Globalization in and of itself isn't a bad thing but there are a few problems with how it's unfolding in the tech world.
First of all, the abuse of H1B Visas. Yes, companies are using them as a method to get cheap tech labor in the US which is not what was in mind when the H1B Visa program was created. It was designed to do what companies are falsely claiming they're trying to use it for, to allow skilled workers a method to come to this country. The other major flaw in the program is that the company holds the visa, so should an H1B worker feel they're being treated unfairly, the only option they have is to go back to their country of origin. I won't fault a company to try and cut cost, but I will fault them for doing so by abusing a government immigration program.
Second problem with exporting tech jobs to other countries is what jobs are being exported. This isn't the same situation as Flint, Michigan. In that scenario entire manufacturing divisions were being exported to other countries. In the tech world the majority of the jobs being exported are the entry level jobs. Due to lingual and cultural barriers of understanding you don't want your senior level architects offshored, you want your low-level, peon code-jockeys offshored. That saves money in the short run but the big problem that it leaves is a lack of entry-level jobs in this country. Today's entry-levels become tomorrow's senior levels. So if we continue to out-source the entry level, soon we really will have a shortage of tech people in this country.
If in fact they aren't and have not desire to identify me then they should be making it a point to abstain from recording information that can ID me.
Actually my biggest objection to this was it was initially not disclosed in a sufficiently conspicuous manner and seems to have no simple way to be deactivated save identifying and disabling all the services in question. I'll allow that Microsoft has something to be gained in product improvement by collecting some of this data but they ought to ask before using my bandwidth to do it.
So by just being there you know what you're talking about? Are you the one who surveys a site after the US has just dropped a bomb on it or the one who catalogs the casualties in Iraq? Quite frankly, being there doesn't give you any insight into what sort of violence cause what casualties unless that's the job you're doing. I think you'd better name some credentials if you're going to throw out a 90% stat.
It really seems absurd to me to separate bullying out into different categories based on the medium through which it takes place. Spreading rumors, someone repeating what you'd told them in confidence to humiliate them, it's all been around probably since the beginning of time. The secret to doing it is that you can't get caught. Do whatever you want just don't let the teacher see you do it. The difference with Cyberbullying is that it's being hid through anonymity rather than stealth. It's for a teacher to ignore a he-said-she-said not having seen it happen, but if it takes place on the net, there's on denying that it took place, you just might not know who did it.
I for one am glad it's getting some attention. I just hope those addressing the issue will realize the problem does not lie in the internet.
Just my two bits...
Saddam is likely comparatively worse (and I say likely because the US is very good at hiding things that would be embarrassing) but the issue is not relative morality. The horrible things that we do we decide to lump into a different category than that of our adversaries. We contextualize our atrocities to justify or say "shame, shame, shame" for those we can't contextualize (Abu Ghraib). When presenting the atrocities of our foes we completely remove all context and offer the implication that they did this horrible thing because they were evil. If we're going to justify our action by contextualizing them it's only fair to apply the same metric to the atrocities of others.
Please, Mr. Terrorist, please, tell me where you hid the bomb under the nursery school. C'mon please.
I'll start with your ridiculous hypothetical. Very few situations manifest themselves such that information is needed from a captive immediately in order to save lives.
People hate the US b/c CNN reports us allegedly 'torturing' someone
These are confirmed reports. The only angle from which it wasn't torture was in that the US changed it's definition of torture to allow for 'creative interrogation'.
Meanwhile, most other countries (IRAQ) aren't held to the same regards.
I seem to remember invading most other countries, overthrowing their government and putting their leaders on trial (and replacing any judge whom disagreed with our interpretation of the evidence) for not meeting our standards of moral behavior. And before you come back with "but Saddam was killing his own people" he killed people who were actively planning to rebel against the Iraqi government (at least according to the best intelligence they had at the time). The US has does the same or worse.
When you toot your own horn as a shining bastion of virtue and morality and then fail to deliver on that boast you deserve criticism for it.
I'm not familiar with the UK's anti-trust laws but I doubt if this is going to fly. The only reason T-Mobile has any interest in blocking them is to prevent them from gaining a market share. I'm wondering if any of T-Mobile stated their reasons for this 'policy decision' because I'd be impressed if they could fabricate anything that made sense and wasn't anti-competitive.
There is a difference here that's worth noting. It is the citizens that are going to be hurt by this in the event that it's successful. Particularly as Microsoft is famous for it's vulnerability I really hope these guys do well. If the IP system can get just enough out of hand that it starts to really take a chunk out of the bottom line for the big players who've been supporting it, then we might see some change.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
You're absolutely right. Just like all the camera's the British government keeps installing. If you're not planning to do anything illegal, there should be no problem right?
As far as projects, no.
Actually, the direct target is ultimately Joe Sixpack. Not because Joe Sixpack is a fanboy but because Linux can do everything that Joe Sixpack wants it to do pretty much as easily. All the average user really wants to do is to be able to browse the Internet, create some simple office documents (covered by OpenOffice) and play a few media files (not being familiar with this distro I'm not to sure how it's being addressed but I'm pretty certain that it is).
So the lingering question is why is Joe Sixpack going to but with the Linux distro. Answer is the same reason right now a lot of Joe Sixpack's aren't buying machines loaded with Vista. Most average user realize that they know next to nothing about computers and technology. And someone who knows nothing about technology will generally walk into Best Buy and say "I need a computer that can do this, this and this." Now that those requirements can be met via a Linux machine, I think we'll see it start to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The UK is not part of the EU.
Globalization in and of itself isn't a bad thing but there are a few problems with how it's unfolding in the tech world.
First of all, the abuse of H1B Visas. Yes, companies are using them as a method to get cheap tech labor in the US which is not what was in mind when the H1B Visa program was created. It was designed to do what companies are falsely claiming they're trying to use it for, to allow skilled workers a method to come to this country. The other major flaw in the program is that the company holds the visa, so should an H1B worker feel they're being treated unfairly, the only option they have is to go back to their country of origin. I won't fault a company to try and cut cost, but I will fault them for doing so by abusing a government immigration program.
Second problem with exporting tech jobs to other countries is what jobs are being exported. This isn't the same situation as Flint, Michigan. In that scenario entire manufacturing divisions were being exported to other countries. In the tech world the majority of the jobs being exported are the entry level jobs. Due to lingual and cultural barriers of understanding you don't want your senior level architects offshored, you want your low-level, peon code-jockeys offshored. That saves money in the short run but the big problem that it leaves is a lack of entry-level jobs in this country. Today's entry-levels become tomorrow's senior levels. So if we continue to out-source the entry level, soon we really will have a shortage of tech people in this country.
Just my 2 bits...
If in fact they aren't and have not desire to identify me then they should be making it a point to abstain from recording information that can ID me.
Actually my biggest objection to this was it was initially not disclosed in a sufficiently conspicuous manner and seems to have no simple way to be deactivated save identifying and disabling all the services in question. I'll allow that Microsoft has something to be gained in product improvement by collecting some of this data but they ought to ask before using my bandwidth to do it.
So by just being there you know what you're talking about? Are you the one who surveys a site after the US has just dropped a bomb on it or the one who catalogs the casualties in Iraq? Quite frankly, being there doesn't give you any insight into what sort of violence cause what casualties unless that's the job you're doing. I think you'd better name some credentials if you're going to throw out a 90% stat.
And for my disclaimer, yes I am ex-military.
It really seems absurd to me to separate bullying out into different categories based on the medium through which it takes place. Spreading rumors, someone repeating what you'd told them in confidence to humiliate them, it's all been around probably since the beginning of time. The secret to doing it is that you can't get caught. Do whatever you want just don't let the teacher see you do it. The difference with Cyberbullying is that it's being hid through anonymity rather than stealth. It's for a teacher to ignore a he-said-she-said not having seen it happen, but if it takes place on the net, there's on denying that it took place, you just might not know who did it. I for one am glad it's getting some attention. I just hope those addressing the issue will realize the problem does not lie in the internet. Just my two bits...
You said that already: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilb ert-20070611.html
Saddam is likely comparatively worse (and I say likely because the US is very good at hiding things that would be embarrassing) but the issue is not relative morality. The horrible things that we do we decide to lump into a different category than that of our adversaries. We contextualize our atrocities to justify or say "shame, shame, shame" for those we can't contextualize (Abu Ghraib). When presenting the atrocities of our foes we completely remove all context and offer the implication that they did this horrible thing because they were evil. If we're going to justify our action by contextualizing them it's only fair to apply the same metric to the atrocities of others.
I'm not familiar with the UK's anti-trust laws but I doubt if this is going to fly. The only reason T-Mobile has any interest in blocking them is to prevent them from gaining a market share. I'm wondering if any of T-Mobile stated their reasons for this 'policy decision' because I'd be impressed if they could fabricate anything that made sense and wasn't anti-competitive.
I wonder if we can get satallite photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well?
There is a difference here that's worth noting. It is the citizens that are going to be hurt by this in the event that it's successful. Particularly as Microsoft is famous for it's vulnerability I really hope these guys do well. If the IP system can get just enough out of hand that it starts to really take a chunk out of the bottom line for the big players who've been supporting it, then we might see some change. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
You're absolutely right. Just like all the camera's the British government keeps installing. If you're not planning to do anything illegal, there should be no problem right?
As far as projects, no. Actually, the direct target is ultimately Joe Sixpack. Not because Joe Sixpack is a fanboy but because Linux can do everything that Joe Sixpack wants it to do pretty much as easily. All the average user really wants to do is to be able to browse the Internet, create some simple office documents (covered by OpenOffice) and play a few media files (not being familiar with this distro I'm not to sure how it's being addressed but I'm pretty certain that it is). So the lingering question is why is Joe Sixpack going to but with the Linux distro. Answer is the same reason right now a lot of Joe Sixpack's aren't buying machines loaded with Vista. Most average user realize that they know next to nothing about computers and technology. And someone who knows nothing about technology will generally walk into Best Buy and say "I need a computer that can do this, this and this." Now that those requirements can be met via a Linux machine, I think we'll see it start to happen.