Several guys in this thread (obviously USian or Westerners of other various denominations) decry the quality of the work produced elsewhere.
This is unsurprising, and I am sure mostly unfair.
But accepting without conceding this point, obviously the code is good enough.
You guys are failing to see this and it was time that you woked up and smelled the coffee.
People in other countries may not code to your high standards (ha, ha, ha!) but frankly you should stop beating that horse and look at the real reasons for your current troubles.
Lifestyles in Western countries are wasteful (consumerism for you), your only hope is for you to re-arrange peiorities or sit and wait that other people commit the same mistakes.
... is because the economy in the UK has gone quite well for most people.
Unemployment in the UK is almost nonexistent, and very often when you need a qualified person the only option is to hire abroad (often by means of outsourcing and offshoring).
So this gloom abot everybody going to the dole in the UK is frankly childish nonsense.
Western developped countries and a few others have the higest standards of living in the world.
When I read these discussions it would seem like if people are now starving on the streets of Houston, NY anD la because jobs have been moved elsewhere.
Your first assertion are a bloody statement of the obvious. It is like saying that countries with the largest militaries are also leading examples of armored tank development. Well, doh.
How your mind tries desperately to link socialized medicine with space travel is amusing to read, it should be enough to say that correlation is not causation...
The US ingored blantantly most of the Geneva convention during the Vietnam War.
Vietnam, in spite of this, is better off now.
This is due to adopting market reforms and has nothing to do with the existence of the UN or the Geneva convention.
How in your mind economic development after a war is linked to reasonbale safeguards against butal behaviour is beyond my comprehension.
We have seen plenty of conflicts (Burundi, Rwanda, Congo, Yugoslavia) in which the Geneva conventions and the UN were just meaningles words and the countries that suffered these conflicts don't seem much better off for it , as a matter of fact, not respecting such conventions becomes a deterrent for progress and investment, as the US sponsored situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine sadly shows.
To say that the rewards are great for the losers shows such an abismal ignorence that I don't know where to start.
But lets start somewhere.
Germany was the second country with more people killed after the USSR, this without accounting for the people killed in the demented genocide that took place there. Entire towns like Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Leipzig were literally removed from the face of earth, and ever since then Germans, most of who by now had nothing to do with the war, have to deal with a national anguish that is difficult to appreciate unless you have been there (which let me venture, you haven't).
As for Japan they had to endure two atomic bombs. I don't in which demented univers that may be compensated by economic prsperity a few years down the road. Not in mine surely.
My blood just boils when people make these ascertions without giving them a second thought. They have bought in the popular wisdom spread mostly in countries in which, oh surprise, the economy is highly dependent in selling death machines.
If you think that science in Iraq, Sudan, Palestine or Afghanistan is going to be advanced at all thanks to the ongoing wars there, I venture with confidence that you are an idiot.
The countries in which some scientific advancement is gained during conflicts do so because they already have a research infrastructure in place. THis research infrastructure would produce useful science no matter what, the tax in human misery is an unnecessary price to pay and it is frankly disgraceful that there are pople thinking in those terms.
... it is clear that whatever progress is achieved in science during wars, it is not worth it.
Most stuff whose development is speedied during wars would have reached fruition anyway given its usefulness.
People always talk about how much war advances science forgetting to mention all the brilliant people (scientists, students, engineers) that are killed sensesly in the process.
In the first Gulf War, the one Iraq actually fought, they could not manage to hit any targets of any military importance (hint, a few Israeli defenseless civilians are not military important).
Any thinking person that could be bothered to inform himslef about the state of Iraq *knew* that they did not have any WMDs, which is why the UK foreign minister had to use a bad student's PHD thesis as the best argument he could find, after hevy editing to make it look the way they wanted to make it look.
First people supporting Bush accussed serious doubters of the WMD nonsense (which included, may I hasten to add, the people in the UN actually tasked to find out about WMDs in Iraq, whose task was harshely cut short byt the eagerness of Mrs Bush and Blair) of unpatriotic, appeasers and all unkind epithets.
Now you use the term revisionist. Frankly you people have no shame.
Slashdot Mirror
You being unemployed has little to do with illegal Mexicans, who most likely are not doing the same jobs you would normally do.
Your situation is anecdotal, overall most people benefit by buying cheap stuff and services.
... allows companies in many other sectors to invest in innovation instead of overpriced software.
The guys in India and China may not making great breakthroughs, but they are contributing to make the economic landscape elsewhere more efficient.
The whining of some of you is frankly pathetic.
We are reaching the point whne pehaps our societies have to decide what is better overall. I am putting my money on cooperation and fair competition.
Economy is not a zero sum game.
I can't think of a game in which people compete against each other but all win.
Very postmodern and PC, but that would be the correct analogy.
Several guys in this thread (obviously USian or Westerners of other various denominations) decry the quality of the work produced elsewhere.
This is unsurprising, and I am sure mostly unfair.
But accepting without conceding this point, obviously the code is good enough.
You guys are failing to see this and it was time that you woked up and smelled the coffee.
People in other countries may not code to your high standards (ha, ha, ha!) but frankly you should stop beating that horse and look at the real reasons for your current troubles.
Lifestyles in Western countries are wasteful (consumerism for you), your only hope is for you to re-arrange peiorities or sit and wait that other people commit the same mistakes.
... is because the economy in the UK has gone quite well for most people.
Unemployment in the UK is almost nonexistent, and very often when you need a qualified person the only option is to hire abroad (often by means of outsourcing and offshoring).
So this gloom abot everybody going to the dole in the UK is frankly childish nonsense.
There are companies that produce sterling quality work in India, Eastern Europe and other places.
Blanket statements like yours normally are unfair and innacurate.
.... once you are employed.
Internships give you a taste of how things are in the real world, but if you think that is the real thing you'll be sorely doissapointed.
I would not surprise me if in a few years you are foced to do less than stelar code once you are under the real pressures of a real job.
Western developped countries and a few others have the higest standards of living in the world.
When I read these discussions it would seem like if people are now starving on the streets of Houston, NY anD la because jobs have been moved elsewhere.
A sense of proportion would be very welcome.
XBOX.
MS powered PDAs.
That is what.
... could be witnessing the company's shenanigans and still be considered honest.
Sterotypes are just that.
I personally are as comfortable listening to a good opera or watching a football match.
Sterotypes are for people without a sense of adventure.
By the time they did something in the Windows area they have saturated the market, aptly described by one of the posts above in the thread.
If things were panning out so great they would have not moved to Windows and the nightmare it is to support 2 completely different platforms.
Your first assertion are a bloody statement of the obvious. It is like saying that countries with the largest militaries are also leading examples of armored tank development. Well, doh.
How your mind tries desperately to link socialized medicine with space travel is amusing to read, it should be enough to say that correlation is not causation...
The US ingored blantantly most of the Geneva convention during the Vietnam War.
Vietnam, in spite of this, is better off now.
This is due to adopting market reforms and has nothing to do with the existence of the UN or the Geneva convention.
How in your mind economic development after a war is linked to reasonbale safeguards against butal behaviour is beyond my comprehension.
We have seen plenty of conflicts (Burundi, Rwanda, Congo, Yugoslavia) in which the Geneva conventions and the UN were just meaningles words and the countries that suffered these conflicts don't seem much better off for it , as a matter of fact, not respecting such conventions becomes a deterrent for progress and investment, as the US sponsored situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine sadly shows.
To say that the rewards are great for the losers shows such an abismal ignorence that I don't know where to start.
But lets start somewhere.
Germany was the second country with more people killed after the USSR, this without accounting for the people killed in the demented genocide that took place there. Entire towns like Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Leipzig were literally removed from the face of earth, and ever since then Germans, most of who by now had nothing to do with the war, have to deal with a national anguish that is difficult to appreciate unless you have been there (which let me venture, you haven't).
As for Japan they had to endure two atomic bombs. I don't in which demented univers that may be compensated by economic prsperity a few years down the road. Not in mine surely.
My blood just boils when people make these ascertions without giving them a second thought. They have bought in the popular wisdom spread mostly in countries in which, oh surprise, the economy is highly dependent in selling death machines.
If you think that science in Iraq, Sudan, Palestine or Afghanistan is going to be advanced at all thanks to the ongoing wars there, I venture with confidence that you are an idiot.
The countries in which some scientific advancement is gained during conflicts do so because they already have a research infrastructure in place. THis research infrastructure would produce useful science no matter what, the tax in human misery is an unnecessary price to pay and it is frankly disgraceful that there are pople thinking in those terms.
... it is clear that whatever progress is achieved in science during wars, it is not worth it.
Most stuff whose development is speedied during wars would have reached fruition anyway given its usefulness.
People always talk about how much war advances science forgetting to mention all the brilliant people (scientists, students, engineers) that are killed sensesly in the process.
All that stuff would have been discovered eventually since the markets that they serve today would have found they were useful.
In the first Gulf War, the one Iraq actually fought, they could not manage to hit any targets of any military importance (hint, a few Israeli defenseless civilians are not military important).
Any thinking person that could be bothered to inform himslef about the state of Iraq *knew* that they did not have any WMDs, which is why the UK foreign minister had to use a bad student's PHD thesis as the best argument he could find, after hevy editing to make it look the way they wanted to make it look.
First people supporting Bush accussed serious doubters of the WMD nonsense (which included, may I hasten to add, the people in the UN actually tasked to find out about WMDs in Iraq, whose task was harshely cut short byt the eagerness of Mrs Bush and Blair) of unpatriotic, appeasers and all unkind epithets.
Now you use the term revisionist. Frankly you people have no shame.
1.- Learn the local language (whit so much empty time, that should be a doodle).
2.- Buy books in the local language.
3.- Here I meant to say profit.
I thought backpacking was partly about practicality and travelling light.
:-P
But what do I know, I only stay in 5 star hotels
Think about from now in 3000 years. Or 30000.
Almost everything is possible.