I was there, you are wrong, we could have ended up with something that is much less.
You were *where*? The period of time you seem to be referring to is when the Web came about. I'm confused...the Internet != Web, and the Internet already existed at that time. So how did Gore create the Internet that *already existed* at that juncture? Other people say it's "what he did as a congressman". I'm asking when and what bill did he pen or pass that represented this "initiative"?
It's like some politician coming along after the combustible engine and the assembly line had been created and saying he created the culture of cars (in America) just because they "took an initiative" on something.
I'm asking for a concrete bit of legislation that was passed that took the initiative to create the Internet.
I'd say the single biggest thing any government entity did to further the growth of the Internet was to move to allow commercialization - up until early 90's, commercial interests were not permissible. But that's hardly "creating" (synonym of "inventing") anything.
At the same time that Gore was helping us create the Internet the failure in the Whitehouse was pleading no contest to a DUI charge. Which would you pick?
Well, I don't know. Before 9/11 - Gore was always painted as "brilliant" by left-wingers, but the guy didn't recognize the founding fathers at Monticello - he said, "who are these guys?"
And post 9/11, I'd pick Bush hands down over Gore. And I'm a Libertarian. Gore would be down at ground zero doing an environmental impact study instead of taking decisive action. Even Democrats seemed relieved that Gore lost.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=create If you say you "created A lightbulb", yes, there is a difference vs. saying you "invented THE lightbulb". But that's not what we're comparing, are we? You can't move the goalposts like that. What we are comparing is this:
"I invented THE lightbulb" vs. "I created THE lightbulb"
They have the same meaning. There may be slightly different connotations in some contexts, but not in this one.
I will concede that the remark WAS taken out of context, but by itself, it's the same thing as if he said "invented".
And even if he took the "initiative" I have serious doubts as to how much influence he really had. It's my understanding that when he referred to the "Infomation Superhighway" (later), he was talking about something related to TV. Did he write a bill that got passed? What was it? When these people say he "encouraged" this or "took the initiative" on that, what does that mean, in hard terms?
I still think the Internet was much larger than any one person, much less a politician, could take a large amount of credit for. Some key elements came about in UK or Europe...how did any politician here influence that?
It was Al Gore's *FATHER* who tried to filibuster the Equal Rights Act.
It is Senator Byrd, a *Democrat* who was the former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, and who only last *year* used the word "nigger" twice on national television. Do you really think that he has changed his views when he is using that word on national television. The press and the left mao-mao'ed Lott out of his position, but do we hear the tiniest peep about Byrd, when he said it? Where was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Byrd?
It is the *Democrats* who oppose school vouchers, despite what inner-city blacks might want.
It is the *programs* that Democrats support that have helped create the inner city slums.
Anyone who thinks Republicans are the "racist" party is spending too much time listening to rhetoric from the left.
I would contend that much of the LEFT is racist - what else could a handout or special treatment based on skin color mean? When you give someone a boost solely on skin color, you are in effect saying, "Gosh, you're too stupid or lazy to do this yourself, here you go."
MLK's dream is dead, at least if we expect liberals to be the ones to realize that dream.
And neither party is "anti-immigration". There are some in both parties who are anti ILLEGAL immigration, but most support it for various reasons DESPITE what the population of Americans wants - Repubs support it so companies can get cheap labor, and Dems support it so they can get a larger base of voters.
Only Tom Tancredo has the balls to call it as it really is, and as most Americans want illegal immigration to be dealt with...and of course, he gets called "xenophobic" for it. That's nonsense. There isn't a country on Earth that doesn't try to control immigration, and we should be no different. If people want to come here, they HAVE TO DO IT LEGALLY, and even then, only as much as the population wants, not want companies or Democrats want.
Coming to America to work and live is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE.
Repeat this to *yourself*: the Internet would most likely be here in the same form, with or without Gore. He might have helped clear some paths, but it's pretty clear that there were folks thinking about this long before him...he and his apologists are giving him way too much credit. Good work gets done in SPITE of government meddling, not because of it.
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ ...And the popular vote means nothing. Get over it already.
Mod this parent up. "Creating" is a synonym for "inventing". Even snopes.com has this "urban legend" down as false, based on the word "create" vs. "invent".
In effect, even though he may be misquoted as saying "inventing" vs. "creating", it really makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence. It may not have been his intention to say what he said, but he still said it!
mkdir thumbnail for i in *.jpg; do convert -resize 128x128 $i thumbnail/$i; done;
I did this exact tedious task a few days back.:) I did this for about 12 images the GUI way in GIMP...can you say boring? And that was for only 12 images.
I would agree that something needs to be fixed in our schools. But I'd probably depart from your view that we need to fund it more - giving teachers more pay isn't automatically going to give children a better education. Let's say teachers got paid really, really well, (say, 50K to start in most areas) got signing bonuses, and the working conditions were great - it might attract some of the good folks, but it's also going to attract loser teachers out to live the good life (if you remember the dot-com boom, this will sound very familiar. If not, let me tell you that I had to work beside many dumbass poseurs that were in it for the money, and couldn't do critical thinking to save themselves).
As much as it may pain you to hear this, it's not about making it good for the *teachers*. It's about educating the *children*. I know that the teacher's union pitches everything they want as "for the children", but it ain't necessarily so. If it were, they wouldn't be standing in the way of school vouchers. They also appear to want their cake and eat it, too. They want more pay, lower class size, etc...but then they fight tooth and nail against any sort of testing to mete out funds - well, the American taxpayers have a right to know and measure what they are paying for, and the fact that unions fight this only shows they don't want to be held accountable for their performance. Well, it's not some artificial system that is just a cash cow, that money is money skimmed from the local people - everyone else in any other field is judged by their performance; why should teaching be any different? Teachers, admins, and most importantly, the unions, need to start viewing the local tax base as the shareholders.
However, I would agree there is a problem with treating teachers as second-class citizens. On top of the low pay, they can't even properly discipline the kids anymore, and have to goose-step around PC issues like crazy. There's also the issue of high-paid admin folks...I used to work for a school district in their data processing department. You wouldn't believe what, say, the building and grounds admin got...and forget about it when it came to the school board members and the superintendant and vice-superintendant. Let's just say the last two got six-digit salaries, and this was back in the late eighties.
Of course, it depends on where you live, too. Some teachers make as much as 70K. Not bad for not even working the whole year, not to mention all the holidays.
Western nations may fall, but I doubt Western culture (and by that culture, I mean things such as: property rights, stock markets, trial by jury, human rights, etc.) will ever disappear entirely.
As for your assertion that in at least one sense "mono-culturism" is bad, I would tend to agree. I love the various backgrounds of peoples that live in U.S., and even more, I love the food that it provides. Hey, I'm selfish, and damned if Thai, Indian, Lebanese, and sushi aren't excellent food. I wouldn't want to eat hamburgers (actually that's from Germany) every day. Hell, when I went to uni, it was like being at the UN building, and I even had several foreign roomies and friends over my uni years, and I *liked* that. Very much, in fact. But, as for the unique ideas and institutions that Western culture brought about, I would very much say they are a good monoculture to have.
But here's what I know you'll choke on, and most Americans seem to have a problem with, even though it's true. Western culture IS superior in nearly every way to other cultures...people teaching that "all cultures are equal" is utter balderdash. If you can believe that, then I'd ask you: was Nazi Germany's culture equal to Britain's? What about cannibalism and human sacrifice? Is that acceptable, as long as "it's part of their culture?" What about slavery? Female circumcision? What about throwing a widow on a burning pyre?
Relativism is nonsense: if you can make up any sort of moral code and never pass judgement on anything, why bother getting an education at all? An education is so that you CAN make informed judgements about things, and so that you can learn what is wrong and what is right.
Let me repeat, though, that I don't want people teaching, "Rah, rah, America!!! and rah, rah, Europe!!!" and never looking under the rug at the nasty bits. History needs to be taught with the warts and all. But I fear that is not what is happening - it's more about "selective memory", and forgetting convenient things. I know things may have been whitewashed in the past, but two wrongs do not make a right. This pretense that horrible behavior was somehow unique to Western culture is intellectually bankrupt.
Of course that sort of penny pinching is usually the beginning of the end.
Bingo. I think you meant for the company, but I personally think it's going to mean the end of the technology sector as a job option for U.S. citizens...
BTW, if you knew about the HP story, do you know that Oracle and Sun and Dell are planning to or have done the same? Why do you think they would lie about this? If they say they are building such and such, and hiring X people, don't you think that's something that people could easily fact check?
...and it's made here in North America.
North America? I hope that doesn't mean Mexico. I lurk on VW newsgroups, and people claim that VWs made there (vs. Germany) are junk. Maybe Honda has a better track record, tho....
Well, I would contend that what multiculturism pushes is not the traditional "melting pot" that made this country great, and in fact some proponents discourage people coming here from assimilating into the culture. No one is saying that people should forget who they are and where they came from, but people should participate in the culture of America instead of everyone being balkanized and living in virtual enclaves of sub-cultures all at odds with one another...
What is happening is that people are no longer being taught the rose-coloured version of history, no longer did the white man bring civilisation to the noble savage, no instead they are being taught the truth, that in the majority of cases the white man fucked over the noble savage so badly that we have almost driven the various aboriginal peoples to exinction. Sure we've done great things and we should treat those things as they deserve, but hell we need to remember that our ancestors could be complete and utter bastards at times.
No doubt. But what also needs to be told is that Western civilization is highly unique in some very good respects, and again Dinesh D'Souza has pointed this out in other books of his: Western culture is the first and only culture to fight against the practice of slavery by their own people. I think the stat is such that for every six blacks freed by the Civil War, one white died. This type of morality is unprecedented. Slavery is hardly an institution that was unique to the West (every known culture practiced it, and accepted it, including Native Americans, long before one white man set foot on the continent), but the abolition of it was. Remember that the next time that someone is spouting about how terrible Western civilization is. And for those who hate the founders, the framework they put into place was the one that legitimized and formed the logical conclusion of the abolition of slavery.
As for the Native Americans, there were whites that suggested intermarrying (note: not rape, as was traditionally done, but marriage) to help assimilate them. This may sound not so great by today's standards, but consider the time that it happened, and consdering the alternatives, it's again quite striking.
Also, Western culture's historic interest in other cultures, and accepting some of their practices, to the degree it was/is done, is unparalleled.
I *agree* that Western culture should not be white-washed and only one side told, but when people use Western-bashing as a tool to foment Marxism on us, then I say that's going over the line.
Let's take a closer look at some African countries, some of which are Marxist or Islamic regimes, and run by blacks, i.e., we can't blame Westerners for the problems: take Sudan. Sudan is still practicing slavery as late as 1999:
Can you really tell me that Western culture is not superior to at least some other cultures, and especially ones that proclaim Marxist philosophies? Keep in mind Marxism is directly responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century. Is it any wonder that people start sounding the alarm when people use strawmen to push Marxism in our universities?
Well generally you don't hire the entire country when you set up shop. Of those who are educated the education system is first-rate, or so I've heard.
I've heard that, too. Good point. America's system just gets ripped a new one every time a study shows that X percentage of people cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level, though. The universitys are still good enough to attract the best and brightest from all over the world.
And what happens when Asia explodes, which it is doing right now (indeed the telecom sector is looking at a possible huge resurgence because of Asia pushing demand)? Would you rather that French and Chinese and Japanese companies owned the market, or American companies that created a foothold get a share of the pie too?
Uh, and how *wouldn't* they if they still employed people in tech sector here? There are sales divisions for multinationals in every country - does that mean all the other work has to be done there just to make a sale? I don't think so.
In any case tales of mass exoduses are just that: Imaginary creations of reporters trying to make a story.
It's not just reporters. The companies themselves say it:
Consulting The New HP Way: World's Cheapest Consultants Quentin Hardy, 12.05.02, 11:26 AM ET
Tech giant Hewlett-Packard has seen the future of technology consulting. It's on the other side of the globe and it's really, really cheap.
"We're trying to move everything we can offshore," HP Services chief Ann Livermore told Wall Street analysts at a meeting Wednesday. "We're aggressively realigning our resources." Short term, that means adding to the software and services personnel HP (nyse: HPQ - news - people ) already has in India. Further out, HP expects China to also turn into a major consulting center.
Damn you mean that students are actually learning about different cultures as opposed to the white washed one sided point of view they got before?? Shame shame.
Do you even know what "multiculturism" is? The way it's practiced now is not to so much study and appreciate foreign cultures, which is fine and broadens the mind. I in fact encourage that.
No, "multiculturism" as practiced in American universities, is to constantly show only the BAD side of Western culture, and play up those parts of other cultures that conveniently tie in with Marxist idealogy. Don't believe it? Google for I, _I, Rigoberta Menchu_. This is a text used in many universities, and she even won a Nobel Peace prize for this...but it's all lies, and it's all conveniently Marxist. Time taken to teach this has to replace more classic, inconveniently Western, literature, does it not?
And how in the hell can multiculturism hurt the hard sciences? Do you actually have a problem with say an Indian doing geology or maybe an African doing heart surgery?
Gah! Again you are showing your misunderstanding here. Most of my profs in uni were not white or even American. That's not what I'm worried about.
Go read Dinesh D'Souza's book, _Illiberal Education_ to get a better idea about what I mean by "multiculturism". And, uh, notice that he's Indian.
Multiculturism promotes discrimination against Asians and whites via affirmative action policies (which have been ruled illegal, but schools get around them by "considering other factors"). They also promote segregation, for Pete's sake.
Also, universities that try to practice the most "diversity" and "multiculturism" have subsequently had MORE racist incidents. Think there's a tie there somewhere? Diversity is something that will happen on its own, and should not be as a result of preferential treatment for certain politically correct certified groups. Anything else only creates a racially divided university, or on the larger scale, a divided nation.
You think the administration and communications costs of running a division in India, for instance, are free?
Nope, YOU said that. I said that smaller companies can utilize front companies, meaning companies already existing and run by Indians, in India. I said larger companies have to incur the costs of moving, which implies a division. No, it's not free, but it's definitely cheaper any way you look at it. And all those nasty pollution and OSHA laws aren't in effect in some of these countries.
You see the economy as a zero sum game...
Well, actually, I don't. I also should have explained that I don't think Indians/Chinese/Russians are "stealing" our jobs, but multinationals utilize their efforts to destroy American jobs - no doubt.
America most definitely does not fail to "see the potential", that is if you are talking about the potential for globalism. Unfortunately, it's this very globalism that is creating so much anti-American sentiment. And yes, destroying American jobs.
As for a first-rate educational system...hmmm. What's India's illiteracy rate? 50, 60 percent? Yeah, top-notch.
That being said, yes, I commend India and the others' efforts at trying to better themselves, especially if they are creating their own competitive companies. But I *don't* see why American companies have to fall all over themselves to move jobs there, if only to boost profit margins for next few quarters or years. What can this mean for long-term innovation?
To think about the economy in only next quarter's earnings is terribly naive, in my opinion, and this obsession was not always the norm. I know it sounds so terribly old-fashioned, but a sense of gratitude to your country and the people who populate it doesn't necessarily preclude a company being profitable and maintaining growth...
The problem is, companies DON'T have to incur ANY cost to move jobs to India...only the larger ones do. Smaller companies can and do use front operations to move jobs to India/Russia/China. No infrastructure needed, at least from the American company. So even 22K is not going to be a toss-up.
As for rising rates, there will always be new countries to move to. Once Indians get too pricey, the multinationals will move their operations and front groups to focus on poorer, more desperate people, all the while proclaiming to be "American" companies. Already, Russia and China are trying to edge out India in destroying American jobs.
Once the multiculturists (read: cultural marxists) infect engineering and science curriculums, it's definitely over at the university level in America. Up until now, it's been mostly the liberal arts and humanities that have been poisoned with this stupid brand of "liberalism". Once they get their tentacles into the hard sciences, you can kiss any innovation goodbye.
If you think this is just some silly conspiracy theory, you either are willfully blind or you are not paying attention. They have already been successful in replacing classics with texts that push Marxist theology.
Unfortunately, he was wrong about HOW it would happen, but the American programmer IS an endangered species. Look where Oracle, IBM, Sun and the like are "outsourcing" - it's not America.
You are right that he was wrong about overlooking the strides made in improving efficiency, and *Indian* companies aren't going to be responsible for the end of the American programmer, it will be *American-based* multinationals that will destroy the American programmer. He thought it was going to play out that, because Indian programmers were better that the companies that employed them would roll over American companies. This hasn't, and probably won't, happen until it's too late for anyone here to even care, because few Americans will work in technology by then.
In the end, if you are a programmer, what's the difference where the catastrophe came from except that at least the first case was preventable by being more efficient and excelling at what you do - the second one isn't, since there is no way to compete with the typical salary of an Indian/Chinese/Russian programmer....the only way to dodge the bullet and stay in the field is to move to architecture or management. Most companies are moving even their R&D to India.
Let me make it clear: just because there is no Indian company that is destroying IBM/Sun/Microsoft, it doesn't mean that there is not a sea change taking place. The next JVM could very well be made by Indians, with an American multinational acting as a front to fool the average Joe into thinking they are "buying American". Just like Nike. Just like Calvin Klein. Just like GM.
13) Make sure as many technical jobs as possible are "outsourced" to Third World countries so that companies can double, triple or quadruple their profit margins in the near-term, while scaring any U.S. citizens or recent immigrants from choosing a career in technology, and dooming said companies to failure for the long-term.
13) Make sure as many technical jobs as possible are "outsourced" to Third World countries so that companies can double, triple or quadruple their profit margins in the near-term, while scaring any U.S. citizens or recent immigrants from choosing a career in technology, and dooming said companies to failure for the long-term.
"Googling" == Checking up on someone?
on
Googling For Dates?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Since when has anyone actually heard anyone else use it in this manner, or used it themselves?
I use it as a replacement for "searching", and I hear countless other do the same..."go google for foo". Yes, I guess it could be applied to a person, but I seriously doubt it's used soley as that - unless you are some executive type who doesn't even know where "all your base are belong to us" comes from...so many of these assholes still think yahoo and microsoft are the only way to search. Yes, the same assholes who repeat, "talk to the hand", "don't go there, girlfriend", "show me the money!" and other stupid memes.
Is the dipstick who wrote this immersed in internet culture at all, or is he just another "pundit" who only uses AOL and for IM and email, at that? I wonder if he's heard of mailing lists and Usenet, or is it all about "chat rooms" for him?
I bet his next editorial will be: "The latest neologism: 'blogging' - is it okay to read others' online diaries????"
What a tool this guy is. More apropos to privacy issues would be companies' being able to do a financial background check on employees - why can't *I*, as an employee, do the same for the people running the company I work for? After all, we are entering into a sort of contract that would ordinarily require due diligence, but this is not an option for employees. Or honesty and full disclosure in accounting at companies - why can't *I* know the company is bleeding money, and there will likely be layoffs? These are much more pressing issues in the realm of ethics, not some fucking puff piece on dating.
The truth of the matter is there is always a market for good people; also if you have been working for 8 years and dont have contacts that can line you up with a new position, chances are you are exaggerating your skillset a bit.
Well, that's a good theory, but it doesn't always work that way. I can name quite a few people still working who are incompetent jackasses, but they are still working because they play golf and the like with the right someone(s), and/or they kiss copious amounts of ass...even the most basic of objective reviews would reveal they are dead weight, but there they are.
All the contacts I know are at places with hiring freezes, or else they are laid off themselves.
Oh, and I live in Denver - said to be the worst market in the country, and one of the last to recover, when a recovery happens.
In any case, good for your friend, but his situation doesn't necessarily reflect on mine.
Lastly, I've posted my resume to every known job board, with little to no response, and I'm told that finding a job that way is no longer anything but a lottery draw - you have to "know" people. Well, I'm not one of the well-heeled, and don't run in the same circles as CTOs and CEOs, so I guess I'm up shit creek, huh?
Did you ever stop to think your friend might have more political influence, and we was not necessarily hired on merit?
Yeah, but if he's only the CEO, it's not *necessarily* his company. Plus, he has a responsibility to the shareholders, and honestly, I don't see how he managed to justify that expense for so little obvious return - it's bound to blow up in his face...CEOs have and should get ousted over things like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Can no one have a joke, these days with out it being all the evil mean republicans fault?
Get with it, comrade. Don't you know there's no humor section in the liberal library?
I was there, you are wrong, we could have ended up with something that is much less.
You were *where*? The period of time you seem to be referring to is when the Web came about. I'm confused...the Internet != Web, and the Internet already existed at that time. So how did Gore create the Internet that *already existed* at that juncture? Other people say it's "what he did as a congressman". I'm asking when and what bill did he pen or pass that represented this "initiative"?
It's like some politician coming along after the combustible engine and the assembly line had been created and saying he created the culture of cars (in America) just because they "took an initiative" on something.
I'm asking for a concrete bit of legislation that was passed that took the initiative to create the Internet.
I'd say the single biggest thing any government entity did to further the growth of the Internet was to move to allow commercialization - up until early 90's, commercial interests were not permissible. But that's hardly "creating" (synonym of "inventing") anything.
At the same time that Gore was helping us create the Internet the failure in the Whitehouse was pleading no contest to a DUI charge. Which would you pick?
Well, I don't know. Before 9/11 - Gore was always painted as "brilliant" by left-wingers, but the guy didn't recognize the founding fathers at Monticello - he said, "who are these guys?"
And post 9/11, I'd pick Bush hands down over Gore. And I'm a Libertarian. Gore would be down at ground zero doing an environmental impact study instead of taking decisive action. Even Democrats seemed relieved that Gore lost.
Well, I know how to use a thesaurus:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=create
If you say you "created A lightbulb", yes, there is a difference vs. saying you "invented THE lightbulb". But that's not what we're comparing, are we? You can't move the goalposts like that. What we are comparing is this:
"I invented THE lightbulb"
vs.
"I created THE lightbulb"
They have the same meaning. There may be slightly different connotations in some contexts, but not in this one.
I will concede that the remark WAS taken out of context, but by itself, it's the same thing as if he said "invented".
And even if he took the "initiative" I have serious doubts as to how much influence he really had. It's my understanding that when he referred to the "Infomation Superhighway" (later), he was talking about something related to TV. Did he write a bill that got passed? What was it? When these people say he "encouraged" this or "took the initiative" on that, what does that mean, in hard terms?
I still think the Internet was much larger than any one person, much less a politician, could take a large amount of credit for. Some key elements came about in UK or Europe...how did any politician here influence that?
Lucid, my ass.
It was the Republicans who set up the NAACP.
It was Al Gore's *FATHER* who tried to filibuster the Equal Rights Act.
It is Senator Byrd, a *Democrat* who was the former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, and who only last *year* used the word "nigger" twice on national television. Do you really think that he has changed his views when he is using that word on national television. The press and the left mao-mao'ed Lott out of his position, but do we hear the tiniest peep about Byrd, when he said it? Where was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Byrd?
It is the *Democrats* who oppose school vouchers, despite what inner-city blacks might want.
It is the *programs* that Democrats support that have helped create the inner city slums.
Anyone who thinks Republicans are the "racist" party is spending too much time listening to rhetoric from the left.
I would contend that much of the LEFT is racist - what else could a handout or special treatment based on skin color mean? When you give someone a boost solely on skin color, you are in effect saying, "Gosh, you're too stupid or lazy to do this yourself, here you go."
MLK's dream is dead, at least if we expect liberals to be the ones to realize that dream.
And neither party is "anti-immigration". There are some in both parties who are anti ILLEGAL immigration, but most support it for various reasons DESPITE what the population of Americans wants - Repubs support it so companies can get cheap labor, and Dems support it so they can get a larger base of voters.
Only Tom Tancredo has the balls to call it as it really is, and as most Americans want illegal immigration to be dealt with...and of course, he gets called "xenophobic" for it. That's nonsense. There isn't a country on Earth that doesn't try to control immigration, and we should be no different. If people want to come here, they HAVE TO DO IT LEGALLY, and even then, only as much as the population wants, not want companies or Democrats want.
Coming to America to work and live is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE.
Repeat this to *yourself*: the Internet would most likely be here in the same form, with or without Gore. He might have helped clear some paths, but it's pretty clear that there were folks thinking about this long before him...he and his apologists are giving him way too much credit. Good work gets done in SPITE of government meddling, not because of it.
...And the popular vote means nothing. Get over it already.
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
Mod this parent up. "Creating" is a synonym for "inventing". Even snopes.com has this "urban legend" down as false, based on the word "create" vs. "invent".
In effect, even though he may be misquoted as saying "inventing" vs. "creating", it really makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence. It may not have been his intention to say what he said, but he still said it!
mkdir thumbnail
:) I did this for about 12 images the GUI way in GIMP...can you say boring? And that was for only 12 images.
for i in *.jpg; do convert -resize 128x128 $i thumbnail/$i; done;
I did this exact tedious task a few days back.
What about Usenet, then?
That's my vote.
I would agree that something needs to be fixed in our schools. But I'd probably depart from your view that we need to fund it more - giving teachers more pay isn't automatically going to give children a better education. Let's say teachers got paid really, really well, (say, 50K to start in most areas) got signing bonuses, and the working conditions were great - it might attract some of the good folks, but it's also going to attract loser teachers out to live the good life (if you remember the dot-com boom, this will sound very familiar. If not, let me tell you that I had to work beside many dumbass poseurs that were in it for the money, and couldn't do critical thinking to save themselves).
As much as it may pain you to hear this, it's not about making it good for the *teachers*. It's about educating the *children*. I know that the teacher's union pitches everything they want as "for the children", but it ain't necessarily so. If it were, they wouldn't be standing in the way of school vouchers. They also appear to want their cake and eat it, too. They want more pay, lower class size, etc...but then they fight tooth and nail against any sort of testing to mete out funds - well, the American taxpayers have a right to know and measure what they are paying for, and the fact that unions fight this only shows they don't want to be held accountable for their performance. Well, it's not some artificial system that is just a cash cow, that money is money skimmed from the local people - everyone else in any other field is judged by their performance; why should teaching be any different? Teachers, admins, and most importantly, the unions, need to start viewing the local tax base as the shareholders.
However, I would agree there is a problem with treating teachers as second-class citizens. On top of the low pay, they can't even properly discipline the kids anymore, and have to goose-step around PC issues like crazy. There's also the issue of high-paid admin folks...I used to work for a school district in their data processing department. You wouldn't believe what, say, the building and grounds admin got...and forget about it when it came to the school board members and the superintendant and vice-superintendant. Let's just say the last two got six-digit salaries, and this was back in the late eighties.
Of course, it depends on where you live, too. Some teachers make as much as 70K. Not bad for not even working the whole year, not to mention all the holidays.
Western nations may fall, but I doubt Western culture (and by that culture, I mean things such as: property rights, stock markets, trial by jury, human rights, etc.) will ever disappear entirely.
As for your assertion that in at least one sense "mono-culturism" is bad, I would tend to agree. I love the various backgrounds of peoples that live in U.S., and even more, I love the food that it provides. Hey, I'm selfish, and damned if Thai, Indian, Lebanese, and sushi aren't excellent food. I wouldn't want to eat hamburgers (actually that's from Germany) every day. Hell, when I went to uni, it was like being at the UN building, and I even had several foreign roomies and friends over my uni years, and I *liked* that. Very much, in fact. But, as for the unique ideas and institutions that Western culture brought about, I would very much say they are a good monoculture to have.
But here's what I know you'll choke on, and most Americans seem to have a problem with, even though it's true. Western culture IS superior in nearly every way to other cultures...people teaching that "all cultures are equal" is utter balderdash. If you can believe that, then I'd ask you: was Nazi Germany's culture equal to Britain's? What about cannibalism and human sacrifice? Is that acceptable, as long as "it's part of their culture?" What about slavery? Female circumcision? What about throwing a widow on a burning pyre?
Relativism is nonsense: if you can make up any sort of moral code and never pass judgement on anything, why bother getting an education at all? An education is so that you CAN make informed judgements about things, and so that you can learn what is wrong and what is right.
Let me repeat, though, that I don't want people teaching, "Rah, rah, America!!! and rah, rah, Europe!!!" and never looking under the rug at the nasty bits. History needs to be taught with the warts and all. But I fear that is not what is happening - it's more about "selective memory", and forgetting convenient things. I know things may have been whitewashed in the past, but two wrongs do not make a right. This pretense that horrible behavior was somehow unique to Western culture is intellectually bankrupt.
Sorry, I don't listen to Limbaugh.
...I can almost predict your banal response.
Nice try...what's the matter, you'd rather shout than debate the points?
Of course that sort of penny pinching is usually the beginning of the end.
...and it's made here in North America.
Bingo. I think you meant for the company, but I personally think it's going to mean the end of the technology sector as a job option for U.S. citizens...
BTW, if you knew about the HP story, do you know that Oracle and Sun and Dell are planning to or have done the same? Why do you think they would lie about this? If they say they are building such and such, and hiring X people, don't you think that's something that people could easily fact check?
North America? I hope that doesn't mean Mexico. I lurk on VW newsgroups, and people claim that VWs made there (vs. Germany) are junk. Maybe Honda has a better track record, tho....
Well, I would contend that what multiculturism pushes is not the traditional "melting pot" that made this country great, and in fact some proponents discourage people coming here from assimilating into the culture. No one is saying that people should forget who they are and where they came from, but people should participate in the culture of America instead of everyone being balkanized and living in virtual enclaves of sub-cultures all at odds with one another...
a te .htm
What is happening is that people are no longer being taught the rose-coloured version of history, no longer did the white man bring civilisation to the noble savage, no instead they are being taught the truth, that in the majority of cases the white man fucked over the noble savage so badly that we have almost driven the various aboriginal peoples to exinction. Sure we've done great things and we should treat those things as they deserve, but hell we need to remember that our ancestors could be complete and utter bastards at times.
No doubt. But what also needs to be told is that Western civilization is highly unique in some very good respects, and again Dinesh D'Souza has pointed this out in other books of his: Western culture is the first and only culture to fight against the practice of slavery by their own people. I think the stat is such that for every six blacks freed by the Civil War, one white died. This type of morality is unprecedented. Slavery is hardly an institution that was unique to the West (every known culture practiced it, and accepted it, including Native Americans, long before one white man set foot on the continent), but the abolition of it was. Remember that the next time that someone is spouting about how terrible Western civilization is. And for those who hate the founders, the framework they put into place was the one that legitimized and formed the logical conclusion of the abolition of slavery.
As for the Native Americans, there were whites that suggested intermarrying (note: not rape, as was traditionally done, but marriage) to help assimilate them. This may sound not so great by today's standards, but consider the time that it happened, and consdering the alternatives, it's again quite striking.
Also, Western culture's historic interest in other cultures, and accepting some of their practices, to the degree it was/is done, is unparalleled.
I *agree* that Western culture should not be white-washed and only one side told, but when people use Western-bashing as a tool to foment Marxism on us, then I say that's going over the line.
Let's take a closer look at some African countries, some of which are Marxist or Islamic regimes, and run by blacks, i.e., we can't blame Westerners for the problems: take Sudan. Sudan is still practicing slavery as late as 1999:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudanupd
Can you really tell me that Western culture is not superior to at least some other cultures, and especially ones that proclaim Marxist philosophies? Keep in mind Marxism is directly responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century. Is it any wonder that people start sounding the alarm when people use strawmen to push Marxism in our universities?
I've heard that, too. Good point. America's system just gets ripped a new one every time a study shows that X percentage of people cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level, though. The universitys are still good enough to attract the best and brightest from all over the world.
And what happens when Asia explodes, which it is doing right now (indeed the telecom sector is looking at a possible huge resurgence because of Asia pushing demand)? Would you rather that French and Chinese and Japanese companies owned the market, or American companies that created a foothold get a share of the pie too?
Uh, and how *wouldn't* they if they still employed people in tech sector here? There are sales divisions for multinationals in every country - does that mean all the other work has to be done there just to make a sale? I don't think so.
In any case tales of mass exoduses are just that: Imaginary creations of reporters trying to make a story.
It's not just reporters. The companies themselves say it:
http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/12/05/cz_qh_120
Damn you mean that students are actually learning about different cultures as opposed to the white washed one sided point of view they got before?? Shame shame.
Do you even know what "multiculturism" is? The way it's practiced now is not to so much study and appreciate foreign cultures, which is fine and broadens the mind. I in fact encourage that.
No, "multiculturism" as practiced in American universities, is to constantly show only the BAD side of Western culture, and play up those parts of other cultures that conveniently tie in with Marxist idealogy. Don't believe it? Google for I, _I, Rigoberta Menchu_. This is a text used in many universities, and she even won a Nobel Peace prize for this...but it's all lies, and it's all conveniently Marxist. Time taken to teach this has to replace more classic, inconveniently Western, literature, does it not?
And how in the hell can multiculturism hurt the hard sciences? Do you actually have a problem with say an Indian doing geology or maybe an African doing heart surgery?
Gah! Again you are showing your misunderstanding here. Most of my profs in uni were not white or even American. That's not what I'm worried about.
Go read Dinesh D'Souza's book, _Illiberal Education_ to get a better idea about what I mean by "multiculturism". And, uh, notice that he's Indian.
Multiculturism promotes discrimination against Asians and whites via affirmative action policies (which have been ruled illegal, but schools get around them by "considering other factors"). They also promote segregation, for Pete's sake.
Also, universities that try to practice the most "diversity" and "multiculturism" have subsequently had MORE racist incidents. Think there's a tie there somewhere? Diversity is something that will happen on its own, and should not be as a result of preferential treatment for certain politically correct certified groups. Anything else only creates a racially divided university, or on the larger scale, a divided nation.
You think the administration and communications costs of running a division in India, for instance, are free?
Nope, YOU said that. I said that smaller companies can utilize front companies, meaning companies already existing and run by Indians, in India. I said larger companies have to incur the costs of moving, which implies a division. No, it's not free, but it's definitely cheaper any way you look at it. And all those nasty pollution and OSHA laws aren't in effect in some of these countries.
You see the economy as a zero sum game...
Well, actually, I don't. I also should have explained that I don't think Indians/Chinese/Russians are "stealing" our jobs, but multinationals utilize their efforts to destroy American jobs - no doubt.
America most definitely does not fail to "see the potential", that is if you are talking about the potential for globalism. Unfortunately, it's this very globalism that is creating so much anti-American sentiment. And yes, destroying American jobs.
As for a first-rate educational system...hmmm. What's India's illiteracy rate? 50, 60 percent? Yeah, top-notch.
That being said, yes, I commend India and the others' efforts at trying to better themselves, especially if they are creating their own competitive companies. But I *don't* see why American companies have to fall all over themselves to move jobs there, if only to boost profit margins for next few quarters or years. What can this mean for long-term innovation?
To think about the economy in only next quarter's earnings is terribly naive, in my opinion, and this obsession was not always the norm. I know it sounds so terribly old-fashioned, but a sense of gratitude to your country and the people who populate it doesn't necessarily preclude a company being profitable and maintaining growth...
The problem is, companies DON'T have to incur ANY cost to move jobs to India...only the larger ones do. Smaller companies can and do use front operations to move jobs to India/Russia/China. No infrastructure needed, at least from the American company. So even 22K is not going to be a toss-up.
As for rising rates, there will always be new countries to move to. Once Indians get too pricey, the multinationals will move their operations and front groups to focus on poorer, more desperate people, all the while proclaiming to be "American" companies. Already, Russia and China are trying to edge out India in destroying American jobs.
Once the multiculturists (read: cultural marxists) infect engineering and science curriculums, it's definitely over at the university level in America. Up until now, it's been mostly the liberal arts and humanities that have been poisoned with this stupid brand of "liberalism". Once they get their tentacles into the hard sciences, you can kiss any innovation goodbye.
If you think this is just some silly conspiracy theory, you either are willfully blind or you are not paying attention. They have already been successful in replacing classics with texts that push Marxist theology.
Unfortunately, he was wrong about HOW it would happen, but the American programmer IS an endangered species. Look where Oracle, IBM, Sun and the like are "outsourcing" - it's not America.
You are right that he was wrong about overlooking the strides made in improving efficiency, and *Indian* companies aren't going to be responsible for the end of the American programmer, it will be *American-based* multinationals that will destroy the American programmer. He thought it was going to play out that, because Indian programmers were better that the companies that employed them would roll over American companies. This hasn't, and probably won't, happen until it's too late for anyone here to even care, because few Americans will work in technology by then.
In the end, if you are a programmer, what's the difference where the catastrophe came from except that at least the first case was preventable by being more efficient and excelling at what you do - the second one isn't, since there is no way to compete with the typical salary of an Indian/Chinese/Russian programmer....the only way to dodge the bullet and stay in the field is to move to architecture or management. Most companies are moving even their R&D to India.
Let me make it clear: just because there is no Indian company that is destroying IBM/Sun/Microsoft, it doesn't mean that there is not a sea change taking place. The next JVM could very well be made by Indians, with an American multinational acting as a front to fool the average Joe into thinking they are "buying American". Just like Nike. Just like Calvin Klein. Just like GM.
13) Make sure as many technical jobs as possible are "outsourced" to Third World countries so that companies can double, triple or quadruple their profit margins in the near-term, while scaring any U.S. citizens or recent immigrants from choosing a career in technology, and dooming said companies to failure for the long-term.
13) Make sure as many technical jobs as possible are "outsourced" to Third World countries so that companies can double, triple or quadruple their profit margins in the near-term, while scaring any U.S. citizens or recent immigrants from choosing a career in technology, and dooming said companies to failure for the long-term.
Since when has anyone actually heard anyone else use it in this manner, or used it themselves?
I use it as a replacement for "searching", and I hear countless other do the same..."go google for foo". Yes, I guess it could be applied to a person, but I seriously doubt it's used soley as that - unless you are some executive type who doesn't even know where "all your base are belong to us" comes from...so many of these assholes still think yahoo and microsoft are the only way to search. Yes, the same assholes who repeat, "talk to the hand", "don't go there, girlfriend", "show me the money!" and other stupid memes.
Is the dipstick who wrote this immersed in internet culture at all, or is he just another "pundit" who only uses AOL and for IM and email, at that? I wonder if he's heard of mailing lists and Usenet, or is it all about "chat rooms" for him?
I bet his next editorial will be: "The latest neologism: 'blogging' - is it okay to read others' online diaries????"
What a tool this guy is. More apropos to privacy issues would be companies' being able to do a financial background check on employees - why can't *I*, as an employee, do the same for the people running the company I work for? After all, we are entering into a sort of contract that would ordinarily require due diligence, but this is not an option for employees. Or honesty and full disclosure in accounting at companies - why can't *I* know the company is bleeding money, and there will likely be layoffs? These are much more pressing issues in the realm of ethics, not some fucking puff piece on dating.
The truth of the matter is there is always a market for good people; also if you have been working for 8 years and dont have contacts that can line you up with a new position, chances are you are exaggerating your skillset a bit.
Well, that's a good theory, but it doesn't always work that way. I can name quite a few people still working who are incompetent jackasses, but they are still working because they play golf and the like with the right someone(s), and/or they kiss copious amounts of ass...even the most basic of objective reviews would reveal they are dead weight, but there they are.
All the contacts I know are at places with hiring freezes, or else they are laid off themselves.
Oh, and I live in Denver - said to be the worst market in the country, and one of the last to recover, when a recovery happens.
In any case, good for your friend, but his situation doesn't necessarily reflect on mine.
Lastly, I've posted my resume to every known job board, with little to no response, and I'm told that finding a job that way is no longer anything but a lottery draw - you have to "know" people. Well, I'm not one of the well-heeled, and don't run in the same circles as CTOs and CEOs, so I guess I'm up shit creek, huh?
Did you ever stop to think your friend might have more political influence, and we was not necessarily hired on merit?
Yeah, but if he's only the CEO, it's not *necessarily* his company. Plus, he has a responsibility to the shareholders, and honestly, I don't see how he managed to justify that expense for so little obvious return - it's bound to blow up in his face...CEOs have and should get ousted over things like this.