You can't get any good admins because no one can become a good admin now. This is because newbies can't get any experience in system/network admins. Most sysadmin jobs are all offshored and there's only a tiny few jobs for them domestically. And all those jobs require 5-10 years of experience.
Hardly any school in the country teaches system administration in a structured, disciplined way which means you learn it piecemeal and miss quite a few important things (thus inspiring people to reinvent the wheel). Network administration doesn't teach you specific operating systems except Windows and some uberpopular brand of Linux. If the OS game changes on you, like say you're put into a network run by Macs? Crispy toasty city, you're more lost than Goldilocks.
Corporate America has destroyed the entry level base from which more experienced workers are made. You can't get an entry level job to get the experience required for a "real" sysadmin job.
So now you have a tiny handful of old guard admins who are probably employed for life, and the rest of your applicants are newbies trying to break into the industry.
This is Catch-22 at its finest. But Corporate America brought this upon themselves.
You should be modded up to the stars for speaking out against discrimination against men and disavowing hatred of women at the same time. Thanks for representing in a good way!
[ Economists don't agree with you. A enormous part of the U.S.'s wealth is due to trade - both imports and exports. Remove that, and U.S.'s standard of living would be cut in half. In general, free trade makes everyone wealthier.]
Who cares what these economists agree or disagree with? They only care about the well being of the industry and not the college educated individuals who are out of work and who are struggling to make ends meet. Economists make excuses for CEOs who take the corporate till to the cleaners for millions of dollars while their company sinks and their workers lose their jobs and pensions.
Economists don't take into account the huge national security risks that globalism presents.
There's one use for economists: keeping Ayn Rand fans "entertained", if ya know what I mean.
While I'm taking that course in economics, why don't you take a starter course in history and also national security?
My beef is with free trade with China, not the UK, Canada, etc. Free trade with those westernized nations is cool by my book. Free trade with blatant human rights hating ubercheaters like China presents dangers and hypocrisies which astronomically negate any economic theories you can come up with.
China is the one passing weapons of mass destruction (nukes) to Pakistan, not the western nations. China is the one that may soon threaten Taiwan and drag the US (who has sworn to defend Taiwan) into a war, not Germany or Canada. China is everything Saddam's Iraq was, and far worse. We embargoed Iraq - why in the world are we then having total free trade with China?
As for Indonesia, they and China are both far more relevant as the equivalent of steroid users than Canada and Britain.
Now, about India, you won't agree with me about cutting free trade with them until your credit card information is actually stolen by some foreign call center worker and you find yourself facing 400 creditors while trying to track down an Al Qaeda operative running up debts in your name 8000 miles away before the FBI catches up to you and locks you away in Guantanamo for bomb purchases you never made. Once again, the dire threat this poses to Americans completely renders irrelevant your 288,000 PhD's in uber-economics and 48,000 Nobel Prizes you're going to wave at me in your response. And before you say domestic identity theft is a bigger problem, I'll add right now that a) it's only a bigger problem now before Al Qaeda figures out what a friggin gold mine these foreign call centers are; and b) the FBI cannot storm a house in Bangalore and arrest anyone for messing you over. You're at the mercy of the East Indian Government. Good luck with that.
Me, I'll never accept any "economics" class that says it is okay if some offshore punk jacks my identity and gets away with it because it's 99.999% good for some megacorporation's profits.
But I ain't done yet here. Now, about your Pentium 4's. You won't be praising the offshoring of this when Intel's intellectual property gets stolen over there and knockoffs flood the market from a country where it's impossible to prosecute the counterfeiters. (Like, say, CHINA or INDONESIA!) What does your almighty economics God say about low quality $2 Pentium 8's flooding the market and ruining Intel's reputation because people now think Intel is making crap (when in fact it is Chinese knockoff-makers who are making crap in Intel's name)?
Go look up "Cisco / Huawei" and "Chevy Spark / Cherry QQ" on Google if you doubt that this nightmare scenario can actually happen.
And yeah, IP theft happens in the US. But if some domestic dumb bunny lifts some IP in the States (or Britain or Canada, for that matter), and produces a knockoff, they're going down to Chinatown. Quick. On the other hand, ask Cisco how fast they got justice when their software was stolen in China.
As for F/OSS products, that is flat out apples and oranges. F/OSS can be scrutinized like crazy by anyone anywhere no matter what country it comes from. F/OSS renders the offshoring problem irrelevant. In the F/OSS world, skill beats cost of labor, as labor in that case is "free". As a matter of fact, if you had had that economics degree you're trying to wave at me, you'd fear F/OSS more than any evil Kommunist anti-free trade bogeyman, if Red Hat's CEO is right. What worse thing can happen to the Economics God than (in his words) reducing the software industry from a multitrillion dollar world to a multimillion dollar world? Heck, F/OSS has been called Kommunism by its detractors, lol!
Will the US THEN finally wake up and realize that we have done far more damage to our economy and our standing as a superpower by "free trade" than by hitting offshoring with crippling fines and sinking that ship of death?
And yes, outlawing offshoring precipitously would force companies to hire and train domestically. It WOULD increase our base of educated Americans and it would lead to more jobs here. What are companies going to do, stop making software?! If people want the software it's going to be made, and if a company fears to take our jobs overseas to do it they'll suck it down and make it here. Or some other domestic company will take their place.
We can hit foreign competition with heavy tariffs so they can't lowball us. Which means sweatshops and prison labor camps overseas can't compete with (slightly more) ethical workplaces here. It would be the industry equivalent of banning steroid users from the NBA, and you don't see the NBA being beaten by cheap offshore baller associations, do ya?
The US needs to bite the bullet, lose the import dependency and start standing on our own two real (as opposed to "assets on paper") feet again. We will suffer now to strengthen our domestic base or we will suffer later when (not if, WHEN) foreign nations find a way to shut us out of the industrial loop.
Bad analogy. One cannot really be sure of how a horse will perform at a race track. But someone should be fairly sure of their views on global warming if they make themselves out to be a pundit.
Scientists who are debating global warming from either point of view - especially those who may influence government policy - are betting the lives of over six billion people on the accuracy of their beliefs. Compared to that, what's 5 grand?
Scientists who stand firm on the belief that humans are causing global warming, have been involved in several bet-challenges with skeptics. Here's how two of them panned out:
"Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.
No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms."- In other words, Lindzen made it so it wasn't a fair bet. He poisoned the wager.
"In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks."- In other words, Monbiot flat out chickened out.
The thing is, what happens if (by a miracle) enough nations enact policies that cause lower greenhouse gas emissions and global warming stops? Then who wins?
Ok, Adonis, where's your picture and all the hot ladies you've got swarming your doorstep? When you can't refute what he said, you gotta attack his looks, I suppose.
"Even this artistic impetus would at last die away--had almost died in the Time I saw. To adorn themselves with flowers, to dance, to sing in the sunlight: so much was left of the artistic spirit, and no more. Even that would fade in the end into a contented inactivity. We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity, and, it seemed to me, that here was that hateful grindstone broken at last!" - HG Wells, "The Time Machine"
Please read The Time Machine - the book, not the movie. You'll learn from that why we're in the stasis we are in today.
"So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
Damn those neo-cons! Damn them to HELL!"
Actually, the lesson here is that environmentalism, which is
* codified by the Government and its pollution laws * strongly supported by liberals (and absolutely everyone else left of the far Right) * vehemently opposed by neo-cons (they say it is Government intrusion on the free market) * highly enabled by democracy (voters want environmental protection laws more than neo cons want to abolish them) * strongly opposed by capitalist industry lobbyists
results in a better environment (i.e., more breathable air, more drinkable water).
"We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution."
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities. Proof: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts40287.htm
I disagree that these scientists are breaking any *legitimate* law, but if you accept as a premise that they are, then they are in fact breaking the law using taxpayer dollars.
Instead of modding that down it should be modded up so more people can discuss the ramifications.
Do we allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on civil disobedience? On that issue, I am very unsure.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't get any good admins because no one can become a good admin now. This is because newbies can't get any experience in system/network admins. Most sysadmin jobs are all offshored and there's only a tiny few jobs for them domestically. And all those jobs require 5-10 years of experience.
Hardly any school in the country teaches system administration in a structured, disciplined way which means you learn it piecemeal and miss quite a few important things (thus inspiring people to reinvent the wheel). Network administration doesn't teach you specific operating systems except Windows and some uberpopular brand of Linux. If the OS game changes on you, like say you're put into a network run by Macs? Crispy toasty city, you're more lost than Goldilocks.
Corporate America has destroyed the entry level base from which more experienced workers are made. You can't get an entry level job to get the experience required for a "real" sysadmin job.
So now you have a tiny handful of old guard admins who are probably employed for life, and the rest of your applicants are newbies trying to break into the industry.
This is Catch-22 at its finest. But Corporate America brought this upon themselves.
We're discussing the ramifications of hacking into US military systems. What's up with the moderation here??
It's an article about hackers, gimme a break :p
Why was brazil's post modded as flamebait? It's an alternative point of view and quite a valid one as far as I'm concerned.
Now, China pwns Bush and they pwn the corporate goons who pwn Bush.
Free trade with China must be preserved even if it means ignoring acts of war.
That's why cyborgs are so much better. A player sits there while the bot is running, and responds to any chatter.
If I were using this stuff I'd want to babysit it on the chance that a glitch might cost me money instead of making money.
[Games should be fun -- not business, IMHO.]
Anything that involves real money is, or becomes, business.
Darwin never sleeps.
[Many men, on the other hand, prefer explicit/formal communication and either dismiss these non-verbal cues as unimportant,]
Not unimportant.
UNRELIABLE.
You should be modded up to the stars for speaking out against discrimination against men and disavowing hatred of women at the same time. Thanks for representing in a good way!
My hat's off to ya, dude. That took guts to say.
[ Economists don't agree with you. A enormous part of the U.S.'s wealth is due to trade - both imports and exports. Remove that, and U.S.'s standard of living would be cut in half. In general, free trade makes everyone wealthier.]
Who cares what these economists agree or disagree with? They only care about the well being of the industry and not the college educated individuals who are out of work and who are struggling to make ends meet. Economists make excuses for CEOs who take the corporate till to the cleaners for millions of dollars while their company sinks and their workers lose their jobs and pensions.
Economists don't take into account the huge national security risks that globalism presents.
There's one use for economists: keeping Ayn Rand fans "entertained", if ya know what I mean.
While I'm taking that course in economics, why don't you take a starter course in history and also national security?
My beef is with free trade with China, not the UK, Canada, etc. Free trade with those westernized nations is cool by my book. Free trade with blatant human rights hating ubercheaters like China presents dangers and hypocrisies which astronomically negate any economic theories you can come up with.
China is the one passing weapons of mass destruction (nukes) to Pakistan, not the western nations. China is the one that may soon threaten Taiwan and drag the US (who has sworn to defend Taiwan) into a war, not Germany or Canada. China is everything Saddam's Iraq was, and far worse. We embargoed Iraq - why in the world are we then having total free trade with China?
As for Indonesia, they and China are both far more relevant as the equivalent of steroid users than Canada and Britain.
Now, about India, you won't agree with me about cutting free trade with them until your credit card information is actually stolen by some foreign call center worker and you find yourself facing 400 creditors while trying to track down an Al Qaeda operative running up debts in your name 8000 miles away before the FBI catches up to you and locks you away in Guantanamo for bomb purchases you never made. Once again, the dire threat this poses to Americans completely renders irrelevant your 288,000 PhD's in uber-economics and 48,000 Nobel Prizes you're going to wave at me in your response. And before you say domestic identity theft is a bigger problem, I'll add right now that a) it's only a bigger problem now before Al Qaeda figures out what a friggin gold mine these foreign call centers are; and b) the FBI cannot storm a house in Bangalore and arrest anyone for messing you over. You're at the mercy of the East Indian Government. Good luck with that.
Me, I'll never accept any "economics" class that says it is okay if some offshore punk jacks my identity and gets away with it because it's 99.999% good for some megacorporation's profits.
But I ain't done yet here. Now, about your Pentium 4's. You won't be praising the offshoring of this when Intel's intellectual property gets stolen over there and knockoffs flood the market from a country where it's impossible to prosecute the counterfeiters. (Like, say, CHINA or INDONESIA!) What does your almighty economics God say about low quality $2 Pentium 8's flooding the market and ruining Intel's reputation because people now think Intel is making crap (when in fact it is Chinese knockoff-makers who are making crap in Intel's name)?
Go look up "Cisco / Huawei" and "Chevy Spark / Cherry QQ" on Google if you doubt that this nightmare scenario can actually happen.
And yeah, IP theft happens in the US. But if some domestic dumb bunny lifts some IP in the States (or Britain or Canada, for that matter), and produces a knockoff, they're going down to Chinatown. Quick. On the other hand, ask Cisco how fast they got justice when their software was stolen in China.
As for F/OSS products, that is flat out apples and oranges. F/OSS can be scrutinized like crazy by anyone anywhere no matter what country it comes from. F/OSS renders the offshoring problem irrelevant. In the F/OSS world, skill beats cost of labor, as labor in that case is "free". As a matter of fact, if you had had that economics degree you're trying to wave at me, you'd fear F/OSS more than any evil Kommunist anti-free trade bogeyman, if Red Hat's CEO is right. What worse thing can happen to the Economics God than (in his words) reducing the software industry from a multitrillion dollar world to a multimillion dollar world? Heck, F/OSS has been called Kommunism by its detractors, lol!
China and India form a tech-industry alliance, as the Prime Minister of India once suggested?
r 1011719.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2003/06/26/rt
Will the US THEN finally wake up and realize that we have done far more damage to our economy and our standing as a superpower by "free trade" than by hitting offshoring with crippling fines and sinking that ship of death?
And yes, outlawing offshoring precipitously would force companies to hire and train domestically. It WOULD increase our base of educated Americans and it would lead to more jobs here. What are companies going to do, stop making software?! If people want the software it's going to be made, and if a company fears to take our jobs overseas to do it they'll suck it down and make it here. Or some other domestic company will take their place.
We can hit foreign competition with heavy tariffs so they can't lowball us. Which means sweatshops and prison labor camps overseas can't compete with (slightly more) ethical workplaces here. It would be the industry equivalent of banning steroid users from the NBA, and you don't see the NBA being beaten by cheap offshore baller associations, do ya?
The US needs to bite the bullet, lose the import dependency and start standing on our own two real (as opposed to "assets on paper") feet again. We will suffer now to strengthen our domestic base or we will suffer later when (not if, WHEN) foreign nations find a way to shut us out of the industrial loop.
eternal vigilance.
Bad analogy. One cannot really be sure of how a horse will perform at a race track. But someone should be fairly sure of their views on global warming if they make themselves out to be a pundit.
Scientists who are debating global warming from either point of view - especially those who may influence government policy - are betting the lives of over six billion people on the accuracy of their beliefs. Compared to that, what's 5 grand?
But what if he's right? He'd win the bet and his kids could go to college in more expensive clothes to boot.
Scientists who stand firm on the belief that humans are causing global warming, have been involved in several bet-challenges with skeptics. Here's how two of them panned out:
"Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.
No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms."- In other words, Lindzen made it so it wasn't a fair bet. He poisoned the wager.
"In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks."- In other words, Monbiot flat out chickened out.
The thing is, what happens if (by a miracle) enough nations enact policies that cause lower greenhouse gas emissions and global warming stops? Then who wins?
Ok, Adonis, where's your picture and all the hot ladies you've got swarming your doorstep? When you can't refute what he said, you gotta attack his looks, I suppose.
Medical students should be learning Chinese and at least one East Indian dialect as part of their major. And prepare to emigrate overseas!
"Even this artistic impetus would at last die away--had almost died in the Time I saw. To adorn themselves with flowers, to dance, to sing in the sunlight: so much was left of the artistic spirit, and no more. Even that would fade in the end into a contented inactivity. We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity, and, it seemed to me, that here was that hateful grindstone broken at last!" - HG Wells, "The Time Machine"
Please read The Time Machine - the book, not the movie. You'll learn from that why we're in the stasis we are in today.
Isn't that the same CALEA law that also forces router/NIC makers to install FBI backdoors (which can also be compromised by hackers)?
I see a big market soon for do-it-yourself NICs and PC routers...
"So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
Damn those neo-cons! Damn them to HELL!"
Actually, the lesson here is that environmentalism, which is
* codified by the Government and its pollution laws
* strongly supported by liberals (and absolutely everyone else left of the far Right)
* vehemently opposed by neo-cons (they say it is Government intrusion on the free market)
* highly enabled by democracy (voters want environmental protection laws more than neo cons want to abolish them)
* strongly opposed by capitalist industry lobbyists
results in a better environment (i.e., more breathable air, more drinkable water).
"We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution."
0 5cavallo
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities. Proof: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts40287.htm
Oh and recently, Exxon-Mobil Corporation announced that peak oil will happen in 5 years. Proof: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj
Also, for a good miniature end-of-the-world scenario that happened, go read up on Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island.
start your engines!!!!
I disagree that these scientists are breaking any *legitimate* law, but if you accept as a premise that they are, then they are in fact breaking the law using taxpayer dollars.
Instead of modding that down it should be modded up so more people can discuss the ramifications.
Do we allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on civil disobedience? On that issue, I am very unsure.