Would this still happen if money was obsolete? Is the allowance of making Revenue while ignoring Fraud, and Theft now acceptable public behavior?
Yes it would. The stories spread far beyond the place where they might have generated revenue, because they "prove" the "truth" of what their readers want to believe.
There's a profit motive, but it's not primarily a monetary one.
Around the year 2000, Indian developers could expect about 1 lakh/year income for each year of experience they held, with a significant number of said developers having 5 or fewer years of experience - except, of course, when being shopped as H1-Bs to US employers wanting 10 years experience in Oracle 11 in the year 2000.
That's roughly one eighth the pay rate for an equivalently-experienced US developer. Under $10,000 a year in most cases.
Try living as a professional in the USA on under $10K/year, even 17 years ago.
So how did they do it?
Simple. In India, home air conditioning is a luxury, not the essential that Southern locales in the USA consider it to be. Firstly, because the equipment itself is no cheaper over there than in the US, secondly, because residential electrical service back then was extremely unreliable.
And not just air conditioning. Refrigerators were the "in" thing for the up-and-coming. Look at an Indian cookbook sometime. Most everything in it is either something you'd eat immediately or something that doesn't perish if not refrigerated. Ghee, for example, removes the components of butter than go rancid.
Electricity was so unreliable that the tech employers would maintain their own private power plants.
Another thing that tech companies over there would do is run transportation for their employees. This actually was done in my town back in the 1960s, but not any more. Indian tech employees are far less likely to own a car.
Then there's food. Indian diets are much less meat-heavy and frequently vegetarian. Rice and dal cost a lot less than hamburger and steak.
And don't forget social nets. The Indian social net is you die in the streets. You can have a free college education, but you have to pay for all the schooling that gets you there yourself.
Last, but not least, it's a veritable Libertarian paradise as far as regulations go. Not that everything's unregulated, but for a fee, it often can be. No pesky pollution regulations, little oversight to make sure that the food isn't contaminated, toxic fumes wafting from the nearby Union Carbide plant, stuff like that.
India has advanced considerably in the last 20 years, but it's still a lot cheaper to live there than it is in the USA. As long as you're willing to make some concessions.
Actually, since Indian developers aren't stupid, whatever you may think of their work as coolie labor, they've pushed up salaries considerably. Still much less than US levels, but significantly. So their side of the coin has been "why should we be paid so little when other countries pay so much? Should we as an industry raise our salary expectations?"
From a past job: Peons like worked very long hours to meet a milestone. Result: VP : 100k + bonus Director: 50k bonus Peons: hotdog lunch in the parking lot, one hotdog per person only please!
Peons: Project completed. We're liquidating the team. Exit interviews in Conference Room 3.
I'm not sure I've ever been hired through HR, and that includes a company whose HR department had standing orders to hire ANYONE who had worked at one of my previous places of employment.
I don't have a social network, but I have enough of a local reputation that occasionally it will get me an inside connection who'll instruct HR on how to hire me, but that's not the same thing as being able to present my credentials directly to HR and get hired. The inside people change the HR requirements to match me, HR doesn't match me to the original requirements.
If I'd managed to be able to get jobs by just talking about myself, I'd be an overpriced consultant, not hired on staff.
I doubt that. I have a record for good documentation and clean code even when it's a project where I'm the sole person on it. It's purely self-defense as much as anything else. When something breaks/needs updating, I don't have to drag all the details out of my foggy senile head.
You can communicate effectively with co-workers without having any extra-employment communications with them at all. I once worked for a company where there were dozens of developers in different departments and at the end of the day, they all went home and had nothing to do with each other until the next workday (of course, the fact that they even had an "end of the day" shows my age).
This bunch was a little extreme, perhaps. They didn't have so much as a bowling league. And eventually, they did start having some extra-work interactions - once they'd grown up to about 1000 employees or so.
But the point is, communications skills aren't the same thing as having a network.
I've seen HR reject because I had experience with similar products from other vendors. I've seen HR reject because my experience was with a newer verson of a product.
HR is brain-dead when it comes to understanding technical qualifications and abilities. And they don't care. There's always someone willing to lie and claim to be a perfect fit despite the fact that HR routinely publishes laundry lists which are statistically unlikely to have anyone on the planet be a point-for-point match.
It's a self-explanatory term. The person who runs the show and has the highest control over it.
I don't think I ever heard the term until about 2 years ago at most. It's certainly not self-explanatory, because I've been meaning to look it up for a week now.
You can get the info straight from the Census Bureau, government, private, and academic analyses, etc., etc., etc. More citations than you can shake a stick at.
This isn't an "everybody knows", or "it sounds right, so it must be true", or "I can find a news site that supports my opinion". It's not a "smoking causes cancer" or "too much greenhouse gas causes AGW". It's cold hard numbers collected straight from the principals under US Law.
And this isn't Wikipedia. This is a forum where if you spout off a wrong statement, plenty of people are more than willing to spout a counter-citation, and for that matter, even if you're right.
So don't let other people do your thinking for you. Look it up yourself!
It's not just poverty. People in Orlando wouldn't be constantly having their dogs eaten by bears if they weren't developing into the Ocala National Forest. Florida is a post-automobile state and high-rise residences are the exception, not the rule. Pair that with the American Dream of owning your own detached home and you end up crowding the critters. You end up with alligators in your garage and bears in the garbage bins.
Some critters respond to encroachment by going extinct. Others respond by trying to eat you.
Actually, I think it's probably about the time they realize that they could afford another kid or they could afford a big-screen TV. IMHO a big-screen TV is the ultimate birth-control device.
Leaving aside the usual mindless cant about "government-subsidized litters" and other duckspeak assertions that are either no longer true or never were, there was actually a reverse baby-boom during the Reagan years to the extent that there are something like 3 million fewer people in the 19-40 age bracket right now than there was a decade ago or something along those lines.
In fact, if Trump builds his wall, the current US population growth rate would suffer the same fate as countries such as Japan, Italy and Russia, where the population is shrinking at a rate that they find alarming. Only the immigrants have kept the overall US population growing.
Actually, a lot of religions DON'T promote fucking like rabbits. The Medieval Church, for one. You were simply supposed to go without UNLESS you were specifically attempting to conceive children. In fact, in some cases, even things like the rhythm method were condemned.
Fortunately back then, peasants needed lots of strong sons to work the farm and nobles have always been better at promoting "morality" than actually practicing it.
Sometimes that lake used to be a glacier. I believe that was supposed to be the case of a very large, very sudden flood event in the US Northwest thousands of years ago.
Archaeologists have found the remnants of ancient Indian villages out in what is now the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Back in the tail end of the ice age, water levels were far lower.
For that matter, a change of sea level of just one foot in the Florida Keys would drastically change the map.
We may see a gradual rise in sea level, but not everything is a straight line. We could see a series of incursions and withdrawals, with each incursion going higher than the last.
Also, not all of the destructive flooding may be oceans rising. Hurricane Matthew, was, thankfully, not as destructive in terms of wind as had been feared (a mere 20 miles further West would have been different, though). However, like many storm systems, the sheer amount of rain caused far more damage inland in North Carolina than the winds or storm surge, as places above sea level flooded.
I understand that one of those "we-make-up-the-news-and-you-believe-us" sites has accused the US Government of "redefining" what a hurricane is "in order to promote the Global Warming Scam, er Scare", but in actuality, weather people started talking about making a distinction between Category 5 windstorms and Category 5 rainstorms several years ago. Sometimes the less windy storms can do more damage.
Irony. One of the major arguments of the deniers isn't so much the science (since they "know" the truth anyway and no biased studies by NASA et. al. can prove any differently). No, the big argument is purely corporate: that it would "cost too much".
Well, doing nothing can cost too. And like many parties, the bill may not arrive until after the fun is over.
Someone, I'm sure, will profit from climate change. The question is who?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the kind of false syllogism that results in man being defined as a bird without feathers.
From TFA:
These panels reportedly can generate 4 to 8 watts from people walking on them, depending on the pressure of the step
Harnessing the power of American Obesity. Take THAT you scrawny furriners!
Would this still happen if money was obsolete? Is the allowance of making Revenue while ignoring Fraud, and Theft now acceptable public behavior?
Yes it would. The stories spread far beyond the place where they might have generated revenue, because they "prove" the "truth" of what their readers want to believe.
There's a profit motive, but it's not primarily a monetary one.
Around the year 2000, Indian developers could expect about 1 lakh/year income for each year of experience they held, with a significant number of said developers having 5 or fewer years of experience - except, of course, when being shopped as H1-Bs to US employers wanting 10 years experience in Oracle 11 in the year 2000.
That's roughly one eighth the pay rate for an equivalently-experienced US developer. Under $10,000 a year in most cases.
Try living as a professional in the USA on under $10K/year, even 17 years ago.
So how did they do it?
Simple. In India, home air conditioning is a luxury, not the essential that Southern locales in the USA consider it to be. Firstly, because the equipment itself is no cheaper over there than in the US, secondly, because residential electrical service back then was extremely unreliable.
And not just air conditioning. Refrigerators were the "in" thing for the up-and-coming. Look at an Indian cookbook sometime. Most everything in it is either something you'd eat immediately or something that doesn't perish if not refrigerated. Ghee, for example, removes the components of butter than go rancid.
Electricity was so unreliable that the tech employers would maintain their own private power plants.
Another thing that tech companies over there would do is run transportation for their employees. This actually was done in my town back in the 1960s, but not any more. Indian tech employees are far less likely to own a car.
Then there's food. Indian diets are much less meat-heavy and frequently vegetarian. Rice and dal cost a lot less than hamburger and steak.
And don't forget social nets. The Indian social net is you die in the streets. You can have a free college education, but you have to pay for all the schooling that gets you there yourself.
Last, but not least, it's a veritable Libertarian paradise as far as regulations go. Not that everything's unregulated, but for a fee, it often can be. No pesky pollution regulations, little oversight to make sure that the food isn't contaminated, toxic fumes wafting from the nearby Union Carbide plant, stuff like that.
India has advanced considerably in the last 20 years, but it's still a lot cheaper to live there than it is in the USA. As long as you're willing to make some concessions.
Actually, since Indian developers aren't stupid, whatever you may think of their work as coolie labor, they've pushed up salaries considerably. Still much less than US levels, but significantly. So their side of the coin has been "why should we be paid so little when other countries pay so much? Should we as an industry raise our salary expectations?"
A differential patch means that the offending code is only downloaded if you don't have a current copy of it.
It does nothing to keep the offending code off the system - in fact, it's more likely to re-install it if it was removed.
From a past job:
Peons like worked very long hours to meet a milestone.
Result:
VP : 100k + bonus
Director: 50k bonus
Peons: hotdog lunch in the parking lot, one hotdog per person only please!
Peons: Project completed. We're liquidating the team. Exit interviews in Conference Room 3.
I'm not sure I've ever been hired through HR, and that includes a company whose HR department had standing orders to hire ANYONE who had worked at one of my previous places of employment.
I don't have a social network, but I have enough of a local reputation that occasionally it will get me an inside connection who'll instruct HR on how to hire me, but that's not the same thing as being able to present my credentials directly to HR and get hired. The inside people change the HR requirements to match me, HR doesn't match me to the original requirements.
If I'd managed to be able to get jobs by just talking about myself, I'd be an overpriced consultant, not hired on staff.
I doubt that. I have a record for good documentation and clean code even when it's a project where I'm the sole person on it. It's purely self-defense as much as anything else. When something breaks/needs updating, I don't have to drag all the details out of my foggy senile head.
You can communicate effectively with co-workers without having any extra-employment communications with them at all. I once worked for a company where there were dozens of developers in different departments and at the end of the day, they all went home and had nothing to do with each other until the next workday (of course, the fact that they even had an "end of the day" shows my age).
This bunch was a little extreme, perhaps. They didn't have so much as a bowling league. And eventually, they did start having some extra-work interactions - once they'd grown up to about 1000 employees or so.
But the point is, communications skills aren't the same thing as having a network.
I've seen HR reject because I had experience with similar products from other vendors. I've seen HR reject because my experience was with a newer verson of a product.
HR is brain-dead when it comes to understanding technical qualifications and abilities. And they don't care. There's always someone willing to lie and claim to be a perfect fit despite the fact that HR routinely publishes laundry lists which are statistically unlikely to have anyone on the planet be a point-for-point match.
It's a self-explanatory term. The person who runs the show and has the highest control over it.
I don't think I ever heard the term until about 2 years ago at most. It's certainly not self-explanatory, because I've been meaning to look it up for a week now.
TOS was Tokenism Trek. Get over it.
Because by then Sergio Leone won't be around to film there!
Oceanfront property is overrated. Hurricanes keep knocking down the house and washing out the roads.
Rabbit stew, on the other hand...
Why bother? It's all futile.
Marvin? Is that you?
I just want you to know that I have a throbbing pain in the diodes all down my left side.
But no one cares.
Back in the late Victorian times, people took post-mortem family pictures of everyone.
Not to argue the child mortality rate, but the two are only tangentially related.
Sure, but has he found a use for more than 64K of RAM?
Oh hell. I could use almost 10 times that much!
What rock do you live under?
http://www.google.com/
You can get the info straight from the Census Bureau, government, private, and academic analyses, etc., etc., etc. More citations than you can shake a stick at.
This isn't an "everybody knows", or "it sounds right, so it must be true", or "I can find a news site that supports my opinion". It's not a "smoking causes cancer" or "too much greenhouse gas causes AGW". It's cold hard numbers collected straight from the principals under US Law.
And this isn't Wikipedia. This is a forum where if you spout off a wrong statement, plenty of people are more than willing to spout a counter-citation, and for that matter, even if you're right.
So don't let other people do your thinking for you. Look it up yourself!
It's not just poverty. People in Orlando wouldn't be constantly having their dogs eaten by bears if they weren't developing into the Ocala National Forest. Florida is a post-automobile state and high-rise residences are the exception, not the rule. Pair that with the American Dream of owning your own detached home and you end up crowding the critters. You end up with alligators in your garage and bears in the garbage bins.
Some critters respond to encroachment by going extinct. Others respond by trying to eat you.
Actually, I think it's probably about the time they realize that they could afford another kid or they could afford a big-screen TV. IMHO a big-screen TV is the ultimate birth-control device.
Leaving aside the usual mindless cant about "government-subsidized litters" and other duckspeak assertions that are either no longer true or never were, there was actually a reverse baby-boom during the Reagan years to the extent that there are something like 3 million fewer people in the 19-40 age bracket right now than there was a decade ago or something along those lines.
In fact, if Trump builds his wall, the current US population growth rate would suffer the same fate as countries such as Japan, Italy and Russia, where the population is shrinking at a rate that they find alarming. Only the immigrants have kept the overall US population growing.
Actually, a lot of religions DON'T promote fucking like rabbits. The Medieval Church, for one. You were simply supposed to go without UNLESS you were specifically attempting to conceive children. In fact, in some cases, even things like the rhythm method were condemned.
Fortunately back then, peasants needed lots of strong sons to work the farm and nobles have always been better at promoting "morality" than actually practicing it.
Oh? It might put some outsourced people back to work and paying taxes again.
Of all the things we piss away trillions of dollars on, I can think of worse.
Sometimes that lake used to be a glacier. I believe that was supposed to be the case of a very large, very sudden flood event in the US Northwest thousands of years ago.
Archaeologists have found the remnants of ancient Indian villages out in what is now the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Back in the tail end of the ice age, water levels were far lower.
For that matter, a change of sea level of just one foot in the Florida Keys would drastically change the map.
We may see a gradual rise in sea level, but not everything is a straight line. We could see a series of incursions and withdrawals, with each incursion going higher than the last.
Also, not all of the destructive flooding may be oceans rising. Hurricane Matthew, was, thankfully, not as destructive in terms of wind as had been feared (a mere 20 miles further West would have been different, though). However, like many storm systems, the sheer amount of rain caused far more damage inland in North Carolina than the winds or storm surge, as places above sea level flooded.
I understand that one of those "we-make-up-the-news-and-you-believe-us" sites has accused the US Government of "redefining" what a hurricane is "in order to promote the Global Warming Scam, er Scare", but in actuality, weather people started talking about making a distinction between Category 5 windstorms and Category 5 rainstorms several years ago. Sometimes the less windy storms can do more damage.
Irony. One of the major arguments of the deniers isn't so much the science (since they "know" the truth anyway and no biased studies by NASA et. al. can prove any differently). No, the big argument is purely corporate: that it would "cost too much".
Well, doing nothing can cost too. And like many parties, the bill may not arrive until after the fun is over.
Someone, I'm sure, will profit from climate change. The question is who?
The closest description I'll accept for that swill is 'beer-like beverage',
Something almost, but not completely, unlike beer?