It's easy to say that we should avoid any risk of failure. But what does that really mean? The real question we should ask ourselves comes down to risk versus reward. Does the potential benefit outweigh the potential risk? Even where the costs of a total failure are high, that doesn't mean we must avoid it.
Take our telephone infrastructure for instance. It's provided society with tremendous and undeniable benefits. Yet the possibility of a total failure is not an impossibility, and certainly wasn't earlier. Would we really have been better off avoiding it because we could never absolutely insure against catastrophe? I'd argue that the costs of avoiding it, of being overly risk averse, far outweigh the benefits that each and every generation has had. Worst case scenario: the telephone networks in the US fail for a couple days. That'd cause some chaos certainly and it might cost the US billions. But I'd argue that having not used it, or having forced excessively costly redundancy [back when before we had digital technology and the like], would have cost the US most of the benefits of the 20th century (i.e., trillions of dollars).
This is not to say that where affordable precautions become available they should be shunned. That factors into a risk/reward equation. Now certanly there is plenty of room for debate about what is an acceptable level of "risk", but the point is to show that even where apparently extremely costly worst case scenarios exist doesn't necessarily mean avenues of progress should be avoided. Nor do I mean to say that everyone has taken a rational approach to risk/reward; certainly there are some instances where it's been totally out of whack. In the vast majority of cases though, it's been my experience that the people that run these systems are nothing if not risk averse. Because they fear failure more than they probably should, the systems generally are acceptably safe.
Heh, I happen to live in Haverford too. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but no where on the "Main Line" is representitive of middle America so to speak.
They stuff it down my unwilling throat. There are no alternative avenues for the music I like except some shoutcast channels and the occasional extra low quality web video. I turn on MTV and all I get is candypop drek. The illusion of choice.
And this was better 30 years ago? MTV is a choice, one that you did not have then. As much as I dislike MTV and that entire culture, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The fact is that more people want to listen to Britney Spears than what you regard as "quality". Likewise for Abercrombie and Fitch, and similar crap. People get what they want. If the people were to really prefer "quality" on the aggregate you would see all those stores disappear.
Well I agree that having special "tech" judges is mostly unnecessary, and probably even unwise. I don't believe a "technical" judge for one is really going to be able to educate himself sufficiently in the state of every art. I think all it really requires is a fairly intelligent and unbiased judge that is willing to listen. Even though Jackson conceded he was not an expect by any means, I think Jackson's assesment of the MS case was right on the money.
Unfortunately, however, most states have really horrible courts when it comes to issues like business law. It's so bad, in fact, that many corporations have chosen to incorporate in Delaware [widely regarded as having the best], for issues beyond just tax laws. Delaware, unlike most, has adopted a certain expediency and fairness and predictability. Delaware Supreme Court had done an excellent job of monitoring the lower courts, and effectively regulating them to keep abusive lawsuits out.
We don't need "special" tech judges [if anything, business law is more demanding], we just need decent and competent judges in the state courts that are well regulated. To this end promoting judges based on merit, rather than requiring them to run for election, would make for a better system.
First, thank you for providing a link that requires a subscription to view. That will be ever so helpful to me. Not.
Gee, I'm sorry for posting a link to one of the most respected authorities, rather than some group with an agenda that all too happily spreads their message for free. I suspect you can access it without paying a dime anyways, there is a trial subscription deal there.
Well, I did study economics, actually. It was one of the first two courses I signed up for - Macroeconomics and Philosophy, a bad mix if you ask me. Anyway, that aside, any economics book will also talk to you about the fallacy of assuming that because Event A preceeded Event B, Event B was caused by Event A. Deregulation may improve things. Then again, it may not. Then again, modern economics only recently aquired a decent enough theoretical framework to start making good guesses about how things interoperate - 30 years ago they were still using symbols for "customer happiness", among other unmeasurable things. That aside, I've been living in a "deregulated" market for several years and have yet to see any improvement as a result. Infact, quite the opposite, my bill keeps going up.
Economics was hardly revolutionized 30 years ago. In any event, the best part of economics, that of studying cause and effect (or correlation if you will), has been around since day 1. Though you might be able to always argue to some extent that deregulation's apparent benefit is just random chance in every instant, you could also argue that for hundreds of other well established principles. Hell, there is even a lady in San Francisco that claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Well, I did study economics, actually. It was one of the first two courses I signed up for - Macroeconomics and Philosophy, a bad mix if you ask me. Anyway, that aside, any economics book will also talk to you about the fallacy of assuming that because Event A preceeded Event B, Event B was caused by Event A. Deregulation may improve things. Then again, it may not. Then again, modern economics only recently aquired a decent enough theoretical framework to start making good guesses about how things interoperate - 30 years ago they were still using symbols for "customer happiness", among other unmeasurable things. That aside, I've been living in a "deregulated" market for several years and have yet to see any improvement as a result. Infact, quite the opposite, my bill keeps going up.
Well your experience runs contrary to the bulk of the evidence. You could easily be in one of those markets were they were previously operating above cost. I can tell you for sure that both the UK and the state of PA, for instance, have saved billions (individually) in power savings. There is quite a difference between the two statements.
Ngggh, it was the first stat I found on their website, give me some credit. My point is they can spare a few bucks to bribe, er, persuade the politicians to see things their way. The Minnesota PUC is wrapped around the finger of their local encumbant, one QWest - just try filing a complaint and see what the reply will be. Static on the lines? Must be RFI, go bug the FCC. Getting crossover? Nothing we can do about it! Prices went up again? Hey, not our department. Ngggh, very useful, those fellows. Sorry, getting alittle offtopic...
Well besides the fact that even bringing it up indicates a little ignorance, I'd still assert it's just plain stupid to bring up. It'd be like my claiming the Chinese are happy people because I saw a picture some Chinese market the other day and people were smiling. Sure, you can always argue there is a correlation between an instant of someone smiling and the rest of the population being happy, but that doesn't make it a particularly relevent fact.
In any event, partial deregulation != deregulation, so check out your state's laws.
I can't speak for the entire country, but up here in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area (aka the Twin Cities) there are only two incumbent providers to choose from - QWest and Sprint. The CLECs here are mainly for businesses. Sure, they do residential lines, but even those are specialized - xDSL, dry lines (for security circuits), etc. It just occurred to me, why the hell are we arguing about deregulation? The point of my original post was to underscore that H1B workers are being foisted onto the tech industry because companies don't want to pay the high rates that techs currently make around here...
Well financially speaking, I can tell you that most of the deregulated utilities have taken a beating. Before deregulation, when most had a monopoly, most investors could count on a very safe 10% return, no longer....
Well, that has less to do with their government than the fact that they were involved in a war that completely destroyed the infrastructure of their entire country, and in the past 10 years have they started to move forward again. I think it might have had something to do with that Hitler fellow I mentioned earlier.
What is the "that" that you refer to? The consequences? Or the politics? In any event, the French have been flirting with such politics for at least a century now. As for the "consequences", I'd argue that the UK actually took as great of an economic hit, and they're light years ahead of France economically now. Similarly, West Germany was devasted by WWII [probably the worst], and they've totally outperformed the French. Or even the Japanese....When you hear of the extent of French regulation it really is no wonder why they've fallen behind. Simiarly, as some of those barriers have come down, dramatic benefits have been had in those same areas.
Fine, if you can't handle a discussion on this level, then do whatever you please. However, I will say, before I go, that your argument is no more factual or nonidealogical or logical. Though I can't provide links offhand [the "web" is hardly a great reference source on such matters, especially if you're restricted to strictly free sites], your links and "facts" hardly disprove any of my arguments. As for idealism, it is apparent that you want to write everything off as "the man is out to get me [or them]", rather than acknowledging the possibility that the opposing side might have a non-malicious/self-centered view point. While I believe it is your duty as a citizen to object to policies that you disagree with, I feel it is equally true that those disagreements should be met with honest discussion. To that end, I post my honest, and generally informed, viewpoint on the issues whether or not it popular.
Who said anything about asking them to produce? I may be misinterpreting, but this sentence seriously makes me worry that you are no longer even able to distinguish between increased GNP and improved human rights.
Did you not read a word I said? Because China wants to produce, it is in their own interest to further liberalize. They can't move forward if they remain the same.
I was held in jail in DC for 5 days after crossing police lines april 17th. My own experience is a very complicated, multifaceted issue and there's not space to discuss it here. The (IMO indisputable) fact that the US has political prisoners was off-topic; my main point was that I have first-hand experience of how much of a positive difference active outside scrutiny can make to the treatment of those in custody. (Also, the jail authorities, who were under a court-order and threats of economic sanctions due to abuses in the late 80's, were much more responsive to such outside pressure than the US Marshals, who personally threatened to beat me up.)
Likewise, this makes me worry if your head is in the right place. It sounds to me more like you violated some law, and the police called you on it. 5 days? That hardly makes you a political prisoner.
From amnesty: "the serious deterioration in human rights called into question the authorities' sincerity in signing key human rights conventions in the previous two years. It also represented a serious setback for the policy of dialogue on human rights pursued by some governments."
Dialogue? Hah. You should know that trade is the only card we have to play. You can scream at them all you want, but that doesn't change anything.
What's more, I assert that the "changes" amnesty reports are more indicitive of liberalization, both in regards to media access and the approach towards the average citizen. A large number of social movements have spread across China (i.e., Falun Gung) due to increased freedom of movement and things like the internet. The media plays a role in the fact that these organizations and students feel they've got some chance at publicity, which they would have never had before. In addition, the increased media access naturally makes any and all crackdowns vastly more visible.
This is not to say that the government's action is good by any means [or even excusable], but rather that it is probable that it is merely symptomatic of change for the better. For instance, how much do you think foreigners would have heard of human rights abuses in the United States while slavery was still common place? How much after it was illegalized and with the growth of the civil rights movement? How many violent protests and interactions did was have then? In general, many more. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say things were worse.
In addition, though many people may find this hard to accept, I assert that many Chinese in fact have far greater concerns than their ability to speak out against the government, or what have you. I could see being lifted out of poverty and enjoying more day to day freedoms as being first and foremost on the average Chinese's citizens mind. To this end, increased international trade presents real opportunity for them.
Poor, poor corporations: political realities force them into taking indentured servants.
Yeah, poor poor corporations that seem to employ most of this country. And poor corporations in need of help with the potential to improve the situation for both the H1B worker and the US economy on the aggregate.
C'mon, now. I might accept the argument that green cards are politically unrealistic, that H1B's are all we can ask for.
That's exactly my position. We can't get green cards, but some H1Bs are still far better than none at all.
But I don't think it's any slander on corporations to say that they're in it for the money.
Though I could argue this, did you ever consider the possibility that the companies benefit by simply having the most talented workers possible at more than fair wages?
Unless citizens stand up for what's right, any corporation in existence would rather allow H1B visas (or, in some parallel universe where citizens' sense of what's right has degraded even further, outright slavery) than green cards. That's what corporations do; that's their job; and that's why it's our job to hold their feet to the fire.
Ok this is really an academic argument, but one point i'd like to make is, that, "you" (those who argue against H1Bs) aren't generally the same one lobbying for green cards for them. In fact, on the flip side of your token, I'd say it's generally misguided protectionism--greed on the part of the concerned domestic IT worker. Just because there is concern, doesn't mean it's any more right than the corporations.
You can speak out against it, but remember that there are a lot more voters out there than just yourself. Voters that want to see more than just "FUD", if you will.
A) That's your personal preference, not everyones.
B) Considering that musicians also play to be heard, one might easily argue that it is the labels that bring in an audience.
C) If you don't get paid (significantly), the odds are you won't have a lot of time to devote to it. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that your work will suffer.
D) There is still plenty of unsigned music out there, and look how much good it is doing the world.
In Words perhaps, but in spirit it has more to do with socialism. "What's yours is mine, and whats mine is mine". The gist of it is they want shit for free, but damn few are willing to reciprocate. They rebel against the control associated with intellectual property, but those few that publish under GPL will be damned if someone takes a similar grabbing attitude [i.e., doing whatever they want with it]....and that's not even half of it. In general, it's hypocrisy.
Yes. That is a unilateral statement which, if I have ever said, was meant in general and not specific terms. Not all corporations are evil. Corporations are organizations of men, and if those men are of good moral character, they cannot be evil. It is only when the men of these corporations persue the dollar that they do harm to society.
I never said you had specific corporate enemies. You do, however, exhibit an obvious bias against corporations, especially big ones. Your claiming corporations are out to screw the little guy is no better than my claiming that Open Source advocates are just trying to create communism. In both instances, the originator of the statement is trying to fit a large group of people into a little box.
Show me more than hot air and I might be inclined to believe you. For now, any link is sufficient because I know most people who argue with me are too slothful to actually go through the effort of backing up their claims.
Well I shouldn't really need to, since there is realms of empirical evidence showing the benefits of deregulation over the past 3 decades. If you studied economics even modestly, you'd be familiar with them. However, here is one link: The Economist on Deregulation They are arguably one of the most reasonable and respected sources on matters of this nature.
There's alot more facts in that "conjecture and opinion" article than has been put forward in this entire thread
Oh really where? Ok they say there are X many companies in markets Y, Y, and Z. But very little discussion about the actual rate hikes. The only market that they bring up hard facts in, is in the worst market, pre-paid phone service. These tend to be the same people that have been proven to be uncredit worthy. Given the extent of previous regulation, it is more than likely that this just more reflective of the actual costs [though I think they're still capped].
No where is there any mention that bills have risen on the aggregate, nor do they deny that they've fallen.
True, but they'd have you believe they're a seperate country. And even if it is a small sample, it is still beats the opposition's comments (that would be you), which to date have been nothing more than chest beating.
See above.
This deregulation has been going on for several years. I've seen its impact, as have many other people. The deregulation started before the 'net was more than an idle curiosity and BBS' reigned supreme. If you shrink the time-frame enough, anyone can claim "nothing happened!" Look at the bigger picture here.
See above.
US West, now "QWest" in my area, has a 85 billion dollar market capitalization right now. I think they can divert a few thousand for contributinos to local politicians to keep this from happening.
Uh no. You obviously lack even the most basic comprehension of what market capitalization is. It does not mean the company has even 1/10 that in assets, never mind cash. Market capitalization is simply the markets current percieved value per share multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. 9/10th of the businesses on NASDAQ today would have to fold if they had to produce even 1/10 that figure, they simply don't have the cash flows.
That being said, I'm sure Qwest can spare a "few thousand", but it's got absolutely nothing to do with their market capitalization [well nothing concrete]. I'm also sure you'd be the first to criticize them if they found out they did such a thing. Hell, you probably assert that this deregulation thing is the direct result of their own lobbying, not the peoples. [Never mind the fact that MOST lobbied against it, because they had a monopoly before. The utilities have long been seen as being cash cows. That is changing today, because they now are facing competition.]
If you could be more specific with what you are referring to (names of people, businesses, etc) it would assist me greatly.
The French have consistently had some of the most socialized and protectionist politics in Europe, and they've had broad support at that. From labor, to high tarrifs, to protectionism, to excessive regulation.... They've been paying for it for a couple decades now. Just look. Now they're starting to make something of a turnaround, but it's no small coincidence that this is coming about in areas where they're converting to a more free market based system.
You guys are making far too much of this. This guys is NOT the financial community. At best, he's an individual on the fringe of it. Even if he were, the financial community and the business community are entirely different. Generally speaking, when one says the financial community, they mean Wall Street and other such places where stocks and bonds are traded. These are not the people running the show. They don't build businesses. They don't create products. They don't innovate. What they do is push capital around. But, let me remind you, these are the same people who have been pushing every financial fad you've heard about. Remember push technology? Remember them telling everyone that all these DotComs were worth 30billion even though they hadn't any hope of breaking even? Remember when biotech was redhot? Only to be treated as if was the plague only a week later? The point is, you should take the financial community with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Frankly, if you wanted to persuade people other than yourselfs, you should bring up an article by someone who's built a business from the ground up. Someone who has seen something through from start to finish, and been unphased by the latest fads or scares. Especially someone that has built a business around something that they developed. I know more than a few such people, and the fact is that almost every single one of them comes out in support of intellectual property.
While they may not believe that each and every decision is perfect, that is the nature of intellectual property and why it works. It's yours to lose or win; instead of having some outsider whose never run a business dictate to you how things "should" be done. Ok, so RIAA and the MPAA have been "wrong" before, but so what? That doesn't mean they're wrong now. Too many slashdotters seem to ignore the thousands of every day decisions that these people make on a daily basis.
I'm sure all of you have made mistakes before. But that doesn't mean we should all "vote" on how you should manage your life. That assertion is kind of like saying we, Americans, should be stripped of the right to vote, because we've made the wrong vote before. The integral feature of freedom is the right to be wrong. So let them make their own decisions, for better of for worse.
The interests that own RIAA only own a small fraction of the recorded music out there. I have little doubt that there are even more undiscovered talents out there than those in RIAA's collective pocket. What sets these talented artists apart is RIAA's marketing and distribution. In other words, those that sign with RIAA have some chance at wealth and fame; those that don't, you never even hear of. Don't you think you owe RIAA just a little respect? Don't you think you owe the would-be artist that avenue of choice, to sign with a label that promotes like X, Y, and Z and enforces their IP like A?
I agree with everything you've said 100%. However, one thing I will say is that I think IT in general might find their energy is better spent educating the users more, rather than try to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. In other words, though I think there are lots of truth to the statement that we can "have our cake and eat it too"--taking it too far has its own dangers. You may allow the expert all the access they want and the beginner all the simplicity they need to get their immediate job done, but if the user doesn't know the right questions to ask to begin with, the odds of the user improving are slim. Thus they will perpetually do everything the hard way, or worse, not at all. It might ultimately prove more cost effective to properly educate the user as to the basics of computing.
The real costs in IT come not from the cost of shrinkwrap, but from all the support and downtime associated with ignorant users. We should attack the root of the problem, ignorance, not just the immediate stumblings.
Really, Hitler was a dictator, and was/very/ productive by economic standards.
No Germany was not nearly as productive as the United States. You mistake slavery for producivity. One of the biggest reasons why the United States played such a key role in defeating Nazi Germany and Japan was because of our vastly superior military-industrial capacity. Put simply, we were able to produce more ships, more ammunition, more armor, and more planes than all of then all of our enemies combined. That is what wins sustained wars, simple logistics like that, not genius generals, superior weaponry, and the like.
Put it this way, while Nazi Germany had to organize a huge police state and hire and bribe thugs, the United States made use of virtually every able bodied man and women. You simply can't put a gun to someone's head to make them produce more to account for that shortfall, it simply doesn't work [in fact, it's been shown they produced less]. Sick and depressed people don't produce.
Define "so much", bringing in lower paid employees is something most companies are quite open about doing.
Simple mathematics. Even if they were lower paid [which they're not], they're less than 1/10th the workforce. They could only drive down wages for US workers so much. Anyways, the fact is they're not. IT salaries have only been consistently rising relative to inflation and other professional jobs.
Difficult to prove at best, they/can/ train them without nearly as much risk of the employee leaving, they can also demand much more out of these employees. End result is still about money.
You are so full of it. They're paid more than most people in IT. When all it said and done, the vast majority of America would still kill for their jobs.
Hunh? Where the hell do you get that? Do you write adds looking for 8 years of java and 3 years of W2K experience for a HR dept somewhere?
No, I happen to have been involved in the high tech industry for years. I know many entreprenuers who are hurting for want of qualified technical workers [both IT and engineering].
No, but you can train your own people. Novel concept I understand. Sometimes they even get treated right after being trained and stick around.
No, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know the first thing about running a company. No startup can afford the time and the resources to train someone who lacks 4+ years of advanced college education when they need a key project done today. What's more, turnover is a real issue for most of these companies. Employment law is most states is setup such that the employee can walk whenever he or she chooses [or rather, when that employee is offered another job]. So even assuming you could train the employee for 4 years, or whatever, you have absolutely no guarantee you'll reap the rewards. If anything, it is the company that trains the employee that is least capable of matching job offers. They poor half a million dollars per head down the drain, and now they've got to match an offer... Also, I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical if a 25 year old who's spent the last 10 years of his live watching MTV is going to be able to learn the requisite math skills that most college educated foreigners got before they even reached college age.
Where did you get that? Yes, people should be concerned about importing cheap labor into an industry. Ask anyone in the trucking business about what has happened now that the use of labor from Mexico is now widespread. You'll get an earfull at the least. Many truckers have had to leave their profession because they can't make enough to pay their mortgage.
You know, it's funny, you so-called liberals demonstrate some of the most overt racism. You assume that because these people don't come from the United States, they're comparable to an unskilled/poorly payed Mexican worker. It's just BS. Most of these people are better educated than most of the IT workforce. What's more, they're far more aware of the United States than you give them credit for. I bet you that most of them know more about US politics than you yourself know, not to mention international politics. You think they don't talk to each other? Most of them communicate back home, they know full well the situation when they come here. Also, since H1Bs are in such high demand, there is a little thing called competition...perhaps you've heard of it. H1Bs are highly valuable, and there is lots of salary competition amongst employeers.
Anyways, your whole plug on Mexico indicates to me that this is misguided protectionism, not concern for them.
That or companies might start to train and hire their own people. Companies have often learned at painful expense that IT can't be farmed out like manufactoring labor can.
No, bullshit again. IT is growing overseas. More and more companies are farming IT out, but that's not even what i'm talking about. I'm talking about foreign companies or MNCs simply moving their entire R&D operation oversees. If anything, unlike manufacturing, IT is EASILY moved oversees. The only thing they need to export to the United States is code. Compare this with a manufacturing operation: An expensive manufacturing facility. Roads, wiring, etc have to be built too. Raw materials have to be acquired, which is much harder than you might think. You simply don't have a clue about this.
Do you honestly think that you could get your next version of Autocad any cheaper if development costs go down
No, you're don't understand. The savings would not come so much in the form of direct savings in production costs; they already play a very minor role in the costs of a mainstream shrinkwrapped software package. What it will save, however, will be the initial outlay costs that discourage so many startups in this country. That would in turn encourage more competition. Competition could very easily cause prices to fall. The reason MS and company can charge the same prices while their costs remain relatively constant is because they can, they lack competition.
If anything, I fear the day when Europe and Asia get their capital markets in better order and start to remove some of the barriers to trade. That's been their primary inhibitor, not want to skilled and trained minds. Startups there can't find the capital that they need. Most of it is tied up by centralized banks or government. And if they do, they face all kinds of silly regulations.
Reagonomics doesn't work for the overwhelming majority of the populace.
I'm sorry, do you have a Phd in Economics? No? I didnt think so. There are plenty of highly respected economists who would disagree with you, but that's besides the point. This is not reagonomics in the least, and if you think it is, you don't understand diddly.
I'm going to assume, perhaps unfairly, that you're a standard ESR type of techno-libertarian; that's certainly consistent with your post. If so, you value your right to bear arms. Because you want to shoot jack-booted federal agents? No, because you want them to know you could if they did something bad enough. Same principle with PNTR with China. They have a demonstrated contempt for human rights. A yearly ritual which focuses attention on their record is a concrete protection for their dissidents.
I'm not a libertarian; I think most of them are jerkoffs. Just because I believe that China's drive to compete with the United States will improve their civil rights far more than further isolating them [i.e., nothing], does not mean I think a libertarian philosophy is ideal. We simply can't assert our laws on them to the degree we would like; trade is our only bargaining chip. Sure, we can and should try using the stick and carrot approach to get certain concessions from the Chinese in regards to civil rights. But, I believe in the long run, China's own drive to succeed will do far more to improve their situation.
If they want to inspire entreprenuership [which they need to if they want to compete], they need to give their citizens certain gaurantees. They can't very easily put a gun to someone's head and tell them to innovate. Likewise, you can't put a gun to the entire countries head to tell them to produce at the level of modern day US; every communist system has learned the hardway that they're woefully unproductive. Merely exporting their products is not going to solve their ills. It requires fundamental changes.
"...as someone who's been a political prisoner right here in the US..."
Please do tell.
I'd rather rely on attentive eyes.
What have your attentive eyes done for the Chinese thus far? Even if you don't believe trade itself will help, it gives us far more leverage than your "eyes". Even if you believe that leverage to be worthless, I find it hard to believe that it's going to make things worse for the Chinese.
H1B visas are protectionist. If I quit my job, I don't get thrown out of the country; why should that be the situation for my co-worker? Increase green cards for skilled workers, don't shackle them with H1B visas.
Yes, If it were my choice I'd give them all green cards. However, it's not my choice. Nor is it these corporations' choice. The only thing they're able to push through is a couple H1B visas a year. Unfortunately, there is far too much resistence in this country from labor, various liberal movements, and the like. Unlike the rest of the developed world, it seems the only people we're willing to admit in quantity are so-called political refugees. Irregardless of whether they're able to pull their own weight or not. It's just plain stupid, and does nothing to help us economically.
Frankly, I don't think the US has any business importing more problems when we have enough here in our ghettos and rural America. These highly educated H1B workers, on the other hand, can and do contribute significantly to our economy on the aggregate. We should encourage it, whether through the H1B Visa or Greencards [preferred]. It helps them, and it helps us.
Yes, I agree [real] deregulation is not the cause of California's woes. However, I didn't wish to get involved in this, because I knew the poster would jump all over it.
Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to ask for a citation or link to justify your claims.
Oh come now, siggy. Do you deny that you've said words to that effect that big corporations are evil? "Let the big corporations duke it out...instead of exploiting the consumer" Ring a bell? You know it. I know it. Cope with it.
The H1B's disagree about being able to "vote with their feet".
That is your "evidence"? It doesn't even hint that H1B workers can't just leave. What's more, it is a 3rd person account of what doesn't sound to be much more than a couple of anecdotal accounts. You can find a link to say anything you want online, that doesn't mean it is accurate or respectable.
Texas' stats disagree with that conclusion...
No, it does not disagree with the fact that genuine deregulation has been shown to be a good thing. A couple problems with your drawing conclusions from this article:
a) The source is not exactly an unbiased ones, much of the content in there is conjecture and opinion, not hard statistics and facts.
b) Texas is only one state.
c) The telephone industry is still only partially deregulated. One key area where it is still regulated, is that the federal and state governments effectively force the telecos to provide service to very rural areas at well below their actual incremental costs. Instead, they forced to pass the costs onto consumers who can and will pay. i.e., metropolitan users, businesses, etc.
d) The telecos have long been one of the most protected industries in the country. No matter what your opinion of deregulation, it is not reasonable to expect instant results. Sometimes the ride will be a little bumpy, that is life.
e) One of the key factors these companies look to if they're going to expand their networks and facilities is some basic assurances that the government won't turn around on them in another year or two and pull the carpet out from under them. Unfortunately, the government is rarely ever willing to provide such assurances, and some have even flirted with the idea re-regulation.
f) You're comparing the APPARENT costs before "deregulation" to the nearer-to-actual costs of today. Sure, the actual costs might be tougher on some people, but I frankly don't have much of a problem with that. It is the cost on the aggregate and over the long run that I am primarily concerned about. If someone wants to live in Bumblefuck Alaska, they're more than entitled to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of society should have to bear the cost of their fiber optic internet connection installation.
rural and high-cost areas are not likely to see the development of the infrastructure in their areas, because fewer businesses and low population densities mean smaller markets and high costs of providing services that many will not be willing or able to pay if companies bill based on true costs in the competitive framework. In other words, deregulating has not helped because the market isn't big enough to bear much competition anyway.
Or put more accurately, politicians long ago decided that communities should not have to bear the actual costs of their services (i.e., electricity, telephone, and water). Put another way, just because the true costs are coming to light now does not mean that competition is the cause of it.
Ah, the familiar last-ditch "Love it or Leave it" approach. Employed by flag burners and racists alike, I'm disappointed to hear you trying it. My response to this has always been the same - I don't love it, but I'm not going to leave it - I'm going to do something about it. The rationale is simple - if everyone left because things weren't perfect, no progress would ever be made. Better to fix a broken system than build a new one from scratch.
No, you're not. You're going to sit around slashdot and poh poh everything that you deam "establishment", "corporatist", or what have you. In any event, I'm not telling you to "leave". I frankly don't care what you do. I do, however, think your viewpoint is shared by the French. I dare you to look at what it's cost them.
Umm, last I looked it up, they crossed into the 21st century almost 20 hours before we did
Are you really so dense as to mistake an obvious metaphor for a literal reference?
Then why do all the shoes, shirts, and consumer electronics in my house have little stickers that say "Made in China" ?
For one, we still import significantly more from the rest of Asia than we do from China. Secondly, virtually none of those industries are run under their traditional socialist enterprise system. Quite the contrary, they're the result of foreign investments and/or entreprenerial efforts that the government is trying to foster. Thirdly, Chinese labor is cheaper than it is in the United States. But before you go, "Ah Hah", that is only because the United States passed out of that stage long ago. We are still economically light years ahead of China. It is still in China's ultimate best interest to follow our lead. Thus, they will have to abandon their old ways if they wish to progress--the people will demand it.
They're slaves, goddamnit! The wages argument aside, these people are sponsored by that corporation, and then they OWN them - if they quit or are fired, they must return to their home country.
Right "slaves", who would rather stay where they are then go back to where they were. Highly paid "slaves" nonetheless. Are you going to tell me that the H1B worker is too stupid to recognize his supposedly worse situation? It's just ridiculous. Claim it has a negative impact on you if you want. Claim it's less ideal that a Green Card. But don't claim your interest is them, it simply doesn't compute.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never itemized which companies I like and which ones I don't, so don't say that I have. I fault the system for this, and the citizens for not getting informed on the issues
Hah, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You open it up every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week here on slashdot. I've heard your position on virtually everything on slashdot more than I care to admit.
So we just wave money underneath their noses and it's then OK if they accept and we strip them of their civil rights? No, I don't think so. Either we do it right and give everyone in this country the same rights, or we don't let them in in the first place. It is an injustice regardless of whether they "want it" or not. Alot of people in Germany liked Hitler and followed him, that doesn't mean their rights weren't violated.
Yes, bring Hitler into the argument, maybe that'll scare me away. If I persist, maybe you can even compare me with Hitler....Hitler's supporters were generally not his victims, and they certainly were not active supporters at the time of their victimization. Compare this with H1Bs: They can vote with their feet whenever they want, and even get reimbursed for their troubles.
The reason H1B visas are necessary in the first place is because the immigration system is so messed up in this country. We have far and away the most liberal policies overall of any developed nation in the world. Here we tend to admit only the most persecuted and backwards people; this hardly helps business. Business isn't lobbying against citizenship; it's lobbying for qualified employees. Unfortunately, the only way they can get them is with this less than optimal solution.
Clickity-click. You're new around here, aren't you? Everything is about money - this is a capitalist country. Our government is run by money, it collects money, everyone calls the working class "consumers", and people are more concerned about tax raises/cuts than they are about whether or not their local schools are properly funded. Hello? Politics = Money. It is a very simple equation and if you'd pull your head out of your arse and look around, you'd find this is a world run by money the money, for the money.
And your point is? Why don't you try addressing my arguments directly.
It's on my phone bill.
Hah, well it aint on most people's. Perhaps you should try moving to France or something, they seem to be much more inline with your politics.
Uh, no. By all reliable and empirical measures, the United States was vastly more productive than either of them in their day. In fact, if you knew your history, you would understand that one of the chief reasons why the United States played such a key role in winning WWII was because of our vastly more efficient military/industrial complex. Put simply, we were able to produce and deliver more armor, more ammunition, more planes, and more ships than them when the need arose. Likewise, the USSR did virtually nothing technologically for 50 years. This is the same country that had to beg the United States to send grain, even though they possessed more arrable land. More efficient? How? Do tell.
As for China, I have been looking for some time. Evidently, I'm looking harder than you, for I can see past the occasional crackdown [not saying this is the only issue, but it is the one most frequently raised] on various social groups in China and recognize a broader trend. If anything, I see these reports of oppression being as evidence that things really are changing socially [though not as fast as some would like]--they're growing pains--no matter how inhumane they are. What we are seeing is a growing conflict between liberal/western ideas and an increasingly embattled conservative/socialist wing. Years before China wouldn't have even seen the profileration of groups like Falun Gong. Never mind an active protest against the government. If they hadn't liberalized their own media to some degree and allowed western media increased access to China we certainly would have never heard of these protests.
China's problem is that they can't very well contain social unrest and compete globally. They will need to continue down their path, that of increased liberalization. Despite your assertions, it takes more than slavery to compete against the United States. Sure, they can perform some basic manufacturing and agricultural functions, but modern economics involves a lot more than that.
PS: I don't profit from China's globalization one cent, yet I believe firmly in sensible globalization. In fact, I bet you that within the next 10 to 15 years that China becomes a major economic player, on par with Japan in the 80s, with vastly improved social justice to boot.
PNTR China Act
China has a nasty habit of starting up bulldozers and mowing down people who think freely. Why are we, a allegedly democratic part-of-the-free-world country supporting this?
Because there is a rational belief that as China moves into the 21st century, the government and the people will have to change. Dictatorships don't foster productivity, nor does socialism.
American Competitiveness...
Oh, you mean the we're-paying-those-bastard-techs-too-much-so-lets- fuck-them-over act? There is no shortage of tech workers. There's a shortage of tech workers who'll work 60 hour workweeks for pisspoor wages. Geeks need to unionize.
Please, what an unfounded pile of crap.
a) We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries.
b) Legally employeers can't pay H1B employees less.
c) Empirically they're earning more, not less.
d) High-tech workers are hardly starving. Their salaries have grown more rapidly than virtually any other industry, despite the presence of this program.
e) There is a shortage of QUALIFIED high tech works. The vast majority of the H1B workers are very much qualified, we're really talking about the upper rung of jobs. And yes, they're willing to work hard, is that so evil? Despite popular slashdot opinion, some products require a few very hardworking employees, you can't merely hire 3 employees for every 1.
f) They're making much more money than most people in their respective countries. They're even making more money than most Americans. So don't act as if your concern is for them.
g) Competition is becoming global whether you like it or not. If we can't get the right kind of employee in the US, high-tech is going to have to move overseas.
h) Proportionately speaking the costs of hiring qualified people is a small part of the costs of the large companies that you like to villify. The companies that it most effects are the startups, that desperately need qualified people. Yes, the salaries are something of a concern, but more from a cash flow perspective. i.e., they can't afford to spend 20 million dollars before they even have a product on the market.....
i) Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not], it could still be highly beneficial to US citizens on the aggregate. If companies only had to pay half as much to develop a product, the barriers to entry would be lowered. More companies would be founded. More companies mean more jobs of all sorts. More companies mean more competition too, which means consumers might enjoy better products.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all. We as a country has steered away from this more than most others, and we've also enjoyed some of the fruits. It'd be a shame if we started cloning the French [who incidentally, have only enjoyed cooresponding improvements as they have turned away]
Internet Nondiscrimination Act
Oh, who cares if they don't legislate federal taxes on the 'net this year? The states are already doing it. I guess this *might* be an OK bill, watch for riders to be inserted at the last minute.
Why is it wrong for tax differentials to NOT sway a consumer's purchasing decision? Companies should compete on what they can bring to the table, not on what the government doles out to them. Though this is not the intent of the bill, it is obvious what your direction is...
Broadband something-something act
Steal from both Paul and Peter and deploy high speed internet, then the government "deregulates" and they jack up their prices. So we get a double-whammy - we pay increased taxes (and taxes never go DOWN) to deploy net access in an area not fit to support it and then the people who are in that area, due to having little/no competition have their prices jacked through the roof. Joy!
Yeah, and the evidence of all the damage of regulation is where? On the aggregate, deregulation has been a very good thing. With the exception of California, most authorities that have deregulated have enjoyed significant savings. I haven't viewed this particular bill, but it seems to me as if a offhand response to an offhand response is only fitting.
I'm not fan of that whining either. But this particular fixture is not innovative, other than perhaps as a business relationship. People put these antennas on the tallest things they can find. The notion is not new, and it doesn't require any genius to employ it. I gaurantee you that there have been thousands of other installations long before this on so-called non-traditional platforms. I've seen them on top of skyscrapers, water towers, radio antennas, hilltops, trees... why not a grain elevator? What makes this story any more newsworthy than the hundreds of other similar day to day occurences.
If they wanted to write a piece on, say, high bandwidth coming to rural American, I could accept that. But this is just obvious employment of technology, without any real direction...I wish they'd generate real content, rather than producing fluff like this.
heh I agree that Katz is even worse. But I do think there is plenty more relevant news than Katz, this piece, and the various rants. I mean, come on wake up slashdot it's "the world".
What makes this article news for 99% of slashdot? I find it difficult to believe that most of slashdot would be suprised to discover that this could be done from a technical point of view. Likewise, this article fails to illustrate the technical side of rural America. Instead, all we have is a brief [and flawed] description of a specific application of well established technology. It's not even tied into a larger message at all.
There are hundreds and thousands of similar installation stories that could be posted here too, but that does not mean they all should be national, or even international, news.
As for your comment(s), I fail to see how they actually apply. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that these states are inferior. Though it is apparent that it is a touchy subject for you, I assumed that my putting "hick" in quotes would be sufficient....
I do, however, disagree with you in regards to wireless's future. It will certainly grow, but I'm convinced that most high bandwidth connections will remain in domain of wiring in urban and suburban areas.
I find it hard to believe that even slashdot calls this newsworthy. I mean, what is news exactly? That highspeed wireless internet technology requires line of sight? Or that these places are relatively flat and unobstructed? That this can be done economically? That "hicks" might want high speed internet access to? The whole thing strikes me as terribly obvious. The only thing I wouldn't know is that it is happening there and right now. But the same can be said for many many more things.
Bull fucking shit. Tell me something. If the record companies are no longer needed, why does every major artist still sign with the record companies? Why would the artist forgoe some 95% of the profits, not to mention cutting off a number of paying customers in the process? How can you assert that the labels need to be struck down by force, if, in fact, they perform no function today?...If recording and distribution are not an issue, what is?
The answer is simple, the labels are still necessary today. Although recording and production costs are relatively nominal these days, the labels still perform a valuable marketing function. Marketing, by its very nature, involves vying for the finite mindshare of consumers (i.e., visibility to consumers). Mindshare is going to be rare no matter what media consumers are on. No matter if it is TV, radio, movies, newspapers, or the internet. You can only fit so many ads [or songs] in front of the consumer. This rarity means it costs money. Money means someone is going to take a risk, because new artists don't have that kind of money. This means that, yeah, there is always going to be someone in the business who gets rich by investing [and RISKING] HIS money to promote the ARTIST'S music.
The fact is that this marketing business is both terribly necessary and terribly expensive is obvious. The problem that 99% of slashdot has with it, the reason they can't admit it, is that once they've purchased a CD, they don't want to believe that marketing played any role in it. They can't concieve of the fact that marketing added value. What they totally fail to recognize though, is that if the artist didn't get marketed, they probably wouldn't have been listening to that artist. Thus the artist would not be sufficiently rewarded for his musical efforts without that critical mass of userbase. Thus artists will stop playing music professionally. Thus you would not have your music.
I'm all open for alternatives, but these alternatives should compete in a traditional free market that preserves the notion of intellectual property. If, in fact, napster is a better alternative for the artist, they WILL sign on their own. You need not, you should not, force the artist's hand. Despite the cries of slashdot that it is only the labels that get hurt, not the artist, napster [potentially] denies the artist the avenue of profiting with the labels. In its place, you offer a feeble argument that napster will solve all their "distribution" ills. Well I'm telling you, it's snake oil. It is not distribution, manufacturing, or production that ails the artist, it is marketing. Napster does not offer any feasible hope of doing that--never mind a proven means. Despite all the complaints--RIAA and company are proven to be an avenue to fame and wealth for a number of artists.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to say that we should avoid any risk of failure. But what does that really mean? The real question we should ask ourselves comes down to risk versus reward. Does the potential benefit outweigh the potential risk? Even where the costs of a total failure are high, that doesn't mean we must avoid it.
Take our telephone infrastructure for instance. It's provided society with tremendous and undeniable benefits. Yet the possibility of a total failure is not an impossibility, and certainly wasn't earlier. Would we really have been better off avoiding it because we could never absolutely insure against catastrophe? I'd argue that the costs of avoiding it, of being overly risk averse, far outweigh the benefits that each and every generation has had. Worst case scenario: the telephone networks in the US fail for a couple days. That'd cause some chaos certainly and it might cost the US billions. But I'd argue that having not used it, or having forced excessively costly redundancy [back when before we had digital technology and the like], would have cost the US most of the benefits of the 20th century (i.e., trillions of dollars).
This is not to say that where affordable precautions become available they should be shunned. That factors into a risk/reward equation. Now certanly there is plenty of room for debate about what is an acceptable level of "risk", but the point is to show that even where apparently extremely costly worst case scenarios exist doesn't necessarily mean avenues of progress should be avoided. Nor do I mean to say that everyone has taken a rational approach to risk/reward; certainly there are some instances where it's been totally out of whack. In the vast majority of cases though, it's been my experience that the people that run these systems are nothing if not risk averse. Because they fear failure more than they probably should, the systems generally are acceptably safe.
Heh, I happen to live in Haverford too. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but no where on the "Main Line" is representitive of middle America so to speak.
Well I agree that having special "tech" judges is mostly unnecessary, and probably even unwise. I don't believe a "technical" judge for one is really going to be able to educate himself sufficiently in the state of every art. I think all it really requires is a fairly intelligent and unbiased judge that is willing to listen. Even though Jackson conceded he was not an expect by any means, I think Jackson's assesment of the MS case was right on the money.
Unfortunately, however, most states have really horrible courts when it comes to issues like business law. It's so bad, in fact, that many corporations have chosen to incorporate in Delaware [widely regarded as having the best], for issues beyond just tax laws. Delaware, unlike most, has adopted a certain expediency and fairness and predictability. Delaware Supreme Court had done an excellent job of monitoring the lower courts, and effectively regulating them to keep abusive lawsuits out.
We don't need "special" tech judges [if anything, business law is more demanding], we just need decent and competent judges in the state courts that are well regulated. To this end promoting judges based on merit, rather than requiring them to run for election, would make for a better system.
Economics was hardly revolutionized 30 years ago. In any event, the best part of economics, that of studying cause and effect (or correlation if you will), has been around since day 1. Though you might be able to always argue to some extent that deregulation's apparent benefit is just random chance in every instant, you could also argue that for hundreds of other well established principles. Hell, there is even a lady in San Francisco that claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Well your experience runs contrary to the bulk of the evidence. You could easily be in one of those markets were they were previously operating above cost. I can tell you for sure that both the UK and the state of PA, for instance, have saved billions (individually) in power savings. There is quite a difference between the two statements.
Well besides the fact that even bringing it up indicates a little ignorance, I'd still assert it's just plain stupid to bring up. It'd be like my claiming the Chinese are happy people because I saw a picture some Chinese market the other day and people were smiling. Sure, you can always argue there is a correlation between an instant of someone smiling and the rest of the population being happy, but that doesn't make it a particularly relevent fact.
In any event, partial deregulation != deregulation, so check out your state's laws.
Well financially speaking, I can tell you that most of the deregulated utilities have taken a beating. Before deregulation, when most had a monopoly, most investors could count on a very safe 10% return, no longer....
What is the "that" that you refer to? The consequences? Or the politics? In any event, the French have been flirting with such politics for at least a century now. As for the "consequences", I'd argue that the UK actually took as great of an economic hit, and they're light years ahead of France economically now. Similarly, West Germany was devasted by WWII [probably the worst], and they've totally outperformed the French. Or even the Japanese....When you hear of the extent of French regulation it really is no wonder why they've fallen behind. Simiarly, as some of those barriers have come down, dramatic benefits have been had in those same areas.
Fine, if you can't handle a discussion on this level, then do whatever you please. However, I will say, before I go, that your argument is no more factual or nonidealogical or logical. Though I can't provide links offhand [the "web" is hardly a great reference source on such matters, especially if you're restricted to strictly free sites], your links and "facts" hardly disprove any of my arguments. As for idealism, it is apparent that you want to write everything off as "the man is out to get me [or them]", rather than acknowledging the possibility that the opposing side might have a non-malicious/self-centered view point. While I believe it is your duty as a citizen to object to policies that you disagree with, I feel it is equally true that those disagreements should be met with honest discussion. To that end, I post my honest, and generally informed, viewpoint on the issues whether or not it popular.
Likewise, this makes me worry if your head is in the right place. It sounds to me more like you violated some law, and the police called you on it. 5 days? That hardly makes you a political prisoner.
Dialogue? Hah. You should know that trade is the only card we have to play. You can scream at them all you want, but that doesn't change anything.
What's more, I assert that the "changes" amnesty reports are more indicitive of liberalization, both in regards to media access and the approach towards the average citizen. A large number of social movements have spread across China (i.e., Falun Gung) due to increased freedom of movement and things like the internet. The media plays a role in the fact that these organizations and students feel they've got some chance at publicity, which they would have never had before. In addition, the increased media access naturally makes any and all crackdowns vastly more visible.
This is not to say that the government's action is good by any means [or even excusable], but rather that it is probable that it is merely symptomatic of change for the better. For instance, how much do you think foreigners would have heard of human rights abuses in the United States while slavery was still common place? How much after it was illegalized and with the growth of the civil rights movement? How many violent protests and interactions did was have then? In general, many more. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say things were worse.
In addition, though many people may find this hard to accept, I assert that many Chinese in fact have far greater concerns than their ability to speak out against the government, or what have you. I could see being lifted out of poverty and enjoying more day to day freedoms as being first and foremost on the average Chinese's citizens mind. To this end, increased international trade presents real opportunity for them.
Yeah, poor poor corporations that seem to employ most of this country. And poor corporations in need of help with the potential to improve the situation for both the H1B worker and the US economy on the aggregate.
That's exactly my position. We can't get green cards, but some H1Bs are still far better than none at all.
Though I could argue this, did you ever consider the possibility that the companies benefit by simply having the most talented workers possible at more than fair wages?
Ok this is really an academic argument, but one point i'd like to make is, that, "you" (those who argue against H1Bs) aren't generally the same one lobbying for green cards for them. In fact, on the flip side of your token, I'd say it's generally misguided protectionism--greed on the part of the concerned domestic IT worker. Just because there is concern, doesn't mean it's any more right than the corporations.
You can speak out against it, but remember that there are a lot more voters out there than just yourself. Voters that want to see more than just "FUD", if you will.
scientists prove that consumption of icecream dramatically increases your odds of drowning.
A couple points though:
A) That's your personal preference, not everyones.
B) Considering that musicians also play to be heard, one might easily argue that it is the labels that bring in an audience.
C) If you don't get paid (significantly), the odds are you won't have a lot of time to devote to it. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that your work will suffer.
D) There is still plenty of unsigned music out there, and look how much good it is doing the world.
In Words perhaps, but in spirit it has more to do with socialism. "What's yours is mine, and whats mine is mine". The gist of it is they want shit for free, but damn few are willing to reciprocate. They rebel against the control associated with intellectual property, but those few that publish under GPL will be damned if someone takes a similar grabbing attitude [i.e., doing whatever they want with it]....and that's not even half of it. In general, it's hypocrisy.
Well I shouldn't really need to, since there is realms of empirical evidence showing the benefits of deregulation over the past 3 decades. If you studied economics even modestly, you'd be familiar with them. However, here is one link: The Economist on Deregulation They are arguably one of the most reasonable and respected sources on matters of this nature.
Oh really where? Ok they say there are X many companies in markets Y, Y, and Z. But very little discussion about the actual rate hikes. The only market that they bring up hard facts in, is in the worst market, pre-paid phone service. These tend to be the same people that have been proven to be uncredit worthy. Given the extent of previous regulation, it is more than likely that this just more reflective of the actual costs [though I think they're still capped].
No where is there any mention that bills have risen on the aggregate, nor do they deny that they've fallen.
See above.
See above.
Uh no. You obviously lack even the most basic comprehension of what market capitalization is. It does not mean the company has even 1/10 that in assets, never mind cash. Market capitalization is simply the markets current percieved value per share multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. 9/10th of the businesses on NASDAQ today would have to fold if they had to produce even 1/10 that figure, they simply don't have the cash flows.
That being said, I'm sure Qwest can spare a "few thousand", but it's got absolutely nothing to do with their market capitalization [well nothing concrete]. I'm also sure you'd be the first to criticize them if they found out they did such a thing. Hell, you probably assert that this deregulation thing is the direct result of their own lobbying, not the peoples. [Never mind the fact that MOST lobbied against it, because they had a monopoly before. The utilities have long been seen as being cash cows. That is changing today, because they now are facing competition.]
The French have consistently had some of the most socialized and protectionist politics in Europe, and they've had broad support at that. From labor, to high tarrifs, to protectionism, to excessive regulation.... They've been paying for it for a couple decades now. Just look. Now they're starting to make something of a turnaround, but it's no small coincidence that this is coming about in areas where they're converting to a more free market based system.
RANT
You guys are making far too much of this. This guys is NOT the financial community. At best, he's an individual on the fringe of it. Even if he were, the financial community and the business community are entirely different. Generally speaking, when one says the financial community, they mean Wall Street and other such places where stocks and bonds are traded. These are not the people running the show. They don't build businesses. They don't create products. They don't innovate. What they do is push capital around. But, let me remind you, these are the same people who have been pushing every financial fad you've heard about. Remember push technology? Remember them telling everyone that all these DotComs were worth 30billion even though they hadn't any hope of breaking even? Remember when biotech was redhot? Only to be treated as if was the plague only a week later? The point is, you should take the financial community with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Frankly, if you wanted to persuade people other than yourselfs, you should bring up an article by someone who's built a business from the ground up. Someone who has seen something through from start to finish, and been unphased by the latest fads or scares. Especially someone that has built a business around something that they developed. I know more than a few such people, and the fact is that almost every single one of them comes out in support of intellectual property.
While they may not believe that each and every decision is perfect, that is the nature of intellectual property and why it works. It's yours to lose or win; instead of having some outsider whose never run a business dictate to you how things "should" be done. Ok, so RIAA and the MPAA have been "wrong" before, but so what? That doesn't mean they're wrong now. Too many slashdotters seem to ignore the thousands of every day decisions that these people make on a daily basis.
I'm sure all of you have made mistakes before. But that doesn't mean we should all "vote" on how you should manage your life. That assertion is kind of like saying we, Americans, should be stripped of the right to vote, because we've made the wrong vote before. The integral feature of freedom is the right to be wrong. So let them make their own decisions, for better of for worse.
The interests that own RIAA only own a small fraction of the recorded music out there. I have little doubt that there are even more undiscovered talents out there than those in RIAA's collective pocket. What sets these talented artists apart is RIAA's marketing and distribution. In other words, those that sign with RIAA have some chance at wealth and fame; those that don't, you never even hear of. Don't you think you owe RIAA just a little respect? Don't you think you owe the would-be artist that avenue of choice, to sign with a label that promotes like X, Y, and Z and enforces their IP like A?
I agree with everything you've said 100%. However, one thing I will say is that I think IT in general might find their energy is better spent educating the users more, rather than try to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. In other words, though I think there are lots of truth to the statement that we can "have our cake and eat it too"--taking it too far has its own dangers. You may allow the expert all the access they want and the beginner all the simplicity they need to get their immediate job done, but if the user doesn't know the right questions to ask to begin with, the odds of the user improving are slim. Thus they will perpetually do everything the hard way, or worse, not at all. It might ultimately prove more cost effective to properly educate the user as to the basics of computing.
The real costs in IT come not from the cost of shrinkwrap, but from all the support and downtime associated with ignorant users. We should attack the root of the problem, ignorance, not just the immediate stumblings.
Put it this way, while Nazi Germany had to organize a huge police state and hire and bribe thugs, the United States made use of virtually every able bodied man and women. You simply can't put a gun to someone's head to make them produce more to account for that shortfall, it simply doesn't work [in fact, it's been shown they produced less]. Sick and depressed people don't produce.
Simple mathematics. Even if they were lower paid [which they're not], they're less than 1/10th the workforce. They could only drive down wages for US workers so much. Anyways, the fact is they're not. IT salaries have only been consistently rising relative to inflation and other professional jobs.
You are so full of it. They're paid more than most people in IT. When all it said and done, the vast majority of America would still kill for their jobs.
No, I happen to have been involved in the high tech industry for years. I know many entreprenuers who are hurting for want of qualified technical workers [both IT and engineering].
No, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know the first thing about running a company. No startup can afford the time and the resources to train someone who lacks 4+ years of advanced college education when they need a key project done today. What's more, turnover is a real issue for most of these companies. Employment law is most states is setup such that the employee can walk whenever he or she chooses [or rather, when that employee is offered another job]. So even assuming you could train the employee for 4 years, or whatever, you have absolutely no guarantee you'll reap the rewards. If anything, it is the company that trains the employee that is least capable of matching job offers. They poor half a million dollars per head down the drain, and now they've got to match an offer... Also, I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical if a 25 year old who's spent the last 10 years of his live watching MTV is going to be able to learn the requisite math skills that most college educated foreigners got before they even reached college age.
You know, it's funny, you so-called liberals demonstrate some of the most overt racism. You assume that because these people don't come from the United States, they're comparable to an unskilled/poorly payed Mexican worker. It's just BS. Most of these people are better educated than most of the IT workforce. What's more, they're far more aware of the United States than you give them credit for. I bet you that most of them know more about US politics than you yourself know, not to mention international politics. You think they don't talk to each other? Most of them communicate back home, they know full well the situation when they come here. Also, since H1Bs are in such high demand, there is a little thing called competition...perhaps you've heard of it. H1Bs are highly valuable, and there is lots of salary competition amongst employeers.
Anyways, your whole plug on Mexico indicates to me that this is misguided protectionism, not concern for them.
No, bullshit again. IT is growing overseas. More and more companies are farming IT out, but that's not even what i'm talking about. I'm talking about foreign companies or MNCs simply moving their entire R&D operation oversees. If anything, unlike manufacturing, IT is EASILY moved oversees. The only thing they need to export to the United States is code. Compare this with a manufacturing operation: An expensive manufacturing facility. Roads, wiring, etc have to be built too. Raw materials have to be acquired, which is much harder than you might think. You simply don't have a clue about this.
No, you're don't understand. The savings would not come so much in the form of direct savings in production costs; they already play a very minor role in the costs of a mainstream shrinkwrapped software package. What it will save, however, will be the initial outlay costs that discourage so many startups in this country. That would in turn encourage more competition. Competition could very easily cause prices to fall. The reason MS and company can charge the same prices while their costs remain relatively constant is because they can, they lack competition.
If anything, I fear the day when Europe and Asia get their capital markets in better order and start to remove some of the barriers to trade. That's been their primary inhibitor, not want to skilled and trained minds. Startups there can't find the capital that they need. Most of it is tied up by centralized banks or government. And if they do, they face all kinds of silly regulations.
I'm sorry, do you have a Phd in Economics? No? I didnt think so. There are plenty of highly respected economists who would disagree with you, but that's besides the point. This is not reagonomics in the least, and if you think it is, you don't understand diddly.
If they want to inspire entreprenuership [which they need to if they want to compete], they need to give their citizens certain gaurantees. They can't very easily put a gun to someone's head and tell them to innovate. Likewise, you can't put a gun to the entire countries head to tell them to produce at the level of modern day US; every communist system has learned the hardway that they're woefully unproductive. Merely exporting their products is not going to solve their ills. It requires fundamental changes.
Please do tell.
What have your attentive eyes done for the Chinese thus far? Even if you don't believe trade itself will help, it gives us far more leverage than your "eyes". Even if you believe that leverage to be worthless, I find it hard to believe that it's going to make things worse for the Chinese.
Yes, If it were my choice I'd give them all green cards. However, it's not my choice. Nor is it these corporations' choice. The only thing they're able to push through is a couple H1B visas a year. Unfortunately, there is far too much resistence in this country from labor, various liberal movements, and the like. Unlike the rest of the developed world, it seems the only people we're willing to admit in quantity are so-called political refugees. Irregardless of whether they're able to pull their own weight or not. It's just plain stupid, and does nothing to help us economically.
Frankly, I don't think the US has any business importing more problems when we have enough here in our ghettos and rural America. These highly educated H1B workers, on the other hand, can and do contribute significantly to our economy on the aggregate. We should encourage it, whether through the H1B Visa or Greencards [preferred]. It helps them, and it helps us.
Yes, I agree [real] deregulation is not the cause of California's woes. However, I didn't wish to get involved in this, because I knew the poster would jump all over it.
That is your "evidence"? It doesn't even hint that H1B workers can't just leave. What's more, it is a 3rd person account of what doesn't sound to be much more than a couple of anecdotal accounts. You can find a link to say anything you want online, that doesn't mean it is accurate or respectable.
No, it does not disagree with the fact that genuine deregulation has been shown to be a good thing. A couple problems with your drawing conclusions from this article:
a) The source is not exactly an unbiased ones, much of the content in there is conjecture and opinion, not hard statistics and facts.
b) Texas is only one state.
c) The telephone industry is still only partially deregulated. One key area where it is still regulated, is that the federal and state governments effectively force the telecos to provide service to very rural areas at well below their actual incremental costs. Instead, they forced to pass the costs onto consumers who can and will pay. i.e., metropolitan users, businesses, etc.
d) The telecos have long been one of the most protected industries in the country. No matter what your opinion of deregulation, it is not reasonable to expect instant results. Sometimes the ride will be a little bumpy, that is life.
e) One of the key factors these companies look to if they're going to expand their networks and facilities is some basic assurances that the government won't turn around on them in another year or two and pull the carpet out from under them. Unfortunately, the government is rarely ever willing to provide such assurances, and some have even flirted with the idea re-regulation.
f) You're comparing the APPARENT costs before "deregulation" to the nearer-to-actual costs of today. Sure, the actual costs might be tougher on some people, but I frankly don't have much of a problem with that. It is the cost on the aggregate and over the long run that I am primarily concerned about. If someone wants to live in Bumblefuck Alaska, they're more than entitled to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of society should have to bear the cost of their fiber optic internet connection installation.
Or put more accurately, politicians long ago decided that communities should not have to bear the actual costs of their services (i.e., electricity, telephone, and water). Put another way, just because the true costs are coming to light now does not mean that competition is the cause of it.
No, you're not. You're going to sit around slashdot and poh poh everything that you deam "establishment", "corporatist", or what have you. In any event, I'm not telling you to "leave". I frankly don't care what you do. I do, however, think your viewpoint is shared by the French. I dare you to look at what it's cost them.
For one, we still import significantly more from the rest of Asia than we do from China. Secondly, virtually none of those industries are run under their traditional socialist enterprise system. Quite the contrary, they're the result of foreign investments and/or entreprenerial efforts that the government is trying to foster. Thirdly, Chinese labor is cheaper than it is in the United States. But before you go, "Ah Hah", that is only because the United States passed out of that stage long ago. We are still economically light years ahead of China. It is still in China's ultimate best interest to follow our lead. Thus, they will have to abandon their old ways if they wish to progress--the people will demand it.
Right "slaves", who would rather stay where they are then go back to where they were. Highly paid "slaves" nonetheless. Are you going to tell me that the H1B worker is too stupid to recognize his supposedly worse situation? It's just ridiculous. Claim it has a negative impact on you if you want. Claim it's less ideal that a Green Card. But don't claim your interest is them, it simply doesn't compute.
Hah, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You open it up every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week here on slashdot. I've heard your position on virtually everything on slashdot more than I care to admit.
Yes, bring Hitler into the argument, maybe that'll scare me away. If I persist, maybe you can even compare me with Hitler....Hitler's supporters were generally not his victims, and they certainly were not active supporters at the time of their victimization. Compare this with H1Bs: They can vote with their feet whenever they want, and even get reimbursed for their troubles.
The reason H1B visas are necessary in the first place is because the immigration system is so messed up in this country. We have far and away the most liberal policies overall of any developed nation in the world. Here we tend to admit only the most persecuted and backwards people; this hardly helps business. Business isn't lobbying against citizenship; it's lobbying for qualified employees. Unfortunately, the only way they can get them is with this less than optimal solution.
And your point is? Why don't you try addressing my arguments directly.
Hah, well it aint on most people's. Perhaps you should try moving to France or something, they seem to be much more inline with your politics.
Uh, no. By all reliable and empirical measures, the United States was vastly more productive than either of them in their day. In fact, if you knew your history, you would understand that one of the chief reasons why the United States played such a key role in winning WWII was because of our vastly more efficient military/industrial complex. Put simply, we were able to produce and deliver more armor, more ammunition, more planes, and more ships than them when the need arose. Likewise, the USSR did virtually nothing technologically for 50 years. This is the same country that had to beg the United States to send grain, even though they possessed more arrable land. More efficient? How? Do tell.
As for China, I have been looking for some time. Evidently, I'm looking harder than you, for I can see past the occasional crackdown [not saying this is the only issue, but it is the one most frequently raised] on various social groups in China and recognize a broader trend. If anything, I see these reports of oppression being as evidence that things really are changing socially [though not as fast as some would like]--they're growing pains--no matter how inhumane they are. What we are seeing is a growing conflict between liberal/western ideas and an increasingly embattled conservative/socialist wing. Years before China wouldn't have even seen the profileration of groups like Falun Gong. Never mind an active protest against the government. If they hadn't liberalized their own media to some degree and allowed western media increased access to China we certainly would have never heard of these protests.
China's problem is that they can't very well contain social unrest and compete globally. They will need to continue down their path, that of increased liberalization. Despite your assertions, it takes more than slavery to compete against the United States. Sure, they can perform some basic manufacturing and agricultural functions, but modern economics involves a lot more than that.
PS: I don't profit from China's globalization one cent, yet I believe firmly in sensible globalization. In fact, I bet you that within the next 10 to 15 years that China becomes a major economic player, on par with Japan in the 80s, with vastly improved social justice to boot.
Please, what an unfounded pile of crap.
a) We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries.
b) Legally employeers can't pay H1B employees less.
c) Empirically they're earning more, not less.
d) High-tech workers are hardly starving. Their salaries have grown more rapidly than virtually any other industry, despite the presence of this program.
e) There is a shortage of QUALIFIED high tech works. The vast majority of the H1B workers are very much qualified, we're really talking about the upper rung of jobs. And yes, they're willing to work hard, is that so evil? Despite popular slashdot opinion, some products require a few very hardworking employees, you can't merely hire 3 employees for every 1.
f) They're making much more money than most people in their respective countries. They're even making more money than most Americans. So don't act as if your concern is for them.
g) Competition is becoming global whether you like it or not. If we can't get the right kind of employee in the US, high-tech is going to have to move overseas.
h) Proportionately speaking the costs of hiring qualified people is a small part of the costs of the large companies that you like to villify. The companies that it most effects are the startups, that desperately need qualified people. Yes, the salaries are something of a concern, but more from a cash flow perspective. i.e., they can't afford to spend 20 million dollars before they even have a product on the market.....
i) Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not], it could still be highly beneficial to US citizens on the aggregate. If companies only had to pay half as much to develop a product, the barriers to entry would be lowered. More companies would be founded. More companies mean more jobs of all sorts. More companies mean more competition too, which means consumers might enjoy better products.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all. We as a country has steered away from this more than most others, and we've also enjoyed some of the fruits. It'd be a shame if we started cloning the French [who incidentally, have only enjoyed cooresponding improvements as they have turned away]
Why is it wrong for tax differentials to NOT sway a consumer's purchasing decision? Companies should compete on what they can bring to the table, not on what the government doles out to them. Though this is not the intent of the bill, it is obvious what your direction is...
Yeah, and the evidence of all the damage of regulation is where? On the aggregate, deregulation has been a very good thing. With the exception of California, most authorities that have deregulated have enjoyed significant savings. I haven't viewed this particular bill, but it seems to me as if a offhand response to an offhand response is only fitting.
I'm not fan of that whining either. But this particular fixture is not innovative, other than perhaps as a business relationship. People put these antennas on the tallest things they can find. The notion is not new, and it doesn't require any genius to employ it. I gaurantee you that there have been thousands of other installations long before this on so-called non-traditional platforms. I've seen them on top of skyscrapers, water towers, radio antennas, hilltops, trees... why not a grain elevator? What makes this story any more newsworthy than the hundreds of other similar day to day occurences.
If they wanted to write a piece on, say, high bandwidth coming to rural American, I could accept that. But this is just obvious employment of technology, without any real direction...I wish they'd generate real content, rather than producing fluff like this.
heh I agree that Katz is even worse. But I do think there is plenty more relevant news than Katz, this piece, and the various rants. I mean, come on wake up slashdot it's "the world".
What makes this article news for 99% of slashdot? I find it difficult to believe that most of slashdot would be suprised to discover that this could be done from a technical point of view. Likewise, this article fails to illustrate the technical side of rural America. Instead, all we have is a brief [and flawed] description of a specific application of well established technology. It's not even tied into a larger message at all.
There are hundreds and thousands of similar installation stories that could be posted here too, but that does not mean they all should be national, or even international, news.
As for your comment(s), I fail to see how they actually apply. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that these states are inferior. Though it is apparent that it is a touchy subject for you, I assumed that my putting "hick" in quotes would be sufficient....
I do, however, disagree with you in regards to wireless's future. It will certainly grow, but I'm convinced that most high bandwidth connections will remain in domain of wiring in urban and suburban areas.
I find it hard to believe that even slashdot calls this newsworthy. I mean, what is news exactly? That highspeed wireless internet technology requires line of sight? Or that these places are relatively flat and unobstructed? That this can be done economically? That "hicks" might want high speed internet access to? The whole thing strikes me as terribly obvious. The only thing I wouldn't know is that it is happening there and right now. But the same can be said for many many more things.
Bull fucking shit. Tell me something. If the record companies are no longer needed, why does every major artist still sign with the record companies? Why would the artist forgoe some 95% of the profits, not to mention cutting off a number of paying customers in the process? How can you assert that the labels need to be struck down by force, if, in fact, they perform no function today? ...If recording and distribution are not an issue, what is?
The answer is simple, the labels are still necessary today. Although recording and production costs are relatively nominal these days, the labels still perform a valuable marketing function. Marketing, by its very nature, involves vying for the finite mindshare of consumers (i.e., visibility to consumers). Mindshare is going to be rare no matter what media consumers are on. No matter if it is TV, radio, movies, newspapers, or the internet. You can only fit so many ads [or songs] in front of the consumer. This rarity means it costs money. Money means someone is going to take a risk, because new artists don't have that kind of money. This means that, yeah, there is always going to be someone in the business who gets rich by investing [and RISKING] HIS money to promote the ARTIST'S music.
The fact is that this marketing business is both terribly necessary and terribly expensive is obvious. The problem that 99% of slashdot has with it, the reason they can't admit it, is that once they've purchased a CD, they don't want to believe that marketing played any role in it. They can't concieve of the fact that marketing added value. What they totally fail to recognize though, is that if the artist didn't get marketed, they probably wouldn't have been listening to that artist. Thus the artist would not be sufficiently rewarded for his musical efforts without that critical mass of userbase. Thus artists will stop playing music professionally. Thus you would not have your music.
I'm all open for alternatives, but these alternatives should compete in a traditional free market that preserves the notion of intellectual property. If, in fact, napster is a better alternative for the artist, they WILL sign on their own. You need not, you should not, force the artist's hand. Despite the cries of slashdot that it is only the labels that get hurt, not the artist, napster [potentially] denies the artist the avenue of profiting with the labels. In its place, you offer a feeble argument that napster will solve all their "distribution" ills. Well I'm telling you, it's snake oil. It is not distribution, manufacturing, or production that ails the artist, it is marketing. Napster does not offer any feasible hope of doing that--never mind a proven means. Despite all the complaints--RIAA and company are proven to be an avenue to fame and wealth for a number of artists.