That is because Cuba does primary care very well. If Americans were okay with primary care, they too could get it.
However, Cuba is certainly not building robotic arms for people who lost their arms. Cuba is not inventing crazy drugs to cure lord knows what disease.
Most of the US system is plagued by specialists and intensive care. That is what costs the system the most. Oddly enough, that is where most doctors go, because that is where the money is. So in the US, you end up with a system of very poor primary care, but if you are really sick, it is the best system in the world... even if you're just going to die anyways, they will try every treatment in the book.
Get one of these advanced diseases in Cuba, you're dead.
Me, I'd be more than happy with a system that focused on primary health. However, that is the difference with the American system. Americans are consumers. If there is a latest drug or technology or method, we want it.
Now statistically, advanced care doesn't do too much for you. All the stats (life expectancy, infant mortality...) are largely influenced by primary care. All the advanced care stuff is consumer oriented. If you, as an American would be willing to not take the most advanced care, and be willing to accept death, America could have system like Cuba's.
Me, I think primary care should be free. Doctors who want to specialize in advance care should do it entirely within a private a system, but mandate they must spend 1/2 their time in the public primary care system.
sorry... "Here's some statistics for you. 78% of Medicare costs come in treating people in their last year of life." This is worded poorly. 77% of the medicare money spent on a dead person is spent in their last year of life.
I wonder if this will even be read being this far down. Most of my family is in the healthcare field. Here's the problem.
There are essentially 2 kinds of healthcare that need to be provided.
1. basic/primary care. This is relatively cheap to provide. Treat common condition, vaccinate people... Stuff you could generally get a nurse practitioner to do. You can also lump in emergency room care and basic surgery that need doctors.
2. advanced/chronic care. This includes things like advanced cancer therapy, triple bypass surgery...
Basic care should be universal with minimal costs. It is what 99% of people need 99% of the time. If you're a statistic person, most of the life expectancy and quality of life is dependent on basic/primary care.
Here's some statistics for you. 78% of Medicare costs come in treating people in their last year of life. By any measure, this is a waste of money. People are dying and we're throwing all our resources in a failed effort to keep them alive. a lot of other research shows the same thing.
Advanced/chronic care should NEVER be universal. It creates a system of infinite demand for highly trained professionals and resources. Does it mean if you get diagnosed with cancer that maybe you don't have enough money to be treated? Maybe. But getting treated for cancer is expensive. In the end, you're going to die of something. If you provide universal advanced care, everyone will want to try everything to preserve their life. We face this problem in Canada with universal healtcare. We've had cases where people fly to the US to get some advanced treatment which doesn't cure them, but only extends their life for a year, then they sue the government for treatment. The reason? If its universal and you're sick, you want everything done to you or your loved one. This is the infinite demand equation. People cannot accept death and so will try everything to save themselves/family. In other countries this is contained by costs.
Theoretically, doctors should be the guardians and should be responsible for best allocation of health resources. However, doctors can't even refuse to give patients anti-biotics when the know its not effective. Doctors give in to patient demands. So there has to be a monetary cost to getting advanced treatment. It's a cold reality.
So what would I like to see from a candidate. Universal basic care. Advanced care must be kept private or it WILL bankrupt any country. Unfortunately, North America is a consumer culture. We want things now and we want things our way. We care much more about the advanced care than the real primary care that would make our living life much better. We don't deal well with death.
Hi, I'm a scientific polar bear. Hence why I am smart enough to post on Slashdot.
I have done some investigating and much traveling in my time. I've noticed the land to the south is far too warm for us polar bears. I was only able to venture there for a short time before having to return. During my venturing, I did not see a single other polar bear. Though I did see many strange creatures. So I do not think it is valid for you to estimate the polar bears existence in these warmer lands. It does not appear to be suited for polar bear life.
However, based on my observation of the sun, it is likely a similar cold place exists on the opposite side of the planet. It is likely that it is cold enough to support polar bear life. We cannot be sure of course. However, it is a reasonable assumption that if Polar bears exist elsewhere, they would exist there.
------ An assumption that would be wrong of course as Polar bears do not live in the Antarctic. However, that is how science discovers the unknown. Making the best of our current knowledge and try and extend it to make predictions on the unknown. I'd listen to my scientific polar bear over your satirical polar bear any day. Not to mention that in the process of trying to hypothesize the polar bear population using real factors like the weather... my scientific polar bear learns more about polar bears, creates new questions, and is better prepared to decide what experiments to run when the technology arrives. So when polar bears invent boats, I will consult my scientific polar bear on the best place to launch a mission to maximize our chances of finding other polar bears or at least a place where polar bears could setup a colony
This is very true of course. Further of note is who decides who is the most capable. Is it the engineers? The lawyers? The social scientists? The scientists? The English PHDs? The doctors?
Then we look at the systems the 'elites' have created. The lawyers make the law more and more convuluted each and every year so only they can navigate the system. The financial geniuses use leverage and central banking to manipulate the market to enrich themselves. The universities become places of entry for the elite. You must pay them in order to gain access to the other elite professions. The doctors become guardians of the medical system. You're surely incapable of diagnosing or treating yourself.
No doubt, there are valid reasons to 'trust in the elites.' There are also reasons to believe they will abuse their power to enrich themselves.
Meanwhile, 'ye old JoeSixpack' doing productive work in the warehouse or farm is left at the mercy of this system.
There is a balance we must reach between democracy and a meritocracy.
I'm live in North America. I just see the writing on the wall. I can't wait until our societies are equalized so we can stop this outsourcing nonsense. It's already happened to some extent in India. My company (a large telco equipment manufacturer) setup shop there a while ago. They can't find enough qualified candidates. Salaries have gone through the roof.
As someone else said in this thread... once you have the free market for goods, services, capital... you cannot avoid it for labor. I've realized there's little point in fighting the inevitable. Better to embrace it and I have. I now say we in the West are going to have to lower our standard of living. The only reason we engineers feel underpaid/overworked/under constant threat is because other easier professions are paid more. These are typically due to being in the public sector, or having a strict regulatory body attached to them (law, medicine...), or receiving public funds.
So I've turned to the dark side. I say they opened up the flood gates of competition upon us. I say we open the flood gates of competition on them (doctors, lawyers, teachers, bus drivers...). I can survive on my own merits... still gainfully employed. Let's see how they do. Some call it a race to the bottom, I say it's us going down, they're going up... and we'll meet half way. I'm happy with that.
Your created problem: Companies wills simply build overseads campuses and employ them there. Oh wait, that's already happening.
There is no way around this. Our societies will equalize. There is no justification for the average American earning 10X what another person doing an equivalanet job earns. Things will fix themselves. Either by devaluation of the dollar or by direct wage cuts.
well what business wants competition? There is nothing intrinsically immoral about things like proprietary data formats, locking down your system...
There are laws to counter such things in order to promote fair competition. Microsoft has to obey those laws. That is all anyone should ask of them. That is all that is asked of any business.
Microsoft takes care of all that. They work with all the hardware vendors. They've taken care of 'training' (in big quotes) the users. They don't get as many support calls/returns (as here)
These are big slow companies. If they wanted to properly linux, you're looking at significant investment by them. Probably a new whole division. Managers upon managers... all for what?
It's the same with customers. Let's say windows cost 50 dollars OEM above the cost of Linux. Now, how much 'training' can you purchase for 50 dollars. Maybe 2 hours worth. Plus all the effort... To top it off, 50 bucks for a tool you use every single day is nothing. People spend more than that just eating out.
Imagine if each bank/company could issue their own cash. They would each print their own denominations with different security features... it would be a mess.
So why doesn't the government regulate 'e-security'. At the very least, it should take opinion from the IEEE or something to guide the industry.
It is your resume. You put what you want on it to appeal to the company.
If you think your tech-support experience is negative... get it out of your resume! If they ask what you have been doing for the past 2 years, say you have been traveling the world.
I love engineering, but I also enjoy my life. Pardon me for not wanting to be a one-dimensional corporate slave.
Technologies that change every few weeks / drinking from the firehouse? Sounds like a lack of training and people to properly distribute the work. Late night builds / weekend bug hunts? you like doing free work don't you?
It's one of the reasons I am leaving the field. Soulless corporate business people + easily exploitable engineers who think its a worthwhile to work under such conditions. It has a certian symmetry to it.
My solution: Getting a regular job and then doing engineering on the side.
Yes, everything rests on assumptions. Without assumption we could not bother making a thought. But to reduce all assumption and conclusions to the same level is a grave mistake.
It is entirely possible we are in fact a part of the matrix and this entire world is just as simulation meant to keep humans in prison to provide power. Now, I will assume that is NOT true for the basis of my world view:)
Now even if we are in the matrix, does it make the rules of the matrix (physics, chemistry... ) any less relevant? We should still study our environment as it has real consequences. Should we perhaps seek ways to influence or escape the matrix? Perhaps. But if someone told you that you could escape the matrix by killing yourself, would you do it? Most of us wouldn't because we realize that is one big assumption to make in life.
On the other hand, I assume Newtonian physics is correct. Maybe I cannot prove the existence of a gravity particle or know exactly how the world works. However, I've seen Newtonian physics work time and time again, so I will assume it is true. A very reasonable assumption given the evidence and repeatability. I would be willing to wager my life on the theory that if I throw a ball up in the air, it would come down.
Such is the difference between dogma and assumptions. Dogma treats assumptions as fact and people do not consider the possibility that they are wrong. That is being dogmatic. Dogma also allows a person to ignore evidence contrary to their view by excusing it.
To put it simply. I have no problem with someone having a theory that we are in fact in the matrix. I have a big problem with someone willing to risk their or anybody else's life on that.
However, once you state your assumption, you can most certainly follow a logical path to deduce and reason. It is this logical path that is rationality.
It should be noted that almost any system of thought is capable of dogma (religion, atheism, democracy, communism...). I for example would love to hear any supporter of late term abortion explain their views in a logical manner. Unless they plan to ignore virtually all of medical science, they cannot. This is the height of dogma where people even ignore evidence from a source they do not dispute.
They are actually more dogmatic than pro-life religious people. They've made an assumption of a world with a soul. Based on that world view, it is logical that life begins at conception as the soul is created there. Now would I base any policy on that? Absolutely not.
there's a difference between saying 'no' and trying to show up your boss. I know my managers and what not are morons. I just keep my mouth shut and be on my way.
While true... it is only true for firms that do not 'get' software. I've been an embedded software guy for years. I applied to Microsoft, they matched me with a C#, SQL job. Yet, I was absolutely impressed with how they get software, how they treat their employees... (maybe I was just being sold and its terrible while actually working there). Hence, why I'm still pondering if I should take it or not. I've had similar experience with other companies.
Though I never got the job, Google's job descriptions are similar as well. Now of course, these are highly successful software firms, not the other 99% of idiotic firms out there.
My advice to any engineers out there. Either you get into a firm that gets software/engineering, or you get out of the field. Chances are you're too intelligent for the rest of the jobs, which will be picked up by college grads with the right certs (CCNA, MSCE...) being managed by idiotic business managers on top of more managers on top of more managers.
That's what I'm doing. There are no good firms where I live. So I'm either joining redmond or moving into healthcare. I'm not that type-a business personality, so I probably wouldn't be a good fit for the MBA role. My vision of engineering is a cooperative where engineers are professionals doing the work, interacting with customers...:P Take that for what it is and why I guess I'm not cut out for the new age of analysts specializing in specializing.
I learned from another worker... just say no. Sometimes I just say yeah and then don't do it. Don't do it. Now he didn't get all the right promotions and I don't expect to either. Nonetheless. he didn't get fired and so far I haven't either.
Either that, or get into management:P
Re:You could at least explain what you mean
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
Or is it that IT folks are so stupid they believe they can 'program' without any domain level knowledge.
Yes, programming is a very generic skill. Yet ultimately, people care about what you can do within the specific domain. I work in telecommunications field, and while you need good software engineering skills 90% of my job is protocol/router/OS specific. It's taken me a while to realize that is the real expertize... that is the real skill.
Similarly, you need to ask how it came to be that you have supposedly intelligent programmers who could understand financial concepts with ease have to have 'business people' actually deal with customer requirements and oversee them.
I really wouldn't recommended anyone just get a computer science degree or take some generic programming courses. Get a business degree with a minor in computer science. Or get into healthcare and get a minor in computer science... Programming is a tool and we will be treated as such.
Having lived under the rule of white apartheid south africa, I could care less if someone is racist or 'bias' against a certain group. Just don't use the law to do it. As long as the law is not stopping you, you can always use freedom to do what you want. Not being hired because you're a certain skin color? Start your own company. That's all it takes.
In all honesty I find people in the West obsessed with calling people racist and dumping the whole history of slavery on them. As if race/skin color is any more of a gang than religion or political affiliation. From a practical perspective, that's all it is... gangs try to raise themselves up against competing gangs.
heck, I'd go so far as to say, the primary role of the state is to prevent gangs from subjugating others.
There are definitely things IT and engineers in general can do without falling into the typical union/professional organization problems.
Problems: pay/stability based on seniority not merit fixed pay grids exclusionary to new comers
Things we could do: monitor overtime across the industry and get paid for it mandate career development/training divide up the loot between shareholders and employees. Ex: 100 million in profit. We negotiate and say 40 million goes to investors... 60 million goes to employees as bonuses. mandate mentorship and knowledge transfer
Now if we didn't mind stepping on a few toes and becoming the people we complain about:P we could restrict membership like the medical associations and the legal profession. What to write some software? Well you need a software engineering degree with a license to write software.
---------
Better still. I've always felt engineers are the stupidest smart people you will ever meet. We should be forming engineering coops. We have some very rich tech people who could easily start this off. We could start providing services as well as developing products. Remember the good old days of the telecom monopolies? There was a constant inflow of money to r&d. Not to say there weren't any problems of course. But in todays free market, wouldn't it be great if Google or Cisco started their own ISP? Some have started this of course. Google realized it needed a good stream of revenue (ads). RIM has realized this too and they basically have their own network which adds a surcharge to the telecom bill that goes to it.
Oh I'd agree that unions could be a productive force. For example, in Sweden there is no minimum wage. Wages are just agreed upon. Then again, they also privatized their pension system realizing it wasn't sustainable:) In China, WalMart is unionized.
The problem is the kind of union culture you have. Sadly, in America we do not have a Swedish union culture. We follow the anglo-saxon/French union structure.
It is very confrontational with management. It is why France has one of the lowest unionization rates in the world. Only some privileged sectors are unionized (public sector, transportation...) and they hold the country hostage. It's why polls reveal the average young person in France only has one goal (to work for the public sector). This is what's happening in these countries.
Yes, I don't care whose fault it is... managements or unions. The reality is that when the company is not doing well... neither does well.
We all know the result of a rising third world: we get a lower standard of living. Now this is a long process and it is taking time.
The reality is, India wouldn't be so competitive if people in America didn't have this concept of an ever increasing standard of living (as if that is possible). We all weigh ourselves based on the work of others. Most of what we pay goes to the wages of others. We've only enjoyed material wealth recently because we can pay overseas people nothing.
If the fast food worker is paid 25K/year, then the teacher must be paid 50K/yeah, then the engineer must be paid 100K/yeah, then the doctor must be paid 300K/year...
If you want your engineering job to be competitive... there are 2 ways: 1. decrease the value of the dollar (kills savings, investment) 2. have a universal pay cut.
If the fast food worker is paid 15K/year, then the teacher paid 30k,, then the engineer paid 60K... suddenly it is no more costly. And believe me, rent and housing would drop as well, as would the cost of all services (medical...). Only goods imported would appear more costly.
That WILL be the end result of all this. A more equitable payscale globally. Unfortunately, trying to get this done when dealing with things that are not the free market (unions, public sector workers...) is tougher. This is really the dilemma western nations face.
If we don't act, you're going to see a lack of skilled labor. Why? Well, why would a skilled young person go into engineering if they can make more money as a teacher or a nurse or a bus driver. Trust me, this is happening now in Canada. Teacher salaries are creeping into the 80-90K range. This only hinders competitiveness more and accelerates the transfer of skilled labor to such places. The only skilled profession intelligent young westerners want to get into now is healthcare (doctors...) due the guaranteed high payoff.
so don't blame the companies. Don't blame India. Westerners are digging their own grave by refusing to acknowledge reality.
No longer can you have the cushy job while the Asians build your railways and the Mexicans farm your food.
In theory as well the public sector is bad as it is a monopoly full of self-interested unions who only seek to maximize their own monetary position.
Yet, why don't we look at reality instead of theory. Sure the private sector has given us Enrons... but it has also given us Google and Tesla and 3M...
The public sector has only given us Enrons... with the payouts admittedly given to public sector employees instead of shareholders.
To top it all off, you're trying to connect the flimsy spacecraft built by Russians (state run communist program)... and saying this is what the private sector would build??? You base this on what? Cars that have been improving in quality and efficiency over and over (talking about cars overall in a free market.. spare us the anti GM SUV comments... the market has chosen Honda and Toyota). Computers which have gotten more reliable and cheaper? Just where is your evidence that the private sector would build something as hacked together as the state-build Russian space system?
More importantly... where is your evidence that the market would ultimately favor a slapped together space vehicle instead of a quality one?
As for an x-prize type scenario. This is more like a prototype challenge. It would not be end all of space exploration. yet, who knows what ingenuity would come from it. I'm pretty sure, it wouldn't become the chose commercial route to space until it met strict safety and requirements. So dare I say, who cares if an xprize results in some poor guy testing it? It's their choice to risk their life.
Imagine our history if the Wright brothers were not allowed to hack together a plane and all airplane research had to be done by a government sanctioned body?
"The only legitimate use of Flash is to add functionality which isn't yet in a browser, and to select chunks of the page -- that is, YouTube isn't entirely Flash, just the player. But that should only be a holdover until the necessary things are implemented in the browser."
And right here you quickly find why idealists fail. There is no such thing as a 'holdever'. If the 'standards' people cannot implement things to provide the market, alternatives inevitably come in. These alternatives don't go away because they're always 10 steps ahead of the standards people.
Quite frankly, HTML was meant to allow things like Flash to exist. It is actually one of HTML's greatest strengths in that you can embed other content into the file. The fact that some websites actually go beyond embedding by using flash in bad ways is not the concern of flash, but should be a concern for the HTML folks. If Flash offers an easier model that produces better looking results, then the question you should be asking is "why doesn't the standard allow things to be as easy and good looking as flash"
Don't be angry at Flash. Be angry at the standard's bodies. Heck, its only been in recent years that they've even added asynchronous page updates (AJAX).
I agree, except...and this is a big exception... it has to apply to all professions. Otherwise, you get wage distortion which is what you get in places like France.
Can you imagine an America where cheap foreign engineers come in and depress wages so a good engineer makes 40K / year. Meanwhile, a teacher makes 60 K and a doctor still makes 300K? No American in their right mind would go into the field. Within 1 generation, even the H1B workers would catch on and not do the work anymore. The jobs would end up in India any.
Now, the day you open up doctors, teachers... to free market competition then this kind of open borders might work as their wages would get depressed as well. Engineers keep shooting themselves on some fantasy of 'fairness', but in the end the rest of the professions don't obey these rules.
Well this all depends on the company. MediaMax/Linkup is not a name I recognize or a trusted industry leader. So I certainly wouldn't expect much of them.
It's like a new banks hows up in your neighborhood that is not regulated or insured or anything. Do you just dump your money there? I would hope not. So why would anyone trust their data to such a service?
I trust Google/hotmail with my email (they certainly do more backups than I would do). Would I trust them with essential business information or something? Maybe... but I'd have to properly investigate their backup procedures... or implement my own. Yet, this article does a poor job by finding one shoddy company and using it as a baseline. Pardon me if I ever do depend on one of these in which case I will be paying for it, that I demand a SLA (service level agreement).
Slashdot Mirror
I posted on this as well.
That is because Cuba does primary care very well.
If Americans were okay with primary care, they too could get it.
However, Cuba is certainly not building robotic arms for people who lost their arms.
Cuba is not inventing crazy drugs to cure lord knows what disease.
Most of the US system is plagued by specialists and intensive care. That is what costs the system the most. Oddly enough, that is where most doctors go, because that is where the money is. So in the US, you end up with a system of very poor primary care, but if you are really sick, it is the best system in the world... even if you're just going to die anyways, they will try every treatment in the book.
Get one of these advanced diseases in Cuba, you're dead.
Me, I'd be more than happy with a system that focused on primary health. However, that is the difference with the American system. Americans are consumers. If there is a latest drug or technology or method, we want it.
Now statistically, advanced care doesn't do too much for you. All the stats (life expectancy, infant mortality...) are largely influenced by primary care. All the advanced care stuff is consumer oriented. If you, as an American would be willing to not take the most advanced care, and be willing to accept death, America could have system like Cuba's.
Me, I think primary care should be free. Doctors who want to specialize in advance care should do it entirely within a private a system, but mandate they must spend 1/2 their time in the public primary care system.
sorry... "Here's some statistics for you. 78% of Medicare costs come in treating people in their last year of life." This is worded poorly. 77% of the medicare money spent on a dead person is spent in their last year of life.
Point remains, but thought I'd clear it up.
I wonder if this will even be read being this far down. Most of my family is in the healthcare field. Here's the problem.
There are essentially 2 kinds of healthcare that need to be provided.
1. basic/primary care. This is relatively cheap to provide. Treat common condition, vaccinate people... Stuff you could generally get a nurse practitioner to do. You can also lump in emergency room care and basic surgery that need doctors.
2. advanced/chronic care. This includes things like advanced cancer therapy, triple bypass surgery...
Basic care should be universal with minimal costs. It is what 99% of people need 99% of the time. If you're a statistic person, most of the life expectancy and quality of life is dependent on basic/primary care.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/6/750
Here's some statistics for you. 78% of Medicare costs come in treating people in their last year of life. By any measure, this is a waste of money. People are dying and we're throwing all our resources in a failed effort to keep them alive. a lot of other research shows the same thing.
Advanced/chronic care should NEVER be universal. It creates a system of infinite demand for highly trained professionals and resources. Does it mean if you get diagnosed with cancer that maybe you don't have enough money to be treated? Maybe. But getting treated for cancer is expensive. In the end, you're going to die of something. If you provide universal advanced care, everyone will want to try everything to preserve their life. We face this problem in Canada with universal healtcare. We've had cases where people fly to the US to get some advanced treatment which doesn't cure them, but only extends their life for a year, then they sue the government for treatment. The reason? If its universal and you're sick, you want everything done to you or your loved one. This is the infinite demand equation. People cannot accept death and so will try everything to save themselves/family. In other countries this is contained by costs.
Theoretically, doctors should be the guardians and should be responsible for best allocation of health resources. However, doctors can't even refuse to give patients anti-biotics when the know its not effective. Doctors give in to patient demands. So there has to be a monetary cost to getting advanced treatment. It's a cold reality.
So what would I like to see from a candidate. Universal basic care. Advanced care must be kept private or it WILL bankrupt any country. Unfortunately, North America is a consumer culture. We want things now and we want things our way. We care much more about the advanced care than the real primary care that would make our living life much better. We don't deal well with death.
Hi, I'm a scientific polar bear. Hence why I am smart enough to post on Slashdot.
I have done some investigating and much traveling in my time. I've noticed the land to the south is far too warm for us polar bears. I was only able to venture there for a short time before having to return. During my venturing, I did not see a single other polar bear. Though I did see many strange creatures. So I do not think it is valid for you to estimate the polar bears existence in these warmer lands. It does not appear to be suited for polar bear life.
However, based on my observation of the sun, it is likely a similar cold place exists on the opposite side of the planet. It is likely that it is cold enough to support polar bear life. We cannot be sure of course. However, it is a reasonable assumption that if Polar bears exist elsewhere, they would exist there.
------
An assumption that would be wrong of course as Polar bears do not live in the Antarctic. However, that is how science discovers the unknown. Making the best of our current knowledge and try and extend it to make predictions on the unknown. I'd listen to my scientific polar bear over your satirical polar bear any day.
Not to mention that in the process of trying to hypothesize the polar bear population using real factors like the weather... my scientific polar bear learns more about polar bears, creates new questions, and is better prepared to decide what experiments to run when the technology arrives. So when polar bears invent boats, I will consult my scientific polar bear on the best place to launch a mission to maximize our chances of finding other polar bears or at least a place where polar bears could setup a colony
This is very true of course. Further of note is who decides who is the most capable. Is it the engineers? The lawyers? The social scientists? The scientists? The English PHDs? The doctors?
Then we look at the systems the 'elites' have created.
The lawyers make the law more and more convuluted each and every year so only they can navigate the system.
The financial geniuses use leverage and central banking to manipulate the market to enrich themselves.
The universities become places of entry for the elite. You must pay them in order to gain access to the other elite professions.
The doctors become guardians of the medical system. You're surely incapable of diagnosing or treating yourself.
No doubt, there are valid reasons to 'trust in the elites.'
There are also reasons to believe they will abuse their power to enrich themselves.
Meanwhile, 'ye old JoeSixpack' doing productive work in the warehouse or farm is left at the mercy of this system.
There is a balance we must reach between democracy and a meritocracy.
I wonder if you think I'm in India or something?
I'm live in North America. I just see the writing on the wall. I can't wait until our societies are equalized so we can stop this outsourcing nonsense. It's already happened to some extent in India. My company (a large telco equipment manufacturer) setup shop there a while ago. They can't find enough qualified candidates. Salaries have gone through the roof.
As someone else said in this thread... once you have the free market for goods, services, capital... you cannot avoid it for labor. I've realized there's little point in fighting the inevitable. Better to embrace it and I have. I now say we in the West are going to have to lower our standard of living. The only reason we engineers feel underpaid/overworked/under constant threat is because other easier professions are paid more. These are typically due to being in the public sector, or having a strict regulatory body attached to them (law, medicine...), or receiving public funds.
So I've turned to the dark side. I say they opened up the flood gates of competition upon us. I say we open the flood gates of competition on them (doctors, lawyers, teachers, bus drivers...). I can survive on my own merits... still gainfully employed. Let's see how they do. Some call it a race to the bottom, I say it's us going down, they're going up... and we'll meet half way. I'm happy with that.
Your created problem: Companies wills simply build overseads campuses and employ them there. Oh wait, that's already happening.
There is no way around this. Our societies will equalize. There is no justification for the average American earning 10X what another person doing an equivalanet job earns. Things will fix themselves. Either by devaluation of the dollar or by direct wage cuts.
well what business wants competition?
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about things like proprietary data formats, locking down your system...
There are laws to counter such things in order to promote fair competition. Microsoft has to obey those laws. That is all anyone should ask of them. That is all that is asked of any business.
now you see why they appreciate windows.
Microsoft takes care of all that.
They work with all the hardware vendors.
They've taken care of 'training' (in big quotes) the users.
They don't get as many support calls/returns (as here)
These are big slow companies. If they wanted to properly linux, you're looking at significant investment by them. Probably a new whole division. Managers upon managers... all for what?
It's the same with customers.
Let's say windows cost 50 dollars OEM above the cost of Linux. Now, how much 'training' can you purchase for 50 dollars. Maybe 2 hours worth. Plus all the effort... To top it off, 50 bucks for a tool you use every single day is nothing. People spend more than that just eating out.
Imagine if each bank/company could issue their own cash. They would each print their own denominations with different security features... it would be a mess.
So why doesn't the government regulate 'e-security'. At the very least, it should take opinion from the IEEE or something to guide the industry.
I'm still amazed we don't have chip cards.
Anywhose...
It is your resume. You put what you want on it to appeal to the company.
If you think your tech-support experience is negative... get it out of your resume!
If they ask what you have been doing for the past 2 years, say you have been traveling the world.
This is hardly a complicated issue.
I despise people like you.
I love engineering, but I also enjoy my life. Pardon me for not wanting to be a one-dimensional corporate slave.
Technologies that change every few weeks / drinking from the firehouse? Sounds like a lack of training and people to properly distribute the work.
Late night builds / weekend bug hunts? you like doing free work don't you?
It's one of the reasons I am leaving the field. Soulless corporate business people + easily exploitable engineers who think its a worthwhile to work under such conditions. It has a certian symmetry to it.
My solution: Getting a regular job and then doing engineering on the side.
Yes, everything rests on assumptions. Without assumption we could not bother making a thought.
But to reduce all assumption and conclusions to the same level is a grave mistake.
It is entirely possible we are in fact a part of the matrix and this entire world is just as simulation meant to keep humans in prison to provide power. Now, I will assume that is NOT true for the basis of my world view :)
Now even if we are in the matrix, does it make the rules of the matrix (physics, chemistry... ) any less relevant? We should still study our environment as it has real consequences. Should we perhaps seek ways to influence or escape the matrix? Perhaps. But if someone told you that you could escape the matrix by killing yourself, would you do it? Most of us wouldn't because we realize that is one big assumption to make in life.
On the other hand, I assume Newtonian physics is correct. Maybe I cannot prove the existence of a gravity particle or know exactly how the world works. However, I've seen Newtonian physics work time and time again, so I will assume it is true. A very reasonable assumption given the evidence and repeatability. I would be willing to wager my life on the theory that if I throw a ball up in the air, it would come down.
Such is the difference between dogma and assumptions. Dogma treats assumptions as fact and people do not consider the possibility that they are wrong. That is being dogmatic. Dogma also allows a person to ignore evidence contrary to their view by excusing it.
To put it simply. I have no problem with someone having a theory that we are in fact in the matrix. I have a big problem with someone willing to risk their or anybody else's life on that.
However, once you state your assumption, you can most certainly follow a logical path to deduce and reason. It is this logical path that is rationality.
It should be noted that almost any system of thought is capable of dogma (religion, atheism, democracy, communism...).
I for example would love to hear any supporter of late term abortion explain their views in a logical manner. Unless they plan to ignore virtually all of medical science, they cannot. This is the height of dogma where people even ignore evidence from a source they do not dispute.
They are actually more dogmatic than pro-life religious people. They've made an assumption of a world with a soul. Based on that world view, it is logical that life begins at conception as the soul is created there. Now would I base any policy on that? Absolutely not.
there's a difference between saying 'no' and trying to show up your boss.
I know my managers and what not are morons. I just keep my mouth shut and be on my way.
While true... it is only true for firms that do not 'get' software. I've been an embedded software guy for years. I applied to Microsoft, they matched me with a C#, SQL job. Yet, I was absolutely impressed with how they get software, how they treat their employees... (maybe I was just being sold and its terrible while actually working there). Hence, why I'm still pondering if I should take it or not. I've had similar experience with other companies.
Though I never got the job, Google's job descriptions are similar as well.
Now of course, these are highly successful software firms, not the other 99% of idiotic firms out there.
My advice to any engineers out there. Either you get into a firm that gets software/engineering, or you get out of the field. Chances are you're too intelligent for the rest of the jobs, which will be picked up by college grads with the right certs (CCNA, MSCE...) being managed by idiotic business managers on top of more managers on top of more managers.
That's what I'm doing. There are no good firms where I live. So I'm either joining redmond or moving into healthcare. I'm not that type-a business personality, so I probably wouldn't be a good fit for the MBA role. My vision of engineering is a cooperative where engineers are professionals doing the work, interacting with customers... :P Take that for what it is and why I guess I'm not cut out for the new age of analysts specializing in specializing.
forget organizing, just grow some balls.
I learned from another worker... just say no. Sometimes I just say yeah and then don't do it. Don't do it. Now he didn't get all the right promotions and I don't expect to either. Nonetheless. he didn't get fired and so far I haven't either.
Either that, or get into management :P
Or is it that IT folks are so stupid they believe they can 'program' without any domain level knowledge.
Yes, programming is a very generic skill. Yet ultimately, people care about what you can do within the specific domain. I work in telecommunications field, and while you need good software engineering skills 90% of my job is protocol/router/OS specific. It's taken me a while to realize that is the real expertize... that is the real skill.
Similarly, you need to ask how it came to be that you have supposedly intelligent programmers who could understand financial concepts with ease have to have 'business people' actually deal with customer requirements and oversee them.
I really wouldn't recommended anyone just get a computer science degree or take some generic programming courses. Get a business degree with a minor in computer science. Or get into healthcare and get a minor in computer science... Programming is a tool and we will be treated as such.
Having lived under the rule of white apartheid south africa, I could care less if someone is racist or 'bias' against a certain group. Just don't use the law to do it. As long as the law is not stopping you, you can always use freedom to do what you want. Not being hired because you're a certain skin color? Start your own company. That's all it takes.
In all honesty I find people in the West obsessed with calling people racist and dumping the whole history of slavery on them. As if race/skin color is any more of a gang than religion or political affiliation. From a practical perspective, that's all it is... gangs try to raise themselves up against competing gangs.
heck, I'd go so far as to say, the primary role of the state is to prevent gangs from subjugating others.
There are definitely things IT and engineers in general can do without falling into the typical union/professional organization problems.
Problems:
pay/stability based on seniority not merit
fixed pay grids
exclusionary to new comers
Things we could do:
monitor overtime across the industry and get paid for it
mandate career development/training
divide up the loot between shareholders and employees. Ex: 100 million in profit. We negotiate and say 40 million goes to investors... 60 million goes to employees as bonuses.
mandate mentorship and knowledge transfer
Now if we didn't mind stepping on a few toes and becoming the people we complain about :P
we could restrict membership like the medical associations and the legal profession. What to write some software? Well you need a software engineering degree with a license to write software.
---------
Better still. I've always felt engineers are the stupidest smart people you will ever meet.
We should be forming engineering coops. We have some very rich tech people who could easily start this off.
We could start providing services as well as developing products. Remember the good old days of the telecom monopolies? There was a constant inflow of money to r&d. Not to say there weren't any problems of course. But in todays free market, wouldn't it be great if Google or Cisco started their own ISP? Some have started this of course.
Google realized it needed a good stream of revenue (ads). RIM has realized this too and they basically have their own network which adds a surcharge to the telecom bill that goes to it.
Oh I'd agree that unions could be a productive force. For example, in Sweden there is no minimum wage. Wages are just agreed upon. Then again, they also privatized their pension system realizing it wasn't sustainable :) In China, WalMart is unionized.
The problem is the kind of union culture you have. Sadly, in America we do not have a Swedish union culture. We follow the anglo-saxon/French union structure.
It is very confrontational with management. It is why France has one of the lowest unionization rates in the world. Only some privileged sectors are unionized (public sector, transportation...) and they hold the country hostage. It's why polls reveal the average young person in France only has one goal (to work for the public sector). This is what's happening in these countries.
Yes, I don't care whose fault it is... managements or unions. The reality is that when the company is not doing well... neither does well.
On the contrary... blame Americans.
We all know the result of a rising third world: we get a lower standard of living.
Now this is a long process and it is taking time.
The reality is, India wouldn't be so competitive if people in America didn't have this concept of an ever increasing standard of living (as if that is possible). We all weigh ourselves based on the work of others. Most of what we pay goes to the wages of others. We've only enjoyed material wealth recently because we can pay overseas people nothing.
If the fast food worker is paid 25K/year, then the teacher must be paid 50K/yeah, then the engineer must be paid 100K/yeah, then the doctor must be paid 300K/year...
If you want your engineering job to be competitive... there are 2 ways:
1. decrease the value of the dollar (kills savings, investment)
2. have a universal pay cut.
If the fast food worker is paid 15K/year, then the teacher paid 30k,, then the engineer paid 60K ... suddenly it is no more costly. And believe me, rent and housing would drop as well, as would the cost of all services (medical...). Only goods imported would appear more costly.
That WILL be the end result of all this. A more equitable payscale globally. Unfortunately, trying to get this done when dealing with things that are not the free market (unions, public sector workers...) is tougher. This is really the dilemma western nations face.
If we don't act, you're going to see a lack of skilled labor. Why?
Well, why would a skilled young person go into engineering if they can make more money as a teacher or a nurse or a bus driver. Trust me, this is happening now in Canada. Teacher salaries are creeping into the 80-90K range. This only hinders competitiveness more and accelerates the transfer of skilled labor to such places. The only skilled profession intelligent young westerners want to get into now is healthcare (doctors...) due the guaranteed high payoff.
so don't blame the companies. Don't blame India. Westerners are digging their own grave by refusing to acknowledge reality.
No longer can you have the cushy job while the Asians build your railways and the Mexicans farm your food.
In theory as well the public sector is bad as it is a monopoly full of self-interested unions who only seek to maximize their own monetary position.
Yet, why don't we look at reality instead of theory.
Sure the private sector has given us Enrons... but it has also given us Google and Tesla and 3M...
The public sector has only given us Enrons... with the payouts admittedly given to public sector employees instead of shareholders.
To top it all off, you're trying to connect the flimsy spacecraft built by Russians (state run communist program)... and saying this is what the private sector would build???
You base this on what? Cars that have been improving in quality and efficiency over and over (talking about cars overall in a free market.. spare us the anti GM SUV comments... the market has chosen Honda and Toyota). Computers which have gotten more reliable and cheaper? Just where is your evidence that the private sector would build something as hacked together as the state-build Russian space system?
More importantly... where is your evidence that the market would ultimately favor a slapped together space vehicle instead of a quality one?
As for an x-prize type scenario. This is more like a prototype challenge. It would not be end all of space exploration. yet, who knows what ingenuity would come from it. I'm pretty sure, it wouldn't become the chose commercial route to space until it met strict safety and requirements. So dare I say, who cares if an xprize results in some poor guy testing it? It's their choice to risk their life.
Imagine our history if the Wright brothers were not allowed to hack together a plane and all airplane research had to be done by a government sanctioned body?
"The only legitimate use of Flash is to add functionality which isn't yet in a browser, and to select chunks of the page -- that is, YouTube isn't entirely Flash, just the player. But that should only be a holdover until the necessary things are implemented in the browser."
And right here you quickly find why idealists fail. There is no such thing as a 'holdever'.
If the 'standards' people cannot implement things to provide the market, alternatives inevitably come in. These alternatives don't go away because they're always 10 steps ahead of the standards people.
Quite frankly, HTML was meant to allow things like Flash to exist. It is actually one of HTML's greatest strengths in that you can embed other content into the file. The fact that some websites actually go beyond embedding by using flash in bad ways is not the concern of flash, but should be a concern for the HTML folks. If Flash offers an easier model that produces better looking results, then the question you should be asking is "why doesn't the standard allow things to be as easy and good looking as flash"
Don't be angry at Flash. Be angry at the standard's bodies. Heck, its only been in recent years that they've even added asynchronous page updates (AJAX).
I agree, except...and this is a big exception... it has to apply to all professions. Otherwise, you get wage distortion which is what you get in places like France.
Can you imagine an America where cheap foreign engineers come in and depress wages so a good engineer makes 40K / year. Meanwhile, a teacher makes 60 K and a doctor still makes 300K? No American in their right mind would go into the field. Within 1 generation, even the H1B workers would catch on and not do the work anymore. The jobs would end up in India any.
Now, the day you open up doctors, teachers... to free market competition then this kind of open borders might work as their wages would get depressed as well. Engineers keep shooting themselves on some fantasy of 'fairness', but in the end the rest of the professions don't obey these rules.
Well this all depends on the company. MediaMax/Linkup is not a name I recognize or a trusted industry leader. So I certainly wouldn't expect much of them.
It's like a new banks hows up in your neighborhood that is not regulated or insured or anything. Do you just dump your money there? I would hope not. So why would anyone trust their data to such a service?
I trust Google/hotmail with my email (they certainly do more backups than I would do). Would I trust them with essential business information or something? Maybe... but I'd have to properly investigate their backup procedures... or implement my own. Yet, this article does a poor job by finding one shoddy company and using it as a baseline. Pardon me if I ever do depend on one of these in which case I will be paying for it, that I demand a SLA (service level agreement).