"Well at least if its OSS then its zero cost to try it out in the lab, except for time of course."
Yes, it is the time and labor cost that is the move expensive. What kind of staff do you think it is going to take to truly evaluate and support this kind of project? Let's not even get to the training the staff, installing new software on servers... You're looking at several hundred thousand dollars...
or you can just pay microsoft their regular fee and be done with it. Think about it this way. An OEM copy of Windows costs 50 dollars.
Assuming a tech support person costs 25 bucks an hour. All it takes is an extra 2 hours of support/training for a transition to linux to cost as much as simply installing windows. This does not even take into account lost user time dealing with new things.
And you believe the whole of humanity operates according to this 'get me the most money act'?
You sincerely believe that if you became a doctor, assuming you're a person, you would act in this way? Obviously... it is in fact government regulation/med schools that restrict the number of doctors and the ability of other health practitioners to do the work. I guarantee you if doctors really start charging outrageous prices, I would become a doctor and start treating people for a lesser fee. Of course in any market, people will only pay what they can afford. If no one is making 1 billion dollars a year, doctors cannot charge 1 billion dollars. Prices will be controlled by the market. However, back to the point.
You really think, if you, your brother, your father, your friend became a doctor, they would refuse to treat a patient for a reasonable cost... instead they would demand a million dollars? This is your view of people? No not just GOPers. As apparently 50% of the country is democrats... and last I checked, Democrats could become doctors too. So all democrats operating under a free market system would turn the field of medicine into an evil cartel that extorted every last penny of every last person on this earth. All the people would starve, and they would require even more money for treatment, thus furthering the doctor cartel goal.
I suppose the a car example is apt. What do you think happens in car repair? Is my mechanic holding my car hostage as honly other mechanics know how to fix it? I suppose my car bill should cost a million bucks. Yet it doesn't. Somehow, the magic of supply and demand works quite well. Repair prices are kept in check by the number of mechanics, and they fight over us customers oh getting our business.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 'hoarding'
However, if we had a world with 0% corporate tax (as above), some people are still concerned with corporations hoarding cash. So we can address that concern of theirs... its called a compromise.
Billions in corporate accounts is a good thing. Do you notice how microsoft and cisco are able to weather economic downturns? It's called being a healthy company. Unlike government, corporations have to earn every dollar and have savings during downturns.
As to expense accounts, give me a break. They can do that now if they want. The IRS already monitors these and audits them.
If you really really really must prevent hoarding, you can have a simple flat tax on any money in the corporate bank over say 10X annual earnings. Theoretically, that gives the corporation a buffer of 10 years to weather recessions and what not.
If they didn't setup Tax Havens, they would probably have needed a bigger bail out.
In all seriousness, the corporate tax rate should be 0%. We would end this shell game immediately.
A corporation is not a person. No one cares how much money it makes. People only care when they get paid. - shareholders get dividends and capitals gains... this is taxed - employees get paid a salary... this is taxed as income - CEOs get paid a salary and bonuses... this is taxes as income
So voila... eliminate the corporate tax and collect the money as it leaves the corporation. Imagine the savings. No more tax shelters. Corporations could save billions on accounting and tax lawyers. Imagine that, spending more money on R&D than on accountants and lawyers.
But it's all optics. I can't really see a politician explaining this logic. They would get slaughtered on TV for suggesting a 0% corporate tax rate.
1. Electronic health records are supposed to save money... which begs the question where is the money to be saved going to come from? It's not from the cost of paper:P But from the countless paper pushers and mini systems we already have in place. 200K tech jobs created... 300K (made up number) paper pushing jobs eliminated.
2. In a disjoint system, it's hard to push through something like this without an external player. Even if insurance companies wanted to, how to multiple insurance companies coordinate with multiple providers to work something out? The only real way I see this working out in the future is with the help of a large software company (google or MS) using the clout to push a solution.
3. It might not be just about the savings to think about. The benefits of electronic records are also convenience, reliability, gateway to more devices/systems using that data...
Was it on Slashdot or something site... but recently there was an article about how Software as a Service was going to reduce the number of IT employees. Sounds like the future is going to work itself out just fine.
A bunch of experts at some data centre run all the complex IT work and companies just pay and depend on them. You know, like how most companies don't run their own power generators, but depend on 3rd parties to do that work and just pay them.
The real danger is in central planning. It's not just a bad word for the sake of it being a bad word. Like debt, it is a long term structural problem.
Suddenly, your economy becomes based on who can game the central government for funds (read corruption) instead of who can create the best products at the best price and sell it. Please don't give me junk about there will be an 'oversight' committee and what not. It still rests on the principal that you begging with your connections to see who can get the money from the government.
So while you might get some short term boost, you can be guaranteed in the long term this kind of action is going to result in people less likely to start businesses.
here here. Man I just wish I could explain to business people the failure of performance measurement. I almost feel having no metrics is better than having bad metrics.
I worked for the largest telecom manufacturer and they had this really stupid policy where you had a target 'bug count'. Fix 1.5 bugs per week was the target. The problem is this resulted in people doing short hacky fixes instead of actually fixing problems. Heck you were rewarded for this. Just fix the immediate bug, then get another bug in the same area, fix it again. It was just stupid.
I'd almost say, you're better off just asking your employees to rate each other and their employer...and vice versa. I just haven't seen any metric that has actually produced positive results.
Not quite. Risk models are important. However, at some point comes a very subjective view of how much is at stake with that risk. Let us call this resiliancy.
This is really what most of the western world is missing. Resiliancy. Resiliancy is an attitude more than just a number. This is really what Taleb talks about with the black swan. Before, they only knew of white swans. So if someone came up to you and made you a bet that there were only white swans, you would take it. Almost as if someone made a bet with you regarding pigs flying. You would take that bet. However, what happens when you find the black swan, which they did in australia... suddenly if you had made the bet, it could be disastrous.
Even if an action has 99% upside, and only 1% downside, you MUST consider what if that 1% occurs. It is a recognition of the complexity of the world we live in.
Since this is slashdot, it's like coding. It is resiliant to over allocate memory just for resiliancy sake. Maybe I only need an array of 30. Yet, I will allocate an array of 32... just for some safety even if I 'KNOW' it will never get to that point. You sacrifice some optimization for some resiliancy.
I would almost venture to say, most of the western world is operating completely on extreme theory. There is no resiliancy built into the system.
We bet on 'innovation economy' because we don't want to reduce our standard of living to where we are our own farm/textitle/manufacturers. We bet on housing prices always going up (even though population growth is stabilizing/declining... see Japan/Germany/Italy...). We bet on providing complete welfare from cradle to grave, giving up on the resiliancy of the family support structure.
The bad thing with all these is the downside risk is extreme... almost catastrophic.
Adam Smith has worked so well. Heck, you can even say trickle down economics has worked out well
It worked so well... it bypassed our poor and middle class and has helped bring the really poor in Asia up. Depsite the rhetoric, it is not a race to the bottom. It is a race to the middle.
I used to work in engineering. I know jobs were being given to Indians/Romanians/Chinese because they are cheaper. You know what... it's fair they get it. They are in a far worse position than I am. I came to the West over 20 years ago from a 3rd world country. I could live very comfortably here in the West earning minimum wage at McDonalds. I had my share of warehouse and factory jobs when I first came here. You know, I was perfectly fine. But to me, I had a roof on my head, food on my table... that's all I need. Everything else is just a want.
What is holding us in the 'West' back is we still want to live the colonial life. We do all nice and stimulating work... the Asians/Latins get the work we don't want and we get their work on the cheap. We're so used to exploting Asians, that on a more level playing field, we whine and cry. We want and think we deserve cheap food but we sure won't be willing to pay farm workers 'American wages'... hint hint... the food would not be that cheap if we did. So we rely on cheap Asian/Latin American labor and we've continued to do it. Do you think an IPod would be so cheap if it were all done with American labor? Think about that labor equation. Some 'poor' American working at a fast food joint thinks they have the 'right' to the labor of Asian Engineers that have the same purchasing power as them.
Well here's what we could do, if everyone in the West took a 50% pay cut, we'd still be able to live okay. Remember most of our spending is on housing... which is all relative income. Very little of a homes value is on the actualy construction of the house. It's more based on richer people paying more for higher demand areas. We could get back some of the jobs based on competition. Yes, we spend less and produce more. The asians spend more and produce a bit less.
It is our failure to adjust our quality of life. Adam Smith works. Capitalism works. Colonial attitudes and capitalism does not work. Sorry to get old school on you all. That is my perspective though.
Yes, I'm talking about traditional fascism... not the kind that is just an insult. There used to be people who prided themselves on being fasicsts just as people claim they are socialists or capitalists. I should say fascism is hard to define exactly. However Obama is especially fascist in his economic and social views.
He is not socialist, but believes the government should call the shots in the economy and have a policy for the economy. Basically corporatism. His social policies are similarly fascist. Serve the state and you are rewarded. At the core of fascism is typically the view of rebirth. That after a nation is in decline, it must be reborn. Lack of class struggle...
There's a reason why fascism is popular. There is a reason why people elected Hitler or supported Mossulini. It sounded like a good idea at the time:) They got things done. Fascism is a reaction. Of couse we can look back and realize what a disaster it was.
I'd still trust the guy that finished at the bottom of his medical school to do basic diagnoses and stitch me up reasonably well.
Can you say something equivalent about EVERY graduate of a computer science class? Ponder that for second.
The minimum bar in med school is much HIGHER than the minimum bar of programmers. To actually do any serious medical work (like surgery....) then the bar is even HIGHER and HIGHER. So even within the professional organization, there are levels of entrance requirements and certifications. This is in contrast again to programmers who may be okay at programming... and then without any training or mentoring think they are capable of architect work.
Does every doctor agree with every policy of the AMA? Does every teacher agree with every policy of their professional colleges? Absolutely not.
It's rather childish to drop your membership over patents and EULAs. How working with the ACM in terms of job training, offshoring, wages, accreditation...
I agree with you. However, there are also several issues that I think need to be addressed.
1. Training. My bother left engineering and went into law. He found it 1000x more professional. For one thing, as he joined, he was assigned a mentor and received proper training. Contrast this to many software companies where managers/other developers actually think 'throw them in the fire' is the best way to train. He's in patent law by the way... making about 3x more than the people doing the inventing:P It's genius actually. In this sense, the suggestion of apprenticeship is a great one.
2. Quality of People. I don't think the top kids in a high school graduating class are going into computer science/engineering anymore. They have learned it is not a good field to be in. At the end, you're most likely going to end up a regular job that pays above average. With the kind of talent it takes to be a good software developer, you're much better doing something else (Doctor, nurse, CA, lawyer...) So naturally the grads are not going to be 'as good.'
3. No professional organization. This is a huge one. To the outside world, no one knows what a good software developer does. Just as most of us know nothing of what makes a good lawyer. We treat lawyers like a black box. Here's what I need done... now go. This is how businesses treat software. It is professional organizations that mantain the quality of people. They take care of ensuring people are trained properly and things work as follows. You don't need to know anything about accounting. However, if you're a business and need some complex accounting done, you get a CA not just some guy with a few accounting degrees. It is also why most professional organizations employ themselves. CAs join firms like PWC, KPMG... Lawyers do their own thing. Software developers work for a business. Which yes... makes you just another worker bee.
But anywhose. I don't the situation improving much in North America at least. Worst of all, all the new investment in new grads is being done in India/China. So it's not like young people in Western Companies are getting the grooming they need. It's a viscious cycle that is only going to make it worse.
No you don't make any sense. For one thing, if you're providing any kind of good service, that is why people will come to your store and buy stuff with a warranty. While surely not a small store, I get excellent service from my local Staples. As a result, for any major computer purchase, I shop there. Even if it costs me a bit extra. I don't even shop on Staples online. I would suggest most of the people I know follow this same sort of service oriented approach.
Service is still the major game in town. No, small stores don't always provide better service either. I ended my relationship with my local small computer store after they refused to take back a crappy usb wireless controller that kept overheating. This was on a 800 dollar purchase. So, bye bye.
On the other hand, I've had more than excellent service with Logitech. This was all over email and telephone support. As a result, I now only buy Logitech accessories.
MAP is ridiculous and should be illegal. Service always wins. If you're relying on MAP, you're not providing good enough service.
I seriously question whether or not those that follow the open source model will come back in years and wonder what happened to their industry. What happened to their lively hood.
All professions and jobs protect themselves and their cash cows for a reason. Engineers and scientists can live in some fantasy completely free-market world. The rest of the world doesn't live in it.
There is a price to pay for the maintenance and expansion of knowledge and industry. As to 'solutions,' I think that is the direction many companies are taking. Web services are the best example of this.
1. Try reading a patent application. Since it is worded in 'lawyer speak' no one knows what it really means. One of the key patent reforms must include writing patents and claims in simple language.
2. Allow for an easy process for invalidating a patent. Mistakes can and will happen in any system that requires judgment. So why not make the process easier to correct such decisions?
The problem might actually relate to how much you charge.
Since we're here on slahsdot, people have the belief that when you 'buy' software you should get the full rights to that software. So let's walk through that. How much would it cost to purchase say Windows with full rights? This is a piece of software that took probably millions of lines of code and thousands of man hours to build. Well it would probably cost in the millions or billions of dollars. Yet, you can get a copy for 50 - 100 dollars? Why, because it is a restricted license. You can't copy it... So they get to charge less because they put restrictions on your rights to the product.
What is the real 'value' of what you are providing? You say, as soon as you release your work, a year later someone comes out with an open source version of it and it's not profitable anymore. So ask yourself a few questions.
1. would the open source versions be built if you did not build it first (are they just copying your idea?) If so, charge a heck of a lot more knowing that it will be commodotized next year. Instead of charging $5000, charge $50,000. If the open source stuff would be made anyways, well... then you're just in the wrong business.
2. Can you sell your services with a subscription model? Let us assume there are loads of things that need to be fixed for the customers. Maybe sell them your services to provide all their software needs for X number of years. Businesses like fixed costs.
Count me in the club of really intelligent people who left the field. Not because it is hard or even for lack of interest. It is just a stupid field to be in.
1. There is no structure, mentoring or training. Complain about it and you get the idiot manager who says you will how to deal with fire by being thrown into it. The idiot manager is reinforced by legions of mindless workaholic dimwits who think it is cool they can swim in the fire and not die. I'd prefer to do the job right once.
2. low quality people. Believe it or not, one of the major reasons I left is the lack of good people. Oh sure there are some geniuses out there. They are most likely 10 times smarter than myself. However, a lot of computer science and what not is team oriented. Without any quality control, everyone's work affects everyone else. Mention this, and once again the legions of idiots come out and rant against the establishment. There's a reason why lawyers only like to deal with other lawyers. It keeps the quality up, so they don't have to deal with people with no qualification handing them a document written at a grade 2 level.
3. see the burnout I see the people at work who are 40+. They certainly don't look like they enjoy their work. Many suffer from burnout. So why would I invest my time in career that ends when I should be in my prime playing golf every wednesday?
4. shoved to suburban Why is it that so many of the high tech companies seem to locate themselves in suburban parks or outside. They don't locate themselves right downtown where most other professional jobs seem to be. I venture to guess as well that women like the downtown uppity life more than men. Something tells me they don't appreciate the appeal of a Redmond, San Jose, Waterloo, RTP...:P
5. better options then of course, there are better options... lawyer, doctor, work for the government...
I'm sure we can all think up grand ideas, but I'd be surprised if we even get the basic things done. Here's my basic list.
1. Open data formats and default to information accss. A simple example is transit. All transit services should be REQUIRED to support google's open route/scheduling format. Similarly, instead of having to request that information, it should be provided by default (published at some accessible location). The same should be done for statistics, census data... Now it might be wise to use institutions like the IEEE to decide on an open standard of mulitple ones exist or something along those lines.
2. Make it easy for people to donate for specific causes. THis could be a preapproved list of charities or causes that would be accessible for donation from a government maintained website.
3. Enforce security practices. This might include trampling a bit on the private sector. However, we have safety regulations for other products. Why not information security regulation. Things like mandating chip cards or pin numbers on cards... Perhaps some data center regulations...
Precisely. MS is actually just wasting money having their own rendering engine. They realize is and I think it would be very fiscally prudent of them to adopt an open source one.
They still have silverlight which will remain their own thing. They will still have IE extensions so things like sharepoint can work nicely.
That's where the money is. In the integration, not in the rendering engine.
Slashdot Mirror
here we go again... missing the key point.
"Well at least if its OSS then its zero cost to try it out in the lab, except for time of course."
Yes, it is the time and labor cost that is the move expensive. What kind of staff do you think it is going to take to truly evaluate and support this kind of project? Let's not even get to the training the staff, installing new software on servers... You're looking at several hundred thousand dollars...
or you can just pay microsoft their regular fee and be done with it.
Think about it this way. An OEM copy of Windows costs 50 dollars.
Assuming a tech support person costs 25 bucks an hour.
All it takes is an extra 2 hours of support/training for a transition to linux to cost as much as simply installing windows. This does not even take into account lost user time dealing with new things.
And you believe the whole of humanity operates according to this 'get me the most money act'?
You sincerely believe that if you became a doctor, assuming you're a person, you would act in this way?
Obviously... it is in fact government regulation/med schools that restrict the number of doctors and the ability of other health practitioners to do the work. I guarantee you if doctors really start charging outrageous prices, I would become a doctor and start treating people for a lesser fee. Of course in any market, people will only pay what they can afford. If no one is making 1 billion dollars a year, doctors cannot charge 1 billion dollars. Prices will be controlled by the market. However, back to the point.
You really think, if you, your brother, your father, your friend became a doctor, they would refuse to treat a patient for a reasonable cost... instead they would demand a million dollars? This is your view of people? No not just GOPers. As apparently 50% of the country is democrats... and last I checked, Democrats could become doctors too. So all democrats operating under a free market system would turn the field of medicine into an evil cartel that extorted every last penny of every last person on this earth. All the people would starve, and they would require even more money for treatment, thus furthering the doctor cartel goal.
I suppose the a car example is apt.
What do you think happens in car repair? Is my mechanic holding my car hostage as honly other mechanics know how to fix it? I suppose my car bill should cost a million bucks. Yet it doesn't. Somehow, the magic of supply and demand works quite well. Repair prices are kept in check by the number of mechanics, and they fight over us customers oh getting our business.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 'hoarding'
However, if we had a world with 0% corporate tax (as above), some people are still concerned with corporations hoarding cash. So we can address that concern of theirs... its called a compromise.
Billions in corporate accounts is a good thing. Do you notice how microsoft and cisco are able to weather economic downturns? It's called being a healthy company. Unlike government, corporations have to earn every dollar and have savings during downturns.
As to expense accounts, give me a break. They can do that now if they want. The IRS already monitors these and audits them.
If you really really really must prevent hoarding, you can have a simple flat tax on any money in the corporate bank over say 10X annual earnings. Theoretically, that gives the corporation a buffer of 10 years to weather recessions and what not.
Put it this way,
If they didn't setup Tax Havens, they would probably have needed a bigger bail out.
In all seriousness, the corporate tax rate should be 0%. We would end this shell game immediately.
A corporation is not a person. No one cares how much money it makes. People only care when they get paid.
- shareholders get dividends and capitals gains... this is taxed
- employees get paid a salary... this is taxed as income
- CEOs get paid a salary and bonuses... this is taxes as income
So voila... eliminate the corporate tax and collect the money as it leaves the corporation. Imagine the savings. No more tax shelters. Corporations could save billions on accounting and tax lawyers. Imagine that, spending more money on R&D than on accountants and lawyers.
But it's all optics. I can't really see a politician explaining this logic. They would get slaughtered on TV for suggesting a 0% corporate tax rate.
1. Electronic health records are supposed to save money... which begs the question where is the money to be saved going to come from? It's not from the cost of paper :P But from the countless paper pushers and mini systems we already have in place. 200K tech jobs created... 300K (made up number) paper pushing jobs eliminated.
2. In a disjoint system, it's hard to push through something like this without an external player. Even if insurance companies wanted to, how to multiple insurance companies coordinate with multiple providers to work something out? The only real way I see this working out in the future is with the help of a large software company (google or MS) using the clout to push a solution.
3. It might not be just about the savings to think about. The benefits of electronic records are also convenience, reliability, gateway to more devices/systems using that data...
Was it on Slashdot or something site... but recently there was an article about how Software as a Service was going to reduce the number of IT employees. Sounds like the future is going to work itself out just fine.
A bunch of experts at some data centre run all the complex IT work and companies just pay and depend on them.
You know, like how most companies don't run their own power generators, but depend on 3rd parties to do that work and just pay them.
The real danger is in central planning. It's not just a bad word for the sake of it being a bad word. Like debt, it is a long term structural problem.
Suddenly, your economy becomes based on who can game the central government for funds (read corruption) instead of who can create the best products at the best price and sell it. Please don't give me junk about there will be an 'oversight' committee and what not. It still rests on the principal that you begging with your connections to see who can get the money from the government.
So while you might get some short term boost, you can be guaranteed in the long term this kind of action is going to result in people less likely to start businesses.
here here.
Man I just wish I could explain to business people the failure of performance measurement. I almost feel having no metrics is better than having bad metrics.
I worked for the largest telecom manufacturer and they had this really stupid policy where you had a target 'bug count'. Fix 1.5 bugs per week was the target. The problem is this resulted in people doing short hacky fixes instead of actually fixing problems. Heck you were rewarded for this. Just fix the immediate bug, then get another bug in the same area, fix it again. It was just stupid.
I'd almost say, you're better off just asking your employees to rate each other and their employer...and vice versa. I just haven't seen any metric that has actually produced positive results.
Not quite. Risk models are important. However, at some point comes a very subjective view of how much is at stake with that risk. Let us call this resiliancy.
This is really what most of the western world is missing. Resiliancy.
Resiliancy is an attitude more than just a number. This is really what Taleb talks about with the black swan.
Before, they only knew of white swans. So if someone came up to you and made you a bet that there were only white swans, you would take it. Almost as if someone made a bet with you regarding pigs flying. You would take that bet. However, what happens when you find the black swan, which they did in australia... suddenly if you had made the bet, it could be disastrous.
Even if an action has 99% upside, and only 1% downside, you MUST consider what if that 1% occurs. It is a recognition of the complexity of the world we live in.
Since this is slashdot, it's like coding. It is resiliant to over allocate memory just for resiliancy sake. Maybe I only need an array of 30. Yet, I will allocate an array of 32... just for some safety even if I 'KNOW' it will never get to that point. You sacrifice some optimization for some resiliancy.
I would almost venture to say, most of the western world is operating completely on extreme theory. There is no resiliancy built into the system.
We bet on 'innovation economy' because we don't want to reduce our standard of living to where we are our own farm/textitle/manufacturers.
We bet on housing prices always going up (even though population growth is stabilizing/declining... see Japan/Germany/Italy...).
We bet on providing complete welfare from cradle to grave, giving up on the resiliancy of the family support structure.
The bad thing with all these is the downside risk is extreme... almost catastrophic.
Adam Smith has worked so well. Heck, you can even say trickle down economics has worked out well
It worked so well... it bypassed our poor and middle class and has helped bring the really poor in Asia up.
Depsite the rhetoric, it is not a race to the bottom. It is a race to the middle.
I used to work in engineering. I know jobs were being given to Indians/Romanians/Chinese because they are cheaper. You know what... it's fair they get it. They are in a far worse position than I am. I came to the West over 20 years ago from a 3rd world country. I could live very comfortably here in the West earning minimum wage at McDonalds. I had my share of warehouse and factory jobs when I first came here. You know, I was perfectly fine. But to me, I had a roof on my head, food on my table... that's all I need. Everything else is just a want.
What is holding us in the 'West' back is we still want to live the colonial life. We do all nice and stimulating work... the Asians/Latins get the work we don't want and we get their work on the cheap. We're so used to exploting Asians, that on a more level playing field, we whine and cry. We want and think we deserve cheap food but we sure won't be willing to pay farm workers 'American wages'... hint hint... the food would not be that cheap if we did. So we rely on cheap Asian/Latin American labor and we've continued to do it. Do you think an IPod would be so cheap if it were all done with American labor? Think about that labor equation. Some 'poor' American working at a fast food joint thinks they have the 'right' to the labor of Asian Engineers that have the same purchasing power as them.
Well here's what we could do, if everyone in the West took a 50% pay cut, we'd still be able to live okay. Remember most of our spending is on housing... which is all relative income. Very little of a homes value is on the actualy construction of the house. It's more based on richer people paying more for higher demand areas. We could get back some of the jobs based on competition. Yes, we spend less and produce more. The asians spend more and produce a bit less.
It is our failure to adjust our quality of life. Adam Smith works. Capitalism works.
Colonial attitudes and capitalism does not work. Sorry to get old school on you all. That is my perspective though.
No, this is what you get when you elect fascists.
Yes, I'm talking about traditional fascism... not the kind that is just an insult. There used to be people who prided themselves on being fasicsts just as people claim they are socialists or capitalists. I should say fascism is hard to define exactly. However Obama is especially fascist in his economic and social views.
He is not socialist, but believes the government should call the shots in the economy and have a policy for the economy. Basically corporatism.
His social policies are similarly fascist. Serve the state and you are rewarded. At the core of fascism is typically the view of rebirth. That after a nation is in decline, it must be reborn. Lack of class struggle...
There's a reason why fascism is popular. There is a reason why people elected Hitler or supported Mossulini. :) They got things done. Fascism is a reaction. Of couse we can look back and realize what a disaster it was.
It sounded like a good idea at the time
The ironic thing about that is the 'loser' states would glady accept a small federal government so that New York could keep more of its money.
However, it is states like New York that keep voting for bigger and bigger federal government.
True, however the police are also claiming they lack the skills to properly investigate PCs.
I see potential:
Unionized government jobs for some IT people!
We just don't see the positives do we?
I'd still trust the guy that finished at the bottom of his medical school to do basic diagnoses and stitch me up reasonably well.
Can you say something equivalent about EVERY graduate of a computer science class?
Ponder that for second.
The minimum bar in med school is much HIGHER than the minimum bar of programmers. To actually do any serious medical work (like surgery....) then the bar is even HIGHER and HIGHER. So even within the professional organization, there are levels of entrance requirements and certifications. This is in contrast again to programmers who may be okay at programming... and then without any training or mentoring think they are capable of architect work.
Does every doctor agree with every policy of the AMA?
Does every teacher agree with every policy of their professional colleges?
Absolutely not.
It's rather childish to drop your membership over patents and EULAs. How working with the ACM in terms of job training, offshoring, wages, accreditation...
I agree with you. However, there are also several issues that I think need to be addressed.
1. Training. My bother left engineering and went into law. He found it 1000x more professional. For one thing, as he joined, he was assigned a mentor and received proper training. Contrast this to many software companies where managers/other developers actually think 'throw them in the fire' is the best way to train. He's in patent law by the way... making about 3x more than the people doing the inventing :P It's genius actually. In this sense, the suggestion of apprenticeship is a great one.
2. Quality of People. I don't think the top kids in a high school graduating class are going into computer science/engineering anymore. They have learned it is not a good field to be in. At the end, you're most likely going to end up a regular job that pays above average. With the kind of talent it takes to be a good software developer, you're much better doing something else (Doctor, nurse, CA, lawyer...) So naturally the grads are not going to be 'as good.'
3. No professional organization. This is a huge one. To the outside world, no one knows what a good software developer does. Just as most of us know nothing of what makes a good lawyer. We treat lawyers like a black box. Here's what I need done... now go. This is how businesses treat software. It is professional organizations that mantain the quality of people. They take care of ensuring people are trained properly and things work as follows. You don't need to know anything about accounting. However, if you're a business and need some complex accounting done, you get a CA not just some guy with a few accounting degrees. It is also why most professional organizations employ themselves. CAs join firms like PWC, KPMG... Lawyers do their own thing. Software developers work for a business. Which yes... makes you just another worker bee.
But anywhose. I don't the situation improving much in North America at least. Worst of all, all the new investment in new grads is being done in India/China. So it's not like young people in Western Companies are getting the grooming they need. It's a viscious cycle that is only going to make it worse.
No you don't make any sense.
For one thing, if you're providing any kind of good service, that is why people will come to your store and buy stuff with a warranty. While surely not a small store, I get excellent service from my local Staples. As a result, for any major computer purchase, I shop there. Even if it costs me a bit extra. I don't even shop on Staples online. I would suggest most of the people I know follow this same sort of service oriented approach.
Service is still the major game in town. No, small stores don't always provide better service either. I ended my relationship with my local small computer store after they refused to take back a crappy usb wireless controller that kept overheating. This was on a 800 dollar purchase. So, bye bye.
On the other hand, I've had more than excellent service with Logitech. This was all over email and telephone support. As a result, I now only buy Logitech accessories.
MAP is ridiculous and should be illegal. Service always wins. If you're relying on MAP, you're not providing good enough service.
I seriously question whether or not those that follow the open source model will come back in years and wonder what happened to their industry. What happened to their lively hood.
All professions and jobs protect themselves and their cash cows for a reason. Engineers and scientists can live in some fantasy completely free-market world. The rest of the world doesn't live in it.
There is a price to pay for the maintenance and expansion of knowledge and industry. As to 'solutions,' I think that is the direction many companies are taking. Web services are the best example of this.
The issue is two fold.
1. Try reading a patent application. Since it is worded in 'lawyer speak' no one knows what it really means. One of the key patent reforms must include writing patents and claims in simple language.
2. Allow for an easy process for invalidating a patent. Mistakes can and will happen in any system that requires judgment. So why not make the process easier to correct such decisions?
The problem might actually relate to how much you charge.
Since we're here on slahsdot, people have the belief that when you 'buy' software you should get the full rights to that software. So let's walk through that. How much would it cost to purchase say Windows with full rights? This is a piece of software that took probably millions of lines of code and thousands of man hours to build. Well it would probably cost in the millions or billions of dollars. Yet, you can get a copy for 50 - 100 dollars? Why, because it is a restricted license. You can't copy it... So they get to charge less because they put restrictions on your rights to the product.
What is the real 'value' of what you are providing? You say, as soon as you release your work, a year later someone comes out with an open source version of it and it's not profitable anymore. So ask yourself a few questions.
1. would the open source versions be built if you did not build it first (are they just copying your idea?) If so, charge a heck of a lot more knowing that it will be commodotized next year. Instead of charging $5000, charge $50,000. If the open source stuff would be made anyways, well... then you're just in the wrong business.
2. Can you sell your services with a subscription model? Let us assume there are loads of things that need to be fixed for the customers. Maybe sell them your services to provide all their software needs for X number of years. Businesses like fixed costs.
yeah they are. I am smarter too.
Count me in the club of really intelligent people who left the field. Not because it is hard or even for lack of interest. It is just a stupid field to be in.
1. There is no structure, mentoring or training. Complain about it and you get the idiot manager who says you will how to deal with fire by being thrown into it. The idiot manager is reinforced by legions of mindless workaholic dimwits who think it is cool they can swim in the fire and not die. I'd prefer to do the job right once.
2. low quality people. Believe it or not, one of the major reasons I left is the lack of good people. Oh sure there are some geniuses out there. They are most likely 10 times smarter than myself. However, a lot of computer science and what not is team oriented. Without any quality control, everyone's work affects everyone else. Mention this, and once again the legions of idiots come out and rant against the establishment. There's a reason why lawyers only like to deal with other lawyers. It keeps the quality up, so they don't have to deal with people with no qualification handing them a document written at a grade 2 level.
3. see the burnout
I see the people at work who are 40+. They certainly don't look like they enjoy their work. Many suffer from burnout. So why would I invest my time in career that ends when I should be in my prime playing golf every wednesday?
4. shoved to suburban :P
Why is it that so many of the high tech companies seem to locate themselves in suburban parks or outside. They don't locate themselves right downtown where most other professional jobs seem to be. I venture to guess as well that women like the downtown uppity life more than men. Something tells me they don't appreciate the appeal of a Redmond, San Jose, Waterloo, RTP...
5. better options
then of course, there are better options... lawyer, doctor, work for the government...
I'm sure we can all think up grand ideas, but I'd be surprised if we even get the basic things done. Here's my basic list.
1. Open data formats and default to information accss. A simple example is transit. All transit services should be REQUIRED to support google's open route/scheduling format. Similarly, instead of having to request that information, it should be provided by default (published at some accessible location). The same should be done for statistics, census data... Now it might be wise to use institutions like the IEEE to decide on an open standard of mulitple ones exist or something along those lines.
2. Make it easy for people to donate for specific causes. THis could be a preapproved list of charities or causes that would be accessible for donation from a government maintained website.
3. Enforce security practices. This might include trampling a bit on the private sector. However, we have safety regulations for other products. Why not information security regulation. Things like mandating chip cards or pin numbers on cards... Perhaps some data center regulations...
dude, I think you just described the problem in the entire high-tech/engineering world.
No one knows what we do, so no one knows how much experience is valued.
They will just post an ad
NASA Aero-space engineer wanted.
25 years experience designing Space capable vehicles.
No takers?
Oh damn... we have a skills shortage in America...
- seen it happen to many times
Precisely. MS is actually just wasting money having their own rendering engine. They realize is and I think it would be very fiscally prudent of them to adopt an open source one.
They still have silverlight which will remain their own thing.
They will still have IE extensions so things like sharepoint can work nicely.
That's where the money is. In the integration, not in the rendering engine.