Money goes a lot farther in India. I know quite a few Indian graduate students. They're looking for jobs in the US so they can make their fortunes and retire wealthy in India. Incidentally, many Americans that I've known who have lived in India have the same plan. A lot of people are retiring to Spain these days too.
American companies didn't need any help outsourcing work to India. They were doing this long before anyone complained about Google and long before Google IPO'd, hit critical mass, and started growing rapidly.
The reason that American companies are doing this is because they are run by people who take no pride in the goods that their companies supposedly produce. They believe that having management is a value-added proposition, when all of their intellectual capital works for a different company in a different country. The only thing to stop the Indian companies from just producing the goods directly is brand recognition, which will go out the window eventually when people realize that Company X hasn't produced a damn thing in 10 years except for a markup on an Indian product.
Already Indians are talking of things in India being outsourced elsewhere.
Anyway, so when you take these soul-free companies, and have gutted of all that ever made them worthwhile, the bottom falls out and the company is no more. The CEO still made a couple billion in short term growth by firing all of the programmers.
That's how this works. I'm sorry that you think that Google or India are somehow at fault. The problem is that nobody sees the wheels turning and stops it. If you need someone to blame, blame the CEOs and blame politicians. Also, consider what you're missing. You're missing working with people who believe that, at the end of the day, don't give a damn about anything and take no pride in their work. I've had a coworker or 2 like that before. I'd rather sling burgers than work at a company full of those people.
Starving people is a political problem, not a financial or supply problem. Charitable organizations can't bring food to the starving when their trucks are shot at. That is, unless they want to bring along UN peacekeeper troops, which always goes over really well.
Developers are leaving MS. I don't think that anybody in their right mind is hoping to make millions, at least, not off of stocks. Google went public and shot their stock through the roof. It's worth what it's going to be worth. People are going to Google because they want to work at Google. I've talked to their recruiters about the research topics that interest Google. It sounds pretty good to me.
All that this says is, "All of these years, the reason that I've hated MS is because they were successful. All of that bitching and moaning was because MS made money. I have never had anything objective to say about Microsoft. It's all been lies."
Seriosuly. What did Google do? All that anyone has accused them of is 1) Stealing all of the talent in software (damn, people want to work there, sounds evil) and 2) Raising the prices of software engineers (shit, and now I make more money).
News flash, the only people who complain about Google are the evil corporate masters that you're also supposedly railing against. Really. If their company was all that good, people would want to work their anyway. Amazon.com is not having any problems hiring talented people. Trust me. I've met some of their people.
What you're saying is that nobody can succeed and not be evil. I disbelieve that. I believe that honest people can make an honest living and still, at the end of the day, be honest. Call me old fashioned like that, but believe it or not, one day I'd like to be successful too. Also, I'd appreciate it if you don't call me a tyrant when I am.
Full virtualization in a virtual machine monitor can allow for the absence of a host OS. There might be an OS from which you tweak a few settings that acts as a "host," but it isn't a "host" in the sense that people think of in VMWare. VMWare has a product called ESX that works much more like this role.
Instead, what you would have is a virtual machine monitor that manages context and virtualization of the devices. It might merely multiplex devices for which this is an option. It might borrow drivers and offer a virtualized version. In this case, each OS has its own context (copy on write and other optimizations notwithstanding). So, each OS has its own scheduler, unlike in vservers, which share a scheduler.
Optimizations allow for this to be done nearly in the same light as merely flipping between applications or other processes, but since each OS gets its own scheduler, a high priority job in 1 OS, or forkbomb, or anything else, only affects that one virtual machine.
Xen has been used to do some very cool things that allow for the high scalability. Interestingly, however, it's a bit of a battle between the Xen guys an the VMWare guys, so there's enough propaganda and mudslinging in the process that you really need to sort it all out in your head to make an objective analysis. The first paper that I read on Xen touted paravirtualization. The last paper that I read on Xen was run in what sounded like a fully virtualized VMM.
Yes, that is my main reaction. Also, mind you, that virtualization integrated into the OS is completely unnecessary. Full virtualization (which is not OS dependent) really offers the fastest and best support for general use.
Xen has a number of interesting features that require paravirtualization techniques, which would need to be built into the OS.
The political prisoner and journalists have nothing to do with software patents.
Seriously.
Read what you're talking about before accusing me of being high. I am accurate on this one. You can keep running down this trail, but it makes you no more accurate.
Yes, but they make selections for you. They randomize a couple of the selections that they feel are acceptable. There is still a bias in there. Read the captions. They say things like "randomized out of the 2 we thought were ok."
I should clarify that I don't actually believe that Guantanamo is being used like that. If I was running some variety of Illuminati, the prison would be super-secret, and impossible to find.
What are you people who criticize Google for producing a good product and giving it away smoking? Would you rather they charge insanely high prices for garbage?
Are you really saying that the Open Source community needs to look at Google as a threat because of this? Now everyone who produces something and gives it away is evil? Is it just because it isn't Open Source?
People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now
So, what they're saying is that sci-fi fans are now small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek, and women. Nice. The men still suck, according to the article, but now they're accompanied by women, who may or may not suck.
You're right, that was flamebait. Clarifying that protecting your country is not jingoism, while killing people who are relatively innocent is jingoism. Thanks for the mod. Of course, Zonk wasn't at all pitching some flamebait in the article.
extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (source m-w.com)
I don't really think of this as Jingoism. Fighting terrorists to prevent them from killing people in your country (particularly after they've done things like, say that they want to kill people in your country, is pretty natural.
Jingoism might be things like shooting illegal immigrants trying to run across the border from Mexico, such as the Minutemen are accused of doing. Notice the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not.
Money goes a lot farther in India. I know quite a few Indian graduate students. They're looking for jobs in the US so they can make their fortunes and retire wealthy in India. Incidentally, many Americans that I've known who have lived in India have the same plan. A lot of people are retiring to Spain these days too.
American companies didn't need any help outsourcing work to India. They were doing this long before anyone complained about Google and long before Google IPO'd, hit critical mass, and started growing rapidly.
The reason that American companies are doing this is because they are run by people who take no pride in the goods that their companies supposedly produce. They believe that having management is a value-added proposition, when all of their intellectual capital works for a different company in a different country. The only thing to stop the Indian companies from just producing the goods directly is brand recognition, which will go out the window eventually when people realize that Company X hasn't produced a damn thing in 10 years except for a markup on an Indian product.
Already Indians are talking of things in India being outsourced elsewhere.
Anyway, so when you take these soul-free companies, and have gutted of all that ever made them worthwhile, the bottom falls out and the company is no more. The CEO still made a couple billion in short term growth by firing all of the programmers.
That's how this works. I'm sorry that you think that Google or India are somehow at fault. The problem is that nobody sees the wheels turning and stops it. If you need someone to blame, blame the CEOs and blame politicians. Also, consider what you're missing. You're missing working with people who believe that, at the end of the day, don't give a damn about anything and take no pride in their work. I've had a coworker or 2 like that before. I'd rather sling burgers than work at a company full of those people.
So, you think that MS was a good, honest business, that somehow changed midstream? You believe that this is soley $$$ related?
Does this make Ivy League schools evil, but state institutions and little Baptist colleges in Virginia good?
Do you think that Linux offers a large enough market segment to interest them?
They're a company, not a charity.
Starving people is a political problem, not a financial or supply problem. Charitable organizations can't bring food to the starving when their trucks are shot at. That is, unless they want to bring along UN peacekeeper troops, which always goes over really well.
Developers are leaving MS. I don't think that anybody in their right mind is hoping to make millions, at least, not off of stocks. Google went public and shot their stock through the roof. It's worth what it's going to be worth. People are going to Google because they want to work at Google. I've talked to their recruiters about the research topics that interest Google. It sounds pretty good to me.
How exactly is Google a tyrant?
All that this says is, "All of these years, the reason that I've hated MS is because they were successful. All of that bitching and moaning was because MS made money. I have never had anything objective to say about Microsoft. It's all been lies."
Seriosuly. What did Google do? All that anyone has accused them of is 1) Stealing all of the talent in software (damn, people want to work there, sounds evil) and 2) Raising the prices of software engineers (shit, and now I make more money).
News flash, the only people who complain about Google are the evil corporate masters that you're also supposedly railing against. Really. If their company was all that good, people would want to work their anyway. Amazon.com is not having any problems hiring talented people. Trust me. I've met some of their people.
What you're saying is that nobody can succeed and not be evil. I disbelieve that. I believe that honest people can make an honest living and still, at the end of the day, be honest. Call me old fashioned like that, but believe it or not, one day I'd like to be successful too. Also, I'd appreciate it if you don't call me a tyrant when I am.
Sorry. I wasn't terribly clear.
Full virtualization in a virtual machine monitor can allow for the absence of a host OS. There might be an OS from which you tweak a few settings that acts as a "host," but it isn't a "host" in the sense that people think of in VMWare. VMWare has a product called ESX that works much more like this role.
Instead, what you would have is a virtual machine monitor that manages context and virtualization of the devices. It might merely multiplex devices for which this is an option. It might borrow drivers and offer a virtualized version. In this case, each OS has its own context (copy on write and other optimizations notwithstanding). So, each OS has its own scheduler, unlike in vservers, which share a scheduler.
Optimizations allow for this to be done nearly in the same light as merely flipping between applications or other processes, but since each OS gets its own scheduler, a high priority job in 1 OS, or forkbomb, or anything else, only affects that one virtual machine.
Xen has been used to do some very cool things that allow for the high scalability. Interestingly, however, it's a bit of a battle between the Xen guys an the VMWare guys, so there's enough propaganda and mudslinging in the process that you really need to sort it all out in your head to make an objective analysis. The first paper that I read on Xen touted paravirtualization. The last paper that I read on Xen was run in what sounded like a fully virtualized VMM.
Xen is 100% different. Also, Xen supports over 100 VMs per machine.
Also, Xen does things to make that 1 copy of glibc a reality. Arguably, that 1 scheduler is one of the primary reasons you would prefer Xen.
Yes, that is my main reaction. Also, mind you, that virtualization integrated into the OS is completely unnecessary. Full virtualization (which is not OS dependent) really offers the fastest and best support for general use.
Xen has a number of interesting features that require paravirtualization techniques, which would need to be built into the OS.
Dude,
The political prisoner and journalists have nothing to do with software patents.
Seriously.
Read what you're talking about before accusing me of being high. I am accurate on this one. You can keep running down this trail, but it makes you no more accurate.
To be recoded in C/C++.
Seriously.
Yes, but they make selections for you. They randomize a couple of the selections that they feel are acceptable. There is still a bias in there. Read the captions. They say things like "randomized out of the 2 we thought were ok."
Ok, and what if you vote with the options given to you by NoSoftwarePatents.com, as I indicated in my original post.
IE, people are not voting randomly... they are voting according to the whims of the website.
Awesome. When Slashdot doesn't have the answer for what I should do, NoSoftwarePatents does. Yay! I can continue being a mindless lemming.
I should clarify that I don't actually believe that Guantanamo is being used like that. If I was running some variety of Illuminati, the prison would be super-secret, and impossible to find.
Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhh. If you keep saying things like that, you'll limit the ability of despots to control us.
Guess who's going to visit you in prison? Noone, since we can't visit you at their Guantanamo.
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
a der.asp, line 9
[MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver]Too many connections
E:\WWWROOT\WWW.EV50.COM\HTML\POLL\../include/dbhe
She'll be released at the End of Days :-D
What are you people who criticize Google for producing a good product and giving it away smoking? Would you rather they charge insanely high prices for garbage?
Are you really saying that the Open Source community needs to look at Google as a threat because of this? Now everyone who produces something and gives it away is evil? Is it just because it isn't Open Source?
People have an impression of sci-fi fans being small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek but it's not like that now
So, what they're saying is that sci-fi fans are now small men who sit in the dark watching Star Trek, and women. Nice. The men still suck, according to the article, but now they're accompanied by women, who may or may not suck.
Accused. I didn't say that they were doing it.
I believe in the enforcement of the law. I'm not trying to say that we should permit lawbreaking activity. I just said that they were accused of such.
You're right, that was flamebait. Clarifying that protecting your country is not jingoism, while killing people who are relatively innocent is jingoism. Thanks for the mod. Of course, Zonk wasn't at all pitching some flamebait in the article.
extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (source m-w.com)
I don't really think of this as Jingoism. Fighting terrorists to prevent them from killing people in your country (particularly after they've done things like, say that they want to kill people in your country, is pretty natural.
Jingoism might be things like shooting illegal immigrants trying to run across the border from Mexico, such as the Minutemen are accused of doing. Notice the difference.
What is the ThinkGeek No-Prize?
FWIW, I also kind of regret my asinine tone. Good job handing it back to me. Still, I really just picked a stupid example, the principle stands true.