the unemployed/less income are either selling or simply refinancing.

Jack up the interest rates and the housing market will crash.

Re:Housing Prices in the Silicon Valley

[moosemoose]

Housing construction has remained relatively flat over that last 30 years at about 1.5 million units per year. Population growth has increased exponentially and is now at about 3.5 million per year. You figure it out.

Sure it was fun to share a house with a bunch of other people in my 20's when i was single but now i would sacrifice a greater portion of my income for my own home. Don't count on a housing crash until supply (which is highly regulated by government) exceeds the absorbtion rate caused by population increase. (e.g. never IMHO).

Is it just me...

[Twister002]

or whenever someone labels themselves as a "top flight consultant" or "someone at the top of my business", I just want to slap them.

It's like someone trying to give themselves a nickname "Call me Mad Dog", "No, I'm going to call you "Flame Sparker Smelly" from now on."

Re:Is it just me...

[vsprintf]

or whenever someone labels themselves as a "top flight consultant" or "someone at the top of my business", I just want to slap them.

Whenever someone claims to be an expert, I know they haven't learned enough about a subject to realize they still have a lot to learn. Then, when he signed himself an "IT Guru", I couldn't decide whether to puke or cross my legs and start chanting OOP . . . OOP . . . OOP . . .

I totally disagree.

[lorcha]

First of all, here is a good article on why airline deregulation was a good thing. In a nutshell, unless your credentials beat "Professor of Political Economy, Emeritus, at Cornell University", we're going to have to accept that you are totally wrong on this point. He pretty much refutes everything you've said about airline deregulation.

Also, I'm not sure about your anecdotal evidence on Cable, but I can tell you that Cox cable was able to get me a cable modem a full 1.5 /years/ before regulated Verizon got off their asses long enough to get DSL available at my (urban) home. Even if DSL was rolled-out, it would have taken them 6 weeks to do an install where my cable modem took 3 days. Cox had a 0% price increase last year and my basic cable costs $6 since I have a cable modem through them. By contrast, my regulated Verizon local phone service costs like 50 bucks! Amazing!

Deregulation, if done correctly, is a good thing. If you want to write a treatise against deregulation, cite the CA power deregulation or something.

Re:I totally disagree.

[dasmegabyte]

One of the first rules of debate is that a title does not make one's argument correct by association. FYI, my information on deregulation comes not from speculation but from observed values and it comes from an article analyzing the subject in March's Scientific American, a magazine that may not have the words "Political" or "Emeritus" in the title but does have the word "Scientific."

By the by, the big cable companies including Cox rolled out their cable modem plans back around 1994 (I was beta testing my TW line in 1996. 800 kB/s was common, I shit you not) when cable was still regulated. That supports the argument that deregulation increases innovation. This was going to be their big play into telephony, to eventually eclipse the phone companys and increase revenue despite regulation. Price for the modem service was $30 per month; it has now risen to $44.95 for a much slower line and shakier service. Thanks for the dereg.

Re:I totally disagree.

[lorcha]

And to think I always thought the first rule of debate was that if you don't give specifics and cite your sources, people might think that you're talking out of your ass. I'm still more inclined to believe a study by a Political Economy prof from a respected University than some dude on Slashdot who thinks he remembers reading an article on the subject once but we can't read the article (you didn't post a link, and 90 seconds of googling for it turned up nothing).

Anyhow, my point was that deregulation can be a good thing for both consumers and industries if thought through and done correctly and it can also be a disaster, otherwise. I also assert that your argument that deregulation must be bad was weak since it was supported by inaccurate information. Fair enough? :-)

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, sigh

[Tranvisor]

Bush helped an idiot get in as chairman as this new commitee. Republican Cand. => Bush friend, former CIA, FBI Head, lots experience in criminal matters, very very little in civil (read == accounting/buisness) matters. Democrat Cand. => Buisnessman, lots of experience dealing with accounting.

Voting was straight down party lines. The Republican cand won because the comittee for selection was 3 Rep, 2 Demo.

Yeah. He does read /. regularly

[Jaguar777]

I'm not as knowledgable about process techniques as I'd like to be, so the rest of this answer is going to be a bit speculative

The long version of IANAL

I sometimes get that impression, too. But [defensively] I don't think it's as bad as you believe.[/defensively]

[sarcasm]Where have I seen this before?[/sarcasm]

Re:Gillmor

[Anonymous Coward]

it's funny because their names are similar.

One answer: Southwest Airlines

[Jim McCoy]

When the airlines were deregulated, prices skyrocketed and became more mysterious, new aircraft types became fewer, meals and perks got skimpier, and share value was decreased.

This is demonstrably false. I guess you just don't remember the days before airline de-regulation very well, but it was more expensive and there were far fewer options available to the traveller. The market de-regulation allowed the emergence of low-cost carriers like Southwest, JetBlue, RyanAir, etc. and these have been an outstanding benefit to the average air traveller.

While the major airlines are currently getting their much-deserved comeuppance for overspending and failing to adapt to the changing market, there are several airlines which stand out from the crowd for having managed to grasp key insights into the nature of the changes that de-regulation imposed upon the air travel market and have prospered as a result. The poster-child for this is Southwest airlines, a small airline that realized that the democratization of air travel (prior to de-regulation the majority of Americans had never flown in an aircraft, after de-reg the numbers have shifted significantly towards air travel as a common and preferred mode of transportation) would allow them to efficiently run short-haul flights with quick turn-around and fewer costly perks to the air traveller. By avoiding the hub-and-spoke arrangement of its competitors and running short flights on a common airframe SWA was able to get more flights out of fewer planes. It also cut down its maintenance costs and per-passenger operating costs.

And how exactly is the dearth of new aircraft types the fault of airline de-regulation? If anything, there were too many different aircraft types. One of the things which is killing the major airlines like American or United is the fact that they have too many different types of aircraft: each one requires its own set of maintenance procedures and facilites and a maintenance and pilot staff trained for that aircraft type. Airlines do not exist to keep aeronautical engineers employed. The decrease in the number of aircraft types being flown is a good thing for the air traveller!

Additionally, most air travellers do not really care about perks and meals if they can get from point A to point B cheaper. BTW, what are the frequently flyer programs that have sprouted up in the post-de-regulation world if not the most successful perk program ever?

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[dasmegabyte]

Airlines were deregulated a LONG time ago, southwest is a relatively new phenomenom that appears to NOT be working.

And my point about the elimination of perks is not that it decreases the price of a ticket -- most people would gladly pay another $5 for a better meal, which is what it would cost -- but rather that the elimination of perks increases shareholder value. There was a piece of trivia somewhere that said that United Airlines saved something like $50k one year by eliminating a single cherry tomato from a first class salad. Pretty impressive for the company, but it's not enough to drop any significance from the cost of a ticket (what's a tomato? less than a penny?). The problem with recent airline price cuts is that they're entirely market driven and have nothing to do with what it really costs to fly on an airplane, and apparently the big airlines have no interest in finding out what it costs because they have to sell at market value to avoid getting crushed. A government agency, on the other hand, would know exactly how much it costs, to be sure that the airline wasn't unfairly inflating the price. This would prevent cutthroat competition as surely as it prevents the lack of competition we see in unregulated cable.

Basically, regulation serves to capcitate all change. Big profits are removed, and so are big losses. Since the latter is much worse than the former to the country as a whole, I support regulation. Well, SANE regulation, anyway.

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[demonlapin]

Southwest first flew in 1971.

Airlines were deregulated in 1978.

What was that you were saying?

Big profits are removed, and so are big losses. Since the latter is much worse than the former to the country as a whole, I support regulation.

Look, whether or not you agree with regulation is up to you. But removing big losses is generally not a good economic idea, because it makes uncompetitive companies survive. Remember that if a major airline went under tomorrow, all its physical assets don't magically disappear. Some other airline would buy up the planes, the gates, the landing rights, you name it. The world didn't collapse when Eastern Airlines bit the dust. Sure, some people lost their jobs, but that's why we have unemployment benefits - to get them through the tough times until they can find another job.

Stick with the cable cases - but don't pretend that deregulation was always a flop. It did wonders for trucking, rail transport (of freight), air travel, and long distance. It can be done badly - like power in California - but it's worked more times than it hasn't.

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[Jim McCoy]

Airlines were deregulated a LONG time ago, southwest is a relatively new phenomenom that appears to NOT be working.

You are just making this up as you go, aren't you? For starters, Southwest was incorporated BEFORE the airlines were de-regulated. It was able to adapt quickly and take advantage of the new opportunities that emerged. Quick pop quiz moron. what is the only airline to report a profit last quarter? Southwest. What is the only airline to NEVER report a quarterly loss? Southwest. If that is your definition of failure and having the government set prices is your idea of a solution then the only other question I can ask is "what color is the sky in your world?"

You are correct that people would rather pay $5 for a better meal, but not one served by the airline. If you actually were allowed to leave your padded room and read once in a while you would discover that the recent trend has been for airline passengers to forgo the airline-provided slop and pick up a meal at the terminal restaurant (usually to the dismay of other passengers who can't quite figure out where the smell of McD's french fries is coming from...)

It absolutely amazes me that people think they can get away with outright lies and deception in online forums where the counter examples are a simple Google search away. Please take your trolling BS elsewhere.

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Please take your trolling BS elsewhere.

Where would he take it? This is slashdot -- preferred by trolls two to one over Everquest.

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Please take your trolling BS elsewhere.

Oh get off it. Being ignorant is not the same as being a troll. The guy still had some good points.

Re:One answer: Southwest Airlines

[pjp6259]

According to a recent article (3-4 months ago) in Consumer Reports, deregulation overall has not been sucessful. I can't link to it because Consumer Reports is a pay only site, and I saw it in the print edition. The general idea in the article was that prices were falling before the deregulation, and that overall prices fell faster when industries were regulated than when they after they were deregulated. They compared I think about 5-6 industries, including phone, cable, airlines.

Re:Gillmor

[m.e.l.l.e.n.t.i.n.e]

Shut up, manwhore. That wasn't the joke at all.

Answer: Destablize competing countries

[cryofan2]

THe answer to the loss of our jobs to other countries is to use the power and money we still have in order to destabilize competing countries. We need to use our military and our money to create chaos and instability in those countries that compete for our labor. For example, we can destablize India in a number of ways. One way is by instigating war in that region: remember when it looked as if Pakistan and India might go to war? Remember how the Indian software consulting companies squealed about how things were really going to be OK?

Capital investment is the only way that these developing countries can compete with us. If instability and chaos reign in India and China, all the capital and all the jobs come back here.

But such overt tactics can be dangerous for us. We need to be more subtle, like for example, backing warlords in order to balkanize countries.

Or we can just go right for the throat with harsh anti-competitive actions, and make it illegal for any company who operates telecommunications here in the USA to be able to connect data communications links between the USA and any third world country, or those whose wages are so low that they pose a threat to our wages. Western Europe is OK--their wages do not pose a theat as far as outsourcing goes.

You say this is an outrageous proposition? Do you to eat?

I have been promoting this idea on Slashdot and other forums for years, but no one listens. A pity....

shady dealings

[RageEar]

I don't doubt at all that there was plenty of beyond-questionable behavior in private companies.

I can attest to this.

I joined a startup fresh out of college with high hopes of a multi-million dollar IPO. Unfortunately this didn't happen and money started to run out.

But the staggering amount of money that the company got didn't seem be used very efficiently.

For example...

• We had a VP of Sales who lived in NJ (the headquarters were in NH) and he took a limo to an from the airport every time he was in town.
  
• The company revamped the lobby of the building to look more "professional". Rumor has it that it cost about 1 million. And the end result is that it looks like a strip club.
  
• The VP of Engineering was (and still is) sleeping with the Director of HR. They were both married. (OK, that has nothing to do with money, but it is still shady!)
  

After leaving the company (I was let go), I started to hear all the dirt that stayed behind closed doors. I heard about the VPs taking huge bonuses every month, despite deadlines not being made and revenue not being generated. I even got wind of employees who were friends of said VPs getting substantial chunks of change.

I can only imagine what other monetary blunders and shady deals were made that I never heard about.

Re:shady dealings

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go back to trolling the Yahoo Finance message boards and FuckedCompany?

Yes, Europe is ok *now*

[Jon Erikson]

Because it has relied extensively on its advantage in intellectual capital and the assistance of its USian allies.

But as you said yourself, excessive regulation has lowered growth and profits, and as time goes on the One World-esque policy of the EU (or United States of Europe as one of its more honest proponents wants it to be called) will ensure more and more subsidies, regulations and red tape. Just look at the countries clamouring to sign up and receive their share of the EU cash pie!

Nope, as more and more poor countries join and we see massive wealth redistribution from richer countries to poorer, the EU will stagnate and eventually decay. Coupled with the rise of intellectual capital in places like India and China, this will signify a loss of the primacy Europe has held for centuries, turning it into little more than an overregulated backwater.

Re:Yes, Europe is ok *now*

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are an idiot.

problem: elected leaders dont represent workers

[cryofan2]

The problem with the strategy I propose is that our elected leaders (e.g., Cheney, Bush, Daschle, et al.) do not represent the wage earners who are losing jobs to overseas competition. Instead, they represent investors. They is why they have facilitated the movement of capital and our jobs overseas.

It is this movement of capital that is at the bottom of the loss of white collar/blue collar jobs overseas. Yes, at first there is a net benefit for those wage earners in the developed countries who still have jobs and money--they get lower prices. But in essence that is a Ponzi scheme--the globalists are saying, "it's turtles all the way down". But in essence, we are feeding on our bodies. TANSTAAFL, etc.

But eventually the bottom is reached. And I think some of you are now getting a sense that there is a price to be paid for globalism. It aint turtles all the way down. This country is a business, and we are the owners, and any business that "encourages* competition is a business with a short future.

But will you wake up in time to do something about?

THe first thing we need to do is get rid of our elected leaders. TO a person, AFAIK, they work for monied interests who always benefit by the loss of our jobs to overseas 3rd worlders.

I voted yesterday, and every vote went to 3rd parties.

Mostly Green party--not that I care fo all their ideas. But at least they are not in the pockets of Big Money.

We need to publicly hang for treason BushCheneyDaschle and the other minions of Big Money (e.g., such CorpGovMedia lackeys as you might find writing columns in the Wall St Journal). Of course, such hangings should only occur after being found guilty of treason in a recognized court of law. Lawlessness does not promote an influx of capital.

This is how the people kept their leaders in check for thousands if years (heads will roll, etc). Maybe it's time we got back to fundamentals.

Silicone valley

[macdaddy357]

Instead of asking questions about all the computer stuff in silicon valley, why not interview some of the prOn stars from silicone valley about their business.

"Hyper-conservative"?

[Ticonderoga]

When did the basic freedom of the parties to work out the terms of their contract become a "hyper-conservative economic policy?"

Many geeks not cut out for management

[Tablizer]

Yes, bail now. Why be dilbert when you can be the pointy haired boss? You don't have to be good at managing to be a manager, heck make up numbers if you want, everyone else does.

I wish it was that easy, but you have to have good diplomacy and bullshitting skills. Us geeks tend to prefer frankness and logic, but that is not what managers deal with.

It is the skill of telling a CEO what they *want* to hear, yet trying get the job done despite all the pressures caused by the OTHER BS exports that also surround CEO besides you.

It is a complex social game where the rules are not well documented, and the clues subtle. These were the skills that alleged "goofoffs" got in high school by hanging out with their buddies and talking over bears instead of doing their homework.

I cannot master the social calculus needed for it. It is beyond my brain's ability. Kirk was the captain, not the Volcan for good reason. You could not turn Spock into a Kirk in a few months. I won't happen.

Re:Many geeks not cut out for management

[Anonymous Coward]

Kirk was the captain, not the Volcan

"Now you remember, right?
He was the pointy eared creature, you know?
Half human, half volcano,
and he was forever tormenting old Boney
with his cold volcano logic ..."
-Patrick Stewart, SNL

Re:Many geeks not cut out for management

[Anonymous Coward]

My spell-checker does not do Trek.

"Stars are still in demand"

[kisrael]

I wonder how one becomes a "star programmer".

Or, failing that, how one fakes looking like one resume and interview wise.

I'm worried about the offshore issue. I'm a somewhat well cultured (I was going to say well-rounded but decided to duck the obvious joke) programmer in his late-20s (English as well as Comp Sci major from the mid90s) but I don't know what I'll do if this career path proves infeasible.

Still, I think the hassle bar is way high for offshore development. They have as many or more really bad programmers as we do, and when combined with a lenghtening of the critical product management/feedback loop, that can be deadly. I just hope enough companies realize that before they get too much in bed with these guys.

Are you watching, Dan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan reads slashdot, and knows the kind of idiot trolls we get here

And yet this post itself gets modded as troll. I'm not sure whether to say the moderator is >b?+1 funny or -1 anal retentive

p.s. Dan, if you're reading this, tell us what you think of all the trolls and power-mad mismoderations

Right........oh wait....

[NDPTAL85]

How about we figure out a way to keep our standard of living high without taking out the rest of the world?

I mean its not as if the rest of the world will sit by idly while we destabilize them. They'll wage war for their very survival. And they may win. They might not, but then again, why chance it? You make it sound like we're lining up for mile long breadlines as happened during the Great Depression (33% unemployment). Right now we're bitching and moaning about 5.6-5.8% unemployment. Oh yes by all means lets kill ever non-American in that case!

Re:Right........oh wait....

[cryofan2]

You wrote:
>>
How about we figure out a way to keep our standard of living high without taking out the rest of the world?
>>

TANSTAAFL! It's cold world, kid; get used to it.

>>
I mean its not as if the rest of the world will sit by idly while we destabilize them. They'll wage war for their very survival.
>>

Do you see how businesses compete with one another in the marketplace? It's the same for countries, although CorpGovMedia does not propagate this particular meme. It is a competitive world, and not a nice one. But living well has it own rewards.

>>
And they may win. They might not, but then again, why chance it?
>>

If we lose, we lose our way of life. We lose our wages. We lose medical care. We lose our variety of foods. We lose years of life. Go see Russia. THat is where we are headed unless we take action.

>>
You make it sound like we're lining up for mile long breadlines as happened during the Great Depression (33% unemployment).
>>

It's happened before. What magic will we call upon to prevent it? Only our actions can prevent it. I have proposed such actions. Debunk if you, or propose real alternatives, along with proposes mechanism to enable such alternatives. But you have yet to do such. I am waiting.

The difference between journalists and pundits

[writertype]

I still fail to see what the difference is between Dan Gilmor or John Dvorak or Jon Katz. News reporters generally interview more people over the course of the day than a columnist--look at how many sources cited in a typical column, for example. But columnists can express opinions, (U.S.) news reporters can't. That's both the danger and benefit of U.K. news reporting, where a reporter can label something as crap without being considered (unprofessionally) biased.

Re:The difference between journalists and pundits

[Anonymous Coward]

OHMIGAWD!

Dvorak is a buffoon... A moron. He is ignorant about many things.

Katz is, well... young... and myopic. Maybe in 15 years he might have something interesting to say that is not pandering to current sentiment (like obvious stuff)

Gilmor is probably the best out there who actually has a brain and uses it. His columns highlight important issues and provoke intelligent discourse. He is also well positioned contact-wise in San Jose/Silicon Valley/SF, etc.

I cannot believe you spoke of Dan Gilmor and Dvorak in the same breath. Dvorak is like the Rush Limbaugh of computer punditry.

And Katz is little more than Slashdot member who published a book. BFD.

I hope this clears things up. :)

When will we see real deregulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Airline deregulation didn't make landing rights available to all airlines equally, The big boys still had all the good gates at the big hitraffic airports.

Telecomm deregulation didn't make "the last mile" of copper available to other vendors wither! The baby bells still had their monopoly on that last mile and on the local call business. So no competetion really happens there either.

Financial deregulation gave us Enron, WorldCom, Global Xing, and Mr. Pitt stioll trying to "deregulate" (really to de-ethicize) the financials industry. Because the big boys still control information about market conditions, and they control the investments made by the mutual funds, and they tell managers of large pension funds which stocks are safe and which are not.
My two bits!

European Prosperity

[Webmoth]

"...they didn't stop Europe from dragging itself to prosperity after WW2."

To believe what I learned in high-school history, it was the United States, under the Marshall Plan, that drug Europe to prosperity after WW2.

World War II utterly devastated mainland Europe, mostly from Allied bombing. Europe was essentially blasted back into medeival times: roads, railroads, shipping, communications were all decimated. Manufacturing and agriculture were severely disabled.

Through the financial backing of the United States, Europe was prevented from falling into deep poverty and becoming a third-world society. It would be wrong to say that the Marshall Plan made Europe prosperous (who ever prospered on welfare?). No, European prosperity, as in any prosperous society, has come from hard work and innovation. Prosperity can not be given.

Europe might have become prosperous even without the Marshall Plan, but it certainly didn't hurt.

Cost of Maintnence

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maintenance cannot be assured, since keeping the project structure in place following the initial delivery of code costs too much to allow that to be an option in the maintenance phase and not having access to the people who wrote the code makes maintenance cost more too.

So very true. If the employer wants a change in code and can contact the original programmer in real time, it is *vastly* more efficient that having another outsourced programmer, who likely has never seen the code, read through it and determine how to make the necessary change(s). Worse yet, as code changes are implemented iteratively by different outsources, the maintenance costs will sky rocket over time as the techniques of different programmers are unlikely to be the same, comments become useless, and changes that break other parts of the program become more frequent. But considering that would be forward looking on the part of management, unrelated in their view to the bottom line today. *sigh*

Help me fix the tech slump

[Tablizer]

The IT industry has always suffered periodic booms and busts. In the early 1990s people assumed the market for PCs had gone ex-growth. Whoops.

But this time it was preceeded by a big bubble, not a small one. Bigger bubble == longer popping.

We need some new tech fad to jumpstart it all again. Holographic porn? Digital shoes? AI toilets? Digital slide-rulers? Open source nuclear weapons simulations software? H-1B exploitation management software? ("ExpLoitus 1-2-3"), Scooters that do taxes? Ink-jet toilet paper enemy face printers? Another programming language named after a beverage?

Come on people, add ideas. We need another fad bubble here to move a large number of gold-digger techies from the real jobs into the fad ones, leaving the real ones for us.

Re:Help me fix the tech slump

[Anonymous Coward]

Got one for ya: Programmable breast implants. Adjust them to suit your needs (and desires).

"Now where did I put that damned remote?"

Did you try to copy files from a VCD using MacOS?

[iskander]

To answer directly: I don't think Apple has an anti-DRM strategy, though, even if I wish they'd go for it. I do think Apple has a generally pro-customer stance, which is a heck of a lot better than some other companies out there.

That's very generous of you, Dan -- too generous, I think. Let me tell you a little story of which you are almost certainly unaware. I own a Terapin CD recorder; I bought this because it allows me to make digital clips from an analog source (like my old Blaupunkt Video 8 camera, with which I recorded many important events in my life) right in my living room. When I tried to retrieve the MPEG-1 files from a VideoCD I made from tapes of my aunt's 1993 wedding, my iMac claimed that there was a device failure. I didn't believe it, so I booted Windows 95 (a pre-DRM, pre-CD-burning-craze OS) using Connectix's Virtual PC and tried the same thing -- and succeeded. Now, given that the hardware was the same and that the only difference was the operating system, I have to conclude that MacOS is at fault.

Perhaps the company is looking for some balance in a situation where the sides are turning the issue into a binary question, i.e., total control or total anarchy. Example of balance: Apple doesn't enable iPod users to copy to other disks (not directly), but it hasn't done anything as far as I know to stop the third parties who make it easy to do so.

Let me see: Apple makes it impossible to copy some files from a VideoCD using the pre-installed operating system and it is only by resorting to a hardware emulator that uses only the very lowest-level access facilities of the host operating system that I am able to get around this limitation. Er... yeah, I guess that's technically "not stopping third parties who make it easy to do" but I wouldn't call this sort of crap an example of balance or a pro-customer stance. I say Apple is indeed interested in some sort of DRM (think Pixar) but prefers the solution to be a voluntary, software-based one -- rather than a Microsoft-backed, hardware-based one that Bill and Jack imposed by buying a DRM law.

Bio for Dan Gillmor from the IMDB

[lsd4all]

+ Born on March 6, 1946 in Cambridge.

+ Replaced guitarist, Syd Barrett, in Pink Floyd.

+ He also enjoys flying his planes and owns the Intrepid Aviation Company.

+ Had a few solo albums and also worked with Kate Bush.

+ Close friend of the late Douglas Adams.

+ Hates Roger Waters.

Re:Bio for Dan Gillmor from the IMDB

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Dave Gilmour, you twerp.

Kewpie dolls all around

[ackthpt]

It became something of a joke to pretend to have written one thing, and "corrected" it to something more political correct, but to have 'accidentally' left the original intact due to a malfunctioning terminal setting. Correct, the attempt at light humor was intentional and the ^H has been used a number of times in slashdot articles for similar reasons, humor or acceptability.

My familiarity began with the following statement in RSTS Basic:

1000 OPEN "KB:" AS FILE 1%, MODE 2%

Which echos control sequences with the caret and uppercase letter. Informative, alas, off-topic.

Surely Your Joking, Mr. Erikson

[Anonymous Coward]

-- No, these policies were put in place in order to secure votes from people who were unwilling to work, or unemployable. They certainly weren't done for any other reason.--

In what is this faulty idea based? Those "unwilling to work, or unemployable" are somehow so politically active that politicians bend to their needs? Please ....

yo dan

[zogger]

--to revisit outsourcing, and also massive immigration as regards "jobs". I know from a silicon valley perspective there still is "work", but on various other forums and irc channels, in the heartland it's hitting home hard, across the board, white collar and blue collar. I think that your estimate -I'll call it "cautious"- is a severe low-ball estimate. My opinion, this entire economy is tanking, and tanking hard. On one semi large forum I visit, they held an impromptu poll, result, 30% current un-or-underemployment, various fields, not just IT, various, software engineers to teachers to construction, you name it, it appears to be worse anecdotally than the "official" numbers promulgated by the government and wall street. I include in these figures people who have a "job", but have had to keep seeking work with the result every new job has resulted in severe pay cuts, often several in the past two years. This jibes with what else I have noted over net anecodtals for the past 2 or 3 years, most generally speaking.

I think a lot-most-companies are still not bingoing that every laid off / fired worker is also a laid off / fired consumer and customer, thus bad begatting bad leading to worse leading to ..well....I think it's going to get most ugly...

Two questions, 1 -are you aware of ANY high level money guys or CEO's who actually understand what's happening and basically agree with my assessment, and if so, who,, and 2- which fields do you think will persevere no matter how "crashed" we become in terms of more unemployment, inflation or actual depression, etc.

thanks in advance should you choose to respond.

Re:yo dan

[wtoconnor]

Your sample was at best flawed at worst the fact that unemployed people tend to hang out on IRC a lot.

Why should "high level money guys" even care what happens to these people. They got theirs -- they can spend time on their yatch.

Re:yo dan

[Centinel]

On one semi large forum I visit, they held an impromptu poll, result, 30% current un-or-underemployment, various fields, not just IT, various, software engineers to teachers to construction, you name it, it appears to be worse anecdotally than the "official" numbers promulgated by the government and wall street.

The "official" numbers are lower (possibly far lower) than reality because many workers have grown discouraged and dropped out of the labor market.

Decayable processors...

[DrCode]

Intel just needs to make CPU's that decay after 2-3 years.

Re:Decayable processors...

[Tablizer]

Intel just needs to make CPU's that decay after 2-3 years.

They do, when the fan croaks.

Netscape started this

[musicmaster]

Netcaspe was a typical company that did not have a "sustainable business".

Sure, nobody could know that their browser was so horribly programmed that they were bound to loose the feature war with Microsoft. But even without that problem Microsoft would have given them a hard fight and their chances for making a profit within a few years were slim.

I guess too many people couldn't imagine that you could have millions of users and a 90% market share and yet have no chance of making a profit.

what is "face time at the soda machine"?

[Anonymous Coward]

in the mercury news article dan gillmor refers to there's a paragraph that says "Norman Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California-Davis, argues that the actual number of software jobs being shipped overseas is a fraction of the country's total. And it will remain small, he argues, because nothing beats face time at the soda machine for finishing engineering jobs right."

can someone explain to me what "face time at the soda machine" is? thx.

Re:what is "face time at the soda machine"?

[TimMann]

It's a cute way of saying "talking with your co-workers in person". Not necessarily planned meetings (though those work better with personal presence than by video or speakerphone too), but all the unplanned times when you just happen to see someone in the corridor and casually talk about the problems you're working on.

Re:Did you try to copy files from a VCD using MacO

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's fun to be paranoid, you still can't read VideoCDs on a Macintosh even in these OS X days (at least on 10.1, I haven't tried 10.2) because it doesn't support the VCD file system. This is an operating system issue, sure, but it's not "digital copy protection." As loathe as us Apple fans are to admit there are times when Windows knows how to do something that MacOS doesn't, there really are. That doesn't make Apple nefarious. (Bouncing dock icons, now: those make Apple nefarious.)

Sounds like a song!

[DuranDuran]

Now, I'm not going to tell you that conflicts don't occur. Of course they do. The best andidote, and prevention, is sunlight. Several journalism publications keep an eye out for ethical transgressions, but they're not widely read except inside the trade. I'm encouraged by the Web's growing influence in journalism criticism, and not just in traditional ways. I think it's great, for example, that people who are interviewed are posting transcripts of the interviews on their websites, to provide context for how they've been quoted. ...but trust me on the sunlight.

I have several remarks about this interview

[wessman]

"It's getting easier and cheaper to outsource programming jobs to India, Russia and Singapore (among other nations)."

Question for you all: Do you think that U.S. IT job opportunities are already visibly threatened by out-of-country outsourcing? I mean, I'm having a damn hard time finding a new job. And I say that only half jokingly.

"even as America keeps killing its own educational system"

Amazing how many Americas agree with this statement, regardless of their background, yet we are not doing anything positive about it. Vouchers and SOL testing are band-aids, not cures. Money and complete restructuring (of how and what we teach) are the only solution to the public school system in each state.

"hire 'em young, burn 'em out, discard 'em"

Interesting statement. I agree, but at the same time, why does every job listing (for any industry these days) ask for 5 years of this and 10 years of that, yet the starting salary is ridiculously low? Companies don't care about there employees anymore because they think we're all short-timers. Yet, no company wants to stop and ask why we have become short-timers. Additionally, and still because of the short-timer stigma, companies don't want to train new employees, so switching industries or finding a job right out of college is a nightmare, if not impossible. However, those same companies are not willing to pay for that previous experience. They just know you need a job.

"It's disappointing to see so many technology companies jumping into bed with the entertainment cartel instead of fighting for customers' rights ... Here in the U.S., meanwhile, we're moving toward having two or at most three ways to access the Net in any given community. That's terrifying from an innovation and free speech perspective."

I completely agree. But the number of tech savvy customers is growing with each generation. Customers will fight back in ways that government and corporate America will never be able to control. If all the telecos, tech, and entertainment companies do succeed in using law to control and censor the current Internet, customers will create their own solution, be it hacks or an entirely new Internet. We're smarter than they are, and sneakier. Wireless will be a big part of this.

"I strongly believe geeks need to be much more active. The people who want central control of everything are shutting down innovation and freedom -- and geeks have as much to lose as anyone, maybe more."

I agree and I try to do my part. I write my congresspeople and president. I flame specific companies/organizations and spokespeople in public forums, but with facts and smart conclusions to prove a point about what they are trying to do is wrong and foolish (think RIAA, MPAA, MS, etc.). But how much of our activism is taken seriously by the general public, the media, the gov't? When corporate America funds our politicians, how can we win? I'm not saying our activism is fruitless, in fact we all need to do more. But what can be done differently and taken more seriously?