A 37,000 person company bringing in $12 billion a year in revenue is not exactly circling the drain.
Sun and Microsoft signed their deal what, 2 years ago? 37,000 people should have just suddenly given up on their jobs, benefits, perks, projects because...why again?
Re:Will they still be powering eBay?
on
Sun to Cut 5000 Jobs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You don't think the remaining 32,000 or so employees are enough to keep the lights on?
RandomFlunky: But, you are The Man, sir. So wouldn't you be sticking it to yourself?
IBM: Perhaps.
Too bad the better OS is owned by one of their competitors (and partners), otherwise I'd give them 1 year before they switched to Solaris (much like Oracle did after flirting with linux).
This is because NBC gears their coverage towards women and the American Idol crowd (which BTW kicks the Olympics ass in ratings).
When you watch the Olympics and see commercials for baby stuff and feminine hygenie products as well as the soap opera type "human interest" stories you are made acutely aware that this coverage is not for the hard-core sports fiend. (ie men). Would NBC garner higher ratings if they went the hardcore sports route? Doubtful, men are not really the demographic of prime time tv in any case, at least not enough men to make up for the droves of casual fans and women who would turn on something else. As for the non-primetime slots, you don't really expect anyone to pre-empt soap operas do you? Housefraus of the nation would revolt.
The IOC couldn't give a tinker's cuss as to the number of people actually watching once they get their money from NBC. That's NBC's problem.
I would imagine his beef is this. There is no draft. There is no one in the military who didn't at some point sign up, take the oath and willfully submit to their rules and regulations. They volunteered to follow the orders of their political masters. History has lessons for the "just following orders" crowd, being in the military does not absolve a person. If soldiers were kidnapped and brainwashed against their will, that would be different, but that's not the case here.
The killer asteroid will get us first, or maybe bird flu. Or AIDS..or whatever "OMG! We're all going to die!" claptrap disaster the fearmongers are peddling tomorrow.
England didn't give up the Empire because they were asked, they gave up the Empire because they were dead broke and had bled themselves white through 2 World Wars. The US wouldn't support them (Roosevelt hated the idea of fighting Hitler and Japan to thwart their imperial ambitions only to turn the world back over the the British and French Empires), so they could not maintain their holdings. Hell, the poor bastards had food rationing until what? 1953?
Go look at how England gave up its Empire in places like Kenya. Do the words "concentration camps" ring any bells? And this was in the 1950s. Do you remember what the Suez Crisis was all about? England didn't want to give up that part of its Empire peacefully now did they? Oh the irony, France and Britain teaming up with Israel to sucker punch Egypt, only to be smacked down by the US.
Canada? Whatever, they sucked at the teat of England for 200 years. They weren't *allowed* to do anything except send troop to fight for the Commonwealth. Oh, except for that pesky business of oppressing the natives and interning people of Japanese descent during WWII, just like the US.
When a good portion of the U.S population decides to revolt, if it really came to that, do you think the entire U.S. military would take up arms against them? Do you know anyone in the military? Any friends or relatives? Would *they* shoot you? Would they drive a tank down Main Street USA?
The U.S has numerous National Guard amories scattered across Anytown USA. The people in charge of these armories answer to the Governors and to the President in times of war. But they also live, work and raise families in Anytown USA. Would they take up arms against the person who teaches their kids in school? Or cuts their hair?
And let's, in an extreme leap of fantasy, say they would, just for argument's sake. Many, many people would still exercise their 2nd amendment rights anyway. I for one don't have to win a fight against an oppressive goverment to feel successful, I just have to kill a few of the jack-booted thugs as they break down my door. I'll have at least done my part in the struggle. There are many people who feel it is better to die on their feet than to live on their knees.
Sure and when you decide to join a political group that maybe isn't looked upon favorably by the Govt, they can track you right to the meetings.
Maybe you're having an affair, your spouse can now petition the state to have your movements tracked.
Maybe you take the daughter of a important MP out on a date, one thing leads to another. Now he can track you and have you busted for statutory rape! (not sure if that is a law in the UK, but you get my point).
You fail to note that a) Canada admits it has to lower it's usage of coal and b) US rates for pollution are falling!! Falling in the face of rising population, rising GDP, rising vehicle use and rising energy use. How is that possible if the US is not doing *anything*? Like I said, more work is needed, but progress is measured by lowering pollution which the US is doing.
Kyoto? Do you actually think Kyoto is the only pollution initiative in the world? How is it possible that the US (as well as other countries) have managed to lower pollution substantially in the last 30 years if Kyoto is your bar for doing *anything*. Kyoto targets aren't due for another 7 years and many experts are predicting that very, very few countries will make their quotas.
Here's my prediction...The US matches or beats the EU in reducing Kyoto specified emissions by 2012 without needing to formally sign the agreement.
PBS ran a Frontline story about China this fall. Car usage is *soaring*. Pollution in the big cities is soaring, in part due to the increase in cars. Here read this. As the article points out, if the Chinese economy continues to grow, the middle class will continue to grow, further fueling the need for cars. (and TVs, and cell phones, and shopping malls and single family homes)
How on earth can you say the US Govt isn't doing "anything" about it? Pollution levels in the US (and many other western, first world countries) have been dropping for 30 years, all the while that GDP has gone up, energy consumption has gone up, vehicle usage is up, and population has gone up. In what reality-based world can you say the US doesn't do anything about pollution?
Is there still work to do? Of course! But the good news is that the trend is down in the US. In China, the trend is up and all indicators are that it is going to get *MUCH* worse before it gets better. That's the problem. They still use dirty coal for power, the majority of homes are heated by individual coal burning stoves. They have people delivering it door to door via bicycles for goodness sakes. Why do they use coal? Because China has a crapload of coal resources. Unfortunately, it's a particularly dirty type. China also adheres to a much lower vehicle emmission standard than the US and the EU. Now, while 600 million Chinese may be rural peasants riding bicycles, that still leaves 300 million people classified as middle class. And that middle class will want their cars. (unless China adopts social and tax policies that discourage it).
No one said it was going to be easy to fix the problem, but that is hardly relevant. Also, China is what, 4-5000 miles from the coast of North America? Detecting pollution at that distance is a bit more worrisome than the fact that Windsor Ontario has to put up with Detroit smog.
China has a middle class of 300 million people. This middle class wants to buy things, like cars. They also still burn mostly dirty coal for their power. When Chinese pollution is detectable on the West Coast of Canada and the US, arguing over per capita levels is pretty irrelevant.
Maybe Congress should remember the fact that they are a separate and equal branch of government and should act like it for once. Their role in blunting the executive power is paramount in our government, otherwise we would have just kept a King.
The actions of all the Representatives and Senators in the period immediately after 9/11 should be on everyone's mind come election time. Are you going to vote for someone who apparently doesn't read bills (Patriot Act) and votes to cede war-making authority to the executive branch?
The lot of them should be run out of town on a rail.
How is calling Catholics Christian, which they are, no matter what Jack Chick tells you on the Intarweb, insulting to Protestant Christians? In what way could it be considered inaccurate?
Here's a good litmus test for Christians...do they profess belief in the Apostle's Creed? Bang! That's it. Believe in the Trinity? Natch. Jesus died for our sins. Natch. Come again to judge the living and the dead. Righto. Throw in a little Baptism and you pretty much have Christian. (you may get a little waffling on the Jehovah's Witnesses and maybe, just maybe a bit of pushback on the Mormons)
Catholics are Christians. Only ignorant fools deny that Catholics are Christian. It's like this, all nickels are coins, but not all coins are nickels. Does calling a penny a coin insult nickels? No.
For the record, I'm not a Catholic. Not a Christian either, but was raised in a Lutheran tradition.
My point is, you may have a 3.2 from Stanford, but HR's resume in-boxes are filled with Stanford(or CMU, or MIT, or fill_in_your_good_school) grads *with practical experience*. It's not like you're pitting your CMU degree up against a bozo with a freshly printed online certificate and a copy of Linux for Dummies in his hand. Those people have already gone back to working checkout at Wal-Mart. You are up against very good people, for the most part. What I see carrying more weight are personal skills and clues as to how the candidate will mesh with the existing team.
A degree from a top-notch school certainly would help for the entry level opening, but those are not as plentiful as they were in 1999-2000. One bonus is the top-notch schools are seen to be driving cutting-edge research. If you can demonstrate a post-grad track-record in an area a company is about to invest in, that would definitely be a plus.
You want props because you drive 2 miles to work? I agree with your point but geez, you may try leaving out that tidbit of info next time you go off on a rant.
It's called a bike. (or hey, maybe even go ol' school and walk.) And you won't get any "but it's a 45mph road" sympathy here. Come to the Front Range in Colorado, we've got bikers sharing the road on mountain highways. They manage, I think you could manage 2 miles. Hell, I feel guilty the day or two a week I don't bike to work and instead drive the 8 miles.
"...My biggest problem so far hasn't been skill or knowledge, it's been lack of *professional* experience coupled with a 3.0 GPA (when did a B-average become a bad thing?)..."
A B-average became a bad thing right after they fired everyone with C-averages in 2002. During the bubble, just about anyone could get a job, no real experience or even certification required. Now you hear slashdotter's whining about how a piece of paper shouldn't be more important than their experience in the real world or even vice versa. What they forget is that they are now up against people who have BOTH.
Jesus Christ man, have you been so beaten down that you can't even think straight?? You organize (well obviously you don't, you're too busy bitching about your plight on Slashdot), you pool resources and then you hire someone to do the lobbying. Who do you think the EFF (or any other civic minded group) are? Magical freaking fairies? Do you think they were beamed down by Aliens? No! They were formed when people said "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" and so they did something about it. Do you think the Freedom Riders just sat back and said "We will never make a difference and this Civil Rights stuff is hard, so why bother?"?
Bah, I'm done with you. You stink of helplessness and fear. You're right, you wouldn't last 10 seconds as an advocate for low-cost broadband. You're already beaten. You're a poster boy for the status quo.
Some rocket scientist you are. Keep reaching for them stars kid, keep reaching for them stars.
You're the one railing against PACs, which are nothing more than a collection of citizens focusing their energy and money on a select issue or two. You moan that you have no money so your vote doesn't count. I merely suggested that just because you alone don't have the clout, it isn't the end of the world. You could organize (like unions do) with like minded individuals, thus increasing your clout. It's laughably easy to buy off a politician or two. I'm sure even a dejected cynic who is resigned to cry in the corner could manage it with little effort.
Hell, I can't afford a new highway, but yet, there are roads that I can use. How is that possible? Collective Action.
Here it is in small words: Form a "Low-Cost Broadband" PAC.
Yeah, but how about you find 5000 people who have a similar interest in cheap/fast broadband? Collective Action...you may want to read up on it. It's only the basis for every union or social welfare program ever.
Nothing happened to it..because the fairy tale history of an altruistic United States you seem to pine for never existed. Except maybe in the history they teach kindergarteners. America is good, Washington never told a lie...blah blah blah.
Try looking at a history book once. Nation-states have never done anything simply because it was the right thing to do and they wanted to lead by example. Nation-states do thing because their government feels it is in their best interest. Now, that may in fact coincide with the "right" thing to do and it may in fact appear to be leading by example, but those are never the deciding factors.
Seriously, list some of the things down through history that you think the US has done "soley because" they were the right thing to do. I'd like to see why your version of history is so great that it has you pining for the good ol' days.
Slashdot Mirror
A 37,000 person company bringing in $12 billion a year in revenue is not exactly circling the drain.
Sun and Microsoft signed their deal what, 2 years ago? 37,000 people should have just suddenly given up on their jobs, benefits, perks, projects because...why again?
You don't think the remaining 32,000 or so employees are enough to keep the lights on?
You certainly have not been keeping up on how much coroporate business interests are funding your "pure" academic researchers these days.
Ripping off a customer for a quick buck? Maybe not. Exagerating claims to get next year's grant or to boost one's chances for tenure? Certainly.
Too bad the better OS is owned by one of their competitors (and partners), otherwise I'd give them 1 year before they switched to Solaris (much like Oracle did after flirting with linux).
This is because NBC gears their coverage towards women and the American Idol crowd (which BTW kicks the Olympics ass in ratings).
When you watch the Olympics and see commercials for baby stuff and feminine hygenie products as well as the soap opera type "human interest" stories you are made acutely aware that this coverage is not for the hard-core sports fiend. (ie men). Would NBC garner higher ratings if they went the hardcore sports route? Doubtful, men are not really the demographic of prime time tv in any case, at least not enough men to make up for the droves of casual fans and women who would turn on something else. As for the non-primetime slots, you don't really expect anyone to pre-empt soap operas do you? Housefraus of the nation would revolt.
The IOC couldn't give a tinker's cuss as to the number of people actually watching once they get their money from NBC. That's NBC's problem.
Move along. They don't want you.
I would imagine his beef is this. There is no draft. There is no one in the military who didn't at some point sign up, take the oath and willfully submit to their rules and regulations. They volunteered to follow the orders of their political masters. History has lessons for the "just following orders" crowd, being in the military does not absolve a person. If soldiers were kidnapped and brainwashed against their will, that would be different, but that's not the case here.
The killer asteroid will get us first, or maybe bird flu. Or AIDS..or whatever "OMG! We're all going to die!" claptrap disaster the fearmongers are peddling tomorrow.
England didn't give up the Empire because they were asked, they gave up the Empire because they were dead broke and had bled themselves white through 2 World Wars. The US wouldn't support them (Roosevelt hated the idea of fighting Hitler and Japan to thwart their imperial ambitions only to turn the world back over the the British and French Empires), so they could not maintain their holdings. Hell, the poor bastards had food rationing until what? 1953?
Go look at how England gave up its Empire in places like Kenya. Do the words "concentration camps" ring any bells? And this was in the 1950s. Do you remember what the Suez Crisis was all about? England didn't want to give up that part of its Empire peacefully now did they? Oh the irony, France and Britain teaming up with Israel to sucker punch Egypt, only to be smacked down by the US.
Canada? Whatever, they sucked at the teat of England for 200 years. They weren't *allowed* to do anything except send troop to fight for the Commonwealth. Oh, except for that pesky business of oppressing the natives and interning people of Japanese descent during WWII, just like the US.
When a good portion of the U.S population decides to revolt, if it really came to that, do you think the entire U.S. military would take up arms against them? Do you know anyone in the military? Any friends or relatives? Would *they* shoot you? Would they drive a tank down Main Street USA?
The U.S has numerous National Guard amories scattered across Anytown USA. The people in charge of these armories answer to the Governors and to the President in times of war. But they also live, work and raise families in Anytown USA. Would they take up arms against the person who teaches their kids in school? Or cuts their hair?
And let's, in an extreme leap of fantasy, say they would, just for argument's sake. Many, many people would still exercise their 2nd amendment rights anyway. I for one don't have to win a fight against an oppressive goverment to feel successful, I just have to kill a few of the jack-booted thugs as they break down my door. I'll have at least done my part in the struggle. There are many people who feel it is better to die on their feet than to live on their knees.
What kind of person are you?
Sure and when you decide to join a political group that maybe isn't looked upon favorably by the Govt, they can track you right to the meetings.
Maybe you're having an affair, your spouse can now petition the state to have your movements tracked.
Maybe you take the daughter of a important MP out on a date, one thing leads to another. Now he can track you and have you busted for statutory rape! (not sure if that is a law in the UK, but you get my point).
Government tracking is never a good thing.
You fail to note that a) Canada admits it has to lower it's usage of coal and b) US rates for pollution are falling!! Falling in the face of rising population, rising GDP, rising vehicle use and rising energy use. How is that possible if the US is not doing *anything*? Like I said, more work is needed, but progress is measured by lowering pollution which the US is doing.
Kyoto? Do you actually think Kyoto is the only pollution initiative in the world? How is it possible that the US (as well as other countries) have managed to lower pollution substantially in the last 30 years if Kyoto is your bar for doing *anything*. Kyoto targets aren't due for another 7 years and many experts are predicting that very, very few countries will make their quotas.
Here's my prediction...The US matches or beats the EU in reducing Kyoto specified emissions by 2012 without needing to formally sign the agreement.
PBS ran a Frontline story about China this fall. Car usage is *soaring*. Pollution in the big cities is soaring, in part due to the increase in cars. Here read this. As the article points out, if the Chinese economy continues to grow, the middle class will continue to grow, further fueling the need for cars. (and TVs, and cell phones, and shopping malls and single family homes)
How on earth can you say the US Govt isn't doing "anything" about it? Pollution levels in the US (and many other western, first world countries) have been dropping for 30 years, all the while that GDP has gone up, energy consumption has gone up, vehicle usage is up, and population has gone up. In what reality-based world can you say the US doesn't do anything about pollution?
Is there still work to do? Of course! But the good news is that the trend is down in the US. In China, the trend is up and all indicators are that it is going to get *MUCH* worse before it gets better. That's the problem. They still use dirty coal for power, the majority of homes are heated by individual coal burning stoves. They have people delivering it door to door via bicycles for goodness sakes. Why do they use coal? Because China has a crapload of coal resources. Unfortunately, it's a particularly dirty type. China also adheres to a much lower vehicle emmission standard than the US and the EU. Now, while 600 million Chinese may be rural peasants riding bicycles, that still leaves 300 million people classified as middle class. And that middle class will want their cars. (unless China adopts social and tax policies that discourage it).
No one said it was going to be easy to fix the problem, but that is hardly relevant. Also, China is what, 4-5000 miles from the coast of North America? Detecting pollution at that distance is a bit more worrisome than the fact that Windsor Ontario has to put up with Detroit smog.
China has a middle class of 300 million people. This middle class wants to buy things, like cars. They also still burn mostly dirty coal for their power. When Chinese pollution is detectable on the West Coast of Canada and the US, arguing over per capita levels is pretty irrelevant.
Maybe Congress should remember the fact that they are a separate and equal branch of government and should act like it for once. Their role in blunting the executive power is paramount in our government, otherwise we would have just kept a King.
The actions of all the Representatives and Senators in the period immediately after 9/11 should be on everyone's mind come election time. Are you going to vote for someone who apparently doesn't read bills (Patriot Act) and votes to cede war-making authority to the executive branch?
The lot of them should be run out of town on a rail.
Even other Christian sects think the Mormons are weird. Don't draw too many conclusions based on what the magical underpants group does.
How is calling Catholics Christian, which they are, no matter what Jack Chick tells you on the Intarweb, insulting to Protestant Christians? In what way could it be considered inaccurate?
Here's a good litmus test for Christians...do they profess belief in the Apostle's Creed? Bang! That's it. Believe in the Trinity? Natch. Jesus died for our sins. Natch. Come again to judge the living and the dead. Righto. Throw in a little Baptism and you pretty much have Christian. (you may get a little waffling on the Jehovah's Witnesses and maybe, just maybe a bit of pushback on the Mormons)
Catholics are Christians. Only ignorant fools deny that Catholics are Christian. It's like this, all nickels are coins, but not all coins are nickels. Does calling a penny a coin insult nickels? No.
For the record, I'm not a Catholic. Not a Christian either, but was raised in a Lutheran tradition.
My point is, you may have a 3.2 from Stanford, but HR's resume in-boxes are filled with Stanford(or CMU, or MIT, or fill_in_your_good_school) grads *with practical experience*. It's not like you're pitting your CMU degree up against a bozo with a freshly printed online certificate and a copy of Linux for Dummies in his hand. Those people have already gone back to working checkout at Wal-Mart. You are up against very good people, for the most part. What I see carrying more weight are personal skills and clues as to how the candidate will mesh with the existing team.
A degree from a top-notch school certainly would help for the entry level opening, but those are not as plentiful as they were in 1999-2000. One bonus is the top-notch schools are seen to be driving cutting-edge research. If you can demonstrate a post-grad track-record in an area a company is about to invest in, that would definitely be a plus.
You want props because you drive 2 miles to work? I agree with your point but geez, you may try leaving out that tidbit of info next time you go off on a rant.
It's called a bike. (or hey, maybe even go ol' school and walk.) And you won't get any "but it's a 45mph road" sympathy here. Come to the Front Range in Colorado, we've got bikers sharing the road on mountain highways. They manage, I think you could manage 2 miles. Hell, I feel guilty the day or two a week I don't bike to work and instead drive the 8 miles.
Jesus Christ man, have you been so beaten down that you can't even think straight?? You organize (well obviously you don't, you're too busy bitching about your plight on Slashdot), you pool resources and then you hire someone to do the lobbying. Who do you think the EFF (or any other civic minded group) are? Magical freaking fairies? Do you think they were beamed down by Aliens? No! They were formed when people said "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" and so they did something about it. Do you think the Freedom Riders just sat back and said "We will never make a difference and this Civil Rights stuff is hard, so why bother?"?
Bah, I'm done with you. You stink of helplessness and fear. You're right, you wouldn't last 10 seconds as an advocate for low-cost broadband. You're already beaten. You're a poster boy for the status quo.
Some rocket scientist you are. Keep reaching for them stars kid, keep reaching for them stars.
You're the one railing against PACs, which are nothing more than a collection of citizens focusing their energy and money on a select issue or two. You moan that you have no money so your vote doesn't count. I merely suggested that just because you alone don't have the clout, it isn't the end of the world. You could organize (like unions do) with like minded individuals, thus increasing your clout. It's laughably easy to buy off a politician or two. I'm sure even a dejected cynic who is resigned to cry in the corner could manage it with little effort.
Hell, I can't afford a new highway, but yet, there are roads that I can use. How is that possible? Collective Action.
Here it is in small words: Form a "Low-Cost Broadband" PAC.
Yeah, but how about you find 5000 people who have a similar interest in cheap/fast broadband? Collective Action...you may want to read up on it. It's only the basis for every union or social welfare program ever.
Canada is in Afghanistan "Fighting the War on Terror". They seem to be able to do both.
Why do you think it is a either/or proposition. Maybe I do want both. Maybe I want neither. Ever think of that?
Way to miss the point. Who is this mysterious "they" you are referring to? It's a group of citizens no different than you.
Small, dedicated and focused groups of citizens (with deep pockets) beat the unknowing, unorganized sheep-like masses any day of the week.
Nothing happened to it..because the fairy tale history of an altruistic United States you seem to pine for never existed. Except maybe in the history they teach kindergarteners. America is good, Washington never told a lie...blah blah blah.
Try looking at a history book once. Nation-states have never done anything simply because it was the right thing to do and they wanted to lead by example. Nation-states do thing because their government feels it is in their best interest. Now, that may in fact coincide with the "right" thing to do and it may in fact appear to be leading by example, but those are never the deciding factors.
Seriously, list some of the things down through history that you think the US has done "soley because" they were the right thing to do. I'd like to see why your version of history is so great that it has you pining for the good ol' days.