I find the opposite is true. Whenever I see an SUV I'm reminded of http://cartalk.cars.com/Click and Clack calling an SUV a "Chevy Compensator".
SUVs are wicked stupid. This is one case where I'm glad to see the price of gas going up. How long do you think the soccer moms will keep them once it costs $100 twice a week to fill the thing with gas?
The key words being "in theory". Unfortunately if one company starts not caring about how they treat their employees, and realizes cost savings as a result, then their competitors will start doing the same in order to be "competitive". This seems to be happening across all industries at the moment.
That is true. The threat of termination will, however, prevent employees from posting information regarding their employer. Even if you can post anonymously (I'm not familiar enough with how wiki works) more than likely the comments can and will be traced back to you.
Let's not forget that the only vote we really have these days, the only vote that matters, is the one we make with our wallets. Politicians are bought and sold; the two viable parties are so much different sides of the same coin that it's hard to tell them apart these days. Grassroots movements to save the spotted whales in Alaska only serve to amuse politicians and galvanize opposition. Big business cares about one thing: money. If enough people stop buying from companies that treat their employees poorly, and it's clear that that is the reason, then the company is faced with either improving how they treat their people or going out of business.
Of course what will probably happen is they'll pay lip service to eliminating sweatshop labor/Chinese imports/wage slavery et cetera, without actually changing their policies. Then they'll fire/sue/pay off/slander anyone who tries to point that out.
This implies that said companies cared about their reputation as an employer. They have the jobs; if you want to keep your house/car/life you have to work for them. Try and set up your own business and they'll crush you.
It's not hypocrisy. It's giving us a taste of our own medicine.
The difference is that the French, Germans, and Russians didn't demand that we go along with their wishes; we were the ones saying "you're either for us or against us" to some of our most valuable allies.
Again, their people, their choice. They have every right to vote any way they want. We don't have any right to say if it was the right choice or not. The fact that we do is proof of American arrogance.
They certainly could have, and if they had they would be in charge. But they didn't.
Why does someone have to be "in charge"? Why shouldn't everyone that's affected by the Internet have some say (through their elected representatives) in how it's administrated?
The US also sells antibiotics and other medicine outside the country for less than they sell it here. This forces the people living here to sibsidize other countries' drug habit.
What exactly do these two points have to do with each other? Nobody's forcing the drug companies to do anything. They sell drugs at lower costs in other countries because their health care system isn't a complete fucking mess like ours is. Guess what? They still make money selling them more cheaply.
And I'd hardly put anti-AIDS drugs or chemotherapy supplies in the same category as addictive street drugs. That's quite possibly the most offensive thing I've seen all day.
We've got all the money. We should help the less fortunate to improve their quality of life.
I concede that it wasn't a very good analogy. My point remains, however: an international asset like the Internet should be run by an international organization. The fact that we funded the development of the technology through taxpayer money doesn't change that. The Internet as it exists today has evolved far beyond the intentions of its inventers; to say that the US government "owns" it has extremely disturbing possibilities.
it should maintain it's current position as the adminstrator of the Internet's root zone for DNS.
The Internet is no longer soley an American phenomenon. An international asset should be run by an international organization. Why is this so distasteful to so many people?
Like I said before, there are smart people in other countries as well. Some are even smarter than we are. Lots of them, actually.
France, Germany and Russia arrogantly snubbed us, that's what.
So if a country doesn't agree with us, then they're arrogant? Seems to me they're soverign countries with their own military forces, and it's up to them to decide when to put their people in harm's way. I wouldn't call that arrogant, I'd call that a disagreement among allies.
The vote to take military action against Iraq passed by a large majority in the UN.
US foreign policy isn't exactly lockstep with the UN, either. Those fossils in the UN still believe in the Geneva convention, for goodness' sake.
Remember, it would have been a virtually *global* effort if not for the arrogance of three countries.
So French, German and Russian soldiers would be getting blown up by car bombs along with ours. That really doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose, and we handled the actual fighting part of the conflict pretty well. Now comes the tricky part; setting up a puppet government without being obvious about it.
And you people call us arrogant.
You've made the argument (through your comment) for American arrogance far better than I ever could.
I'm not drawing a distinction between the government and private industry here. Both the Internet and the modern automobile were mostly developed in the US.
There is significant international presence among the root servers, but the contract administrator will continue to be the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a component of the US Department of Commerce.
Can you explain how that translates to "The US doesn't have control over the asset?" Because IMHO it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the contracting agencies have to report to a component of the US government, then the US government has control.
They may have a "vested interest", but that doesn't mean they have the same capability.
It doesn't mean they don't, either.
Further, there is a lot of political angling going on for such control - a heck of a lot more political motivated than any US political motivations for keeping control centralized here.
OK, this is just hilarious. You're saying that there's less political angling in this particular wing of the US government than there is among the organizations trying to assert more international control? Obviously you've never worked in (or closely with) an organization run by the state. EVERYTHING is politically motivated, from decisions regarding international policy to who gets what office in the building.
This political angling for expansion of other nations' or international bodies' control over internet infrastructure has a potential for grave consequences, not to mention the possibilities for miscommunication, misunderstandings, and misapplication in such a transition.
This is just specious justification for maintaining US control. The real reasons are xenophobia and misplaced patriotism. (Not from you specifically, but I bet that's why the White House wants to prevent the transfer.)
Secondly, nobody can say for sure how well ICANN will manage this asset.
Touché. That is *exactly* the issue.
But it cuts both ways. Past history of competent administration is no guarantee of future performance. It's possible that someone's brother-in-law's golf buddy's accountant's cousin would be appointed to a position in the DoC that had influence over policy decisions, and run the thing straight into the ground. The end result is the same as if the transfer went badly, or the new administrators were morons. Either way, it could happen. IMHO one is equally likely as the other. Therefore there's no additional risk in the transfer.
And it might not (and probably wouldn't, given the fact that there would be a lot more political game-playing and posturing, a la ITER, going on, whereas the current system's mission is only stable, secure, and accountable management of DNS.)
See my previous paragraph. Same arguments apply.
The whole world ALREADY IS benefitting from the internet in spades, and has been for years! If you can explain to me why an international organization NEEDS to run the root servers in order for the international community to "benefit" from the internet, I'm all ears.
You answered your own question. The internet is an international entity, so it should be run by an international organization. The whole concept of the Internet arises from shared resources (eg thousands of sysadmins all over the world connecting and directing traffic in and out of their systems), so control over what arguably is the most critical component of the Internet should be shared among the governments that represent those sysadmins. The fact that the US proportionally has more of the infrastructure and more users than any other country doesn't mean we should have exclusive say over what contractors manage the root servers.
And as for.com/.net/.org TLDs? Well, that's just a side effect of us having *created the whole damned thing*, besides which, anyone on the globe is allowed to get domains in those TLDs.
I'm reminded of a recent quote from Ann Coulter regarding Mexico and Canada. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was that
Also, it might help to remember that the US, along with its vast military-industrial complex, the Department of Defense and DARPA's investments into pie-in-the-sky technologies, and our massive academic research establishment are what you and the entire fucking world HAS TO THANK for the "internet"
So if something is developed in the US using US resources, and becomes an indispensable international asset because of its quality and/or usefulness, then the US government should retain control over said asset? That's like saying since the automobile as we know it today (both the technology and its accessibility to the average person) came into existence as a result of American effort, then the US government should be able to retain control over Ford's production lines? (I know, it's kind of a flawed metaphor, since Hitler is largely to thank for creating the concept of the "volkswagen", literally "the people's car".)
Would it really kill us to at least allow other countries to have some input on how these assets are managed?
I think that, given the geometrically increasing importance of the internet to the US and its economy, you're damned straight we have a vested interest in making sure critical internet infrastructure is properly administered
And turning control over this asset over to an organization where other countries have input into that control (along with the US) would definitely impact our economy negatively? There's smart people in other countries too. It's not just in the US where a growing chunk of the economy is reliant on the Internet's operation; other countries have a "vested interest" in keeping it up and running as well.
Even if ICANN meets the DoC-set guidelines, there are no guarantees that its capability and contingencies are better than, or even meet, the capability that already exists in the prevailing arrangement. Why ratchet back from predictability and reliability, and a known set of variables, frankly, to "please" the international community?
First of all, it's pretty ignorant of you to assume that an organization that has an international scope definitely can't manage an asset as well as the US government. Secondly, nobody can say for sure how well ICANN will manage this asset. it might do a BETTER job than the existing arrangement, since it has a larger talent pool to draw from. Thirdly, the US is part of the international community, as much as Bush II would like to deny that fact.
It was a US creation, the result of a lot of investment and research dollars from the exact entities that no one else would have supported.
Who's to say that a similar creation couldn't have come from Japan? Or Germany? Or China, even? The concept of a network of networks (aka the Internet) isn't exclusively an American concept. And why shouldn't the whole world benefit from something developed on US soil? Maybe we should deny the world antibiotics, as well.
I'm starting to get fed up with the anti-US dick waving on slashdot, really...
I'm starting to get fed up with being in favor of good international relations being associated with being unamerican.
I'd like to apologize too. We're not all xenophobic bigoted redneck jerks.
It really seems like instead of trying to get along with other countries (to promote good things like peace, trade, and knowledge) the USA won't be happy until every man, woman, and child outside the borders hates us to some degree.
You have a valid point, but how much of that information is freely available "piecemeal" from other town sources, as TFD (decision) alludes to? Does releasing this information really create hazards or vulnerabilities that don't already exist?
That's the thing that really surprises me. Why don't some suppliers just say 'no'.
Because Wal-Mart has such a huge market share. They can go to a supplier and say "You'll sell your stuff to us for this price or we won't buy from you at all". They can't afford not to sell to Wal-Mart, even if it means massive layoffs and offshoring of production. Ten percent of all Chinese imports go directly to Wal-Mart. Even American institutions like Levi-Strauss have had to close domestic production facilities and offshore their factories because of Wal-Mart. (In this case, Wal-Mart demanded that Levi-Strauss produce a pair of jeans that could be sold, at a profit, for under $20. Since that was so close to Levi-Strauss' costs for producing the jeans, they had no choice to cut costs by producing product in China, and closing domestic factories that had produced jeans for decades. This not only has implications for Wal-Mart's customers, but for people who shop elsewhere as well; with domestic factories closed, they can't buy American-made jeans as easily, since there aren't as many being produced. So even if you shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart, your choices are being made for you.)
There must be a limit to this, but apparently it has not been reached. Or maybe they just don't care anymore.
You've hit the nail on the head. They don't care about anything other than increasing their revenues and market share. The logical extreme of this situation is that they employ so many people in the US that their workforce and their customer base become one and the same. When that happens, any consumer choice we might have had goes away, and Wal-Mart is free to charge whatever they want for whatever they want. In addition, keeping in mind the kind of political identity Wal-Mart has (ie We Know What's Right For You) they'd be in a position to control much more than what toothpaste you can buy; they'd be in a position to control (definitively) what music you can listen to, what technology you can use, what books you can read, what over-the-counter and prescription drugs you can get, and other horrors of consumer exploitation.
Granted, I'm a little into tinfoil-hat territory here, but it's possible.
You haven't been to business school, so you aren't qualified to comment on B-school grads. Gee, that sounds like an ignorant thing to say - pretty much like your statement.
I speak from my own experience. Every B-school grad I've ever come into contact with has acted as I described above; more relevant is the fact that to a one they saw IT purely in terms of dollars and cents. The result of which (if you toss in some truly lazy and uninspired logic) is the conclusion that IT doesn't generate any direct revenue, and it generates non-trivial costs. Therefore the most cost-effective thing to do with IT is to spend as little as possible on it, without regard for the genuine needs of the company. While it is true that IT doesn't generate black numbers on the balance sheet, neither does HR or Marketing, or in fact anyone else other than Accounts Receiveable. Most people would understand that slashing the HR or Marketing budget would lead to a drop in revenues (by hurting the company's ability to draw and keep good people, and leading to a drop in sales, respectively), but people (especially the B-School grads) don't get that when you slash IT you hurt the company the same way (by reducing efficiency and productivity of EVERY department. In the modern enterprise, if your computers don't work, you're dead.)
It amazes me that they're not teaching the value of IT in business school; it seems to me that teaching the value of technology would be a core curriculum course. Instead, it seems like there's a course that every B-school teaches that says "Computers are too expensive and IT workers aren't worth the dogshit you scrape off your shoe; treat them both accordingly."
I know enough not to drink the anti B-school kool aid.
You went to business school. Therefore you are completely unqualified to say anything about IT. B-school prepares you for a life of middle management doublespeak, meaningless and obfuscated bureaucracy, and profiting off of the hard work of others. People who create code (or in B-schoolese, "create synergistic software-based business solutions for new paradigms of information technology") do actual work.
(I've been in IT for over ten years)
Free hint: if your name has "Manager" or "Supervisor" in it, you're not in IT, you're getting in the way of people in IT. Seeing things purely in terms of the bottom line is incompatible with working in IT, and that's what all the b-school drones do. (After all, they can't compete on smarts, so they drag others down to make themselves look better.)
I was even advised by an older timer... to get out.
He was probably sick of hearing you talking about "thinking outside the box" or "scalable solutions" or "getting to Yes". IT won't miss you; maybe someone with a clue will get your job.
Not posted as an AC because I believe in what I'm saying, and can face the consequences for saying it.
I dislike it as much as the next guy, but there's a reason Wal-Mart is the behemoth it is.
It's because their business plan includes crushing the competition by any means necessary, bankrupting their suppliers by demanding ridiculously low rates, and destroying the middle class by lowballing labor costs while simultaneously destroying businesses that could otherwise employ people at living wages.
By working for them you contribute to the problem. Therefore it doesn't matter to me how smart you think you are, or any of your co-workers might be. By continuing to work there you perpetuate their goals. If you're too short-sighted to see what you're doing, then you can't be all that smart.
Don't give me any excuses about there not being any other jobs. They're out there. Wal-Mart cannot run without gullible associates, as much as they'd like that to be so. (After all, they can't seem to get around those pesky minimum wage laws that the dirty liberals have put in place to undermine American capitalism and support terrorism.)
If you choose to continue to work there, don't complain when all the entry level jobs you would otherwise have been able to get as a college graduate have been sent to China because they work cheaper. After all, it's much more important to save $.50 on a jar of pickles than to have a maintainable economy.
Why would someone with a Masters of Computer Science want a network or sysadmin position?
Because they need to eat. And the people who do the hiring don't know hardware from software from swimwear. They know "oh, that's that computer stuff, does he have the right words on his resume."
With a Masters degree, he's also got experience doing deep research into a narrow subject.
And with no experience, that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. (Unless you go to Starbucks.) Unless you have a Ph.D., any experience you have doing research is completely unmarketable.
Your skills are only worth what someone is willing to pay you for them. Decisions regarding who's right for what job are made by people who went to business school because they wouldn't have had to use email to send in their assignments. It's not right, and it's not fair, but it is the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been working on a project to do this. How do you get the MBR on the USB memory stick to work correctly?
I find the opposite is true. Whenever I see an SUV I'm reminded of http://cartalk.cars.com/Click and Clack calling an SUV a "Chevy Compensator".
SUVs are wicked stupid. This is one case where I'm glad to see the price of gas going up. How long do you think the soccer moms will keep them once it costs $100 twice a week to fill the thing with gas?
The key words being "in theory". Unfortunately if one company starts not caring about how they treat their employees, and realizes cost savings as a result, then their competitors will start doing the same in order to be "competitive". This seems to be happening across all industries at the moment.
That is true. The threat of termination will, however, prevent employees from posting information regarding their employer. Even if you can post anonymously (I'm not familiar enough with how wiki works) more than likely the comments can and will be traced back to you.
This seems as good a comment to reply to as any:
Let's not forget that the only vote we really have these days, the only vote that matters, is the one we make with our wallets. Politicians are bought and sold; the two viable parties are so much different sides of the same coin that it's hard to tell them apart these days. Grassroots movements to save the spotted whales in Alaska only serve to amuse politicians and galvanize opposition. Big business cares about one thing: money. If enough people stop buying from companies that treat their employees poorly, and it's clear that that is the reason, then the company is faced with either improving how they treat their people or going out of business.
Of course what will probably happen is they'll pay lip service to eliminating sweatshop labor/Chinese imports/wage slavery et cetera, without actually changing their policies. Then they'll fire/sue/pay off/slander anyone who tries to point that out.
This implies that said companies cared about their reputation as an employer. They have the jobs; if you want to keep your house/car/life you have to work for them. Try and set up your own business and they'll crush you.
It's not hypocrisy. It's giving us a taste of our own medicine.
The difference is that the French, Germans, and Russians didn't demand that we go along with their wishes; we were the ones saying "you're either for us or against us" to some of our most valuable allies.
Again, their people, their choice. They have every right to vote any way they want. We don't have any right to say if it was the right choice or not. The fact that we do is proof of American arrogance.
They certainly could have, and if they had they would be in charge. But they didn't.
Why does someone have to be "in charge"? Why shouldn't everyone that's affected by the Internet have some say (through their elected representatives) in how it's administrated?
The US also sells antibiotics and other medicine outside the country for less than they sell it here. This forces the people living here to sibsidize other countries' drug habit.
What exactly do these two points have to do with each other? Nobody's forcing the drug companies to do anything. They sell drugs at lower costs in other countries because their health care system isn't a complete fucking mess like ours is. Guess what? They still make money selling them more cheaply.
And I'd hardly put anti-AIDS drugs or chemotherapy supplies in the same category as addictive street drugs. That's quite possibly the most offensive thing I've seen all day.
We've got all the money. We should help the less fortunate to improve their quality of life.
I concede that it wasn't a very good analogy. My point remains, however: an international asset like the Internet should be run by an international organization. The fact that we funded the development of the technology through taxpayer money doesn't change that. The Internet as it exists today has evolved far beyond the intentions of its inventers; to say that the US government "owns" it has extremely disturbing possibilities.
it should maintain it's current position as the adminstrator of the Internet's root zone for DNS.
The Internet is no longer soley an American phenomenon. An international asset should be run by an international organization. Why is this so distasteful to so many people?
Like I said before, there are smart people in other countries as well. Some are even smarter than we are. Lots of them, actually.
France, Germany and Russia arrogantly snubbed us, that's what.
So if a country doesn't agree with us, then they're arrogant? Seems to me they're soverign countries with their own military forces, and it's up to them to decide when to put their people in harm's way. I wouldn't call that arrogant, I'd call that a disagreement among allies.
The vote to take military action against Iraq passed by a large majority in the UN.
US foreign policy isn't exactly lockstep with the UN, either. Those fossils in the UN still believe in the Geneva convention, for goodness' sake.
Remember, it would have been a virtually *global* effort if not for the arrogance of three countries.
So French, German and Russian soldiers would be getting blown up by car bombs along with ours. That really doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose, and we handled the actual fighting part of the conflict pretty well. Now comes the tricky part; setting up a puppet government without being obvious about it.
And you people call us arrogant.
You've made the argument (through your comment) for American arrogance far better than I ever could.
p.p.s. BVis, nothing personal.
No offense taken, I agree with you.
I'm not drawing a distinction between the government and private industry here. Both the Internet and the modern automobile were mostly developed in the US.
The US is part of the international community whenever the international community wants something from us.
So what happens when we want something from them? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
There is significant international presence among the root servers, but the contract administrator will continue to be the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a component of the US Department of Commerce.
.com/.net/.org TLDs? Well, that's just a side effect of us having *created the whole damned thing*, besides which, anyone on the globe is allowed to get domains in those TLDs.
Can you explain how that translates to "The US doesn't have control over the asset?" Because IMHO it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the contracting agencies have to report to a component of the US government, then the US government has control.
They may have a "vested interest", but that doesn't mean they have the same capability.
It doesn't mean they don't, either.
Further, there is a lot of political angling going on for such control - a heck of a lot more political motivated than any US political motivations for keeping control centralized here.
OK, this is just hilarious. You're saying that there's less political angling in this particular wing of the US government than there is among the organizations trying to assert more international control? Obviously you've never worked in (or closely with) an organization run by the state. EVERYTHING is politically motivated, from decisions regarding international policy to who gets what office in the building.
This political angling for expansion of other nations' or international bodies' control over internet infrastructure has a potential for grave consequences, not to mention the possibilities for miscommunication, misunderstandings, and misapplication in such a transition.
This is just specious justification for maintaining US control. The real reasons are xenophobia and misplaced patriotism. (Not from you specifically, but I bet that's why the White House wants to prevent the transfer.)
Secondly, nobody can say for sure how well ICANN will manage this asset.
Touché. That is *exactly* the issue.
But it cuts both ways. Past history of competent administration is no guarantee of future performance. It's possible that someone's brother-in-law's golf buddy's accountant's cousin would be appointed to a position in the DoC that had influence over policy decisions, and run the thing straight into the ground. The end result is the same as if the transfer went badly, or the new administrators were morons. Either way, it could happen. IMHO one is equally likely as the other. Therefore there's no additional risk in the transfer.
And it might not (and probably wouldn't, given the fact that there would be a lot more political game-playing and posturing, a la ITER, going on, whereas the current system's mission is only stable, secure, and accountable management of DNS.)
See my previous paragraph. Same arguments apply.
The whole world ALREADY IS benefitting from the internet in spades, and has been for years! If you can explain to me why an international organization NEEDS to run the root servers in order for the international community to "benefit" from the internet, I'm all ears.
You answered your own question. The internet is an international entity, so it should be run by an international organization. The whole concept of the Internet arises from shared resources (eg thousands of sysadmins all over the world connecting and directing traffic in and out of their systems), so control over what arguably is the most critical component of the Internet should be shared among the governments that represent those sysadmins. The fact that the US proportionally has more of the infrastructure and more users than any other country doesn't mean we should have exclusive say over what contractors manage the root servers.
And as for
I'm reminded of a recent quote from Ann Coulter regarding Mexico and Canada. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was that
Also, it might help to remember that the US, along with its vast military-industrial complex, the Department of Defense and DARPA's investments into pie-in-the-sky technologies, and our massive academic research establishment are what you and the entire fucking world HAS TO THANK for the "internet"
So if something is developed in the US using US resources, and becomes an indispensable international asset because of its quality and/or usefulness, then the US government should retain control over said asset? That's like saying since the automobile as we know it today (both the technology and its accessibility to the average person) came into existence as a result of American effort, then the US government should be able to retain control over Ford's production lines? (I know, it's kind of a flawed metaphor, since Hitler is largely to thank for creating the concept of the "volkswagen", literally "the people's car".)
Would it really kill us to at least allow other countries to have some input on how these assets are managed?
I think that, given the geometrically increasing importance of the internet to the US and its economy, you're damned straight we have a vested interest in making sure critical internet infrastructure is properly administered
And turning control over this asset over to an organization where other countries have input into that control (along with the US) would definitely impact our economy negatively? There's smart people in other countries too. It's not just in the US where a growing chunk of the economy is reliant on the Internet's operation; other countries have a "vested interest" in keeping it up and running as well.
Even if ICANN meets the DoC-set guidelines, there are no guarantees that its capability and contingencies are better than, or even meet, the capability that already exists in the prevailing arrangement. Why ratchet back from predictability and reliability, and a known set of variables, frankly, to "please" the international community?
First of all, it's pretty ignorant of you to assume that an organization that has an international scope definitely can't manage an asset as well as the US government. Secondly, nobody can say for sure how well ICANN will manage this asset. it might do a BETTER job than the existing arrangement, since it has a larger talent pool to draw from. Thirdly, the US is part of the international community, as much as Bush II would like to deny that fact.
It was a US creation, the result of a lot of investment and research dollars from the exact entities that no one else would have supported.
Who's to say that a similar creation couldn't have come from Japan? Or Germany? Or China, even? The concept of a network of networks (aka the Internet) isn't exclusively an American concept. And why shouldn't the whole world benefit from something developed on US soil? Maybe we should deny the world antibiotics, as well.
I'm starting to get fed up with the anti-US dick waving on slashdot, really...
I'm starting to get fed up with being in favor of good international relations being associated with being unamerican.
The issue isn't whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.
(Name that movie for +3 geek points.)
I'd like to apologize too. We're not all xenophobic bigoted redneck jerks.
It really seems like instead of trying to get along with other countries (to promote good things like peace, trade, and knowledge) the USA won't be happy until every man, woman, and child outside the borders hates us to some degree.
You have a valid point, but how much of that information is freely available "piecemeal" from other town sources, as TFD (decision) alludes to? Does releasing this information really create hazards or vulnerabilities that don't already exist?
That's the thing that really surprises me. Why don't some suppliers just say 'no'.
Because Wal-Mart has such a huge market share. They can go to a supplier and say "You'll sell your stuff to us for this price or we won't buy from you at all". They can't afford not to sell to Wal-Mart, even if it means massive layoffs and offshoring of production. Ten percent of all Chinese imports go directly to Wal-Mart. Even American institutions like Levi-Strauss have had to close domestic production facilities and offshore their factories because of Wal-Mart. (In this case, Wal-Mart demanded that Levi-Strauss produce a pair of jeans that could be sold, at a profit, for under $20. Since that was so close to Levi-Strauss' costs for producing the jeans, they had no choice to cut costs by producing product in China, and closing domestic factories that had produced jeans for decades. This not only has implications for Wal-Mart's customers, but for people who shop elsewhere as well; with domestic factories closed, they can't buy American-made jeans as easily, since there aren't as many being produced. So even if you shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart, your choices are being made for you.)
There must be a limit to this, but apparently it has not been reached. Or maybe they just don't care anymore.
You've hit the nail on the head. They don't care about anything other than increasing their revenues and market share. The logical extreme of this situation is that they employ so many people in the US that their workforce and their customer base become one and the same. When that happens, any consumer choice we might have had goes away, and Wal-Mart is free to charge whatever they want for whatever they want. In addition, keeping in mind the kind of political identity Wal-Mart has (ie We Know What's Right For You) they'd be in a position to control much more than what toothpaste you can buy; they'd be in a position to control (definitively) what music you can listen to, what technology you can use, what books you can read, what over-the-counter and prescription drugs you can get, and other horrors of consumer exploitation.
Granted, I'm a little into tinfoil-hat territory here, but it's possible.
I have over ten years of IT experience. Some of those years developing operating systems .
Yes, we're all very impressed. You can put it back in your pants now. And as long as we've got the yardstick out, I've been in IT for twelve years.
AND, BTW, I received some pretty good grades, especially from professors who grew up in textile towns, because I did plans to keep jobs!
Looks like your good grades weren't in English. "I did plans to keep jobs"? Me IT worker, me drag knuckle and grunt.
I really resent your ignorance! Sorry, but you do not have a FUCKING clue!
I speak from my own experience. You can't say I have a clue or not with any amount of certianty.
You haven't been to business school, so you aren't qualified to comment on B-school grads. Gee, that sounds like an ignorant thing to say - pretty much like your statement.
I speak from my own experience. Every B-school grad I've ever come into contact with has acted as I described above; more relevant is the fact that to a one they saw IT purely in terms of dollars and cents. The result of which (if you toss in some truly lazy and uninspired logic) is the conclusion that IT doesn't generate any direct revenue, and it generates non-trivial costs. Therefore the most cost-effective thing to do with IT is to spend as little as possible on it, without regard for the genuine needs of the company. While it is true that IT doesn't generate black numbers on the balance sheet, neither does HR or Marketing, or in fact anyone else other than Accounts Receiveable. Most people would understand that slashing the HR or Marketing budget would lead to a drop in revenues (by hurting the company's ability to draw and keep good people, and leading to a drop in sales, respectively), but people (especially the B-School grads) don't get that when you slash IT you hurt the company the same way (by reducing efficiency and productivity of EVERY department. In the modern enterprise, if your computers don't work, you're dead.)
It amazes me that they're not teaching the value of IT in business school; it seems to me that teaching the value of technology would be a core curriculum course. Instead, it seems like there's a course that every B-school teaches that says "Computers are too expensive and IT workers aren't worth the dogshit you scrape off your shoe; treat them both accordingly."
I know enough not to drink the anti B-school kool aid.
Again, I'm speaking from my own experience, YMMV.
You went to business school. Therefore you are completely unqualified to say anything about IT. B-school prepares you for a life of middle management doublespeak, meaningless and obfuscated bureaucracy, and profiting off of the hard work of others. People who create code (or in B-schoolese, "create synergistic software-based business solutions for new paradigms of information technology") do actual work.
... to get out.
(I've been in IT for over ten years)
Free hint: if your name has "Manager" or "Supervisor" in it, you're not in IT, you're getting in the way of people in IT. Seeing things purely in terms of the bottom line is incompatible with working in IT, and that's what all the b-school drones do. (After all, they can't compete on smarts, so they drag others down to make themselves look better.)
I was even advised by an older timer
He was probably sick of hearing you talking about "thinking outside the box" or "scalable solutions" or "getting to Yes". IT won't miss you; maybe someone with a clue will get your job.
Not posted as an AC because I believe in what I'm saying, and can face the consequences for saying it.
I dislike it as much as the next guy, but there's a reason Wal-Mart is the behemoth it is.
It's because their business plan includes crushing the competition by any means necessary, bankrupting their suppliers by demanding ridiculously low rates, and destroying the middle class by lowballing labor costs while simultaneously destroying businesses that could otherwise employ people at living wages.
By working for them you contribute to the problem. Therefore it doesn't matter to me how smart you think you are, or any of your co-workers might be. By continuing to work there you perpetuate their goals. If you're too short-sighted to see what you're doing, then you can't be all that smart.
Don't give me any excuses about there not being any other jobs. They're out there. Wal-Mart cannot run without gullible associates, as much as they'd like that to be so. (After all, they can't seem to get around those pesky minimum wage laws that the dirty liberals have put in place to undermine American capitalism and support terrorism.)
If you choose to continue to work there, don't complain when all the entry level jobs you would otherwise have been able to get as a college graduate have been sent to China because they work cheaper. After all, it's much more important to save $.50 on a jar of pickles than to have a maintainable economy.
Why would someone with a Masters of Computer Science want a network or sysadmin position?
Because they need to eat. And the people who do the hiring don't know hardware from software from swimwear. They know "oh, that's that computer stuff, does he have the right words on his resume."
With a Masters degree, he's also got experience doing deep research into a narrow subject.
And with no experience, that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. (Unless you go to Starbucks.) Unless you have a Ph.D., any experience you have doing research is completely unmarketable.
Your skills are only worth what someone is willing to pay you for them. Decisions regarding who's right for what job are made by people who went to business school because they wouldn't have had to use email to send in their assignments. It's not right, and it's not fair, but it is the truth.