"I just got a job back at my old company. I'll be doing computer networking. I'm going to be part of a team implementing an Ethernet connection to the Indian firm that the company gave my old job to. I understand that there will be a lot of handholding necessary. I just don't understand why they are giving me a rubber raft..."
I did a search for "nutrition" to avoid a redundant post. You missed one of the largest (no pun intended) group of short immigrants: Hispanics. Socio-economically, as a group, they are much further down the scale than Asian immigrants (I haven't seen a lot of Asian immigrants picking strawberries in the hot sun or doing day-labor at construction sites).
The problem with "studies" is that many of the people doing them and reporting on them don't understand that correlation does not imply causation.
I was merely pointing out that Windows is not the perfect OS that many of you think it is.
Don't include me in that list. I just believe that Windows sucks the least for the average user.
The common claim is that for Linux to win, it must be able to run all of the software on the store shelves.
However, that was not my claim. I just believe that there has to be a reasonably rich set of titles available for Linux. It must include everything from games to tax preparation software. It's not there yet and it won't be until one basic version of a title runs on every modern Linux distro.
You don't get that mess when you buy shrink-wrapped Linux software. Underneath it may still be an RPM file, but even if it is, there's an installation script so you don't have to worry about it.
Speaking as someone who has dealt with standard installation scripts under Linux that have blown up, I'd say that it has a good ways to go.
The common complaint against Linux is that there must be one mandatory desktop and widget set, or it will fail. This is bullshit.
Manuals require screen shots. Installation documents require screen shots. Tech support people need to be given support scripts (click this icon, click this menu, etc.). When ten Linux distros each have a different tool to do the same thing, it's a support nightmare. Multiply that times the number of window managers available and it's really ugly. Add on the complexity of the different installation models... I think you see where that is going.
There are basically two desktop versions of Windows with slight variations on a theme. There's Windows 98/ME and there's Windows 2000/XP. XP is really not some brave new venture. It's hardly more than a "theme" for the GUI. Now compare that to the Linux world and you'll see a world of difference from a support standpoint.
By the way, I'm not "anti-Linux". In fact, I think that it's a damned impressive accomplishment and one that I've set up in corporate environments on multiple occasions. But neither am I blind to its flaws.
Do you even use Windows? Here's what Windows needs to do if it wants to be a viable operating system:
Have you ever seen the installed base of Windows? It is obviously the most viable desktop OS out there.
1) It must seamlessly deal with plug-and-pray peripherals. I sold my old computer last month. Yesterday he called up complaining that the video and audio cards weren't being recognized by the Windows 2000 he installed. Thing is, Win2K out of the box doesn't support the Soundblaster 128PCI or Matrox G450+ out of the box.
So what does that have to do with seamlessly supporting plug and play peripherals? I plugged my Archos Jukebox into my Windows machine and it said "put in the driver disk." Here's a post from a Linux user:
spellbound1016 (TechnicalUser) Sep 26, 2003 I am having trouble connecting my archos jukebox studio 10 to my RedHat 9 box via a usb connection. I double-checked my kernel and I compiled usb into the kernel. If you can direct me to a FAQ or link that would be great
I plugged it in. He recompiled his kernel (and it still doesn't work).
2) There must be a way that the average user can easily install software that they purchase at Best Buy.
Have you EVER installed software? On the average Windows box, you put the CD in and a dialog box pops up offering to install it. Is that too complicated for you?
There's an easy way to install Linux software on Linux.
That is absolute bullshit. What's the standard way to install a Linux app? YaST? DPKG? KPackage? Text-based RPM? Lindow's Click-N-Run?
3) Microsoft needs to standardize on one single look. It's simply too damned confusing between the new XP menus and the old classic menus.
Really? You find them confusing? Wow!
And Microsoft needs to firmly and forcefully halt OEMs from bundling non-Microsoft software with their computers. No more WinAmp preinstalled! No more Quicktime preinstalled. No more McAfee, Symantic or AVG preinstalled. End the confusion!
Does WinAmp keep someone from running Windows Media Player? Does Quicktime? No. A vendor can tell a customer to go to Programs and start Windows Media player without having to worry about whether it's there or not. Do anti-virus programs change the name of the Control Panel app used to configure the network, mouse, keyboard, or display? No. So it's not even analogous.
So until Dell, Gateways, IBM, etc. have suddenly replaced Windows with Linux on all their machines or at least offering Linux as the lower cost alternative OS to the mass, Linux would always be a toy for the like of you and me.
Linux won't get offered pre-installed by the big boys until it is a viable alternative. That means that it must seamlessly deal with plug-and-play peripherals. There must be a way that the average user can easily install software that they purchase at Best Buy. The Linux community will need to standardize on a single windows manager (KDE, Gnome, etc. -- pick one and abandon the others), one web browser, one multimedia player, one command shell, etc. The list goes on and on.
Windows works because it is standardized. Companies can write manuals complete with screenshots. Tech support people can be given scripts, knowing the every installation of Windows will have a "Start" button, Windows Explorer, the same control panel apps, etc. I knew someone who had to support commercial software written for Linux. He said that it was a nightmare due to the lack of standardization between distributions. They could not even include screenshots online or in manuals because they didn't know which Windows manager that their customer would be using. Much of his job was spent trying to determine which version and distro each of the users was running when they called in.
What are you talking about? I asked if they would rather give up "server OS sales or desktop OS sales." A "consumer desktop" and a "business workstation" are still desktop OS sales, so what is your point?
Waiting for reviews of 'real' Mandrake 9.2 products (PowerPack, Corporate Server...)
It's that kind of elitist attitude that keeps Microsoft happily selling countless copies of Windows XP while Linux venders have to beg for donations. 99.99% of users don't need to run their own web server, FTP server, SMTP server, Telnet server, or SSH server. They use their computers for web browsing, games, e-mail, word processing, and maybe doing their taxes. They wouldn't know how to configure USENET news servers if their lives depended on it.
To look down on an OS release solely because it isn't configured for a server role is silly. And it's counterproductive. Do you think that Microsoft would sooner give up server OS sales or desktop OS sales?
A desktop product is no less "real" than is a server product. It's just an OS for a different audience. If we want to see Linux prosper, it has to get a real foothold on the desktop and, for that reason, this release is far more important than the "real" releases to which you referred.
Wouldn't this rewriting violate copyrights? It seems that modification of copyrighted works like that (since they are effectively publishing them) would be against the law.
Damn straight and exactly what I was thinking. In fact, I searched for "copyright" to find your post.
No third party has a right to surreptitiously alter copyrighted material without the author's permission. If I think that the proper phrase to use is "fucked up", no born-again-Christian censorware writer has the right to change that to "messed up" prior to the reader seeing it. If your company doesn't want you to see naughty words, then they can block access to the offending sites, but they have no legal or moral right to change content written by others.
why do you think any foreign government would respect laws passed in the U.S.!!!!!
Because the laws would require that U.S. service providers to stop routing inbound e-mail from foreign countries who aren't partners in our "war on spam." That's a pretty significant economic hit to those countries.
Why do you think that we have cooperation from foreign government on our anti-terrorist actions, our "war on drugs", and our efforts to stop software and media piracy? They fear the consequences of not cooperating.
No, spam filtering would actually work very well indeed if most people used it.
But they won't use it. The Internet is ravaged on a regular basis by worms that exploit security flaws on unpatched systems. If you can't get people to even install patches that have been out for months, or even years, how do you think that you will get them to install, configure, and use filtering?
All that needs to be done is to get popular ISPs and mail software client manufacturers (such as Microsoft) to include spam filtering modules as standard with the software they distribute (ISPs would include it on the CD you get when you sign up.) Everything which may be spam gets sent to a separate folder on their email client.
ISPs (other than AOL) are moving away from the software bundle model because they don't want the cost or risk associated with supporting third-party software. Users aren't going to tolerate their familiar e-mail software being replaced by some client-licensed-at-the-lowest-cost off of an ISP's CD. ISPs don't want to be dragged into court because their spam filtering software dumped some important business or personal e-mail into the seldom-read spam folder. I can just see the story now: "Patient Dies From Allergic Reaction to Viagra: E-mails To Doctor Filtered Out As Spam."
All of that said, I strongly oppose the e-mail postage models that are being proposed. I'm sure that the Verisigns, AOLs, and Hotmails of the world are working full time to find some way to profit from such a scheme, but it's not in the interest of the common user. The approach that I favor towards combatting spam is multi-tiered:
1. Strong federal legislation banning the practice, making it a crime, and providing for large fines, civil penalties, and jail time. If some spammer is selling Viagra, then let him worry that his cell mate might be taking it. The legislation should be crafted such that it makes it a crime to "cause unsolicited commercial e-mail to be sent." If you live in New Jersey and hire some Brazillian ISP to send your spam, you've committed a crime.
2. Streamline the process of getting information on a spammer. If you receive spam, you send it to a government office, they investigate, get the subpeonas, fine the spammer and press criminal charges, and then pass the information along to individuals who might wish to press a civil suit. I live in Virginia. We have laws against spam with forged headers. But I could be looking at multiple $150 subpeonas and time off of work to track down a spammer, possibly to find out that they paid the ISP with a stolen credit card and that no one can identify them.
3. Laws that require cooperation from foreign governments in the fight against spam. If the foreign government does not lean on their ISPs to stem the flow of spam, then we start employing some port 25 blocking at our perimeters. If AT&T stops routing the port 25 traffic for some spam-friendly Chinese ISP, then you can bet that the ISP will quickly become cooperative.
4. A legal requirement that ISPs terminate the access of any spammer and turn over the information on the spammer to the government for prosecution under the laws described above.
Please don't reply to tell me that such laws would not stop all spam. I know that. Laws against child molestation, burglary, shoplifting, and jaywalking are less than 100% effective, too. But they serve as a deterrent. I'd rather ruduce spam by 90% than do nothing. I don't care about your "taxes" and how much you think it would cost. Prosecution of crimes and protecting people's rights costs money. But in this case, the savings from the reduced spam, combined with the money collected as fines, would more than offset the cost of prosecution.
From his description of its movement and total lack of respect for impulse & momentum... I'd rather believe it's aliens than not
There is a tremendous human desire to believe that we are not alone in the vacuum of the universe. That's all the more reason why we have to remain alert against logical fallacies. Not to be insulting, but what you've just committed is an argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). You don't have an explanation for what the person told you, so you attribute it to extraterrestrials -- despite having no evidence that extraterrestrials, if they exist (and, based on probability and statistics, I believe that they do) would be able to circumvent the laws of physics.
We after all live in a fascinating universe on an expanding scientific discovery. There are marvels to be discovered and enjoyed if we keep our minds open enough to see them.
Good science relies on skepticism. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then require extraordinary proof. Remember Occam's Razor at all turns: All other things being equal, the simplist explanation is usually the best. Did you misplace your car keys or were they transported by aliens to another space-time continuum? Bet on the former rather than the latter.
One should always be willing to question their own beliefs and, if that is what you meant by keeping an open mind, then I'll agree. But don't trade one set of beliefs for another just because it makes you feel good to do so.
They call Bush stupid and apparently he tries to make that point stubbornly:)
I just wish that I didn't have to pay $500+ (the cost of the 'Bush wars' to every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) to fund the effort.
They flatly deny the possibility that such things exist while the scientific method dictates that something cannot be proven not to exist, since we know very little and our theories might be wrong or unrefined.
I don't flatly deny that such things exist. What I rage against is the unreasoned belief in them when the evidence against them is so much stronger. When the Bigfoot and UFO and Loch Ness Monster believers continue to trot out footage and testimony which were debunked years earlier, it makes me nuts. How many times does something have to be debunked before the debunking sticks?
40% believe in astrology
Being an Aries, I am far too enlightened to believe in astrology.
30% in UFOs (NSF study)
I believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that they are extraterrestrial.
When I post here do I have to qualify everything I say?
Okay, just make any claim that you want and I'll take your word for it. Just accept everything that I say as fact, too, and don't challenge me to support it either. Should make for shorter discussions.
Hell if thats how you read posts you should really evaluate your communications skills.
Other people already have. See +5 insightful karma bonus. If the poster had found reputable articles to support his position, he should have linked to them instead of telling me to do a Google search looking for evidence to support his contentions.
It's easy to debunk especially when you feel that you are intellectually superior to the one you respond to.
Whether I believe that I am intellectually superior or not has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments -- though the quality of their arguments is why I feel intellectually superior.
It's exactly that holier than thou attitude that is making a lot of common people loose trust in science and government because the moment they witness something or are concerned about something that is outside the parameters of conventional society they get debunked with the passion and arrogance you so eloquently display.
A parent is suing a school district and that school district is having to fight this in court, incurring all of the costs to do so. That's money that's not going to textbooks, computers, lab equipment, sports equipment, etc. Hell yes, I'm passionate. When tax dollars are having to be spent because someone with no understanding of science is afraid of something, then, yes, I do get emotional about it.
You do know that a huge proportion of americans believes in aliens and harmful effects of powerlines exactly because people like yourself think they are stupid and should be neutered.
So that's a valid basis for a belief system! "I'm gonna believe in Bigfoot cuz it makes people think I'm stupid!" said Cletus, as he moseyed back to his double-wide.
You troll.
Not usually. Most of my fishing is either with live bait, cut bait, or casting from my boat. I caught quite a lot of catfish this summer with clam snouts on the Potomac.
I do not think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits
What you think companies should be concerned with has little bearing on what they are concerned with. Publically held companies care about profits above all else. That's Andy Grove's point: The government has to step in to do something in the interest of society.
What I object to is employees (or companies; it goes both ways in the US, and both are deplorable) who expect to keep their jobs under any circumstances, and expect the government to keep them employed.
All I want is a level playing field. I'd literally have to live in a refrigerator box under a bridge to survive on what a well-paid Indian tech worker makes. I shouldn't have to do that so that some seven figure CEO can get a bigger paycheck.
By the way, if you're really a 42-year-old engineer with 2 decades of experience, your income is probably in the top few percent of American households, so stop whining about capitalism. I'd prefer to have my hard work and skill determine my salary, not the government.
So my salary is handsome now. I'm not blind. I see what's going on around me and, frankly, I don't want to wait until my job is the next one on the chopping block. Your hard work and skill don't determine your salary anymore. That's the problem. You could have worked your ass off and kept your skills cutting edge, but if your company can hire ten outsourced Indian programmers for what they pay you, your days are probably numbered.
Tough shit. Find another job, retrain if necessary.
In what field? What industry is ready to absorb tens of millions of workers who have lost their jobs to outsourcing? You act like there is an infinite number of jobs. There aren't. If 3COM outsources 3,000 tech workers, 3,000 jobs don't magically appear in some other industry to replace the ones that were lost.
Alternately, settle for a lower standard of living, and accept a job with a salary more in line with what the rest of the world makes.
And live in a refrigerator box under a bridge. You ignore the cost of living. Most Americans pay more in rent/mortgage than workers in other countries make in a year.
Better yet, stop whining to the government,
I'm not "whining to the government" any more than Andy Grove is. I'm discussing inequities that I believe will lead to a much lower standard of living throughout the U.S. coupled with a long-term economic downturn affecting everything from pothole repair to life expectancies.
and organize a boycott of companies that outsource extensively. I'll join that, very enthusiastically.
Some of the legislation I would propose:
1. Drastically higher unemployment insurance premiums for companies that lay off U.S. workers to outsource.
2. Require that companies notify consumers when their calls are being transferred overseas and to inform them of the country to which the calls are being transferred. That will go a long way towards stopping the training in deception that now takes place where overseas workers are taught about U.S. slang, current events, given fake U.S. sounding names, etc.
3. Require that U.S. firms follow OSHA and EPA regulations for all overseas facilities.
4. Government procurement rules that favor U.S. firms who do not outsource.
5. Require disclosure of outsourcing. If I buy a 10/100 8-port router, there should be a sticker on the box indicating the country where it was designed, manufactured (that already exists), and where customer support is handled (at the time the product was shipped). It's kind of hard to boycott companies that outsource extensively if they hide their outsourcing from the public.
Sorry, you can't make up your own definitions for words to support your argument.
No, you can't, but you tried to. Now read the definition on the Nizkor Project web page:
[excerpt]
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
So, it's exactly as I stated and was not, in any way shape or form, descriptive of how I debated. So my challenge to you still stands unanswered: I never suggested that [the other poster's argument] be ignored because of some irrelevent fact about its author and I challenge you to defend your accusation that I did.
Literally it means "against the man".
There is a difference between literal meaning and a translation of Latin. Tyrannosaurus Rex is from the Greek words meaning "tyrant" and "lizard" and the Latin word for "king." But the a Tyrannosaurus Rex is a dinosaur, not a 'tyrant lizard king'.
The rest of your reply just reinforces the points I made.
Bullshit. It did a superb job of refuting your unsubstantiated claims and poking holes in your arguments. You're just too much of an intellectual coward to debate the points and instead sink to personal attacks when you are in over your intellectual depth. See below. (Note: The preceeding was not an ad hominem attack as I did not assert that any of your claims or arguments were wrong because of your intellectual cowardice.)
You still don't get it. I fear for America's future if you represent its youth.
Then you can fear for its 42 year old software engineers with over two decades of professional experience, too, because I am one of them. But since my views are in line with those of Andy Grove, the co-founder and Chairman of Intel, I'm in pretty good company. Maybe it's you who have the distorted views.
Additional questions and points that I made which you owe answers (yes, "owe" -- it's a debate, not a schoolyard brawl):
1. And, yes, I am against unrestrained free trade. It doesn't work. Example: We put laws in place to protect the environment and U.S. firms move manufacturing jobs to other countries where pollution laws are lax or non-existent.
2. You capitalist bastards think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits but that workers who are only concerned about maximizing their wages are somehow evil. Explain that logic to me.
3. "Working smarter and more efficient(ly)" means getting the job done faster and/or for a lower cost. That's the whole concept behind efficiency.
4. Just what is the typical software engineer supposed to do that will make up for a 20/1 cost ratio between himself and his Indian counterparts?
5. What about the guy who answers tech support calls for HP inkjet printers? How is he supposed to use "imagination or creativity" to keep his job when someone in India will do it for a fraction of the price?
6. How is the guy who assembles computers for Dell supposed to make it worthwhile for Dell to keep him employed rather than sending the assembly work overseas? Is he supposed to assemble 20 systems in the same time that his overseas counterpart assembles one?
Note that the above debate points are numbered to make it harder for you to duck them again. So either answer or concede each one.
I love how every reply to pro-free trade posts on this subject have some sort of ad-hominem attack within.
Learn what the term "ad hominem" means before using it. An ad hominem attack is one in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. I did not dismiss the argument and, instead, answered it with facts, figures, and logic. I never suggested that it be ignored because of some irrelevent fact about its author and I challenge you to defend your accusation that I did.
And, yes, I am against unrestrained free trade. It doesn't work. Example: We put laws in place to protect the environment and U.S. firms move manufacturing jobs to other countries where pollution laws are lax or non-existent. When people as smart as Andy Grove are saying that something has to be done, that should give you a clue.
It speaks loudly about what most people feel about this topic: Gimmie mine and fuck every one else.
Correct. I want to put food on my table, pay my mortgage, have a nice car, boat, lifestyle, and eventually, retirement. Fuck the guy in India who wants my job. You capitalist bastards think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits but that workers who are only concerned about maximizing their wages are somehow evil. Explain that logic to me.
You think that working smarter and more efficient means competing on price?
"Working smarter and more efficient(ly)" means getting the job done faster and/or for a lower cost. That's the whole concept behind efficiency.
This is why your jobs are going overseas. You have no clue how to respond to the challenge. You have no imagination or creativity and your ability only extends to what you've done a thousand times before.
Try putting some meat behind that argument. Just what is the typical software engineer supposed to do that will make up for a 20/1 cost ratio between himself and his Indian counterparts? What about the guy who answers tech support calls for HP inkjet printers? How is he supposed to use "imagination or creativity" to keep his job when someone in India will do it for a fraction of the price? How is the guy who assembles computers for Dell supposed to make it worthwhile for Dell to keep him employed rather than sending the assembly work overseas? Is he supposed to assemble 20 systems in the same time that his overseas counterpart assembles one?
Stop making vague insults and stick to debating the issues.
The fact is that most IT jobs are commodities: system administration, building web pages, support, most programming (visual basic, etc) and the like can be done by anyone. The only solution is to innovate, become more efficient and smarter in how you do things.
In India, $6,000(U.S) per year is good pay for an experienced software engineer. Office space leases for about $25 per square foot per year in Northern Virginia -- home of many high-tech companies on the east coast. That means that it probably costs more to lease the space (cubicle, lab space, common areas, etc.) needed for a U.S. software engineer than to pay an Indian software engineer for a year.
When a company can get labor for less than the cost to provide you a cubicle, it does you no good to "become more efficient and smarter in how you do things." You can be as efficient, and smart as you like, but you simply aren't going to out-produce the ten or more off-shore workers that could be paid for what you cost your company.
Such "work smarter" bullspeak might make the speaker feel better and like he has some control over the situation, but it's got little to do with economic reality in this marketplace.
Explain, since when is any form of electromagnetic radiation not harmful?
You're right! Quick: Run around your house and unplug your lamps, flourescent lights, computer, television, cordless phone, microwave oven, anything with an electric motor, since they all emit electromagnetic radiation.
Low band low energy radio is not very harmful while high energy gamma rays aren quite harmful.
So let's just extrapolate from gamma radiation to WiFi networks. That's good science.
Wifi is pretty energetic so has the capability to dislodge atomic structures and hence arguably is carcinogenic.
Then show us reputable, peer-reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals like The Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine that bear out your theory when it comes to the low-power 802.11 networks that we're talking about here.
Next time when you talk about sterilization for stupidity include a clause that when in retrospect you are the stupid one they can stop your machinery from working...
That was implied from the beginning. But there's no chance of that happening any time soon because, unlike you, I value science more than google results that show up a bunch of blog entries from pseudo-science nutcases.
Have you ever used google like for http://www.google.se/search?q=radiation+wifi+healt h
Have you ever used Google like for http://www.google.com/search?q=aliens+roswell+UFO.
Run for your lives! The extraterrestrials have landed on the Earth.
People that mind-numbingly stupid should have their children forcibly taken away by the state and put up for adoption. Then the parents should be sterilized so that they don't breed again.
In the meantime, science teachers throughout the school district should be telling their classes that these parents are examples of morons who have no understanding of science.
When spammers send e-mail to your ISP, all of the users end up bearing the costs. Filtering out spam so that you don't see it does nothing to stem its flow. You weren't going to buy something from a spammer anyway and that's just one less anti-spam activist to lodge a complaint to the spammers ISPs. Spammers would love it if all of the people who complain about spam filtered it out instead.
I referred to this as being a "spam ostrich" in a previous post: You bury your head in the sand so that you can't see the spam and then pretend that it isn't there anymore.
"Maximum penalties: 471 years in federal prison, $117 million in fines."
That's the fine and penalties when your spam hurts some high-profile, moneyed public figure. If the guy had forged the e-mail address of some average Joe, we wouldn't be reading about it here. If he had caused you or I to get 160,000 bounces and numerous angry e-mails, we would have been lucky to get his ISP to issue a warning -- much less get the FBI investigating and prosecuting.
I'll be impressed when the same level of interest is shown when some poor sap at home is the victim. But I'm not holding my breath.
You have no right to duplicate the copyrighted material.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of "fair use"? Ever heard of the Betamax case? I do not believe that the copyright means that you have no right to backup the material, copy it to different media, etc.
So apparently it becomes the government's job to solve your problem off getting information, by ordering the manufacturers to do so.
Correct. Whether it's octane rating, energy efficiency, crash worthiness, lumens of light and expected hours of service, or cost per page, it's something that the consumer needs to make an educated choice and not something that they can easily evaluate on their own.
The fact that they have done so in other cases does not make it right.
So what makes it wrong? Why is it wrong to make a manufacturer disclose information which would help a consumer make an informed choice? Are you concerned that it would harm companies that currently hide information in order to deceive consumers?
For example, the "made in" labels are actually there as a form of protectionism - so the consumers can choose to boycott foreign products.
It provides information so that customers can make a choice. Those who want to boycott products from Japan, can. Those who prefer Japanese products can buy them over American products. Those who wish to avoid products made in Communist countries can. It seems reasonable to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any limits on what information the government should force to be provided?
Sure. Private information, trade secrets, information that doesn't serve a public interest, and information not easily gleaned from measurements and standardized tests all come to mind. I don't need to know the name of the person who produced my printer, his/her sexual orientation, what the manufacturer's profit margin is, or the formulation of the inks.
When I move into a house, as an informed consumer of a very expensive thing, should the government require the seller to collect all the favorable and unfavorable information possible about my potential neighbors - say, their political views, personal habits, previous convictions, financial stability, favorite colors, ages, health, litigiousness? After all, if I am going to make a very expensive investment, some of this information would be important for me to make a fully informed choice!
Then look it up yourself. Go to the same records that you would expect the seller to access. Find what information exists in the public record if you are concerned. Even ignoring the legality and the ethics involved, it would be an undue burden on a private party to require that they collect such information to sell a one-of-a-kind item.
There is no reasonable claim of my proposal putting undue burden on a printer manufacturer. The information that a consumer needs is not publically available -- but the manufacturer of the printer can easily run a standardized test to determine the cost-per-page -- and in doing so would benefit millions of consumers. The end result would be that printer manufacturers would start making printers that have a lower operating cost, benefitting consumers and the economy in general.
I could understand your opposition if the test would take six months to run, require a staff of fifty full-time people, and require the sacrifice of millions of dollars worth of inventory, but there just isn't much to it. Spend a few hours, run the test, put a yellow "PageGuide" sticker on each printer box that shows the estimated cost per page for text and graphics. Problem solved.
The refrigerator labeling is predicated on the government's (presumed) interest in reducing national energy usage, not on making consumers happy.
It's not "making consumers happy." It's providing them the information that they need to make informed decisions. There is a long history of government-mandated labelling for just that purpose: "Made in Taiwan", "Treadwear 480", "USDA Choice", "Limited Warranty", "89 Octane (R+M)/2", "Grade A Extra Large", "SPF 30", etc.
For example, perhaps more people choose to ride helmetless because the cost of helmets is higher due to the testing requirements needed for labelling.
Probably not. The cost for the testing and labelling is in the pennies per helmet range and DOT-approved helmets can be purchased for under $50.
Probably not many, but hey, how much is one life worth?
Enough that we should not allow companies to sell unsafe helmets to unsuspecting consumers. That's why we have NHTSA/DOT testing and requirements.
Furthermore, you make the assumption that many advocates of government meddling do: that consumers are stupid. We aren't.
Requiring disclosure of cost isn't "meddling." It's not requiring that they change what they manufacture, how they price it, where the sell it, what color the case is, what accessories they include, how much it weighs, or anything else. It's just requiring that they disclose the operating costs.
It's also not assuming that consumers are "stupid." Quite the opposite. It's assuming that, given the necessary information, that a consumer will make an informed, reasoned choice.
I have never had trouble finding out what cartridges cost for printers. I always check before buying the printers.
Don't you?
Knowing how much the cartridges cost does you no good if you have no valid, standardized means to compare the longevity of the cartridges. What if you find out that cartridges for printer X cost $15 each and cartridges for printer Y costs $35 each? If you don't know how many pages each will print, those numbers are meaningless.
So what's the problem?
The problem is that consumers are not given enough information to make an informed choice. They can find out the printer cost. They can find out the cartridge cost. But they cannot find out how printer A compares to printer B as far as cost per page. So far, you seem to be one of the very few who doesn't understand that there is a problem and what it is.
Yes, it is. They oppose anything that encourages consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
To conform to these standards, they'd either have to make the cars cost twice as much, or make them all the more flimsy, light, and dangerous.
How would it make vehicles cost more or make them flimsy and dangerous to require that there be a sticker in the window showing the fuel consumption? Hummers cost about $80K (or so). Are you saying that the cost to print fuel economy on a window sticker would be another $80K? That's a leap of logic that I just can't fathom.
By the way, I drive a VW Golf TDI. It costs well under $20K new. It's diesel engine gets 49MPG highway and well over 40MPG in heavy traffic commuting to work. It weighs 2,976 pounds and got 5-star ratings from NHTSA for driver and passenger crash safety. Compare that to a Ford Focus, a similarly priced car which weighs about 400lbs. less, gets far worse fuel economy, and scores lower in the NHTSA crash ratings. High fuel economy doesn't require cars to be lightweight, unsafe, or expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
"I just got a job back at my old company. I'll be doing computer networking. I'm going to be part of a team implementing an Ethernet connection to the Indian firm that the company gave my old job to. I understand that there will be a lot of handholding necessary. I just don't understand why they are giving me a rubber raft..."
I did a search for "nutrition" to avoid a redundant post. You missed one of the largest (no pun intended) group of short immigrants: Hispanics. Socio-economically, as a group, they are much further down the scale than Asian immigrants (I haven't seen a lot of Asian immigrants picking strawberries in the hot sun or doing day-labor at construction sites).
The problem with "studies" is that many of the people doing them and reporting on them don't understand that correlation does not imply causation.
I was merely pointing out that Windows is not the perfect OS that many of you think it is.
Don't include me in that list. I just believe that Windows sucks the least for the average user.
The common claim is that for Linux to win, it must be able to run all of the software on the store shelves.
However, that was not my claim. I just believe that there has to be a reasonably rich set of titles available for Linux. It must include everything from games to tax preparation software. It's not there yet and it won't be until one basic version of a title runs on every modern Linux distro.
You don't get that mess when you buy shrink-wrapped Linux software. Underneath it may still be an RPM file, but even if it is, there's an installation script so you don't have to worry about it.
Speaking as someone who has dealt with standard installation scripts under Linux that have blown up, I'd say that it has a good ways to go.
The common complaint against Linux is that there must be one mandatory desktop and widget set, or it will fail. This is bullshit.
Manuals require screen shots. Installation documents require screen shots. Tech support people need to be given support scripts (click this icon, click this menu, etc.). When ten Linux distros each have a different tool to do the same thing, it's a support nightmare. Multiply that times the number of window managers available and it's really ugly. Add on the complexity of the different installation models... I think you see where that is going.
There are basically two desktop versions of Windows with slight variations on a theme. There's Windows 98/ME and there's Windows 2000/XP. XP is really not some brave new venture. It's hardly more than a "theme" for the GUI. Now compare that to the Linux world and you'll see a world of difference from a support standpoint.
By the way, I'm not "anti-Linux". In fact, I think that it's a damned impressive accomplishment and one that I've set up in corporate environments on multiple occasions. But neither am I blind to its flaws.
Do you even use Windows? Here's what Windows needs to do if it wants to be a viable operating system:
Have you ever seen the installed base of Windows? It is obviously the most viable desktop OS out there.
1) It must seamlessly deal with plug-and-pray peripherals. I sold my old computer last month. Yesterday he called up complaining that the video and audio cards weren't being recognized by the Windows 2000 he installed. Thing is, Win2K out of the box doesn't support the Soundblaster 128PCI or Matrox G450+ out of the box.
So what does that have to do with seamlessly supporting plug and play peripherals? I plugged my Archos Jukebox into my Windows machine and it said "put in the driver disk." Here's a post from a Linux user:
spellbound1016 (TechnicalUser) Sep 26, 2003
I am having trouble connecting my archos jukebox studio 10 to my RedHat 9 box via a usb connection. I double-checked my kernel and I compiled usb into the kernel. If you can direct me to a FAQ or link that would be great
I plugged it in. He recompiled his kernel (and it still doesn't work).
2) There must be a way that the average user can easily install software that they purchase at Best Buy.
Have you EVER installed software? On the average Windows box, you put the CD in and a dialog box pops up offering to install it. Is that too complicated for you?
There's an easy way to install Linux software on Linux.
That is absolute bullshit. What's the standard way to install a Linux app? YaST? DPKG? KPackage? Text-based RPM? Lindow's Click-N-Run?
3) Microsoft needs to standardize on one single look. It's simply too damned confusing between the new XP menus and the old classic menus.
Really? You find them confusing? Wow!
And Microsoft needs to firmly and forcefully halt OEMs from bundling non-Microsoft software with their computers. No more WinAmp preinstalled! No more Quicktime preinstalled. No more McAfee, Symantic or AVG preinstalled. End the confusion!
Does WinAmp keep someone from running Windows Media Player? Does Quicktime? No. A vendor can tell a customer to go to Programs and start Windows Media player without having to worry about whether it's there or not. Do anti-virus programs change the name of the Control Panel app used to configure the network, mouse, keyboard, or display? No. So it's not even analogous.
So until Dell, Gateways, IBM, etc. have suddenly replaced Windows with Linux on all their machines or at least offering Linux as the lower cost alternative OS to the mass, Linux would always be a toy for the like of you and me.
Linux won't get offered pre-installed by the big boys until it is a viable alternative. That means that it must seamlessly deal with plug-and-play peripherals. There must be a way that the average user can easily install software that they purchase at Best Buy. The Linux community will need to standardize on a single windows manager (KDE, Gnome, etc. -- pick one and abandon the others), one web browser, one multimedia player, one command shell, etc. The list goes on and on.
Windows works because it is standardized. Companies can write manuals complete with screenshots. Tech support people can be given scripts, knowing the every installation of Windows will have a "Start" button, Windows Explorer, the same control panel apps, etc. I knew someone who had to support commercial software written for Linux. He said that it was a nightmare due to the lack of standardization between distributions. They could not even include screenshots online or in manuals because they didn't know which Windows manager that their customer would be using. Much of his job was spent trying to determine which version and distro each of the users was running when they called in.
Consumer desktop or business workstation?
What are you talking about? I asked if they would rather give up "server OS sales or desktop OS sales." A "consumer desktop" and a "business workstation" are still desktop OS sales, so what is your point?
Waiting for reviews of 'real' Mandrake 9.2 products (PowerPack, Corporate Server...)
It's that kind of elitist attitude that keeps Microsoft happily selling countless copies of Windows XP while Linux venders have to beg for donations. 99.99% of users don't need to run their own web server, FTP server, SMTP server, Telnet server, or SSH server. They use their computers for web browsing, games, e-mail, word processing, and maybe doing their taxes. They wouldn't know how to configure USENET news servers if their lives depended on it.
To look down on an OS release solely because it isn't configured for a server role is silly. And it's counterproductive. Do you think that Microsoft would sooner give up server OS sales or desktop OS sales?
A desktop product is no less "real" than is a server product. It's just an OS for a different audience. If we want to see Linux prosper, it has to get a real foothold on the desktop and, for that reason, this release is far more important than the "real" releases to which you referred.
Wouldn't this rewriting violate copyrights? It seems that modification of copyrighted works like that (since they are effectively publishing them) would be against the law.
Damn straight and exactly what I was thinking. In fact, I searched for "copyright" to find your post.
No third party has a right to surreptitiously alter copyrighted material without the author's permission. If I think that the proper phrase to use is "fucked up", no born-again-Christian censorware writer has the right to change that to "messed up" prior to the reader seeing it. If your company doesn't want you to see naughty words, then they can block access to the offending sites, but they have no legal or moral right to change content written by others.
why do you think any foreign government would respect laws passed in the U.S.!!!!!
Because the laws would require that U.S. service providers to stop routing inbound e-mail from foreign countries who aren't partners in our "war on spam." That's a pretty significant economic hit to those countries.
Why do you think that we have cooperation from foreign government on our anti-terrorist actions, our "war on drugs", and our efforts to stop software and media piracy? They fear the consequences of not cooperating.
No, spam filtering would actually work very well indeed if most people used it.
But they won't use it. The Internet is ravaged on a regular basis by worms that exploit security flaws on unpatched systems. If you can't get people to even install patches that have been out for months, or even years, how do you think that you will get them to install, configure, and use filtering?
All that needs to be done is to get popular ISPs and mail software client manufacturers (such as Microsoft) to include spam filtering modules as standard with the software they distribute (ISPs would include it on the CD you get when you sign up.) Everything which may be spam gets sent to a separate folder on their email client.
ISPs (other than AOL) are moving away from the software bundle model because they don't want the cost or risk associated with supporting third-party software. Users aren't going to tolerate their familiar e-mail software being replaced by some client-licensed-at-the-lowest-cost off of an ISP's CD. ISPs don't want to be dragged into court because their spam filtering software dumped some important business or personal e-mail into the seldom-read spam folder. I can just see the story now: "Patient Dies From Allergic Reaction to Viagra: E-mails To Doctor Filtered Out As Spam."
All of that said, I strongly oppose the e-mail postage models that are being proposed. I'm sure that the Verisigns, AOLs, and Hotmails of the world are working full time to find some way to profit from such a scheme, but it's not in the interest of the common user. The approach that I favor towards combatting spam is multi-tiered:
1. Strong federal legislation banning the practice, making it a crime, and providing for large fines, civil penalties, and jail time. If some spammer is selling Viagra, then let him worry that his cell mate might be taking it. The legislation should be crafted such that it makes it a crime to "cause unsolicited commercial e-mail to be sent." If you live in New Jersey and hire some Brazillian ISP to send your spam, you've committed a crime.
2. Streamline the process of getting information on a spammer. If you receive spam, you send it to a government office, they investigate, get the subpeonas, fine the spammer and press criminal charges, and then pass the information along to individuals who might wish to press a civil suit. I live in Virginia. We have laws against spam with forged headers. But I could be looking at multiple $150 subpeonas and time off of work to track down a spammer, possibly to find out that they paid the ISP with a stolen credit card and that no one can identify them.
3. Laws that require cooperation from foreign governments in the fight against spam. If the foreign government does not lean on their ISPs to stem the flow of spam, then we start employing some port 25 blocking at our perimeters. If AT&T stops routing the port 25 traffic for some spam-friendly Chinese ISP, then you can bet that the ISP will quickly become cooperative.
4. A legal requirement that ISPs terminate the access of any spammer and turn over the information on the spammer to the government for prosecution under the laws described above.
Please don't reply to tell me that such laws would not stop all spam. I know that. Laws against child molestation, burglary, shoplifting, and jaywalking are less than 100% effective, too. But they serve as a deterrent. I'd rather ruduce spam by 90% than do nothing. I don't care about your "taxes" and how much you think it would cost. Prosecution of crimes and protecting people's rights costs money. But in this case, the savings from the reduced spam, combined with the money collected as fines, would more than offset the cost of prosecution.
From his description of its movement and total lack of respect for impulse & momentum ... I'd rather believe it's aliens than not
There is a tremendous human desire to believe that we are not alone in the vacuum of the universe. That's all the more reason why we have to remain alert against logical fallacies. Not to be insulting, but what you've just committed is an argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). You don't have an explanation for what the person told you, so you attribute it to extraterrestrials -- despite having no evidence that extraterrestrials, if they exist (and, based on probability and statistics, I believe that they do) would be able to circumvent the laws of physics.
We after all live in a fascinating universe on an expanding scientific discovery. There are marvels to be discovered and enjoyed if we keep our minds open enough to see them.
Good science relies on skepticism. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then require extraordinary proof. Remember Occam's Razor at all turns: All other things being equal, the simplist explanation is usually the best. Did you misplace your car keys or were they transported by aliens to another space-time continuum? Bet on the former rather than the latter.
One should always be willing to question their own beliefs and, if that is what you meant by keeping an open mind, then I'll agree. But don't trade one set of beliefs for another just because it makes you feel good to do so.
They call Bush stupid and apparently he tries to make that point stubbornly :)
I just wish that I didn't have to pay $500+ (the cost of the 'Bush wars' to every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) to fund the effort.
They flatly deny the possibility that such things exist while the scientific method dictates that something cannot be proven not to exist, since we know very little and our theories might be wrong or unrefined.
I don't flatly deny that such things exist. What I rage against is the unreasoned belief in them when the evidence against them is so much stronger. When the Bigfoot and UFO and Loch Ness Monster believers continue to trot out footage and testimony which were debunked years earlier, it makes me nuts. How many times does something have to be debunked before the debunking sticks?
40% believe in astrology
Being an Aries, I am far too enlightened to believe in astrology.
30% in UFOs (NSF study)
I believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that they are extraterrestrial.
Hey google has them so they exist!
I can't refute that kind of logic.
When I post here do I have to qualify everything I say?
Okay, just make any claim that you want and I'll take your word for it. Just accept everything that I say as fact, too, and don't challenge me to support it either. Should make for shorter discussions.
Hell if thats how you read posts you should really evaluate your communications skills.
Other people already have. See +5 insightful karma bonus. If the poster had found reputable articles to support his position, he should have linked to them instead of telling me to do a Google search looking for evidence to support his contentions.
It's easy to debunk especially when you feel that you are intellectually superior to the one you respond to.
Whether I believe that I am intellectually superior or not has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments -- though the quality of their arguments is why I feel intellectually superior.
It's exactly that holier than thou attitude that is making a lot of common people loose trust in science and government because the moment they witness something or are concerned about something that is outside the parameters of conventional society they get debunked with the passion and arrogance you so eloquently display.
A parent is suing a school district and that school district is having to fight this in court, incurring all of the costs to do so. That's money that's not going to textbooks, computers, lab equipment, sports equipment, etc. Hell yes, I'm passionate. When tax dollars are having to be spent because someone with no understanding of science is afraid of something, then, yes, I do get emotional about it.
You do know that a huge proportion of americans believes in aliens and harmful effects of powerlines exactly because people like yourself think they are stupid and should be neutered.
So that's a valid basis for a belief system! "I'm gonna believe in Bigfoot cuz it makes people think I'm stupid!" said Cletus, as he moseyed back to his double-wide.
You troll.
Not usually. Most of my fishing is either with live bait, cut bait, or casting from my boat. I caught quite a lot of catfish this summer with clam snouts on the Potomac.
I do not think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits
What you think companies should be concerned with has little bearing on what they are concerned with. Publically held companies care about profits above all else. That's Andy Grove's point: The government has to step in to do something in the interest of society.
What I object to is employees (or companies; it goes both ways in the US, and both are deplorable) who expect to keep their jobs under any circumstances, and expect the government to keep them employed.
All I want is a level playing field. I'd literally have to live in a refrigerator box under a bridge to survive on what a well-paid Indian tech worker makes. I shouldn't have to do that so that some seven figure CEO can get a bigger paycheck.
By the way, if you're really a 42-year-old engineer with 2 decades of experience, your income is probably in the top few percent of American households, so stop whining about capitalism. I'd prefer to have my hard work and skill determine my salary, not the government.
So my salary is handsome now. I'm not blind. I see what's going on around me and, frankly, I don't want to wait until my job is the next one on the chopping block. Your hard work and skill don't determine your salary anymore. That's the problem. You could have worked your ass off and kept your skills cutting edge, but if your company can hire ten outsourced Indian programmers for what they pay you, your days are probably numbered.
Tough shit. Find another job, retrain if necessary.
In what field? What industry is ready to absorb tens of millions of workers who have lost their jobs to outsourcing? You act like there is an infinite number of jobs. There aren't. If 3COM outsources 3,000 tech workers, 3,000 jobs don't magically appear in some other industry to replace the ones that were lost.
Alternately, settle for a lower standard of living, and accept a job with a salary more in line with what the rest of the world makes.
And live in a refrigerator box under a bridge. You ignore the cost of living. Most Americans pay more in rent/mortgage than workers in other countries make in a year.
Better yet, stop whining to the government,
I'm not "whining to the government" any more than Andy Grove is. I'm discussing inequities that I believe will lead to a much lower standard of living throughout the U.S. coupled with a long-term economic downturn affecting everything from pothole repair to life expectancies.
and organize a boycott of companies that outsource extensively. I'll join that, very enthusiastically.
Some of the legislation I would propose:
1. Drastically higher unemployment insurance premiums for companies that lay off U.S. workers to outsource.
2. Require that companies notify consumers when their calls are being transferred overseas and to inform them of the country to which the calls are being transferred. That will go a long way towards stopping the training in deception that now takes place where overseas workers are taught about U.S. slang, current events, given fake U.S. sounding names, etc.
3. Require that U.S. firms follow OSHA and EPA regulations for all overseas facilities.
4. Government procurement rules that favor U.S. firms who do not outsource.
5. Require disclosure of outsourcing. If I buy a 10/100 8-port router, there should be a sticker on the box indicating the country where it was designed, manufactured (that already exists), and where customer support is handled (at the time the product was shipped). It's kind of hard to boycott companies that outsource extensively if they hide their outsourcing from the public.
No, you can't, but you tried to. Now read the definition on the Nizkor Project web page:
So, it's exactly as I stated and was not, in any way shape or form, descriptive of how I debated. So my challenge to you still stands unanswered: I never suggested that [the other poster's argument] be ignored because of some irrelevent fact about its author and I challenge you to defend your accusation that I did.
Literally it means "against the man".
There is a difference between literal meaning and a translation of Latin. Tyrannosaurus Rex is from the Greek words meaning "tyrant" and "lizard" and the Latin word for "king." But the a Tyrannosaurus Rex is a dinosaur, not a 'tyrant lizard king'.
The rest of your reply just reinforces the points I made.
Bullshit. It did a superb job of refuting your unsubstantiated claims and poking holes in your arguments. You're just too much of an intellectual coward to debate the points and instead sink to personal attacks when you are in over your intellectual depth. See below. (Note: The preceeding was not an ad hominem attack as I did not assert that any of your claims or arguments were wrong because of your intellectual cowardice.)
You still don't get it. I fear for America's future if you represent its youth.
Then you can fear for its 42 year old software engineers with over two decades of professional experience, too, because I am one of them. But since my views are in line with those of Andy Grove, the co-founder and Chairman of Intel, I'm in pretty good company. Maybe it's you who have the distorted views.
Additional questions and points that I made which you owe answers (yes, "owe" -- it's a debate, not a schoolyard brawl):
1. And, yes, I am against unrestrained free trade. It doesn't work. Example: We put laws in place to protect the environment and U.S. firms move manufacturing jobs to other countries where pollution laws are lax or non-existent.
2. You capitalist bastards think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits but that workers who are only concerned about maximizing their wages are somehow evil. Explain that logic to me.
3. "Working smarter and more efficient(ly)" means getting the job done faster and/or for a lower cost. That's the whole concept behind efficiency.
4. Just what is the typical software engineer supposed to do that will make up for a 20/1 cost ratio between himself and his Indian counterparts?
5. What about the guy who answers tech support calls for HP inkjet printers? How is he supposed to use "imagination or creativity" to keep his job when someone in India will do it for a fraction of the price?
6. How is the guy who assembles computers for Dell supposed to make it worthwhile for Dell to keep him employed rather than sending the assembly work overseas? Is he supposed to assemble 20 systems in the same time that his overseas counterpart assembles one?
Note that the above debate points are numbered to make it harder for you to duck them again. So either answer or concede each one.
I love how every reply to pro-free trade posts on this subject have some sort of ad-hominem attack within.
Learn what the term "ad hominem" means before using it. An ad hominem attack is one in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. I did not dismiss the argument and, instead, answered it with facts, figures, and logic. I never suggested that it be ignored because of some irrelevent fact about its author and I challenge you to defend your accusation that I did.
And, yes, I am against unrestrained free trade. It doesn't work. Example: We put laws in place to protect the environment and U.S. firms move manufacturing jobs to other countries where pollution laws are lax or non-existent. When people as smart as Andy Grove are saying that something has to be done, that should give you a clue.
It speaks loudly about what most people feel about this topic: Gimmie mine and fuck every one else.
Correct. I want to put food on my table, pay my mortgage, have a nice car, boat, lifestyle, and eventually, retirement. Fuck the guy in India who wants my job. You capitalist bastards think companies should only be concerned with maximizing profits but that workers who are only concerned about maximizing their wages are somehow evil. Explain that logic to me.
You think that working smarter and more efficient means competing on price?
"Working smarter and more efficient(ly)" means getting the job done faster and/or for a lower cost. That's the whole concept behind efficiency.
This is why your jobs are going overseas. You have no clue how to respond to the challenge. You have no imagination or creativity and your ability only extends to what you've done a thousand times before.
Try putting some meat behind that argument. Just what is the typical software engineer supposed to do that will make up for a 20/1 cost ratio between himself and his Indian counterparts? What about the guy who answers tech support calls for HP inkjet printers? How is he supposed to use "imagination or creativity" to keep his job when someone in India will do it for a fraction of the price? How is the guy who assembles computers for Dell supposed to make it worthwhile for Dell to keep him employed rather than sending the assembly work overseas? Is he supposed to assemble 20 systems in the same time that his overseas counterpart assembles one?
Stop making vague insults and stick to debating the issues.
The fact is that most IT jobs are commodities: system administration, building web pages, support, most programming (visual basic, etc) and the like can be done by anyone. The only solution is to innovate, become more efficient and smarter in how you do things.
In India, $6,000(U.S) per year is good pay for an experienced software engineer. Office space leases for about $25 per square foot per year in Northern Virginia -- home of many high-tech companies on the east coast. That means that it probably costs more to lease the space (cubicle, lab space, common areas, etc.) needed for a U.S. software engineer than to pay an Indian software engineer for a year.
When a company can get labor for less than the cost to provide you a cubicle, it does you no good to "become more efficient and smarter in how you do things." You can be as efficient, and smart as you like, but you simply aren't going to out-produce the ten or more off-shore workers that could be paid for what you cost your company.
Such "work smarter" bullspeak might make the speaker feel better and like he has some control over the situation, but it's got little to do with economic reality in this marketplace.
Explain, since when is any form of electromagnetic radiation not harmful?
t h
.
You're right! Quick: Run around your house and unplug your lamps, flourescent lights, computer, television, cordless phone, microwave oven, anything with an electric motor, since they all emit electromagnetic radiation.
Low band low energy radio is not very harmful while high energy gamma rays aren quite harmful.
So let's just extrapolate from gamma radiation to WiFi networks. That's good science.
Wifi is pretty energetic so has the capability to dislodge atomic structures and hence arguably is carcinogenic.
Then show us reputable, peer-reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals like The Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine that bear out your theory when it comes to the low-power 802.11 networks that we're talking about here.
Next time when you talk about sterilization for stupidity include a clause that when in retrospect you are the stupid one they can stop your machinery from working...
That was implied from the beginning. But there's no chance of that happening any time soon because, unlike you, I value science more than google results that show up a bunch of blog entries from pseudo-science nutcases.
Have you ever used google like for http://www.google.se/search?q=radiation+wifi+heal
Have you ever used Google like for http://www.google.com/search?q=aliens+roswell+UFO
Run for your lives! The extraterrestrials have landed on the Earth.
People that mind-numbingly stupid should have their children forcibly taken away by the state and put up for adoption. Then the parents should be sterilized so that they don't breed again.
In the meantime, science teachers throughout the school district should be telling their classes that these parents are examples of morons who have no understanding of science.
When spammers send e-mail to your ISP, all of the users end up bearing the costs. Filtering out spam so that you don't see it does nothing to stem its flow. You weren't going to buy something from a spammer anyway and that's just one less anti-spam activist to lodge a complaint to the spammers ISPs. Spammers would love it if all of the people who complain about spam filtered it out instead.
I referred to this as being a "spam ostrich" in a previous post: You bury your head in the sand so that you can't see the spam and then pretend that it isn't there anymore.
"Maximum penalties: 471 years in federal prison, $117 million in fines."
That's the fine and penalties when your spam hurts some high-profile, moneyed public figure. If the guy had forged the e-mail address of some average Joe, we wouldn't be reading about it here. If he had caused you or I to get 160,000 bounces and numerous angry e-mails, we would have been lucky to get his ISP to issue a warning -- much less get the FBI investigating and prosecuting.
I'll be impressed when the same level of interest is shown when some poor sap at home is the victim. But I'm not holding my breath.
You have no right to duplicate the copyrighted material.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of "fair use"? Ever heard of the Betamax case? I do not believe that the copyright means that you have no right to backup the material, copy it to different media, etc.
So apparently it becomes the government's job to solve your problem off getting information, by ordering the manufacturers to do so.
Correct. Whether it's octane rating, energy efficiency, crash worthiness, lumens of light and expected hours of service, or cost per page, it's something that the consumer needs to make an educated choice and not something that they can easily evaluate on their own.
The fact that they have done so in other cases does not make it right.
So what makes it wrong? Why is it wrong to make a manufacturer disclose information which would help a consumer make an informed choice? Are you concerned that it would harm companies that currently hide information in order to deceive consumers?
For example, the "made in" labels are actually there as a form of protectionism - so the consumers can choose to boycott foreign products.
It provides information so that customers can make a choice. Those who want to boycott products from Japan, can. Those who prefer Japanese products can buy them over American products. Those who wish to avoid products made in Communist countries can. It seems reasonable to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any limits on what information the government should force to be provided?
Sure. Private information, trade secrets, information that doesn't serve a public interest, and information not easily gleaned from measurements and standardized tests all come to mind. I don't need to know the name of the person who produced my printer, his/her sexual orientation, what the manufacturer's profit margin is, or the formulation of the inks.
When I move into a house, as an informed consumer of a very expensive thing, should the government require the seller to collect all the favorable and unfavorable information possible about my potential neighbors - say, their political views, personal habits, previous convictions, financial stability, favorite colors, ages, health, litigiousness? After all, if I am going to make a very expensive investment, some of this information would be important for me to make a fully informed choice!
Then look it up yourself. Go to the same records that you would expect the seller to access. Find what information exists in the public record if you are concerned. Even ignoring the legality and the ethics involved, it would be an undue burden on a private party to require that they collect such information to sell a one-of-a-kind item.
There is no reasonable claim of my proposal putting undue burden on a printer manufacturer. The information that a consumer needs is not publically available -- but the manufacturer of the printer can easily run a standardized test to determine the cost-per-page -- and in doing so would benefit millions of consumers. The end result would be that printer manufacturers would start making printers that have a lower operating cost, benefitting consumers and the economy in general.
I could understand your opposition if the test would take six months to run, require a staff of fifty full-time people, and require the sacrifice of millions of dollars worth of inventory, but there just isn't much to it. Spend a few hours, run the test, put a yellow "PageGuide" sticker on each printer box that shows the estimated cost per page for text and graphics. Problem solved.
The refrigerator labeling is predicated on the government's (presumed) interest in reducing national energy usage, not on making consumers happy.
It's not "making consumers happy." It's providing them the information that they need to make informed decisions. There is a long history of government-mandated labelling for just that purpose: "Made in Taiwan", "Treadwear 480", "USDA Choice", "Limited Warranty", "89 Octane (R+M)/2", "Grade A Extra Large", "SPF 30", etc.
For example, perhaps more people choose to ride helmetless because the cost of helmets is higher due to the testing requirements needed for labelling.
Probably not. The cost for the testing and labelling is in the pennies per helmet range and DOT-approved helmets can be purchased for under $50.
Probably not many, but hey, how much is one life worth?
Enough that we should not allow companies to sell unsafe helmets to unsuspecting consumers. That's why we have NHTSA/DOT testing and requirements.
Furthermore, you make the assumption that many advocates of government meddling do: that consumers are stupid. We aren't.
Requiring disclosure of cost isn't "meddling." It's not requiring that they change what they manufacture, how they price it, where the sell it, what color the case is, what accessories they include, how much it weighs, or anything else. It's just requiring that they disclose the operating costs.
It's also not assuming that consumers are "stupid." Quite the opposite. It's assuming that, given the necessary information, that a consumer will make an informed, reasoned choice.
I have never had trouble finding out what cartridges cost for printers. I always check before buying the printers.
Don't you?
Knowing how much the cartridges cost does you no good if you have no valid, standardized means to compare the longevity of the cartridges. What if you find out that cartridges for printer X cost $15 each and cartridges for printer Y costs $35 each? If you don't know how many pages each will print, those numbers are meaningless.
So what's the problem?
The problem is that consumers are not given enough information to make an informed choice. They can find out the printer cost. They can find out the cartridge cost. But they cannot find out how printer A compares to printer B as far as cost per page. So far, you seem to be one of the very few who doesn't understand that there is a problem and what it is.
It's not the oil industry.
Yes, it is. They oppose anything that encourages consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
To conform to these standards, they'd either have to make the cars cost twice as much, or make them all the more flimsy, light, and dangerous.
How would it make vehicles cost more or make them flimsy and dangerous to require that there be a sticker in the window showing the fuel consumption? Hummers cost about $80K (or so). Are you saying that the cost to print fuel economy on a window sticker would be another $80K? That's a leap of logic that I just can't fathom.
By the way, I drive a VW Golf TDI. It costs well under $20K new. It's diesel engine gets 49MPG highway and well over 40MPG in heavy traffic commuting to work. It weighs 2,976 pounds and got 5-star ratings from NHTSA for driver and passenger crash safety. Compare that to a Ford Focus, a similarly priced car which weighs about 400lbs. less, gets far worse fuel economy, and scores lower in the NHTSA crash ratings. High fuel economy doesn't require cars to be lightweight, unsafe, or expensive.