Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Yin and Yang of Hour of Code & Immigration Reform

Posted by samzenpus on from the take-this-job dept.

theodp writes "The weeklong Hour of Code kicks off tomorrow, with Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates doing their part to address a declared nationwide CS crisis by ostensibly teaching the nation's schoolchildren how to code. But a recent NY Times Op-Ed by economist Paul Collier criticizing Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC as self-serving advocacy (echoing earlier criticism) serves as a reminder that Zuckerberg and Gates' Code.org and Hour of Code involvement is the Yin to their H-1B visa lobbying Yang. The two efforts have been inextricably linked together for Congress, if not for the public. And while Zuckerberg argues it's 'the right thing to do', Collier argues that there are also downsides to the tech giants' plans to shift more bright, young, enterprising people from the poorest countries to the richest. 'An open door for the talented would help Facebook's bottom line,' Collier concludes, 'but not the bottom billion.'"

6 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. There are plenty of American coders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They just don't want to play American wages.

  2. Re: Two of the most immoral people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually up until the point of the gates foundation, Bill Gates was the ultimate Scrooge. He gae away not one penny, it wasn't until he was called out on that very fact that the Gates foudration was formed.

    Even much of the supposedly altruistic efforts also seem to have an angle:
    http://m.slashdot.org/story/171367

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/31/bill-gates-corporate-profit-vs-humanity.aspx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Philanthropy

  3. Re:Two of the most immoral people by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Informative
    MS had already engaged in some serious antitrust behavior circa 1990, before they were anywhere near the behemoth they are today.

    what a load of crap, Windows may not have been the most secure system but against the horrible burden of IBM and the infancy and general lack of usability of GNU/Linux, Windows was the obvious choice and a choice made by people who were indeed free to choose. To this day some people would rather pretend they were completely helpless and at the mercy of big bad Microsoft than admit they made a poor choice.

    Have you considered that the lack of viable competition might have been the result of robust set of anti-competitive practices? Also, by grossly oversimplifying things like you did, you forget that things weren't all that simple. MS was strong-arming OEMs if they dared to install competing OS's or browsers, and they ignored standards in IE while actively breaking compatibility of plugins.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  4. Re:Ten years of unemployment as a software enginee by csumpi · · Score: 3, Informative

    OK, I'll bite No way you go 10 years unemployed as a software engineer in the US. Unless:

    a. you are lazy
    b. you are incompetent
    c. you printed the website you have in your sig on your resume

    But most likely, it's just all BS.

  5. Re:Two of the most immoral people by spmkk · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...Microsoft decided to "cut off their air supply" (their words) by releasing Internet Explorer (a browser they purchased from a company called Spyglass after Navigator's release) as part of Windows. Not just as an app that happened to ship with Windows, but as a necessary PART OF WINDOWS...

    The skeeziest part of that deal actually wasn't Microsoft's attack on Netscape - it was their raw screwing of Spyglass. For those who don't remember this history, Microsoft licensed Mosaic (which they re-branded as Internet Explorer) from Spyglass for a minimal quarterly licensing fee plus a cut of the revenue from every copy of the browser that they sold. They then proceeded to give the browser away for free** with every copy of Windows, thereby not owing Spyglass any of the commission. Spyglass threatened legal action but apparently never took any, opting to settle for an $8M payout for a piece of technology that made Microsoft hundreds of billions.

    ** I never understood why Spyglass didn't sue Microsoft on the basis that (by Microsoft's own declaration, as AC pointed out) Internet Explorer was an integral part of Windows, and thus some share of the sales revenue for every copy of Windows was de facto revenue from the sale of Internet Explorer. Maybe someone more familiar with the back-story can fill in this blank?

  6. Re:Ten years of unemployment as a software enginee by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

    He's not making fun of him for having religious beliefs, he's making fun of him for being completely oblivious to the fact that maybe he's unemployable because he's suffering delusions.

    It's one thing to believe in some god, I think most people have no problem with that. It's not my cup of tea, but each to there own. However, it's a whole other thing to believe he speaks to you. That requires you to hear voices in your head. That requires you to be actually clinically insane.

    People who are clinically insane tend not to be the best workers.

    You'd have had a point if you'd instead talked about the fact we shouldn't joke about people who have mental health issues, then you'd be right.