1) Contractors at Microsoft (orange badges) almost always made a higher salary compared to employees of similar job functions. Contractors, if and when they would become FT employees (blue badges), would take a significant pay cut to get all the other benefits.
2) MS consistently tries to hire the best people. MS uses contractors to "beta test" these new hires until they are sure that they will perform with a very high level. The only reason this is done is because of the communist labor & discrimination laws in this country, it makes firing MUCH easier. For tax reasons it is much better to have all "employees" - pay them less and give them deductable options.
3) Any "contractor" that was really good would become an employee with no trouble. Why would the company want a good worker not to be tied down with options?
4) The suit happened because a bunch of subpar whiners missed out on the great MS stock rush of the mid nineties. Now, that MS stock is limping a little I wouldn't be surprised to hear the same people, "I'm doing contract work but I'm being forced to be an employee"
5) If you do not like the conditions on which you were hired, you have the CHOICE not to work there.
6) These stupids laws and lawsuits will only give companies incentivies not to hire more contractors - meaning less choice for you, the WORKER!
So assuming people move to this "services" software model, they will only really need an interface to the net, rather than a whole PC. If that's the case, how will processtree.com make money?
But if we don't do this model, and everyone sticks to PCs, how will processtree.com make money?
Ah yes - this is indeed true. However, let me clarify (I should have been more specific earlier).
What has been doubling over the last two hundred years isn't exactly computation in terms of operations/sec. It is actually computation in terms of operations/sec/price. Both Kurzweil and Minsky (and Turing) have written on this. If you trace the amount of computing power that $1,000 buys over the last hundred years or so - you can see that the amount of computation bought per $1k has been doubling every 12-18 months.
We've all heard a lot of talk about the "fundamental boundaries of silicon" and how "Moore's law will be destroyed in 15-20 years". While there are definitive boundaries of the material, the idea that computational speeds will taper off in 15-20 years is complete rubbish.
Most people know Gordon Moore's great "law". What most people don't know is that his profound statement of computation, a) isn't that profound b) isn't originally his idea.
Anyone that has read the works of our favorite British geek, big Alan Turing, knows that he stated in the 30s that computational speeds double every 12-18 months. Turing took a look at the "computers" dating back into the 1800s. From purely human/mechanical, to entirely mechanical, to electro mechanical, to electrical (Vacuum), to transister, to IC, computational speeds have been doubling since Babbage's girlfriend was writing theoretical software! (ok maybe a little later than that..)
The point is that at each stage in computing history, when one medium reached its limit, another picked up and continued seemlessly along. So the broader Moore's law (the smaller scale and actual Moore statement was only regarding ICs), will continue, silicon or no silicon. So then the interesting question is what will pick up when silicon dies. Molecular/Nano would probably be most peoples guess right now.
I'd expect the only failure of "Moore's law" to be that it underestimates the speed in which computing technology will double - my guess is that in 15-20 years it will go even faster than 12-18 months...
The vindictive attitude isn't because of capitalism or even IP. It's a culture clash between the geeks and the sales/marketing folks. Let me explain.
In the past, business was a driver of technology. Someone with marketing and sales experience came up with an idea and said, "Hey engineer, build this and I'll pay you x dollars" The engineer thought, "Wow, that's more than my father made" - and he goes and slaves, and the S&M person (pun intended) gets rich - the engineer gets $62,000/year and a 401k plan.
In the last 10-20 years, things have seemed to shift. Technology is driving business. A bunch of really smart geeks are in a room together, they come up with something really kickass - and they think "I wonder if I could build a business around this.."
But the majority of geeks don't have the Wharton MBA polish, the angel/VC connections, and the network of law school and wall street friends. And unfortunately, these are the people that control the majority of investment capital that flows in this nation.
Geeks are uninterested in these types implementation issues - so much so that they move on to the next cool idea. A year or so later - some MBA reads an article in Wired about the cool new research doing blah..So he does a little market research and finds no one's really doing this "new great technology" yet and throws together a business plan with all the great buzzwords like "first mover, proprietary technology, barriers to entry, exponential growth, etc. etc.. " The entrepeneur manages to convince his old college roommate (who just finished his CS Ph.D) to come onboard. Wow, a Ph.D is the founder of this company, so it must really kick ass!!
So then the entrepeneurs raise some seed capital so they can file their patents and build a really nice website. The seed is used to develop a "working prototype" which is at worst a flash demo and at best some MFC or better yet Java (can't forget the cross platform buzzword) with some socket code. Some additional gold plating is gained through a PR firm and some "strategic alliances".
So the entrepeneurs raise a few million bucks in their 1st round. With this money they manage to hire some more people. The funding also allows recognized "industry vetrans" to be bribed with options to sit on boards. They get an article in Red Herring. Maybe even in Wired (the circle is now complete...-btw,moment of silence OBwan-)
The company burns through that million and maybe even develops a cool app in the process. They call their Street friends and maybe even get an article in the WSJ.. Now some middle-manager at a billion dollar mainstay like Unisys sees the article in the Journal while flying first class from NY to LA. After discussing it with the other middle managers, they come to the conclusion that they can't let this "revolutionary technology" take hold (i.e. 6 inch harddrives dilemma..). So they aquire the company for $12 million. Investors make a bundle, founders make a bundle. Who gets nothing? Yep - the geeks. All the employees past #5 that were promised millions in options and stock.
Now the geeks who developed the initial concept a few years back while at CMU read this on ZDnet and say, "how the hell can they file a patent on this?-that was done years ago". Then they read about how the founders made a killing and think "but that was my idea- all they did was hype it up with some gold-plating".
The founders, who made a lot of money, and increased their credibility among investors, continue along this path of perpetual bullshit. Leap frogging from idea to idea and capitalizing on intelligence that was not originally theirs. The geeks, still driving the same Buicks they were 5 years ago, say "to hell with money. to hell with IP. to hell with suits" They play the only game they know how- writing kick ass code (and maybe a little starcraft) - which is one reason why the gift culture community evolved (that and all of ESR's reasons)..
Think about how similar this is to academia, profs spend way too much time in grad school - barely manage to get a lecturer position at a good school that pays more than $50k/year. Now all their friends from their undergrad CSE days that went to M$ and Cisco -they're also 33 years old but retired -while the prof is still paying off school loans. So the prof'll just stick to "pure theory" and not have any of the business hogwash. Also note that profs who dabble in startups and consulting are often scoffed at by their purist "collegues".
So, since we as a society still manage to measure success in dollars, we are bitter at those who become "successful" through no particular inovation and vision of their own.
So, what are we geeks to do? Rest easy - there are those among us who can speak both languages. There are VC's out there that are old PDP hackers, that can see through BS like Cayman water. It is truly a sight to see a pitching CTO torn to shreds by an enlightened VC.
Advice - find one of these souls. He'll respect your talents and your shortcomings (although I'd hardly call lack of BS/hype skills a shortcoming). He'll allow you to profit from your ideas more so than anyone else-maybe take a small piece for the plating he provides.
Where out here. Our businesses are profitable. We get the job done right - and we do it quietly. It's our nature.
I was at the ESR MSR talk as well - Frankly, you seem to remember it poorly. The only people that looked like fools were the NT core team members that showed up. ESR's argument was that with software getting more and more complex, it would be extremely difficult to produce quality without the OpenSource model. The NT dewelopers didn't buy this and kept shouting out - remember that random woman who had to keep telling them to shut up and raise their hand?
As for Mozilla, ESR never said that "the reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". Actually, he used mozilla as an example of why opensource is not the cure to all ills. What he did say, however, is that "by open sourcing the browser, netscape drove a stake in the ground that M$ would never be able to remove.."
I was working for MS then. That talk got me really thinking about things. A year later, I'm now working for a Linux startup in the valley. I know that there were many other MS employees that thought long and hard about many of the things he said.
Haven't heard too much in the posts about MS's new game engine API that is to be released in future versions of its Direct X API. This along with some of the new features of DirectX 9 will make game development very easy for the casual coder. I've seen some demos of the new DirectMusic syncro that are really sweet. I expect their tactics to be as follows: -Make this the easiest console to dev for -Through use of new i/o such as ether and hd spreading content will be easier than on any other device -With people developing and demo groups pumping out some really cool stuff, I expect many people to pick these up. Most importantly, I think the ether and potential PC integration could be huge...i.e. with 100Mbs, could I potential outsource some processing to my PC? Maybe hook into my win2k cluster for realtime raytracing/radiosity rendering?
Slashdot Mirror
The whole thing is a shame:
1) Contractors at Microsoft (orange badges) almost always made a higher salary compared to employees of similar job functions. Contractors, if and when they would become FT employees (blue badges), would take a significant pay cut to get all the other benefits.
2) MS consistently tries to hire the best people. MS uses contractors to "beta test" these new hires until they are sure that they will perform with a very high level. The only reason this is done is because of the communist labor & discrimination laws in this country, it makes firing MUCH easier. For tax reasons it is much better to have all "employees" - pay them less and give them deductable options.
3) Any "contractor" that was really good would become an employee with no trouble. Why would the company want a good worker not to be tied down with options?
4) The suit happened because a bunch of subpar whiners missed out on the great MS stock rush of the mid nineties. Now, that MS stock is limping a little I wouldn't be surprised to hear the same people, "I'm doing contract work but I'm being forced to be an employee"
5) If you do not like the conditions on which you were hired, you have the CHOICE not to work there.
6) These stupids laws and lawsuits will only give companies incentivies not to hire more contractors - meaning less choice for you, the WORKER!
-=t
So assuming people move to this "services" software model, they will only really need an interface to the net, rather than a whole PC. If that's the case, how will processtree.com make money?
But if we don't do this model, and everyone sticks to PCs, how will processtree.com make money?
-=m
Ah yes - this is indeed true. However, let me clarify (I should have been more specific earlier).
What has been doubling over the last two hundred years isn't exactly computation in terms of operations/sec. It is actually computation in terms of operations/sec/price. Both Kurzweil and Minsky (and Turing) have written on this. If you trace the amount of computing power that $1,000 buys over the last hundred years or so - you can see that the amount of computation bought per $1k has been doubling every 12-18 months.
-=|t
We've all heard a lot of talk about the "fundamental boundaries of silicon" and how "Moore's law will be destroyed in 15-20 years". While there are definitive boundaries of the material, the idea that computational speeds will taper off in 15-20 years is complete rubbish.
Most people know Gordon Moore's great "law". What most people don't know is that his profound statement of computation, a) isn't that profound b) isn't originally his idea.
Anyone that has read the works of our favorite British geek, big Alan Turing, knows that he stated in the 30s that computational speeds double every 12-18 months. Turing took a look at the "computers" dating back into the 1800s. From purely human/mechanical, to entirely mechanical, to electro mechanical, to electrical (Vacuum), to transister, to IC, computational speeds have been doubling since Babbage's girlfriend was writing theoretical software! (ok maybe a little later than that..)
The point is that at each stage in computing history, when one medium reached its limit, another picked up and continued seemlessly along. So the broader Moore's law (the smaller scale and actual Moore statement was only regarding ICs), will continue, silicon or no silicon. So then the interesting question is what will pick up when silicon dies. Molecular/Nano would probably be most peoples guess right now.
I'd expect the only failure of "Moore's law" to be that it underestimates the speed in which computing technology will double - my guess is that in 15-20 years it will go even faster than 12-18 months...
-=|t
The vindictive attitude isn't because of capitalism or even IP. It's a culture clash between the geeks and the sales/marketing folks. Let me explain.
In the past, business was a driver of technology. Someone with marketing and sales experience came up with an idea and said, "Hey engineer, build this and I'll pay you x dollars" The engineer thought, "Wow, that's more than my father made" - and he goes and slaves, and the S&M person (pun intended) gets rich - the engineer gets $62,000/year and a 401k plan.
In the last 10-20 years, things have seemed to shift. Technology is driving business. A bunch of really smart geeks are in a room together, they come up with something really kickass - and they think "I wonder if I could build a business around this.."
But the majority of geeks don't have the Wharton MBA polish, the angel/VC connections, and the network of law school and wall street friends. And unfortunately, these are the people that control the majority of investment capital that flows in this nation.
Geeks are uninterested in these types implementation issues - so much so that they move on to the next cool idea. A year or so later - some MBA reads an article in Wired about the cool new research doing blah..So he does a little market research and finds no one's really doing this "new great technology" yet and throws together a business plan with all the great buzzwords like "first mover, proprietary technology, barriers to entry, exponential growth, etc. etc.. " The entrepeneur manages to convince his old college roommate (who just finished his CS Ph.D) to come onboard. Wow, a Ph.D is the founder of this company, so it must really kick ass!!
So then the entrepeneurs raise some seed capital so they can file their patents and build a really nice website. The seed is used to develop a "working prototype" which is at worst a flash demo and at best some MFC or better yet Java (can't forget the cross platform buzzword) with some socket code. Some additional gold plating is gained through a PR firm and some "strategic alliances".
So the entrepeneurs raise a few million bucks in their 1st round. With this money they manage to hire some more people. The funding also allows recognized "industry vetrans" to be bribed with options to sit on boards. They get an article in Red Herring. Maybe even in Wired (the circle is now complete...-btw,moment of silence OBwan-)
The company burns through that million and maybe even develops a cool app in the process. They call their Street friends and maybe even get an article in the WSJ.. Now some middle-manager at a billion dollar mainstay like Unisys sees the article in the Journal while flying first class from NY to LA. After discussing it with the other middle managers, they come to the conclusion that they can't let this "revolutionary technology" take hold (i.e. 6 inch harddrives dilemma..). So they aquire the company for $12 million. Investors make a bundle, founders make a bundle. Who gets nothing? Yep - the geeks. All the employees past #5 that were promised millions in options and stock.
Now the geeks who developed the initial concept a few years back while at CMU read this on ZDnet and say, "how the hell can they file a patent on this?-that was done years ago". Then they read about how the founders made a killing and think "but that was my idea- all they did was hype it up with some gold-plating".
The founders, who made a lot of money, and increased their credibility among investors, continue along this path of perpetual bullshit. Leap frogging from idea to idea and capitalizing on intelligence that was not originally theirs. The geeks, still driving the same Buicks they were 5 years ago, say "to hell with money. to hell with IP. to hell with suits" They play the only game they know how- writing kick ass code (and maybe a little starcraft) - which is one reason why the gift culture community evolved (that and all of ESR's reasons)..
Think about how similar this is to academia, profs spend way too much time in grad school - barely manage to get a lecturer position at a good school that pays more than $50k/year. Now all their friends from their undergrad CSE days that went to M$ and Cisco -they're also 33 years old but retired -while the prof is still paying off school loans. So the prof'll just stick to "pure theory" and not have any of the business hogwash. Also note that profs who dabble in startups and consulting are often scoffed at by their purist "collegues".
So, since we as a society still manage to measure success in dollars, we are bitter at those who become "successful" through no particular inovation and vision of their own.
So, what are we geeks to do? Rest easy - there are those among us who can speak both languages. There are VC's out there that are old PDP hackers, that can see through BS like Cayman water. It is truly a sight to see a pitching CTO torn to shreds by an enlightened VC.
Advice - find one of these souls. He'll respect your talents and your shortcomings (although I'd hardly call lack of BS/hype skills a shortcoming). He'll allow you to profit from your ideas more so than anyone else-maybe take a small piece for the plating he provides.
Where out here. Our businesses are profitable. We get the job done right - and we do it quietly. It's our nature.
Follow your passions and we'll find you.
Code on,
-=|t
I was at the ESR MSR talk as well - Frankly, you seem to remember it poorly. The only people that looked like fools were the NT core team members that showed up. ESR's argument was that with software getting more and more complex, it would be extremely difficult to produce quality without the OpenSource model. The NT dewelopers didn't buy this and kept shouting out - remember that random woman who had to keep telling them to shut up and raise their hand?
As for Mozilla, ESR never said that "the reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". Actually, he used mozilla as an example of why opensource is not the cure to all ills. What he did say, however, is that "by open sourcing the browser, netscape drove a stake in the ground that M$ would never be able to remove.."
I was working for MS then. That talk got me really thinking about things. A year later, I'm now working for a Linux startup in the valley. I know that there were many other MS employees that thought long and hard about many of the things he said.
-=t
Haven't heard too much in the posts about MS's new game engine API that is to be released in future versions of its Direct X API. This along with some of the new features of DirectX 9 will make game development very easy for the casual coder. I've seen some demos of the new DirectMusic syncro that are really sweet. I expect their tactics to be as follows: -Make this the easiest console to dev for -Through use of new i/o such as ether and hd spreading content will be easier than on any other device -With people developing and demo groups pumping out some really cool stuff, I expect many people to pick these up. Most importantly, I think the ether and potential PC integration could be huge...i.e. with 100Mbs, could I potential outsource some processing to my PC? Maybe hook into my win2k cluster for realtime raytracing/radiosity rendering?