> I work in IT and I don't mind making a "real" wage vs. a "fantasy" wage
Oh, look. You ain't gonna say no to a fantasy wage, eh?
The trick is this though:
if the grunt work is going to be outsourced, you need to concentrate on the stuff that India can't deliver. So you're looking at very deep stuff - inside knowledge helps, regional amity also helps.
It depends on the particular niche of IT you're in. for me, I'm in deep support. What I can offer over a call centre in India is a rapport with customers in my own region and tight specialisation in my particular product, as well as the ability to rush out and be on-site in a matter of minutes. Corporate customers are always going to want local support just for this reason - you're within reach.
Of course, that's my current segment of the industry. Programming-wise, outsourcing loses on distance from the designers/managers/architects. As with all business transactions, it's cost/benefit that you need to think of. You have to offer more benefits than the other side, and make it a big enough benefit to outweigh the cost saving.
So, to the subject of the article - if CS is dropping, while outsource-heavy countries are rising in CS graduates, well, what're you gonna do? It's like you're giving in before the real attack has happened.
Then again, if you've already got a CS degree, lower subs to new degrees can only be a good thing. Less terriers nipping at your heels. Lack of supply will inevitably drive the price up.
Stop a CS student today, benefit in your paypacket tomorrow!
Or, you could be sane, and realize that the military is going to kill people no matter what, and it might as well use safe, reliable, accurate, well-built systems to ensure that it kills the right people and no more people than necessary. In that sense, Linux is a good thing.
Holy crap.... my head asplode... I can't tell if that's a sensible argument (a rarity in itself) or just some odd devil's advocate game. Either way it's insightful...
OK, so I know, the price of freedom is that bad stuff happens as well as good. But isn't anyone else uncomfortable with the US Ministry of Violent Death using your code to, essentially, kill people?
Doctors and Nurses and other inter-gener child games in my childhood had no subtext. the subtext in cowboys/indians or brits/germans or whatever had an implication that the other guys were first of all the 'evil, bad ones' and secondly they were dead when you shouted "bang!"
OK, maybe I'm reading into it too much, but dead. Dead.
double-replying may be bad form, but I just picked up on this:
Put them in front of a film showing real voilence I think you will find they won't like it.
Real violence, sure. Chicks getting slammed on meathooks in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is worlds away from, say, John Wayne shooting a bad guy bloodlessly, but you'll agree they're both violent, right?
Which one is morally more correct? the one that shows violent death as a nasty, gory, bloody event that no-one would want to be anywhere near, or the one that depicts death as a clean, simple act with no consequences?
The depictions are poles apart, but I'm torn between real violence (Mr. Orange bleeding to death, Saving Private Ryan) which are realistic and difficult to watch even as an adult, and the relatively bloodless yet easily dismissed violence you see in many so-called non-violent movies which rate lower certs.
Does the kid see the real violence and therefore realise how fucking awful it is, or see the sanitised violence and think it's not so bad? or is it the other way round? Does all the blood and guts desensitize a perons, or does it make them sit there and think "holy shit'?
Ethical problems exist in such a study, of course, but I think maybe studying this from a nuanced point of view may be a good idea.
This is pretty important to me, as I'm not really sure whether my kids should see one or the other. Given that I'd be bringing them up in part, I'd hope they'd get my point of view on the issues, and if I showed them, say, Reservoir Dogs, they'd figure violence is just scary.
With regards to the general discussion, my belief is that any culture that accepts violence and looks down on love and sex is utterly sick.
agreed, but I don't think you can ignore violence. It happens, and so has to be put in context, just as everything else in life does. Ignoring an issue is arguably worse than denying it. Arguably. You need to know about concepts to put them into context, or even to reject them. As an illustration, take creationism. Most creationists don't actually know anything relevant about biology, and those who do generally pick and choose the bits they like and throw away the rest. draw an analogy.
a lot of kids do play "sex" games with each other long before puberty
Doctors and Nurses, right?
yeah, sure. it's furtive but innocent. Kids at that age have no damn clue though, and luckily for parents there seems to be a window between the 'kid' games and the later genuine interest phase, which is what parents need to spot (and will spot), and take as a cue to actually start talking to their kids about responsible sex.
Now how to actually go about that, hell, in our current society it's difficult to see quite how to deal with it. I'm for openness with my kids, when they make it to that point. I can't expect my kids to make correct choices without information. But of course we're going hellishly off-topic. maybe this is one for Plastic?
LAUNCELOT: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril. GALAHAD: I don't think I was. LAUNCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril. GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril. LAUNCELOT: No, it's too perilous. GALAHAD: Look, [something] as much peril as I can. LAUNCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on! GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril? LAUNCELOT: No, it's unhealthy. GALAHAD: Bet you're gay! LAUNCELOT: No, I'm not.
well, from the prequels, I had inferred that Vader didn't actually know she was pregnant, so presumably, unless it's explicitly put forth in the plot (duh), then he wouldn't be 'beating his pregnant wife'
OK, admittedly, if this scene exists, it's still wife beating, which sucks. but your post seems to imply the pregnancy thing as the abhorent bit...?
I did hear that the initial name was a ploy to catch merchandise bootleggers, the plan being that the name gets sneakily released, the bootleggers go off and print up a shitload of gear, then the name's changed at short notice
I think you may be able to find the occasional "Revenge Of The Jedi" T-Shirt around the place.
In my experience, kids are generally just grossed out by sex.
Oh crap that sounds REALLY bad. Let me rephrase.
Kids in the playground will play cowboys and indians (or the politically correct modern equivalent of a battle scene) until the cows come home. Put them in front of a film with a sex scene, however, and they'll generally feel uncomfortable at best or start making retching noises at worst.
I'm sure as everyone reading this as a kid knows, the opposite sex was a difficult subject best ignored. Girls tend to think of boys as 'yucky' and boys generally only get on well with 'tomboys'. with exceptions of course.
hell, I've landed a hot potato here, haven't I?
Anyway, parent poster:
I'd rather my kids watch violence than sex..
They'd prefer it too. Guaranteed. They won't get intrigued by sex until until their hormones go insane, at which time you should be doing some parenting rather than just dragging them to movies and hoping they pick up the basics. But they love violence at any age, mostly.
When young, the distinction takes care of itself. when they hit puberty though, you've had 12-15 years of experince with them to get an idea how to deal with it. One thing though, once they hit the point of interest, that's no time to carry on relying on the kids' own 'yuck' reflex. At that point, they need proper, practical information which they can rely on and believe in, otherwise there's a whole new can of worms about to spill all over the family floor.
don't forget, as with all things, this post deals in generalities. specific instances require specific action - hence attentive parenting.
It's 'free rein', not 'free reign'. It's a horse metaphor. Not personal, I've just hit my fucked grammar threshold.
right. here we go.
Why do you pay taxes?
you have some good points, viewed in a tight context. however you really need to step back and look at the big picture for a second*
We can't even completely disarm the inmates of maximum security prisons effectively
Not my problem. we do pretty well here. Learn. But if the (US) government department concerned with this shit is still subject to partisan politics, what are you gonna do?
would still have violent criminals in the world, and they would still prey on those weaker and less well-armed then themselves.
you've played strawman on the 'all guns gone' aYeah, but... hang on. I was going to say "have you ever heard of the phrase 'lowering the bar'?". not necessarily relevant, however, because the US has to recover from below the line.
Gun amnesties get legal owners to give up, but criminals retain, right? But, if I'm correct here, and I may not be, the Republican Party and the NRA have campaigned to remove background checks on gun purchases. So Crims can just wait a week or two and get a new gun, or even use a fake ID. But the background checks are gone. So Joe Murderer can legally buy a gun, or illegally purchase one off someone who can, and suddenly the law abiding guy who turned in his WW2 Luger is dead,
hmmm...
I think the ideal trick here would be to not restrict the sale of guns, but restrict maniacs like Chuck Heston filling your heads with bullshit about 'home defence'. Wake the fuck up, please.
Slashdot Mirror
... here
There is no such thing as "unlimited" in Australian Technology.
You're with the wrong ISP. To plug the one I'm with:
ISP.net.au
I just upgraded to the 1.5/256 unlimited plan, and I use quite a lot of the bandwidth on.... err... research. Yeah, research. *cough*
Creator?
OK, mod me troll, but surely C++ is by definition an 'extension' of C?
So, creator is a big word. Or perhaps the lack of context is the problem? Or maybe I'm just a language nazi?
mod me pedant....
> I work in IT and I don't mind making a "real" wage vs. a "fantasy" wage
Oh, look. You ain't gonna say no to a fantasy wage, eh?
The trick is this though:
if the grunt work is going to be outsourced, you need to concentrate on the stuff that India can't deliver. So you're looking at very deep stuff - inside knowledge helps, regional amity also helps.
It depends on the particular niche of IT you're in. for me, I'm in deep support. What I can offer over a call centre in India is a rapport with customers in my own region and tight specialisation in my particular product, as well as the ability to rush out and be on-site in a matter of minutes. Corporate customers are always going to want local support just for this reason - you're within reach.
Of course, that's my current segment of the industry. Programming-wise, outsourcing loses on distance from the designers/managers/architects. As with all business transactions, it's cost/benefit that you need to think of. You have to offer more benefits than the other side, and make it a big enough benefit to outweigh the cost saving.
So, to the subject of the article - if CS is dropping, while outsource-heavy countries are rising in CS graduates, well, what're you gonna do? It's like you're giving in before the real attack has happened.
Then again, if you've already got a CS degree, lower subs to new degrees can only be a good thing. Less terriers nipping at your heels. Lack of supply will inevitably drive the price up.
Stop a CS student today, benefit in your paypacket tomorrow!
Bush has aids?
possibly. He certainly doesn't believe in safe sex
Long black hair, pasty white skin and interchangeable noses!
here already
It's called redundancy
Redundant humans? that's an unusual concept...
Or, you could be sane, and realize that the military is going to kill people no matter what, and it might as well use safe, reliable, accurate, well-built systems to ensure that it kills the right people and no more people than necessary. In that sense, Linux is a good thing.
Holy crap.... my head asplode... I can't tell if that's a sensible argument (a rarity in itself) or just some odd devil's advocate game. Either way it's insightful...
OK, I give up. too late here in the outside world.
recycled electrons
Arpanet never directly killed anyone, that I know of. The post talks of 'weapons systems', i.e. people being fucking killed.
We ain't logging in to the World Wide Howitzer
... Now killing people is Open Source?
OK, so I know, the price of freedom is that bad stuff happens as well as good. But isn't anyone else uncomfortable with the US Ministry of Violent Death using your code to, essentially, kill people?
shall I take the bait?
yes..
no...
yes...
Doctors and Nurses and other inter-gener child games in my childhood had no subtext. the subtext in cowboys/indians or brits/germans or whatever had an implication that the other guys were first of all the 'evil, bad ones' and secondly they were dead when you shouted "bang!"
OK, maybe I'm reading into it too much, but dead. Dead.
double-replying may be bad form, but I just picked up on this:
Put them in front of a film showing real voilence I think you will find they won't like it.
Real violence, sure. Chicks getting slammed on meathooks in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is worlds away from, say, John Wayne shooting a bad guy bloodlessly, but you'll agree they're both violent, right?
Which one is morally more correct? the one that shows violent death as a nasty, gory, bloody event that no-one would want to be anywhere near, or the one that depicts death as a clean, simple act with no consequences?
The depictions are poles apart, but I'm torn between real violence (Mr. Orange bleeding to death, Saving Private Ryan) which are realistic and difficult to watch even as an adult, and the relatively bloodless yet easily dismissed violence you see in many so-called non-violent movies which rate lower certs.
Does the kid see the real violence and therefore realise how fucking awful it is, or see the sanitised violence and think it's not so bad? or is it the other way round? Does all the blood and guts desensitize a perons, or does it make them sit there and think "holy shit'?
Ethical problems exist in such a study, of course, but I think maybe studying this from a nuanced point of view may be a good idea.
This is pretty important to me, as I'm not really sure whether my kids should see one or the other. Given that I'd be bringing them up in part, I'd hope they'd get my point of view on the issues, and if I showed them, say, Reservoir Dogs, they'd figure violence is just scary.
With regards to the general discussion, my belief is that any culture that accepts violence and looks down on love and sex is utterly sick.
agreed, but I don't think you can ignore violence. It happens, and so has to be put in context, just as everything else in life does. Ignoring an issue is arguably worse than denying it. Arguably. You need to know about concepts to put them into context, or even to reject them. As an illustration, take creationism. Most creationists don't actually know anything relevant about biology, and those who do generally pick and choose the bits they like and throw away the rest. draw an analogy.
Like in "Eraserhead".
100 points to you sir
a lot of kids do play "sex" games with each other long before puberty
Doctors and Nurses, right?
yeah, sure. it's furtive but innocent. Kids at that age have no damn clue though, and luckily for parents there seems to be a window between the 'kid' games and the later genuine interest phase, which is what parents need to spot (and will spot), and take as a cue to actually start talking to their kids about responsible sex.
Now how to actually go about that, hell, in our current society it's difficult to see quite how to deal with it. I'm for openness with my kids, when they make it to that point. I can't expect my kids to make correct choices without information. But of course we're going hellishly off-topic. maybe this is one for Plastic?
They are also decked out in l33t colours for the
gamers.
forget firewallhack. I think the colours are the entire strategy.
zappa? shit? stage?
LAUNCELOT: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril.
GALAHAD: I don't think I was.
LAUNCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
LAUNCELOT: No, it's too perilous.
GALAHAD: Look, [something] as much peril as I can.
LAUNCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?
LAUNCELOT: No, it's unhealthy.
GALAHAD: Bet you're gay!
LAUNCELOT: No, I'm not.
well, from the prequels, I had inferred that Vader didn't actually know she was pregnant, so presumably, unless it's explicitly put forth in the plot (duh), then he wouldn't be 'beating his pregnant wife'
OK, admittedly, if this scene exists, it's still wife beating, which sucks. but your post seems to imply the pregnancy thing as the abhorent bit...?
Illegal?! Damn.
no, technically illegal. Like pot in Amsterdam (and many other areas). Decriminalised.
I did hear that the initial name was a ploy to catch merchandise bootleggers, the plan being that the name gets sneakily released, the bootleggers go off and print up a shitload of gear, then the name's changed at short notice
I think you may be able to find the occasional "Revenge Of The Jedi" T-Shirt around the place.
Unless I'm just remembering an urban myth here
So you're saying PG stands for Puerile Garbage?
You must be new here. Welcome to Earth.
In my experience, kids are generally just grossed out by sex.
Oh crap that sounds REALLY bad. Let me rephrase.
Kids in the playground will play cowboys and indians (or the politically correct modern equivalent of a battle scene) until the cows come home. Put them in front of a film with a sex scene, however, and they'll generally feel uncomfortable at best or start making retching noises at worst.
I'm sure as everyone reading this as a kid knows, the opposite sex was a difficult subject best ignored. Girls tend to think of boys as 'yucky' and boys generally only get on well with 'tomboys'. with exceptions of course.
hell, I've landed a hot potato here, haven't I?
Anyway, parent poster:
I'd rather my kids watch violence than sex..
They'd prefer it too. Guaranteed. They won't get intrigued by sex until until their hormones go insane, at which time you should be doing some parenting rather than just dragging them to movies and hoping they pick up the basics. But they love violence at any age, mostly.
When young, the distinction takes care of itself. when they hit puberty though, you've had 12-15 years of experince with them to get an idea how to deal with it. One thing though, once they hit the point of interest, that's no time to carry on relying on the kids' own 'yuck' reflex. At that point, they need proper, practical information which they can rely on and believe in, otherwise there's a whole new can of worms about to spill all over the family floor.
don't forget, as with all things, this post deals in generalities. specific instances require specific action - hence attentive parenting.
very late reply
step one
more skilled at physical violence have free reign
It's 'free rein', not 'free reign'. It's a horse metaphor. Not personal, I've just hit my fucked grammar threshold.
right. here we go.
Why do you pay taxes?
you have some good points, viewed in a tight context. however you really need to step back and look at the big picture for a second*
We can't even completely disarm the inmates of maximum security prisons effectively
Not my problem. we do pretty well here. Learn. But if the (US) government department concerned with this shit is still subject to partisan politics, what are you gonna do?
would still have violent criminals in the world, and they would still prey on those weaker and less well-armed then themselves.
you've played strawman on the 'all guns gone' aYeah, but... hang on. I was going to say "have you ever heard of the phrase 'lowering the bar'?". not necessarily relevant, however, because the US has to recover from below the line.
Gun amnesties get legal owners to give up, but criminals retain, right? But, if I'm correct here, and I may not be, the Republican Party and the NRA have campaigned to remove background checks on gun purchases. So Crims can just wait a week or two and get a new gun, or even use a fake ID. But the background checks are gone. So Joe Murderer can legally buy a gun, or illegally purchase one off someone who can, and suddenly the law abiding guy who turned in his WW2 Luger is dead,
hmmm...
I think the ideal trick here would be to not restrict the sale of guns, but restrict maniacs like Chuck Heston filling your heads with bullshit about 'home defence'. Wake the fuck up, please.
* fuck. I am now cliche man.