Slashdotters complain about Microsoft releasing products that have serious security flaws and bugs. But then when Microsoft slips a release date, does the Slashdot crowd applaud Microsoft for not rushing the product to market prematureley? Nope. The Slashdot forums are filled with posts speculating about the delay being due to technical incompetence or some kind of nefarious scheme.
Would it really kill people to be fair and balanced? As it now stands, it's a lot closer to the Fox News standard of "Fair and Balanced."
Imagine a huge guy who stays on his computer for days on end.
One problem: The Segway is limited to a 250lb. user. That's big, but for a 6'-something man it's not huge. There are even a lot of professional NFL football players that exceed 250lbs and run the 40 yard dash in well under five seconds.
It's not that they couldn't develop them, it's that a person on this side of the water could ALSO develop them...maybe less, maybe even more...That's what i meant...
What you said was the you could develop skills that foreign workers could not. Now you want to revise history. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.
So what if you have skills that they have in India. In India, a good salary in the tech field is $6,000 U.S. per year. They can live very well on that wage in India. You couldn't afford rent an efficiency for what they earn, so what good does it do you to have the same skills they have? Can you live on $6,000 per year? And, by the way, the jobs are being taken away from U.S. workers with those skills and being outsourced to save money -- not because those skills are something we don't have here.
man, you are such a insolent little dick aren't you...
No, I'm an insolent big dick -- and it makes me all wet when you talk dirty to me like that.
Thanks for proving my point dummy...Get over those 'damn foreigners' and think efficiency for a second, stupid...geez
Again, they have a cost of living that is miniscule. No American can compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis. That's the whole point of this outsourcing. The companies are sending jobs to countries where the cost of living is so low that they can pay software engineers less than U.S. minimum wage and have them be happy.
or maybe you're just a flag-waving republican who hates 'those damn foriegners'
Dyed in the wool Democrat. And I don't hate them at all. I'd do the same thing in their position.
but is riddled with upper-class guilt about his money (what about poor 40ish with a car payment)
It's not guilt at all. We have an economy that's in the gutter and it's only getting worse. We have huge numbers of Americans who are either out of work or working at a fraction of what they used to earn -- much of it due to oustourcing.
Time for an Econ 101 lesson:
Greater unemployment and lower wages means less purchasing power. That hurts every aspect of the economy. When wages are depressed and people are unemployed, people buy fewer new cars, computers, and houses. Dinners at restaurants are fewer and further apart. That trickles down to auto workers, car dealers, computer salesmen, construction workers, waitresses, waiters, cooks, and workers in just about every other field suffering losing jobs and seeing lower wages. The economy spirals down.
A healthy economy relies on a vibrant middle class to buy goods and services. When the middle class goes away and you have an economy of a handful of wealthy corporate executives and a huge number of low-wage, service-sector workers, then the economy suffers. Bill Gates may earn 100,000 times what you do, but he isn't buying 100,000 cars and the car he buys doesn't cost 100,000 times as much as yours. He isn't spending 100,000 times as much on meals, housing, clothes, or even computers.
Now let's look at other factors. Suppose you could be just as productive as your Indian counterpart and work for the same $6,000 per year. Good enough? Nope. The cost of everything from the building lease to janitorial services in the Indian building is less. In India, the employer doesn't have the OSHA regulations to abide by. They don't have to follow DOL policies for wages or working conditions. They don't have to withold taxes, provide dental and health insurance, or even have a parking lot (since the employees by and large don't have cars).
Now let's look at the unemployment issue. Your rallying cry is "learn a new skill." Well that doesn't do any good unless there are enough jobs. There were plenty of skilled people during the Great Depression and not enough jobs; that's the problem we are headed towards today. When a large segment of the population loses jobs, other fields can't just absorb those workers. When tech workers lose their jobs, that m
1) I didn't say anything about being smarter than people in other countries??
Not only are you a dick, but you're a liar, too:
"What the hell makes you think that you are so superior that you can develop and maintain skills that no overseas worker could develop?"
It's called brains...look into it...
As for the govt 'stepping in', i'd think someone who actually ran their own business would see the folly in this, but i guess you didn't run it for long...
Wrong again. It provided me with a six figure income for years and never showed a loss.
Talk about 'arrogant and delusionally self-impressed'...you're starting to sound like quite the little marxist here...gawd
Fine with me. Marx was dead-on right about a lot of stuff.
It's about someone who thought he had it made, but reality is creeping up on him, so he wants mommy govt to step in and take care of him...
I've still got it made compared to some trade school loser like you. I've got a 2002 VW Golf, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge RAM P/U, two motorcyles, a boat -- all paid off -- and a house that I could sell today and turn a 150K profit on at a minimum. And I have a high-paying job. But unlike you, I'm not some self-centered dickhead that thinks it's fine if the entire country goes down the crapper as long as I've got a paycheck coming in.
Another extreme...you got the smallest house around, do you? try renting instead? renting out your basement?
No. I have an appropriate sized house for someone with my income. I earn enough in about three days a month to cover the mortgage.
Just what is the purpose in your life? To try to just scrape by? To not enjoy any of the finer things? That's your idea of living the American dream?
No, that's how they SAVE money...but according to you, Billy's Windows never improves, he just makes more money and sits on it...you don't seem that bright at math or economics for 'Capt. Superior Intellect'
No wonder you had to go to trade school. You obviously aren't bright enough to hold down a professional job. Gates is constantly investing in new and existing product development. It's just that now he does it with cheap outsourced labor. He takes U.S. dollars for software sales and uses it to pay engineers and support personnnel over in India.
By the looks of it, YOU'RE the one in that boat, not me...I'll be fine, and IF something pops up, i've got backup plans. Who's inferior again, food-stamper?
You are, trade school boy. You probably won't earn as much in the next three years as I get in one.
You're my intellectual inferior, so don't tell me about "brains." And you are not smarter than everyone else in other countries. You may be more arrogant and delusionally self-impressed, but not smarter.
and i'm betting you're a union tool...
You lost that bet. I'm a professional software engineer with two decades of experience, both as a W2 employee and running my own business. You're obviously not as bright as you thought you were.
you want big mommy govt to step in and make sure you can have your cake(big house,car,etc) and eat it too(permanent union job/no new learning)
I learn constantly to keep my skills current and relevent. I don't have a "union job." Yes, I want the government to step in and stop hundreds of thousands of U.S. tech workers from being laid off by greedy companies that want to use cheap overseas labor. Bill Gates doesn't need to make more money by outsourcing. He can afford to keep paying the workforce that made him a multi-billionaire rather than replacing them with cheap labor.
If he needs to, sure, but then he wouldn't have been a very good provider in the first place, now would he? No savings?
So everyone with a family is supposed to have enough savings to float the family for four years, pay for four years of college to "learn a new trade", cover the difference between their new entry level job and the career that they used to have, etc.? What a load of shit. I bet you don't even have enough savings to keep yourself afloat for one -- unless mommy and daddy gave it to you.
Does he really needs that big house and mortgage? Couldn't he get a cheaper car? Use the bus?
Who said anything about a "big" house? I said a mortgage. You don't raise families in YMCAs.
Couldn't he get a cheaper car? Use the bus?
Good old 20-20 hindsight at work there. Couldn't you have bought a cheaper computer or used the one at the public library? If so, why didn't you?
yeah, and they all hide it on the moon, they don't open new businesses, invest in R&D, expand and hire more people...nope, just light their cigars with bigger bills...yep...moron
We've already established how they invest their money -- in overseas labor. Expansion? Yeah, in Bangalore, India.
No, I want to shop around for the lowest price/best quality for my money...anything else is socialist welfare for lazy idiots
I look forward to your long years of unemployment.
Well, of course ultimately the idea is that the high-paying jobs that go overseas -- high-paying by the standards of the countries they're going to, in any case -- will boost those countries' economies enough that they'll be able to buy our stuff. And long-term, it's reasonable to believe that this is so. Free trade, overall, tends to be good for everyone engaging in it.
If you are unemployed, you aren't engaging in it. If a company that outsources all engineering sells more products overseas, it's not going to do you any good if you were an engineer there.
Company X employs 100 Americans. Company X outsources 80 engineering jobs. Company X starts seeing greater purchases from overseas. Company X's CEO and investors get more money. Company X's 80 unemployed ex-engineers don't benefit at all.
You don't have a right to an IT job. If you have one, great. Make sure you have skills that are so valuable that you won't be outsourced.
What the hell makes you think that you are so superior that you can develop and maintain skills that no overseas worker could develop? I'm betting that your skill set is nothing spectacular. I suggest that you practice saying "would you like fries with that" since it is likely to come in handy in your future career.
If you can't do that, then find another line of work, you lazy bastard.
Lazy? How the f*** is a 40-something year-old man supporting a family, paying a mortgage, making car payments, putting kids through college, etc., supposed to "find another line of work"? Is he supposed to sell his house, move into a dorm, and have his family live in an RV at Walmart while he attends the local college? Momma's boys like you make me sick. Grow up.
I don't want to benefit by causing prices to rise beyond free market levels and screwing my fellow citizens who have little to do with this.
What a bunch of bullshit. Wealthier people paying more for goods and services isn't screwing anyone.
Who said that software prices would be lowered by outsourcing? I've seen no sign that Microsoft's prices are dropping as a result of outsourcing thousands of jobs to India. All that outsourcing in IT means is that CEOs, CFOs, company presidents, vice presidents, and other executives take a larger share of the profits.
I refuse to support people who want to screw me.
Then stop buying everything, because someone is out to screw you every time you buy something. You better enjoy public transportation because every car dealer will try to screw you. The oil companies want to screw you. The auto insurance companies want to screw you. And the ironic, hypocritical thing is that you want to screw them, too. You are a self-serving capitalist bastard who thinks that you should get everything at the lowest possible price. You want to screw everyone else out of a decent living so that you can satisfy your greed.
I don't understand this notion that programming was better 'back in the day' just because people had to be super anal about their code. So what if the computer catches errors in the code for us? How is this is a BAD thing??? Contrary to your belief - it doesn't make people more careless in their programming because it still doesn't allow you to be sloppy in what really matters - the program design.
A computer will catch sytactical errors but will do nothing to identify logical errors or inefficient coding. By being "super anal" about their code, the programmers would often review their code multiple times prior to submitting it. Those reviews often resulted in catching errors, inefficiencies, and design inadequacies of the type that are now too often missed.
Yeah, programs may also be more bloated nowadays and not written as efficiently, but that has nothing to do with a shortened compiling time or lazier spoiled programmers. It has to do with the far greater complexity of what we try to program nowadays.
A complex program can also be an efficient program. There is no reason that complexity should be used as an excuse for bloated, inefficient, inelegant code. More importantly, people need to understand what level of complexity is necessary. A program that takes 50 numbers from a file and adds them up does not need to have a GUI front end.
Hmmm... which ISP lets the customer choose blacklists they use to block email?
None that I know of, but I've been looking into creating just such a service.
Heck, most of them don't even disclose the black lists used by them!
If they won't disclose, then go to someone who will. Or use an e-mail service provider that discloses what you need to know. ISPs need to sell their services and what filtering they use is key to determining if the service is the right one for you.
How can you decide if others want to receive email form Nigeria or not? If you are running a private server for yourself, then fine, do whatever, nobody cares.
If you use an ISP-provided server, then choose the ISP which provides filtering that best meets your needs. Some people would pay a premium to be able to receive e-mail from Nigeria while others would pay to block it. That's the beauty of the open market. If there's enough demand for a service, it will be offered.
This does more harm than good especially with colocation services. What happens is one person starts spamming off a machine at a colocation company and SPEWS and other lists will blacklist the whole block that colocation company is on.
What should happen is that the colocation company sues the pants off of the person(s) who got them blacklisted. They should also provide the information to their other customers so that they, too, could take the person(s) to court.
As it is now, the spammer gets a slap on the wrist and maybe lose their hosting. Let the spammers get sued for a few million dollars at a time when their breach of contract causes the colo facility to be blacklisted and the spam problem stops.
What he is getting at is not himself using the list, it is midling sized ISP's using these lists preventing him from sending legitimate e-mail to people who can't get that e-mail, because his ISP is blackholed even though the ISP has corrected the issue that got them on the blackhole list in the first place. Or that his ISP's ISP happens to be blackholed through no falt of his own ISP's policies or practices.
So complain to and about those ISPs rather than blaming the people who maintain a list. It's not the fault of SPEWS if some ISP chooses to block e-mail from IPs on their list. Obviously SPEWS is intended for use by entities that fit one or both of the following:
a. Don't mind blocking legitimate e-mail. b. Feel that the collateral damage is a good thing since it makes it spam hosting so unattractive.
The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.
Some blacklists try to be very specific to minimize collateral damage while others take the opposite approach. Those who attempt to maximize collateral damage are doing so in order to cause ISPs to be very vigilent against spam and to never write "pink contracts" with spammers. No one forces an ISP to use any blacklist, much less one which causes a lot of collateral damage, sio don't blame the people who maintain the lists.
This is capitalism. ISPs that use inappropriate blacklists will block a lot of legitimate e-mail and will lose customers. On the other hand, if the ISP lets through too much spam, some customers might choose to get another ISP.
I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down.
I will be equally happy when someone uses a DoS to keep you from posting comments with which I disagree. As you point out, a DoS is a valid way to suppress free speech.
They are pure evil in their methods,
How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria? You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them. (I don't because I don't like their criteria).
and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.
Absolutely untrue. I use several of the blacklists for my domain and the quantity of spam blocked is tremendous with very little collateral damage. Without those blacklists, I would be seeing far more spam than legitimate e-mail every day.
They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks.
Yeah, the same large ISPs who, in many cases, were writing "pink contracts" for spammers and making money from spam. Those are the large ISPs that really hate the blacklists. And if it wasn't for the blacklists, more and more ISPs would be writing pink contracts.
That's a false dichotomy. If I choose not to buy medical insurance then I would have to rely on charity, either an organized one or just the kindness of doctors/nurses to treat me without pay at a free clinic or something. No one would be forcing you to pay.
I could just wait until I succumbed to some airborne bacterial infection from the innumerable rotting corpses of those who spent their money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, and beer rather than on retirement savings.
So you are against democracy then? Perhaps you would prefer a King to decide these things for us.
A democracy does not mean that each and every citizen votes on every piece of legislation.
In any case, you're paying anyway through medicare taxes. Your argument makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. You are paying taxes to cover your Medicare costs. You're contributing to the system. And if some guy who mopped floors for a living can't afford his medical care, then the Medicare fund means that we live like civilized human beings rather than leaving him to die like an injured pack animal.
And just who are you to decide what people should do with their own money.
I shouldn't. I wasn't elected to office to represent them.
You're not the one who had to mop floors all week late into the night for that money. Let them decide for themselves what's "worthy" and what isn't.
That's why we have elected representatives and why they have staffs. The average voter lacks the time, knowledge, and often the intelligence, to make an enlightened decision about what should and should not be funded. Is the guy "who had to mop floors all week late into the night" supposed to hire a staff of people and experts to advise him on everything from the value of eradication of non-native insect species to the need for funding a new fighter aircraft?
Under the Libertarian view of how the world should be, there would be a monetary incentive to withold funding and help. Those who chose to be self-serving, greedy bastards would, in effect, be paid to behave that way while the compassionate would end up funding everything. I much prefer a system where taxes are collected and where those who allocate them don't do so at a great personal expense.
Agreed. How about some big tax cuts for the poor? While we're at it lets eliminate social security and medicare taxes, which are totally regressive.
No. Americans have proven that they will spend money that they don't have and I don't want to end up paying your medical bills because you decided that you'd rather have a new car every year than put money into a retirement account.
Maybe then the "working man" will actually have some money left over at the end of the week.
Given that the average U.S. "working man" has luxuries that working people in other countries can only dream of, it seems that they have money left over at the end of the week. I know that I do. My girlfriend does. My friends do.
To solve the NASA budget problems we could simply allow taxpayers to choose where their money goes based on categories. That way the most popular categories would get the most funds.
You don't fund government based on a popularity contest. You don't let taxpayers direct billions of tax dollars to saving baby harp seals while allowing a non-mammalian species to be wiped out -- just because the latter aren't cute, furry, and round. That's the kind of stupidity that would take place with extremist Libertarians in charge.
The value of a government program is not based on its popularity.
Landing men on Mars? Like the Moon, just more of the same. Been there, sort of, done that, sort of. That won't inspire anyone.
Actually, it will inspire many intelligent people. It's our best near-term chance for finding exobiological lifeforms or the fossils from primitive life. It's damned challenging and exciting.
Stop all use of NASA for military work? Well, it is the National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration. Besides, how much of NASA's work is military? Damn little, I'd guess.
So what does "AERONAUTICS" have to do with the military? That's like saying "Stop using HUD for military work? Well, it is Housing and URBAN Development." And your guess would be wrong. Many of the shuttle missions had military payloads and objectives.
Fund NASA adequately? NASA has spent the last few decades fucking over anyone who might challenge its stranglehold on space. They can't hack it? Well fuck 'em, and let someone better do the job.
What a load of shit. If you knew anything about orbital mechanics, you'd realize that the prime launch sites are near the equator, and I don't think that NASA has anything to do with countries at the equator. NASA comprises the best and the brightest and you should be proud to even be allowed to live in the same country with the likes of Gene Kranz, Chris Craft, and Neil Armstrong.
NASA lost the right stuff long ago. The Saturn V was a machine designed by a hero, and a total winner. The Space Shuttle was a machine designed by a committee that destroyed all the Saturn V plans, and has been a constant disappointment.
The Space Shuttle was a machine designed after an evil Republican President killed off the funding for Apollo and left NASA struggling for a politically expedient way to get back into space. To do it, they had to convince the brass that the Shuttle would be useful for military work -- a space truck if you will.
Shut NASA down. Let someone better do the work.
No, do what I said. Fund NASA, get rid of the military ties, set up a lofty goal, and make America proud again. And impeach that lying sack of shit Bush for a start.
1. Bush tried the inpiring goal bit with his announcement of a "Mission to Mars." Which lasted until he was presented with the price tag on the order of $450 billion dollars. The Mission to Mars did not survive the ongoing crusade of "Tax Freedom", not to mention the expense of the war of Iraq and new military adventures in a "War on Terrorism" which has no forseeable end.
I wasn't one of the minority who put Bush into office, so don't blame me for that. It's easy to say "Mission to Mars" and quite another to inspire a nation to strive for it. Bush couldn't inspire me to wipe ketchup off of my shirt. The tax cuts were grossly irresponsible. The war on Iraq was not justified. The "War on Terror" is just a power grab by right-wing law-and-order types like Ashcroft.
3.What's adequate? The big question is what are you willing to pay for and what do cut?
I'm willing to forego Bush's tax gifts to the rich. There's about a trillion dollars there -- before we start considering the interest on the debt.
The United States is awash in red ink,
Sort of argues against big tax cuts for the rich and spending billions on military agression and "nation building", doesn't it?
trade deficits and social and physical infrastructures which are going to pot, and we have severe energy and economic issues which continue to be deferred.
When Bush took office, we had a budget surplus. Instead of using that to pay down the debt and pay for much-needed infrastructure improvements, he made good on his promise of a tax bribe to be paid if he became President. He went around the country spouting the it's-your-money bull**** throughout the campaign. Well, it's not your money but what he's spending is your debt and will be your children's and their children's too.
But the Shuttle is a lot more versatile than a Saturn V. Just putting payload into orbit is not the whole point; even today we have unmanned rockets that will do that.
In what way is the shuttle so versatile? It just boosts payloads into orbit. What's so spectacular about it? The robot arm? You could orbit a vehicle with a robot arm using Saturn Vs or even Saturn 1Bs, depending on the payload weight. I've worked in the satellite business with engineers who were part of the Space Shuttle program. Trust me; it's a failure.
See here's the rub - the average person thinks "we have poverty, no cure for cancer, we need better schools, better paid teachers... (etc.)" and then NASA says they want to put a man on Mars
Many said the same thing about landing a man on the moon. There has to be more to life than just surviving. Without lofty goals, mankind will stagnate. You can't cure poverty by shutting down NASA and putting tens of thousands of well-compensated people out of work. Nor would that cure cancer or result in better pay for teachers. The money would probably just end up going to replenish our supply of cruise missiles or be given to Halliburton to rebuild oil wells in Iraq.
You want teachers to be paid a decent wage? Then don't vote for politicians who cut taxes since taxes are what pays for schools and teachers.
No, all of my answers are right and yours is a great addition to them.
your first step is to get all the asshats out of washington DC that are intent on killing NASA...
GWB is one of them.... most of cingress is the other place to start....
That would be a great first step, but whoever replaces the "asshats" should seriously consider the steps that I've outlined in order to resuscitate the ailing agency.
I hazzard a guess that the long-term benefit to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan of the recent US interventions will be much larger than the benefit to them of the Space Shuttle.
You've been listening to too much propaganda. The U.S. has attacked numerous countries over the years and failed to establish humane democracies in most of them.
In 1953, we helped overthrow Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the brutal Shah of Iran -- who was later ousted by Islamic fundamentalists.
In 1954, a CIA-organized coup toppled the nationalist reformist government of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in favor of a military government that suppressed opposition until the return of democracy in 1986. Civil war effectively continued until 1996.
In 1960, Congo African nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba, elected in June 1960 as the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was assassinated following a US/Belgian-organized coup designed to remove the Soviet-backed government. Succession by Mobutu Sese Seko ushered in 32 years of dictatorial and corrupt rule.
In 1973, the CIA secretly funded a coup against Chilean Marxist President Salvador Allende which brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power for 17 years. General Pinochet later faced charges for human rights abuses committed during his years in power, but the Chilean Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling the Pinochet unfit to stand trial.
NASA is no longer the pride of the nation as it was in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. We no longer have a goal as we did after JFK's challenge to land a man on the moon. The budget at NASA has been cut over and over so that they now have far less purchasing power than they did decades ago -- despite the commitment to build the International Space Station. Starting with Reagan, NASA has increasingly been viewed as a way to orbit and service military payloads.
Want NASA to prosper?
1. Provide an inspiring goal. Choose one that average people can relate to. Landing men on Mars would be a good one.
2. Stop all use of NASA for military work. Pass legislation prohibiting NASA from military missions. It's demoralizing and tends to many of those who are excited by the exploration of space.
3. Fund NASA adequately. We've spent far more in IRAQ and Afghanistan than NASA has seen in recent years. Wouldn't you be more proud of your country if it put a man on Mars rather than bombing a third-world country?
4. Scrap the Space Shuttle. It's 1980's technology that was disappointing in its performance the day it was first launched. Even using NASA's own very low cost-per-flight figures in the 1980s, the cost to put a pound of payload into orbit on the shuttle was $6,000. That compares to an inflation-adjusted figure of only $3,800 for the Saturn V expendable launch vehicles that carried men to the moon.
NASA needs The Right Stuff in order to be something more than just another government bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdotters complain about Microsoft releasing products that have serious security flaws and bugs. But then when Microsoft slips a release date, does the Slashdot crowd applaud Microsoft for not rushing the product to market prematureley? Nope. The Slashdot forums are filled with posts speculating about the delay being due to technical incompetence or some kind of nefarious scheme.
Would it really kill people to be fair and balanced? As it now stands, it's a lot closer to the Fox News standard of "Fair and Balanced."
Imagine a huge guy who stays on his computer for days on end.
One problem: The Segway is limited to a 250lb. user. That's big, but for a 6'-something man it's not huge. There are even a lot of professional NFL football players that exceed 250lbs and run the 40 yard dash in well under five seconds.
It's not that they couldn't develop them, it's that a person on this side of the water could ALSO develop them...maybe less, maybe even more...That's what i meant...
What you said was the you could develop skills that foreign workers could not. Now you want to revise history. Be a man and admit that you were wrong.
So what if you have skills that they have in India. In India, a good salary in the tech field is $6,000 U.S. per year. They can live very well on that wage in India. You couldn't afford rent an efficiency for what they earn, so what good does it do you to have the same skills they have? Can you live on $6,000 per year? And, by the way, the jobs are being taken away from U.S. workers with those skills and being outsourced to save money -- not because those skills are something we don't have here.
man, you are such a insolent little dick aren't you...
No, I'm an insolent big dick -- and it makes me all wet when you talk dirty to me like that.
Thanks for proving my point dummy...Get over those 'damn foreigners' and think efficiency for a second, stupid...geez
Again, they have a cost of living that is miniscule. No American can compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis. That's the whole point of this outsourcing. The companies are sending jobs to countries where the cost of living is so low that they can pay software engineers less than U.S. minimum wage and have them be happy.
or maybe you're just a flag-waving republican who hates 'those damn foriegners'
Dyed in the wool Democrat. And I don't hate them at all. I'd do the same thing in their position.
but is riddled with upper-class guilt about his money (what about poor 40ish with a car payment)
It's not guilt at all. We have an economy that's in the gutter and it's only getting worse. We have huge numbers of Americans who are either out of work or working at a fraction of what they used to earn -- much of it due to oustourcing.
Time for an Econ 101 lesson:
Greater unemployment and lower wages means less purchasing power. That hurts every aspect of the economy. When wages are depressed and people are unemployed, people buy fewer new cars, computers, and houses. Dinners at restaurants are fewer and further apart. That trickles down to auto workers, car dealers, computer salesmen, construction workers, waitresses, waiters, cooks, and workers in just about every other field suffering losing jobs and seeing lower wages. The economy spirals down.
A healthy economy relies on a vibrant middle class to buy goods and services. When the middle class goes away and you have an economy of a handful of wealthy corporate executives and a huge number of low-wage, service-sector workers, then the economy suffers. Bill Gates may earn 100,000 times what you do, but he isn't buying 100,000 cars and the car he buys doesn't cost 100,000 times as much as yours. He isn't spending 100,000 times as much on meals, housing, clothes, or even computers.
Now let's look at other factors. Suppose you could be just as productive as your Indian counterpart and work for the same $6,000 per year. Good enough? Nope. The cost of everything from the building lease to janitorial services in the Indian building is less. In India, the employer doesn't have the OSHA regulations to abide by. They don't have to follow DOL policies for wages or working conditions. They don't have to withold taxes, provide dental and health insurance, or even have a parking lot (since the employees by and large don't have cars).
Now let's look at the unemployment issue. Your rallying cry is "learn a new skill." Well that doesn't do any good unless there are enough jobs. There were plenty of skilled people during the Great Depression and not enough jobs; that's the problem we are headed towards today. When a large segment of the population loses jobs, other fields can't just absorb those workers. When tech workers lose their jobs, that m
Not only are you a dick, but you're a liar, too:
As for the govt 'stepping in', i'd think someone who actually ran their own business would see the folly in this, but i guess you didn't run it for long...
Wrong again. It provided me with a six figure income for years and never showed a loss.
Talk about 'arrogant and delusionally self-impressed'...you're starting to sound like quite the little marxist here...gawd
Fine with me. Marx was dead-on right about a lot of stuff.
It's about someone who thought he had it made, but reality is creeping up on him, so he wants mommy govt to step in and take care of him...
I've still got it made compared to some trade school loser like you. I've got a 2002 VW Golf, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge RAM P/U, two motorcyles, a boat -- all paid off -- and a house that I could sell today and turn a 150K profit on at a minimum. And I have a high-paying job. But unlike you, I'm not some self-centered dickhead that thinks it's fine if the entire country goes down the crapper as long as I've got a paycheck coming in.
Another extreme...you got the smallest house around, do you? try renting instead? renting out your basement?
No. I have an appropriate sized house for someone with my income. I earn enough in about three days a month to cover the mortgage.
Just what is the purpose in your life? To try to just scrape by? To not enjoy any of the finer things? That's your idea of living the American dream?
No, that's how they SAVE money...but according to you, Billy's Windows never improves, he just makes more money and sits on it...you don't seem that bright at math or economics for 'Capt. Superior Intellect'
No wonder you had to go to trade school. You obviously aren't bright enough to hold down a professional job. Gates is constantly investing in new and existing product development. It's just that now he does it with cheap outsourced labor. He takes U.S. dollars for software sales and uses it to pay engineers and support personnnel over in India.
By the looks of it, YOU'RE the one in that boat, not me...I'll be fine, and IF something pops up, i've got backup plans. Who's inferior again, food-stamper?
You are, trade school boy. You probably won't earn as much in the next three years as I get in one.
It's called brains...look into it...
You're my intellectual inferior, so don't tell me about "brains." And you are not smarter than everyone else in other countries. You may be more arrogant and delusionally self-impressed, but not smarter.
and i'm betting you're a union tool...
You lost that bet. I'm a professional software engineer with two decades of experience, both as a W2 employee and running my own business. You're obviously not as bright as you thought you were.
you want big mommy govt to step in and make sure you can have your cake(big house,car,etc) and eat it too(permanent union job/no new learning)
I learn constantly to keep my skills current and relevent. I don't have a "union job." Yes, I want the government to step in and stop hundreds of thousands of U.S. tech workers from being laid off by greedy companies that want to use cheap overseas labor. Bill Gates doesn't need to make more money by outsourcing. He can afford to keep paying the workforce that made him a multi-billionaire rather than replacing them with cheap labor.
If he needs to, sure, but then he wouldn't have been a very good provider in the first place, now would he? No savings?
So everyone with a family is supposed to have enough savings to float the family for four years, pay for four years of college to "learn a new trade", cover the difference between their new entry level job and the career that they used to have, etc.? What a load of shit. I bet you don't even have enough savings to keep yourself afloat for one -- unless mommy and daddy gave it to you.
Does he really needs that big house and mortgage? Couldn't he get a cheaper car? Use the bus?
Who said anything about a "big" house? I said a mortgage. You don't raise families in YMCAs.
Couldn't he get a cheaper car? Use the bus?
Good old 20-20 hindsight at work there. Couldn't you have bought a cheaper computer or used the one at the public library? If so, why didn't you?
yeah, and they all hide it on the moon, they don't open new businesses, invest in R&D, expand and hire more people...nope, just light their cigars with bigger bills...yep...moron
We've already established how they invest their money -- in overseas labor. Expansion? Yeah, in Bangalore, India.
No, I want to shop around for the lowest price/best quality for my money...anything else is socialist welfare for lazy idiots
I look forward to your long years of unemployment.
Well, of course ultimately the idea is that the high-paying jobs that go overseas -- high-paying by the standards of the countries they're going to, in any case -- will boost those countries' economies enough that they'll be able to buy our stuff. And long-term, it's reasonable to believe that this is so. Free trade, overall, tends to be good for everyone engaging in it.
If you are unemployed, you aren't engaging in it. If a company that outsources all engineering sells more products overseas, it's not going to do you any good if you were an engineer there.
Company X employs 100 Americans.
Company X outsources 80 engineering jobs.
Company X starts seeing greater purchases from overseas.
Company X's CEO and investors get more money.
Company X's 80 unemployed ex-engineers don't benefit at all.
You don't have a right to an IT job. If you have one, great. Make sure you have skills that are so valuable that you won't be outsourced.
What the hell makes you think that you are so superior that you can develop and maintain skills that no overseas worker could develop? I'm betting that your skill set is nothing spectacular. I suggest that you practice saying "would you like fries with that" since it is likely to come in handy in your future career.
If you can't do that, then find another line of work, you lazy bastard.
Lazy? How the f*** is a 40-something year-old man supporting a family, paying a mortgage, making car payments, putting kids through college, etc., supposed to "find another line of work"? Is he supposed to sell his house, move into a dorm, and have his family live in an RV at Walmart while he attends the local college? Momma's boys like you make me sick. Grow up.
I don't want to benefit by causing prices to rise beyond free market levels and screwing my fellow citizens who have little to do with this.
What a bunch of bullshit. Wealthier people paying more for goods and services isn't screwing anyone.
Who said that software prices would be lowered by outsourcing? I've seen no sign that Microsoft's prices are dropping as a result of outsourcing thousands of jobs to India. All that outsourcing in IT means is that CEOs, CFOs, company presidents, vice presidents, and other executives take a larger share of the profits.
I refuse to support people who want to screw me.
Then stop buying everything, because someone is out to screw you every time you buy something. You better enjoy public transportation because every car dealer will try to screw you. The oil companies want to screw you. The auto insurance companies want to screw you. And the ironic, hypocritical thing is that you want to screw them, too. You are a self-serving capitalist bastard who thinks that you should get everything at the lowest possible price. You want to screw everyone else out of a decent living so that you can satisfy your greed.
I don't understand this notion that programming was better 'back in the day' just because people had to be super anal about their code. So what if the computer catches errors in the code for us? How is this is a BAD thing??? Contrary to your belief - it doesn't make people more careless in their programming because it still doesn't allow you to be sloppy in what really matters - the program design.
A computer will catch sytactical errors but will do nothing to identify logical errors or inefficient coding. By being "super anal" about their code, the programmers would often review their code multiple times prior to submitting it. Those reviews often resulted in catching errors, inefficiencies, and design inadequacies of the type that are now too often missed.
Yeah, programs may also be more bloated nowadays and not written as efficiently, but that has nothing to do with a shortened compiling time or lazier spoiled programmers. It has to do with the far greater complexity of what we try to program nowadays.
A complex program can also be an efficient program. There is no reason that complexity should be used as an excuse for bloated, inefficient, inelegant code. More importantly, people need to understand what level of complexity is necessary. A program that takes 50 numbers from a file and adds them up does not need to have a GUI front end.
Hmmm... which ISP lets the customer choose blacklists they use to block email?
None that I know of, but I've been looking into creating just such a service.
Heck, most of them don't even disclose the black lists used by them!
If they won't disclose, then go to someone who will. Or use an e-mail service provider that discloses what you need to know. ISPs need to sell their services and what filtering they use is key to determining if the service is the right one for you.
How can you decide if others want to receive email form Nigeria or not? If you are running a private server for yourself, then fine, do whatever, nobody cares.
If you use an ISP-provided server, then choose the ISP which provides filtering that best meets your needs. Some people would pay a premium to be able to receive e-mail from Nigeria while others would pay to block it. That's the beauty of the open market. If there's enough demand for a service, it will be offered.
This does more harm than good especially with colocation services. What happens is one person starts spamming off a machine at a colocation company and SPEWS and other lists will blacklist the whole block that colocation company is on.
What should happen is that the colocation company sues the pants off of the person(s) who got them blacklisted. They should also provide the information to their other customers so that they, too, could take the person(s) to court.
As it is now, the spammer gets a slap on the wrist and maybe lose their hosting. Let the spammers get sued for a few million dollars at a time when their breach of contract causes the colo facility to be blacklisted and the spam problem stops.
What he is getting at is not himself using the list, it is midling sized ISP's using these lists preventing him from sending legitimate e-mail to people who can't get that e-mail, because his ISP is blackholed even though the ISP has corrected the issue that got them on the blackhole list in the first place. Or that his ISP's ISP happens to be blackholed through no falt of his own ISP's policies or practices.
So complain to and about those ISPs rather than blaming the people who maintain a list. It's not the fault of SPEWS if some ISP chooses to block e-mail from IPs on their list. Obviously SPEWS is intended for use by entities that fit one or both of the following:
a. Don't mind blocking legitimate e-mail.
b. Feel that the collateral damage is a good thing since it makes it spam hosting so unattractive.
The problem with blacklists is that they decide that it is more important to thow the baby out with the bath watter than it is to see if the baby is clean.
Some blacklists try to be very specific to minimize collateral damage while others take the opposite approach. Those who attempt to maximize collateral damage are doing so in order to cause ISPs to be very vigilent against spam and to never write "pink contracts" with spammers. No one forces an ISP to use any blacklist, much less one which causes a lot of collateral damage, sio don't blame the people who maintain the lists.
This is capitalism. ISPs that use inappropriate blacklists will block a lot of legitimate e-mail and will lose customers. On the other hand, if the ISP lets through too much spam, some customers might choose to get another ISP.
-1 REDUNDANT IT IS NOT GETTING SLASHDOTTED
So we should wait until a site is completely overloaded before anyone tries to post the content? You do like DoS attacks, don't you?
I hate spam with a passion, but words cannot describe my pleasure in seeing these blacklists, especially SPEWS, shut down.
I will be equally happy when someone uses a DoS to keep you from posting comments with which I disagree. As you point out, a DoS is a valid way to suppress free speech.
They are pure evil in their methods,
How is it "evil" to publish a list of IP addresses that match a listing criteria? You don't want to block e-mail from Nigeria? Fine. Don't use nigeria.blackholes.us. You don't like SPEWS listing criteria? Don't use them. (I don't because I don't like their criteria).
and largely ineffective against spam while causing massive inconvenience for ISPs and legitimate users of the network.
Absolutely untrue. I use several of the blacklists for my domain and the quantity of spam blocked is tremendous with very little collateral damage. Without those blacklists, I would be seeing far more spam than legitimate e-mail every day.
They have made powerful enemies, including the large ISPs who happen to be the only ones that in a position to stem these attacks.
Yeah, the same large ISPs who, in many cases, were writing "pink contracts" for spammers and making money from spam. Those are the large ISPs that really hate the blacklists. And if it wasn't for the blacklists, more and more ISPs would be writing pink contracts.
Some people have commented that I am trying very hard to make aerospace like software, and that's the truth
Gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death", doesn't it?
That's a false dichotomy. If I choose not to buy medical insurance then I would have to rely on charity, either an organized one or just the kindness of doctors/nurses to treat me without pay at a free clinic or something. No one would be forcing you to pay.
I could just wait until I succumbed to some airborne bacterial infection from the innumerable rotting corpses of those who spent their money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, and beer rather than on retirement savings.
So you are against democracy then? Perhaps you would prefer a King to decide these things for us.
A democracy does not mean that each and every citizen votes on every piece of legislation.
In any case, you're paying anyway through medicare taxes. Your argument makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. You are paying taxes to cover your Medicare costs. You're contributing to the system. And if some guy who mopped floors for a living can't afford his medical care, then the Medicare fund means that we live like civilized human beings rather than leaving him to die like an injured pack animal.
And just who are you to decide what people should do with their own money.
I shouldn't. I wasn't elected to office to represent them.
You're not the one who had to mop floors all week late into the night for that money. Let them decide for themselves what's "worthy" and what isn't.
That's why we have elected representatives and why they have staffs. The average voter lacks the time, knowledge, and often the intelligence, to make an enlightened decision about what should and should not be funded. Is the guy "who had to mop floors all week late into the night" supposed to hire a staff of people and experts to advise him on everything from the value of eradication of non-native insect species to the need for funding a new fighter aircraft?
Under the Libertarian view of how the world should be, there would be a monetary incentive to withold funding and help. Those who chose to be self-serving, greedy bastards would, in effect, be paid to behave that way while the compassionate would end up funding everything. I much prefer a system where taxes are collected and where those who allocate them don't do so at a great personal expense.
Yes, let's kick blind people off the net!
That's unnecessary. Just hide their keyboards instead.
Agreed. How about some big tax cuts for the poor? While we're at it lets eliminate social security and medicare taxes, which are totally regressive.
No. Americans have proven that they will spend money that they don't have and I don't want to end up paying your medical bills because you decided that you'd rather have a new car every year than put money into a retirement account.
Maybe then the "working man" will actually have some money left over at the end of the week.
Given that the average U.S. "working man" has luxuries that working people in other countries can only dream of, it seems that they have money left over at the end of the week. I know that I do. My girlfriend does. My friends do.
To solve the NASA budget problems we could simply allow taxpayers to choose where their money goes based on categories. That way the most popular categories would get the most funds.
You don't fund government based on a popularity contest. You don't let taxpayers direct billions of tax dollars to saving baby harp seals while allowing a non-mammalian species to be wiped out -- just because the latter aren't cute, furry, and round. That's the kind of stupidity that would take place with extremist Libertarians in charge.
The value of a government program is not based on its popularity.
Landing men on Mars? Like the Moon, just more of the same. Been there, sort of, done that, sort of. That won't inspire anyone.
Actually, it will inspire many intelligent people. It's our best near-term chance for finding exobiological lifeforms or the fossils from primitive life. It's damned challenging and exciting.
Stop all use of NASA for military work? Well, it is the National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration. Besides, how much of NASA's work is military? Damn little, I'd guess.
So what does "AERONAUTICS" have to do with the military? That's like saying "Stop using HUD for military work? Well, it is Housing and URBAN Development." And your guess would be wrong. Many of the shuttle missions had military payloads and objectives.
Fund NASA adequately? NASA has spent the last few decades fucking over anyone who might challenge its stranglehold on space. They can't hack it? Well fuck 'em, and let someone better do the job.
What a load of shit. If you knew anything about orbital mechanics, you'd realize that the prime launch sites are near the equator, and I don't think that NASA has anything to do with countries at the equator. NASA comprises the best and the brightest and you should be proud to even be allowed to live in the same country with the likes of Gene Kranz, Chris Craft, and Neil Armstrong.
NASA lost the right stuff long ago. The Saturn V was a machine designed by a hero, and a total winner. The Space Shuttle was a machine designed by a committee that destroyed all the Saturn V plans, and has been a constant disappointment.
The Space Shuttle was a machine designed after an evil Republican President killed off the funding for Apollo and left NASA struggling for a politically expedient way to get back into space. To do it, they had to convince the brass that the Shuttle would be useful for military work -- a space truck if you will.
Shut NASA down. Let someone better do the work.
No, do what I said. Fund NASA, get rid of the military ties, set up a lofty goal, and make America proud again. And impeach that lying sack of shit Bush for a start.
1. Bush tried the inpiring goal bit with his announcement of a "Mission to Mars." Which lasted until he was presented with the price tag on the order of $450 billion dollars. The Mission to Mars did not survive the ongoing crusade of "Tax Freedom", not to mention the expense of the war of Iraq and new military adventures in a "War on Terrorism" which has no forseeable end.
I wasn't one of the minority who put Bush into office, so don't blame me for that. It's easy to say "Mission to Mars" and quite another to inspire a nation to strive for it. Bush couldn't inspire me to wipe ketchup off of my shirt. The tax cuts were grossly irresponsible. The war on Iraq was not justified. The "War on Terror" is just a power grab by right-wing law-and-order types like Ashcroft.
3.What's adequate? The big question is what are you willing to pay for and what do cut?
I'm willing to forego Bush's tax gifts to the rich. There's about a trillion dollars there -- before we start considering the interest on the debt.
The United States is awash in red ink,
Sort of argues against big tax cuts for the rich and spending billions on military agression and "nation building", doesn't it?
trade deficits and social and physical infrastructures which are going to pot, and we have severe energy and economic issues which continue to be deferred.
When Bush took office, we had a budget surplus. Instead of using that to pay down the debt and pay for much-needed infrastructure improvements, he made good on his promise of a tax bribe to be paid if he became President. He went around the country spouting the it's-your-money bull**** throughout the campaign. Well, it's not your money but what he's spending is your debt and will be your children's and their children's too.
But the Shuttle is a lot more versatile than a Saturn V. Just putting payload into orbit is not the whole point; even today we have unmanned rockets that will do that.
In what way is the shuttle so versatile? It just boosts payloads into orbit. What's so spectacular about it? The robot arm? You could orbit a vehicle with a robot arm using Saturn Vs or even Saturn 1Bs, depending on the payload weight. I've worked in the satellite business with engineers who were part of the Space Shuttle program. Trust me; it's a failure.
See here's the rub - the average person thinks "we have poverty, no cure for cancer, we need better schools, better paid teachers... (etc.)" and then NASA says they want to put a man on Mars
Many said the same thing about landing a man on the moon. There has to be more to life than just surviving. Without lofty goals, mankind will stagnate. You can't cure poverty by shutting down NASA and putting tens of thousands of well-compensated people out of work. Nor would that cure cancer or result in better pay for teachers. The money would probably just end up going to replenish our supply of cruise missiles or be given to Halliburton to rebuild oil wells in Iraq.
You want teachers to be paid a decent wage? Then don't vote for politicians who cut taxes since taxes are what pays for schools and teachers.
all your answers are wrong....
No, all of my answers are right and yours is a great addition to them.
your first step is to get all the asshats out of washington DC that are intent on killing NASA...
GWB is one of them.... most of cingress is the other place to start....
That would be a great first step, but whoever replaces the "asshats" should seriously consider the steps that I've outlined in order to resuscitate the ailing agency.
I hazzard a guess that the long-term benefit to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan of the recent US interventions will be much larger than the benefit to them of the Space Shuttle.
You've been listening to too much propaganda. The U.S. has attacked numerous countries over the years and failed to establish humane democracies in most of them.
In 1953, we helped overthrow Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the brutal Shah of Iran -- who was later ousted by Islamic fundamentalists.
In 1954, a CIA-organized coup toppled the nationalist reformist government of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in favor of a military government that suppressed opposition until the return of democracy in 1986. Civil war effectively continued until 1996.
In 1960, Congo African nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba, elected in June 1960 as the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was assassinated following a US/Belgian-organized coup designed to remove the Soviet-backed government. Succession by Mobutu Sese Seko ushered in 32 years of dictatorial and corrupt rule.
In 1973, the CIA secretly funded a coup against Chilean Marxist President Salvador Allende which brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power for 17 years. General Pinochet later faced charges for human rights abuses committed during his years in power, but the Chilean Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling the Pinochet unfit to stand trial.
We don't have a great record.
NASA is no longer the pride of the nation as it was in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. We no longer have a goal as we did after JFK's challenge to land a man on the moon. The budget at NASA has been cut over and over so that they now have far less purchasing power than they did decades ago -- despite the commitment to build the International Space Station. Starting with Reagan, NASA has increasingly been viewed as a way to orbit and service military payloads.
Want NASA to prosper?
1. Provide an inspiring goal. Choose one that average people can relate to. Landing men on Mars would be a good one.
2. Stop all use of NASA for military work. Pass legislation prohibiting NASA from military missions. It's demoralizing and tends to many of those who are excited by the exploration of space.
3. Fund NASA adequately. We've spent far more in IRAQ and Afghanistan than NASA has seen in recent years. Wouldn't you be more proud of your country if it put a man on Mars rather than bombing a third-world country?
4. Scrap the Space Shuttle. It's 1980's technology that was disappointing in its performance the day it was first launched. Even using NASA's own very low cost-per-flight figures in the 1980s, the cost to put a pound of payload into orbit on the shuttle was $6,000. That compares to an inflation-adjusted figure of only $3,800 for the Saturn V expendable launch vehicles that carried men to the moon.
NASA needs The Right Stuff in order to be something more than just another government bureaucracy.