At the time of independence, both India and Pakistan had identical economic situations. If anything, Pakistan had an advantage - India had to tackle a wide range of diversity as well as a much larger area and population.
The need for change has to come from within. India chose to be a secular democracy and made an effort to better their infrastructure, to educate their population and improve the economy.
Pakistan on the other hand decided that religion and military were more important and they got what they deserved.
Despite being surrounded by two hostile neighbors (Islamic dictatorship Pakistan on the North and Communist dictatoriship China on the East), India still has done well. She's still a democracy and in a nation of more than a billion people, majority of whom are Hindus, India has a Muslim rocket scientist President (who happens to be a vegetarian!), a Sikh economist professor as a Prime Minister and a caucasian Roman Catholic female Ruling Party President -- and her economy is doing extremely well.
Pakistan on the other hand has had a hard time even maintaining democracy for any amount of time, and has a military general dictator and is an Islamic fundamentalist nation.
It's not like the US had great resources when they started out. In fact, Japan did not have any great of an economy after WW-2, which was about the same time that Pakistan got its independence.
To quote Neal Stephenson, gold (and money) is the corpse of value. Real value is in people, in their hearts, heads and their hands.
So, while it might be nice to compare Japan and Pakistan, the need for change has to come from within. Pakistan has made a choice of putting religion about science, of putting military conquests above infrastructure and putting the people and their betterment below everything else.
India made an effort and deserves what she's getting. It's always a choice that people make.
Isn't it ironic how complex and capable our Gods become in relation to how complex and capable we become?
God was first a voice in the sky causing thunder and rain, and then he became a spirit from the planets, and when we knew what the planets were, only to become a spirit in the stars. And now, we find out that he's not in the sky, he's not in the planets nor the stars - and so, he definitely is beyond our comprehension, beyond our Universe.
The problem is that the "God" for many religions (e.g. Christianity) were created keeping in mind the science and advancement of that age. Unfortunately for the religion, science has moved on.
Ergo, those "tall claims" do not hold water anymore.
Science is not against religion - it just raises the standard that religion has to live up to.
And religion, like most man-made things, is man-made. And men would rather fight than try and live up to a higher standard. The only folks who would rather not fight tend to be those that are capable of rational thought.
Unfortunately, there does not tend to be a very large percentage of those that adhere to fundamentalist religious tenets who practice rational thought.
End result? Well, the end result is that religion considers science to be its enemy because it raises the bar. It makes you think, rather than blindly follow. And we all know how much our fellow humans love thinking.
So, science is considered to be an affront to science. But mind you - it is quite possible for having religious faith even if you are scientific, just that your worldview would be a lot more overarching. But most people are not capable of this, and to them, science is evil because it challenges their beliefs.
And while science does not care about religion, it gets dragged into a fight, simply because by its very existence, science is a threat to those that would rather blindly take word-for-word from a 2,000 year old book that's been forcefully edited by zealots over the ages -- rather than think for themselves. As a result, these folks threaten science and what it stands for, and science has no choice but to fight for.
Religion is based on faith, science if based on fact. Unfortunately, as science grows, it discovers new facts that challenge what religion claims based on faith. The very act of discovery is a threat to religion and its claims.
So, that is why religion hates science. By its very existence, it threatens to shatter the blind security and ignorance of its believers, forcing them to think rather than blindly follow. And we all really do know how much our fellow humans admire and relish thinking for themselves.
In 2005, Papert, together with Nicholas Negroponte and Alan Kay launched the One Laptop Per Child initiative to put constructionist learning into practice in the developing world. The aim is to provide $100 laptops to every child in the developing world.
And before you go saying that I edited it now, note the date of the last edit - the last edit was on November 2005. It's quite obvious you're an idiot, though.
But hey, if you can't understand what it is, it must be BS right?
This is not designed for that purpose - this is primarily designed as an educational tool to help kids learn, as a constructionist tool.
That it can also be used for other purposes is secondary.
I'm not a seer who can tell you what this can bring to the table, but how about giving it a chance and seeing what it does?
But then again, this place is full of arm-chair critics who would much rather criticize a tool without knowing what it's for rather than do something proactive.
As another poster remarked, MIT would be better off not doing anything, and instead, they're getting shit for doing something. And people wonder what's wrong with the world.
*shakes head*
A hint: either let others do what they can and help them, or do something yourself. Not doing either and putting down those that are, is a pointless exercise, and does nothing more than inflate your ego.
Religion has been existing for a very, very long time.
Jews killing Christians, Christians killing the heathens, the Crusades, Catholism vs. Protestants, Hinduism vs. Islam, Islamic fundamentalism are all just within the recent past. VERY recent past, in the *entire* human history.
If you take into account tonnes of other religious conquests and killings, you will most definitely find that the total would hit a billion quite easily.
A lot of times, race and religion have often gone hand in hand (e.g. Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion). Heck, even Hitler extended his rationalizations towards a religious doctrine.
You'd be surprised - you should probably do a little more historical reading, before you go abusing someone.
Actually, a lot of people on Slashdot do not seem to have a clue about this stuff.
The thing is, more than for developing countries, MIT developed this for kids. MIT is a big proponent of constructionst learning. In fact, the very concept originated at MIT from Seymour Papert.
Constructionism says that when you play with things, and make new things, you learn. Lego blocks are an example. Lego Mindstorms were in fact the brain-child of Papert. Other tools, such as Programmable Bricks/Crickets and Flow Blocks etc. are other tools that came out of the Media Lab. There are several other folks such as Mitch Resnick and the like who believe in similar methodologies.
All of them have one thing in common -- the using of computers in one form or the other. So, while the tools themselves are nice, they are not really a universal tool.
What is, in fact, a universal tool, is a computer. So, Papert, along with Negroponte and Alan Kay (who's a big HCI dude), decided that the best way to bring constructionism is to give kids a powerful tool to play around with.
And hence the $100 computer was born. But then, most folks here do not seem to have a idea clue, and babble on and on.
Very nice analogy - thank you. A lot of people do not realize that computers are primarily designed to be tools. They are not the end, they are a means.
I hope you would not mind if I used your analogy elsewhere?
On a serious note, he's Greek in origin - and Negropont (or Euboea) is one of the bigger islands around the Greek archipelago. It was called that by the Venetians after the bridge which connected them with mainland Greece.
I think the term, "negro" is common around that area - there is also a place in the Balkans called Montenegro.
Yeah, I noticed that myself - I just wanted to provide an example of powerful processing power. And since I use a dual athlon, I used that as an example.
Have you seen MIT Media Lab's work towards helping kids? They've tonnes of toys and other material that are aimed at learning, primarily constructionist in nature.
It has been well proven that constructionist learning goes a long way towards building analytical and engineering related skills - while it may not be the only thing towards that end, it definitely helps.
Now, for a constructionist learning environment, you need tools that they can experiment with. What better way to do this than computers? However, a $2000 computer for a kid is quite obviously not a good idea, so MIT went ahead and developed a cheaper alternative.
Do you know why they can be networked? Because one of the fundamental needs behind education is to have some means of collaboration and team work. Do you know why they have tonnes of USB ports? So that they can be extended upon - a lot of MIT's toys (such as Flow Blocks) are toys that interface with the computers. It's important for folks to be able to add on to these computers, and build new things - whether it's for a farmer in a developing nation using it for weather prediction or whether it's a kid who's adding stuff for class.
Simply because you are ignorant and cannot comprehend the need for this does not mean it's useless. But go ahead, though - am sure you know a whole lot more about educational technology than all those fine folks who've spent years doing this stuff for a living.
Good lord, is there always an idiot who has to come up with these comments on all articles related to technology?
Seriously - stop and think for a moment. Technology has definite uses. And it's what's keeping us the edge over one another.
Even if you are a farmer, being able to predict the rains, know about prices, fertilizers and the like helps. In the past (late 70s/80s, I think), in some parts of the south, India had a programme to help fishermen be informed about storms and the like by having a special radio channel that broadcast such information. They gave all the fishermen free transistor radios and told them to use it - and guess what? Several lives were saved, productivity increased and people in general were happy. And some started using their system for other purposes, like listening to alternate channels - because it's enough if there is one fisherman who knew what was going on. A whole system was developed within the community to this end, and everything improved as a whole - people were coordinating the whole process, resulting in much better productivity. It had benefits that the original creators did not even see.
There are always more pressing needs, and the only way you are going to take care of those needs is by making them self sufficient. This is a tool to that end.
You cannot forsee or predict how these tools will be used. But the only way to find out is to develop the tool and see how far it goes. Sure, it might be an absolute failure - but you would have tried, and you would have learnt.
Better than not doing anything, IMHO.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
on
Merck's Deleted Data
·
· Score: 1
Quite obviously, when you are going to be selling an entire computer at the price of their processors and motherboards, they're going to be pissed.
Sure, I could use a dual athlon if I'm running the latest game or doing some serious number crunching - but for a user in an developing country with limited funds, the choice is definitely beneficial.
Today's computers have a lot of crap that most users don't use - but they have them anyway. The idea of a computer is to be a tool - give those people a simple, straightforward system that a user can truly use in doing their job, and you'd have gone far.
Of course, given the choice, companies like Intel would sell a $500 processor to a poor man who'd have no use for it. But that doesn't mean the idea itself is flawed. If anything, it's a nice way to help bring technology to the needy, and give them a chance.
I've seen the use of some of these technologies (MIT's Michael Best does some work on e-development -- they've some really nice work) - and they truly are helpful. Just because it doesn't help Intel's bottom penny doesn't mean it's useless. Given time, I'm fairly certain that it would be proven so.
The last time I checked, Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin weren't particularly extroverted. And I would say that they were quite nerdy, too - wouldn't you?
No, Slashdot is loaded with people who just practice arm-chair-socialism. They would not want to do a thing, but yet would argue a point without knowing half a thing about it. Neither are they folks who are proactive. For the most part, they would rather whine on a forum than do something. The real nerd of your description is too busy working at a national lab doing cool things to be bothered about this stuff. The ones that frequent Slashdot are the self-described kind who are neither the real nerdy, smart ones and nor do they have the ability to do something proactive.
And you're mistaken if you think that business is all about selling services. That is a very, very tiny fraction of what businesses do. Taking an idea and seeing it to fruition and adoption isn't an easy task.
There is a difference between the kind of Trotskyist view that the average Slashbot talks about and the kind of "socialist" causes that you talk about. However, what's worse is that most of these folks do not have a clue on how to even go about running a business, let alone how the system, or capitalism works.
And it's called expertise - I do not go to a plumber if I have a question on medicine, I go to a doctor. Similarly, the opinions on topics like business and eocnomics by those without any economic background or business expertise is quite worthless. That applies across all domains - take this article for instance. Most of the posts here are about India being crappy, dirt poor or about how jobs are being outsourced, or something equally cliched and knee-jerk. Not one of the highly modded post talked about the existing infrastructure investment being made in the telecom sector in India, or about how this boom in software is a result of India's engineering market boom. Neither do they talk about how India's currency being stable is one of the reasons for investment - instead, the OP makes a blatantly stupid comment on the instability of the region, when the very reason for investment is economic stability. I mean, sure, we can see business and economic expertise right there.
When there is no one left to buy your services at a price that you can live on, you'll become a socialist too, of the worst kind--and trust me, I've seen this happen to people. But by then, it will be too late.
It's a free market. Things will even out, eventually. The way to stay ahead of the game is to discover new areas to innovate in. Software is gone. Kaput. There are other players in there. Discover newer areas and be the first to innovate, and stop whining.
What will kill you is not a few outsourced jobs, but the lack of innovation and the lack of enterprise. You'd be too busy whining to do anything productive.
(and I'm not referring to you in particular, that was a generic you, directed at folks in general)
I was talking about opportunities and openings, not comparisons of wages.
Compared to other parts of the world, the US has a lot more opportunity - you ought to spend time in other parts of the world to realize this.
And having spent time elsewhere, I can assure you that most of those who complain are either not good enough or are not trying hard enough. I've not seen a place like the US where talent has truly been rewarded, and given an opportunity to mature and blossom. And that is a heartfelt statement!:)
No, you presumed that I was arguing against the counter claim. I was not. I was just curious as to how the parent poster assumed so, hence my question. Like you said, I was interested in exploring the logic chain that led them to the conclusion.
Rather than try proving the point, almost every other question has been directed at me, asking _me_ to prove the opposite.
If I claim there are giant turtles hiding in my ear, it's my job to prove it.
Quite obviously, it's not boolean - neither one is absolute. However, it did amuse me when the parent poster made an absolute assertion of the counter claim ("All sharks are purple! I insist!"). I was just curious what would cause someone to be so absolute about something, when the world's best economists have troubles along those lines.
Is it not possible to disagree with a position without being disagreeable?
Quite so, quite so. My apologies if I came across as otherwise - but that wasn't my intention. You must realize that rather than provide the substantiation that I'd asked for, comments here have been directed at an (assumed) side that I'm on, simply because I asked for proof. Quite obviously, that has put me on the defensive, and annoyed me more than a little.
Slashdot Mirror
At the time of independence, both India and Pakistan had identical economic situations. If anything, Pakistan had an advantage - India had to tackle a wide range of diversity as well as a much larger area and population.
The need for change has to come from within. India chose to be a secular democracy and made an effort to better their infrastructure, to educate their population and improve the economy.
Pakistan on the other hand decided that religion and military were more important and they got what they deserved.
Despite being surrounded by two hostile neighbors (Islamic dictatorship Pakistan on the North and Communist dictatoriship China on the East), India still has done well. She's still a democracy and in a nation of more than a billion people, majority of whom are Hindus, India has a Muslim rocket scientist President (who happens to be a vegetarian!), a Sikh economist professor as a Prime Minister and a caucasian Roman Catholic female Ruling Party President -- and her economy is doing extremely well.
Pakistan on the other hand has had a hard time even maintaining democracy for any amount of time, and has a military general dictator and is an Islamic fundamentalist nation.
It's not like the US had great resources when they started out. In fact, Japan did not have any great of an economy after WW-2, which was about the same time that Pakistan got its independence.
To quote Neal Stephenson, gold (and money) is the corpse of value. Real value is in people, in their hearts, heads and their hands.
So, while it might be nice to compare Japan and Pakistan, the need for change has to come from within. Pakistan has made a choice of putting religion about science, of putting military conquests above infrastructure and putting the people and their betterment below everything else.
India made an effort and deserves what she's getting. It's always a choice that people make.
Even there, they lag behind.
:-|
You make it sound like it's a bad thing.
Hey, you'll see Pakistan made terrorists and jihadis! ;)
Isn't it ironic how complex and capable our Gods become in relation to how complex and capable we become?
God was first a voice in the sky causing thunder and rain, and then he became a spirit from the planets, and when we knew what the planets were, only to become a spirit in the stars. And now, we find out that he's not in the sky, he's not in the planets nor the stars - and so, he definitely is beyond our comprehension, beyond our Universe.
The problem is that the "God" for many religions (e.g. Christianity) were created keeping in mind the science and advancement of that age. Unfortunately for the religion, science has moved on.
Ergo, those "tall claims" do not hold water anymore.
Science is not against religion - it just raises the standard that religion has to live up to.
And religion, like most man-made things, is man-made. And men would rather fight than try and live up to a higher standard. The only folks who would rather not fight tend to be those that are capable of rational thought.
Unfortunately, there does not tend to be a very large percentage of those that adhere to fundamentalist religious tenets who practice rational thought.
End result? Well, the end result is that religion considers science to be its enemy because it raises the bar. It makes you think, rather than blindly follow. And we all know how much our fellow humans love thinking.
So, science is considered to be an affront to science. But mind you - it is quite possible for having religious faith even if you are scientific, just that your worldview would be a lot more overarching. But most people are not capable of this, and to them, science is evil because it challenges their beliefs.
And while science does not care about religion, it gets dragged into a fight, simply because by its very existence, science is a threat to those that would rather blindly take word-for-word from a 2,000 year old book that's been forcefully edited by zealots over the ages -- rather than think for themselves. As a result, these folks threaten science and what it stands for, and science has no choice but to fight for.
Religion is based on faith, science if based on fact. Unfortunately, as science grows, it discovers new facts that challenge what religion claims based on faith. The very act of discovery is a threat to religion and its claims.
So, that is why religion hates science. By its very existence, it threatens to shatter the blind security and ignorance of its believers, forcing them to think rather than blindly follow. And we all really do know how much our fellow humans admire and relish thinking for themselves.
Of course we do, don't we?
From Wikipedia:
In 2005, Papert, together with Nicholas Negroponte and Alan Kay launched the One Laptop Per Child initiative to put constructionist learning into practice in the developing world. The aim is to provide $100 laptops to every child in the developing world.
And before you go saying that I edited it now, note the date of the last edit - the last edit was on November 2005. It's quite obvious you're an idiot, though.
But hey, if you can't understand what it is, it must be BS right?
This is not designed for that purpose - this is primarily designed as an educational tool to help kids learn, as a constructionist tool.
That it can also be used for other purposes is secondary.
I'm not a seer who can tell you what this can bring to the table, but how about giving it a chance and seeing what it does?
But then again, this place is full of arm-chair critics who would much rather criticize a tool without knowing what it's for rather than do something proactive.
As another poster remarked, MIT would be better off not doing anything, and instead, they're getting shit for doing something. And people wonder what's wrong with the world.
*shakes head*
A hint: either let others do what they can and help them, or do something yourself. Not doing either and putting down those that are, is a pointless exercise, and does nothing more than inflate your ego.
Actually, constructionist learning is a more overarching term - if you know what I mean, when compared to hands-on or learning-by-doing.
It's all that, and more - basically, it evolved from constructivist epistemology in philosphy, which educationalists adopted to learning as a constructivist theory of learning.
So, an application of constructivism became constructionist - former is a theory and a model, latter is the approach.
So, constructionism is also a lot bigger in its use and intent (i.e. includes other domains, such as cognitive sciences, AI etc.).
Religion has been existing for a very, very long time.
Jews killing Christians, Christians killing the heathens, the Crusades, Catholism vs. Protestants, Hinduism vs. Islam, Islamic fundamentalism are all just within the recent past. VERY recent past, in the *entire* human history.
If you take into account tonnes of other religious conquests and killings, you will most definitely find that the total would hit a billion quite easily.
A lot of times, race and religion have often gone hand in hand (e.g. Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion). Heck, even Hitler extended his rationalizations towards a religious doctrine.
You'd be surprised - you should probably do a little more historical reading, before you go abusing someone.
That, sir, was a most awesome comment, indeed!
Hats off to you.
Actually, a lot of people on Slashdot do not seem to have a clue about this stuff.
The thing is, more than for developing countries, MIT developed this for kids. MIT is a big proponent of constructionst learning. In fact, the very concept originated at MIT from Seymour Papert.
Constructionism says that when you play with things, and make new things, you learn. Lego blocks are an example. Lego Mindstorms were in fact the brain-child of Papert. Other tools, such as Programmable Bricks/Crickets and Flow Blocks etc. are other tools that came out of the Media Lab. There are several other folks such as Mitch Resnick and the like who believe in similar methodologies.
All of them have one thing in common -- the using of computers in one form or the other. So, while the tools themselves are nice, they are not really a universal tool.
What is, in fact, a universal tool, is a computer. So, Papert, along with Negroponte and Alan Kay (who's a big HCI dude), decided that the best way to bring constructionism is to give kids a powerful tool to play around with.
And hence the $100 computer was born. But then, most folks here do not seem to have a idea clue, and babble on and on.
Very nice analogy - thank you. A lot of people do not realize that computers are primarily designed to be tools. They are not the end, they are a means.
I hope you would not mind if I used your analogy elsewhere?
:-)
On a serious note, he's Greek in origin - and Negropont (or Euboea) is one of the bigger islands around the Greek archipelago. It was called that by the Venetians after the bridge which connected them with mainland Greece.
I think the term, "negro" is common around that area - there is also a place in the Balkans called Montenegro.
Yeah, I noticed that myself - I just wanted to provide an example of powerful processing power. And since I use a dual athlon, I used that as an example.
Have you seen MIT Media Lab's work towards helping kids? They've tonnes of toys and other material that are aimed at learning, primarily constructionist in nature.
It has been well proven that constructionist learning goes a long way towards building analytical and engineering related skills - while it may not be the only thing towards that end, it definitely helps.
Now, for a constructionist learning environment, you need tools that they can experiment with. What better way to do this than computers? However, a $2000 computer for a kid is quite obviously not a good idea, so MIT went ahead and developed a cheaper alternative.
Do you know why they can be networked? Because one of the fundamental needs behind education is to have some means of collaboration and team work. Do you know why they have tonnes of USB ports? So that they can be extended upon - a lot of MIT's toys (such as Flow Blocks) are toys that interface with the computers. It's important for folks to be able to add on to these computers, and build new things - whether it's for a farmer in a developing nation using it for weather prediction or whether it's a kid who's adding stuff for class.
Simply because you are ignorant and cannot comprehend the need for this does not mean it's useless. But go ahead, though - am sure you know a whole lot more about educational technology than all those fine folks who've spent years doing this stuff for a living.
Good lord, is there always an idiot who has to come up with these comments on all articles related to technology?
Seriously - stop and think for a moment. Technology has definite uses. And it's what's keeping us the edge over one another.
Even if you are a farmer, being able to predict the rains, know about prices, fertilizers and the like helps. In the past (late 70s/80s, I think), in some parts of the south, India had a programme to help fishermen be informed about storms and the like by having a special radio channel that broadcast such information. They gave all the fishermen free transistor radios and told them to use it - and guess what? Several lives were saved, productivity increased and people in general were happy. And some started using their system for other purposes, like listening to alternate channels - because it's enough if there is one fisherman who knew what was going on. A whole system was developed within the community to this end, and everything improved as a whole - people were coordinating the whole process, resulting in much better productivity. It had benefits that the original creators did not even see.
There are always more pressing needs, and the only way you are going to take care of those needs is by making them self sufficient. This is a tool to that end.
You cannot forsee or predict how these tools will be used. But the only way to find out is to develop the tool and see how far it goes. Sure, it might be an absolute failure - but you would have tried, and you would have learnt.
Better than not doing anything, IMHO.
That's probably because Intel's having a heart attack by all those $100s that they're gonna lose.
Of course, Intel is going to say that.
Quite obviously, when you are going to be selling an entire computer at the price of their processors and motherboards, they're going to be pissed.
Sure, I could use a dual athlon if I'm running the latest game or doing some serious number crunching - but for a user in an developing country with limited funds, the choice is definitely beneficial.
Today's computers have a lot of crap that most users don't use - but they have them anyway. The idea of a computer is to be a tool - give those people a simple, straightforward system that a user can truly use in doing their job, and you'd have gone far.
Of course, given the choice, companies like Intel would sell a $500 processor to a poor man who'd have no use for it. But that doesn't mean the idea itself is flawed. If anything, it's a nice way to help bring technology to the needy, and give them a chance.
I've seen the use of some of these technologies (MIT's Michael Best does some work on e-development -- they've some really nice work) - and they truly are helpful. Just because it doesn't help Intel's bottom penny doesn't mean it's useless. Given time, I'm fairly certain that it would be proven so.
Actually, I should rephrase that - it has been a single point, just not a single steady point. It's a point that varies in its position.
The general area where the point might be is known, but the point itself keeps changing its position.
The magnetic North Pole has never been a single point.
It has always been a general area, and at any given point of time, the *actual* North Pole would be somewhere in that area.
So, given that, this is not really surprising.
Are you implying that outsourcing is evil? Or that, investment elsewhere in the world other than the US is evil?
The last time I checked, Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin weren't particularly extroverted. And I would say that they were quite nerdy, too - wouldn't you?
No, Slashdot is loaded with people who just practice arm-chair-socialism. They would not want to do a thing, but yet would argue a point without knowing half a thing about it. Neither are they folks who are proactive. For the most part, they would rather whine on a forum than do something. The real nerd of your description is too busy working at a national lab doing cool things to be bothered about this stuff. The ones that frequent Slashdot are the self-described kind who are neither the real nerdy, smart ones and nor do they have the ability to do something proactive.
And you're mistaken if you think that business is all about selling services. That is a very, very tiny fraction of what businesses do. Taking an idea and seeing it to fruition and adoption isn't an easy task.
There is a difference between the kind of Trotskyist view that the average Slashbot talks about and the kind of "socialist" causes that you talk about. However, what's worse is that most of these folks do not have a clue on how to even go about running a business, let alone how the system, or capitalism works.
And it's called expertise - I do not go to a plumber if I have a question on medicine, I go to a doctor. Similarly, the opinions on topics like business and eocnomics by those without any economic background or business expertise is quite worthless. That applies across all domains - take this article for instance. Most of the posts here are about India being crappy, dirt poor or about how jobs are being outsourced, or something equally cliched and knee-jerk. Not one of the highly modded post talked about the existing infrastructure investment being made in the telecom sector in India, or about how this boom in software is a result of India's engineering market boom. Neither do they talk about how India's currency being stable is one of the reasons for investment - instead, the OP makes a blatantly stupid comment on the instability of the region, when the very reason for investment is economic stability. I mean, sure, we can see business and economic expertise right there.
When there is no one left to buy your services at a price that you can live on, you'll become a socialist too, of the worst kind--and trust me, I've seen this happen to people. But by then, it will be too late.
It's a free market. Things will even out, eventually. The way to stay ahead of the game is to discover new areas to innovate in. Software is gone. Kaput. There are other players in there. Discover newer areas and be the first to innovate, and stop whining.
What will kill you is not a few outsourced jobs, but the lack of innovation and the lack of enterprise. You'd be too busy whining to do anything productive.
(and I'm not referring to you in particular, that was a generic you, directed at folks in general)
I was talking about opportunities and openings, not comparisons of wages.
:)
Compared to other parts of the world, the US has a lot more opportunity - you ought to spend time in other parts of the world to realize this.
And having spent time elsewhere, I can assure you that most of those who complain are either not good enough or are not trying hard enough. I've not seen a place like the US where talent has truly been rewarded, and given an opportunity to mature and blossom. And that is a heartfelt statement!
The only bone I had to pick with your comment was on the unstable part. I pointed that out, quite explicitly I believe.
The rest of the commentary was on the other related nonsense that folks were spewing forth on this article.
Within a cunt of nuclear war? Wow, that's an exaggeration if I ever saw one.
India tested nuclear weapons, Pakistan tested nuclear weapons.
Both were in a dick-waving contest - that hardly constitutes a threat of "nuclear war".
You really should try looking up some reliable news sources.
No, you presumed that I was arguing against the counter claim. I was not. I was just curious as to how the parent poster assumed so, hence my question. Like you said, I was interested in exploring the logic chain that led them to the conclusion.
Rather than try proving the point, almost every other question has been directed at me, asking _me_ to prove the opposite.
If I claim there are giant turtles hiding in my ear, it's my job to prove it.
Quite obviously, it's not boolean - neither one is absolute. However, it did amuse me when the parent poster made an absolute assertion of the counter claim ("All sharks are purple! I insist!"). I was just curious what would cause someone to be so absolute about something, when the world's best economists have troubles along those lines.
Is it not possible to disagree with a position without being disagreeable?
Quite so, quite so. My apologies if I came across as otherwise - but that wasn't my intention. You must realize that rather than provide the substantiation that I'd asked for, comments here have been directed at an (assumed) side that I'm on, simply because I asked for proof. Quite obviously, that has put me on the defensive, and annoyed me more than a little.