Slashdot Mirror
Pre-Retirement Interview With Intel CEO Barrett
kevcol writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent interview with Intel's CEO Craig Barrett who retires next year. In it, he is asked about topics ranging from labor distribution (oh I'm sorry- outsourcing), the Chinese market, the perils and promise of expanding operations in the Middle East, the state of K-12 schools in the U.S. and declining numbers of home-grown engineers, and more. Notably absent are any questions of AMD. Notice how he likes to pick on sensationalist press by prepending some comments with 'you in the media...'. Anyway, good interview."
"We're graduating a decreasing number of engineers each year" -- Get your ass whomped for 4 years in a engineering program, while all your friends slide by as buisness majors. When you all graduate, they get jobs as managers and you stand in the unemployment line because Intel outsourced all those jobs to India or filled them with H-1B workers. Wow, with those prospects, who *wouldn't* want to go into engineering. (PS - I say this as a PhD student in engineering)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This guy's smugness is a more than a little ridiculous . . . Unlike Newton, who said that he stood of the shoulders of giants . . . this guys thinks he is a giant.
It sounds so incredibly smug. I would say that building something with a lot of transistors is like building something with a lot of bricks (how many bricks/stones in the Great Wall of China?). . . If you count bricks, or rivets, or grams of steel, there are lots of complicated things out there that humans have built . . . Many of these things take a lot more labor and a lot larger organization than Intel . . . Saturn 5's, Great Pyramids, etc. Some things are even intangible . . . the supply chain and resourcing used to move the military might of the US to Europe during WWII for example. At one time there were over one million US troops based in the UK alone . . . and that doesn't consider their supplies and equipment. Not to say Intel doesn't do complex and amazing things, they do . . . but let's keep it in perspective.
And finally for that matter, if I build a multi-processor system am I making a more complicated device than he is? I'm using move transitors than he is . . .
I don't doubt that there are various things that need to be brought to light about Intel's employment policies, but WHY if that site has such a VALID MESSAGE to promote and has ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS to back up their case do they need to resort to sensationalism and sub-high-school-newspaper journalism to get their point across? The whole site reads like a propaganda newletter, with links supposedly linking to relevant documentation just pointing at more sensationalist commentary, and their random emphasis and italicising of words reminds me of MAD magazine.
That site is going to hurt their cause more than help it.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
No, but all the MBAs I've encountered seem convinced that, if they just had the time away from their oh-so-important duties, they could jump right into the lab and show the engineers how to make things hum. On the other hand, I don't know many engineers that feel particularly comfortable operating outside their own areas of expertise, and generally eschew business matters on principle as, well ... uninteresting.
... I'd be inclined to believe that the average engineer is a damn sight brighter than your average MBA. Certainly a lot more useful.
The sad truth is, my friend, that the continued viability of what is left of the American technical and manufacturing sector is far more at risk from the ongoing loss of all kinds of engineering, scientific and technical talent, that it is from a lack of administration. One might easily argue that the poor job prospects of engineers in today's marketplace are directly due to MBAs who've shown little compassion towards their fellow Americans, and no understanding whatsoever of the long-term consequences of their actions. So, yeah
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
At my University, the Business department refers the Engineering department as "Pre-Business". If you look at the students in business a lot of them started out as engineering students and then got burned out and switched to business because it was easier (and the fact that the department tried to schedual classes so there were no Friday classes didn't hurt much either).
I think the whole business department is creating a really bad feedback loop. You have a lot of (poor) students graduating in business who get jobs and are usually in administrative positions. Since they usually aren't very bright/hard working (in my experience) they either make things worse or more inefficient, putting more red tape and levels of burracracy, thus creating a need for yet more business majors. That is why business departments are usually some of the largest on campus and why businesses, especially large ones, are so huge and convoluted. Until business because as hard as engineering, the loop will continue. That's my opinion at least.
Space for rent, inquire within
Barret's "one Generatation ahead" program made the Prescott a barbeque chip instead of a computer chip. They struggled to put the chip into production with a 90 nanometer process that just was not ready.
The Itanic disaster happened after he fell for contrived benchmarks that hid the fact that the processor was not all that powerfull. A good boss should see through and ask the question " how does it perform in real life?"
Intel needs a boss who will face the issues squarely. Intel needs a boss who will speak plainly instead of stooping to Dilbertesque doubletalk. Paul Otellini has potential here. It is a shame Intel has to wait so long before he takes over.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.