These workers came to the U.S. under a specific set of rules, and now they want to change those rules. Unless I'm sadly mistaken, no one lied to these people; nobody was tricked into coming to the U.S. on an H1B visa.
So why is Slahdot acting as if this were some human rights issue?
I get worked up about immigrants being brough to this country as slave labor (my ancestors arrived here in that way). I get worked up about people being expelled who have legitimate fears of persecution at home. I get worked up about the international trafficking in women and children...
...but I have no sympathy for H1B workers, who knew what they were getting into when they signed up for the VISA. They aren't slaves, or indentured servants, or refugees -- they're tech workers who came to the US on a visa that said "six year time limit."
And my Apache wife has even less sympathy for them... I'm just glad she lets me stay!;)
Information != Economy
on
Me-Commerce
·
· Score: 2
Hmmm... so we're moving post-industrial, are we? Well, since we're all moving into information technology, we don't need anyone to build cars, or manufacture computers, or dig ore out of the ground, or sew clothing, or pave streets or...
You get the picture, I'm sure. Information is a valuable commodity; it *isn't* the be-all, end-all of economics, though.
Microsoft is a seminal example of a company that abuses temporary workers, high-tech and otherwise. These are the file clerks, secretaries, tech writers, and that keep the giant corporation running.
And for those of use with families and kids, benefits and security *do* mean something.
Is an "application" defined as "MS Office" or "MS Word" or just any ol' executable?Does a complex DLL or COM component qualify as an "applicatiom?" What about a VBScript to manipulate an Access database?
I suspect Microsoft's "70,000" can easily be justified or villified, based on your definition of application.
It's all a matter of complexity and perspective. Like most things in life.
I tend to think of an "application" as a collection of programs and libraries that work together in to provide a solution. I wrote a specialized encryption program today, in a few hundred lines of console-based Visual C++; I don't consider this to be an application.
In the last decade, I've created a couple of hundred Windows-based EXE/DLL/OCX files, but I've written perhaps a dozen "applications."
Considering the number of people who code for Windows, however, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are 70,000 (or more) pieces of executable code for it. Hell, my Windows NT 4.0SP6 box has 3500 EXEs and DLLs alone, and I'm sure that doesn't even scratch the surface...
But it won't *be* a Thylacine...
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
An animal is more than the sum of its genes; beyond the most ruidmentary creatures, culture plays a critical role in molding a living being. We've proven this in captive-breeding programs, where human-raised animals fair poorly once they are introduced to the real world.
Will the Thylacine know how to hunt or raise its young? For that matter, do these biologists have the DNA to make enough males and females to forma viable breeding population? Do they even have DNA for both sexes?
The poor creature will end up a scientific curiousity, an example of making something sheerly because we can, and not because we have a goal beyond demonstrating our own self-importance.
...the author sounds like a new convert, ignoring the flaws of his new religion while discounting his old beliefs. It's a justification thing: When we change religions, we need to prove (especially to ourselves) that the conversion was meaningful and righteous.
I like Open Source, and contribute to the pool of available software -- but Open Source is designed by and for technologists, who have little or no care (and often look down upon) people who need to bang out spread sheets or type up documents.
The article overstates the troubles in computer gaming -- the correct premise is: Gaming suffers from a severe lack of successful innovation. It isn't that developers aren't creating anything innovative -- it's that the gaming industry, like all industries, is being driven by a commodity mentality.
Perhaps gaming will do better once the "niche" markets move to the web for distribution. I'm serious considering the development of a strategy/adventure game, written in conjunction with my family. Will I go to a big-name publisher? Hell no; I'm going to publish on the web.
The need to make a buck is what kills most innovative industries; we can see the problem in everything from car design to clothing styles. Those who start a new idea are enthusiasts, people who do X because they really love X. When X becomes successful, imitators appear, dilluting the market; innovation is seen as a threat to success; the end is mediocrity.
Gaming was once a hobby, a niche industry built by people who loved to play games. I've been gaming since before the birth of most people who will read this message; I've watched it evolve from paper-and-pencil to pixels-and-modems. The creativity is simply gone -- exemplified by Blizzard, a company that now make oodles of cash from games that clone past successes! What really makes Diablo 2 different from Diablo 1? Not much... (although we have had fun playing Diablo 2 as a family on the home LAN, mixing role-playing with the hack and slash.)
So what's good in gaming these days? Lots of stuff:
Majesty (Cyberlore Studios) is a wonderful variation on RTS. Instead of controlling your units, you influence them; it is more of an RTS than Dungeon Keeper (Majesty lets you pick the units you'll influence), and more of a sim than Age of Kings (AoK still has horrible unit AI). Majesty is a great application of artificial life to gaming...
System Shock 2 (Looking Glass Studios) The praises of this game have been sung everywhere; too bad it didn't make enough money to keep Looking Glass alive. I'm no fan of shooters -- but I do like action games with a strong story line.
Heretic 2 is also a good game, a bit more of a shooter, but with an immersive story line. And Heretic 2 is available for Linux...
Games will diverge into two broad categories: The popular commodity games designed to appeal to script kiddies and twitch gamers, and "real" immersive/innovative games designed for the people with more evolved tastes. The former will be sold in Best Buy; the latter will be available over the web.
...must be allowed both ways. Yes, it is nice to see some diversity in the software being used by political entities -- but my vote doesn't hinge on someone's choice of operating system.
I sense another case of "operating system bigotry" here. Using Linux/BSD doesn't make a candidate good or bad; perhaps they only picked an "alternative" OS to attract techy geeks. And I doubt the candidates themselves have much of a clue about operating systems... such choices are made by staffers.
It may surpise the zealots of Slahsdot, but there are legitimate and sound reasons for running a Microsoft product. If Slashdot truly advocates freedom, then it shouldn't look down on someone who makes a choice that differs from the "party line."
...because its competitors fail. WordPerfect, Borland, Netscape... the list is long and tragic. So long as no one has the balls to challenge Microsoft seriously, we'll be living in a Gatesian Universe. If you don't resist, you collaborate!
I'm waiting for the first lawsuit (if there hasn't been one already) that takes Microsoft to task for being negligent in developing software with blatant security flaws. It's unlikely anyone can sue over bugs, but a failure to protect against malicious attackers might be actionable -- especially in the litiginous US.
Does Microsoft guarantee (or even imply) that Outlook (or Windows, for that matter) is secure?
Do we, as software developers, want to work in a world where our software is subject to judicial review? I think not...
I write for a living; when I publish something, it is clearly my thoughts, exposed for the world to see.
I've used the Internet for two decades, and I've never expected the web to be private - there are too many hands in to pot. So I avoid doing things online that I don't consider "public" information. If I post on a newsgroup, I make sure it's something that can be read by anyone (including business associates and "guvment agents") who can search DejaNews.
Certainly personal information GIVEN IN CONFIDENCE should remain private -- credit card info, SSNs, etc. But partly because of the lack of privacy, I don't buy things online -- hell, I don't even have a credit card.
If people expect privacy from the web, they have no clue as to how the web works.
The eletromagnetic spectrum is like any other finite natural resource -- it is monopolized by the "developed" nations, ala oil. While the most of the people (in a world-wide sense) look for clean water or safety, "developed" nations will eat up spectrum capacity.
By the time the average villager in Asia has a cell phone, there won't be much spectrum left for them to use...
Some food for Slashdotter thought:
Be careful about saying things like "when everyone goes with cell phones." Even if you limit "everyone" to folks living in "developed" countries, you'll still find a lot of people who just aren't interested in being connected 24/7.
Several billion people need clean water, a reliable food supply, and a safe home -- they couldn't care less about having "PDAs with full screen video capabilities and gigabytes of magnetic RAM".
Just something to think about...
Assuming they still sell retail copies...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
...I'll just build my own machine (which I do already), and buy a retail copy of the full Windows [insert version here] package. Since they can't write anything to the CDs, I don't see how they can prevent me from installing the OS as I see fit.
Yes, Microsoft's policy is stupid; yes, it will encourage piracy; yes, it will make OSS/FS more palatable to the masses. But I doubt it will make any difference with the masses who buy pre-installed Windows boxes from Dell, HP, and Gateway. And MS is interested in the masses, not us geeks.
Consider, for a moment, language standards, as defined by a body such as ISO. One of my current tasks is to develop a C++ application that is platform-independent. Do I then write my code to the ISO C++ Standard? Certainly not. No compiler, on any platform, fully implements the ISO C++ Standard; most implementations (Microsoft's being a particular example) fall significantly short of the Standard. So I analyze several compilers on various platforms, developing code based on a common subset of the standard. In other words, the "real" standard is what I can accomplish in the "real" world, and not what ISO has written in their document. Some standards are more concrete than others, and the validity of a Standard is largely based on practice and not theory. I would put TCP/IP at the "hard" end of the standard spectrum, and C++ at the "soft" end. If I don't implement TCP/IP completely, I can't talk to the net; if my C++ compiler lacks certain features, I can usually live without them. Perhaps it has much to do with complexity: The C++ Standard is a 778-page monstrosity birthed by an ugly committee process, while TCP is the result of long-time practice in a focused task.
Slashdot Mirror
So why is Slahdot acting as if this were some human rights issue?
I get worked up about immigrants being brough to this country as slave labor (my ancestors arrived here in that way). I get worked up about people being expelled who have legitimate fears of persecution at home. I get worked up about the international trafficking in women and children...
And my Apache wife has even less sympathy for them... I'm just glad she lets me stay! ;)
Hmmm... so we're moving post-industrial, are we? Well, since we're all moving into information technology, we don't need anyone to build cars, or manufacture computers, or dig ore out of the ground, or sew clothing, or pave streets or... You get the picture, I'm sure. Information is a valuable commodity; it *isn't* the be-all, end-all of economics, though. Microsoft is a seminal example of a company that abuses temporary workers, high-tech and otherwise. These are the file clerks, secretaries, tech writers, and that keep the giant corporation running. And for those of use with families and kids, benefits and security *do* mean something.
-
Knowledge wants to be free -- but you can't clone my interface.
-
Microsoft is bad for giving away IE in competition with Netscape - but it's okay to give away Linux in competition with Windows.
-
Microsoft is evil for publishing FUD about Linux and Open Source - but it's okay for Slashdot to post FUD about Microsoft's products.
Wake up and smell what you're preaching, Slashdot.I suspect Microsoft's "70,000" can easily be justified or villified, based on your definition of application.
It's all a matter of complexity and perspective. Like most things in life.
I tend to think of an "application" as a collection of programs and libraries that work together in to provide a solution. I wrote a specialized encryption program today, in a few hundred lines of console-based Visual C++; I don't consider this to be an application. In the last decade, I've created a couple of hundred Windows-based EXE/DLL/OCX files, but I've written perhaps a dozen "applications."
Considering the number of people who code for Windows, however, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are 70,000 (or more) pieces of executable code for it. Hell, my Windows NT 4.0SP6 box has 3500 EXEs and DLLs alone, and I'm sure that doesn't even scratch the surface...
Will the Thylacine know how to hunt or raise its young? For that matter, do these biologists have the DNA to make enough males and females to forma viable breeding population? Do they even have DNA for both sexes?
The poor creature will end up a scientific curiousity, an example of making something sheerly because we can, and not because we have a goal beyond demonstrating our own self-importance.
I like Open Source, and contribute to the pool of available software -- but Open Source is designed by and for technologists, who have little or no care (and often look down upon) people who need to bang out spread sheets or type up documents.
Perhaps gaming will do better once the "niche" markets move to the web for distribution. I'm serious considering the development of a strategy/adventure game, written in conjunction with my family. Will I go to a big-name publisher? Hell no; I'm going to publish on the web.
The need to make a buck is what kills most innovative industries; we can see the problem in everything from car design to clothing styles. Those who start a new idea are enthusiasts, people who do X because they really love X. When X becomes successful, imitators appear, dilluting the market; innovation is seen as a threat to success; the end is mediocrity.
Gaming was once a hobby, a niche industry built by people who loved to play games. I've been gaming since before the birth of most people who will read this message; I've watched it evolve from paper-and-pencil to pixels-and-modems. The creativity is simply gone -- exemplified by Blizzard, a company that now make oodles of cash from games that clone past successes! What really makes Diablo 2 different from Diablo 1? Not much... (although we have had fun playing Diablo 2 as a family on the home LAN, mixing role-playing with the hack and slash.)
So what's good in gaming these days? Lots of stuff:
Majesty (Cyberlore Studios) is a wonderful variation on RTS. Instead of controlling your units, you influence them; it is more of an RTS than Dungeon Keeper (Majesty lets you pick the units you'll influence), and more of a sim than Age of Kings (AoK still has horrible unit AI). Majesty is a great application of artificial life to gaming...
System Shock 2 (Looking Glass Studios) The praises of this game have been sung everywhere; too bad it didn't make enough money to keep Looking Glass alive. I'm no fan of shooters -- but I do like action games with a strong story line.
Heretic 2 is also a good game, a bit more of a shooter, but with an immersive story line. And Heretic 2 is available for Linux...
Games will diverge into two broad categories: The popular commodity games designed to appeal to script kiddies and twitch gamers, and "real" immersive/innovative games designed for the people with more evolved tastes. The former will be sold in Best Buy; the latter will be available over the web.
I sense another case of "operating system bigotry" here. Using Linux/BSD doesn't make a candidate good or bad; perhaps they only picked an "alternative" OS to attract techy geeks. And I doubt the candidates themselves have much of a clue about operating systems... such choices are made by staffers.
It may surpise the zealots of Slahsdot, but there are legitimate and sound reasons for running a Microsoft product. If Slashdot truly advocates freedom, then it shouldn't look down on someone who makes a choice that differs from the "party line."
Freedom only works if everyone is free...
That's because it wouldn't be very challenging... ;)
(This from a guy who loves C++)
...because its competitors fail. WordPerfect, Borland, Netscape... the list is long and tragic. So long as no one has the balls to challenge Microsoft seriously, we'll be living in a Gatesian Universe. If you don't resist, you collaborate!
I'm waiting for the first lawsuit (if there hasn't been one already) that takes Microsoft to task for being negligent in developing software with blatant security flaws. It's unlikely anyone can sue over bugs, but a failure to protect against malicious attackers might be actionable -- especially in the litiginous US.
Does Microsoft guarantee (or even imply) that Outlook (or Windows, for that matter) is secure?
Do we, as software developers, want to work in a world where our software is subject to judicial review? I think not...
I write for a living; when I publish something, it is clearly my thoughts, exposed for the world to see.
I've used the Internet for two decades, and I've never expected the web to be private - there are too many hands in to pot. So I avoid doing things online that I don't consider "public" information. If I post on a newsgroup, I make sure it's something that can be read by anyone (including business associates and "guvment agents") who can search DejaNews.
Certainly personal information GIVEN IN CONFIDENCE should remain private -- credit card info, SSNs, etc. But partly because of the lack of privacy, I don't buy things online -- hell, I don't even have a credit card.
If people expect privacy from the web, they have no clue as to how the web works.
The eletromagnetic spectrum is like any other finite natural resource -- it is monopolized by the "developed" nations, ala oil. While the most of the people (in a world-wide sense) look for clean water or safety, "developed" nations will eat up spectrum capacity.
By the time the average villager in Asia has a cell phone, there won't be much spectrum left for them to use...
Some food for Slashdotter thought:
Be careful about saying things like "when everyone goes with cell phones." Even if you limit "everyone" to folks living in "developed" countries, you'll still find a lot of people who just aren't interested in being connected 24/7.
Several billion people need clean water, a reliable food supply, and a safe home -- they couldn't care less about having "PDAs with full screen video capabilities and gigabytes of magnetic RAM".
Just something to think about...
Yes, Microsoft's policy is stupid; yes, it will encourage piracy; yes, it will make OSS/FS more palatable to the masses. But I doubt it will make any difference with the masses who buy pre-installed Windows boxes from Dell, HP, and Gateway. And MS is interested in the masses, not us geeks.
Consider, for a moment, language standards, as defined by a body such as ISO. One of my current tasks is to develop a C++ application that is platform-independent. Do I then write my code to the ISO C++ Standard? Certainly not. No compiler, on any platform, fully implements the ISO C++ Standard; most implementations (Microsoft's being a particular example) fall significantly short of the Standard. So I analyze several compilers on various platforms, developing code based on a common subset of the standard. In other words, the "real" standard is what I can accomplish in the "real" world, and not what ISO has written in their document. Some standards are more concrete than others, and the validity of a Standard is largely based on practice and not theory. I would put TCP/IP at the "hard" end of the standard spectrum, and C++ at the "soft" end. If I don't implement TCP/IP completely, I can't talk to the net; if my C++ compiler lacks certain features, I can usually live without them. Perhaps it has much to do with complexity: The C++ Standard is a 778-page monstrosity birthed by an ugly committee process, while TCP is the result of long-time practice in a focused task.