The density of the matter in gas jets is very low. It's a vapor, not a fluid. Rudimentary lifeforms would require many orders of magnitude more density in order to coalesce molecules of more than a few atoms each.
And it's mostly hydrogen and water. No mention of carbon or silicon or sulphur other biological atoms. Which doesn't mean they're absent, just that they're not abundant. But maybe you're thinking of the possibility of a carbon blob being spit out from a star...maybe...
Also, jets don't stay in one place too long. This spherical one is said to be only 33 years old at the time we're seeing it, delayed by 2400 light years. And it's expanding outward. Neither 33 nor even 2400 years is enough time for life to evolve from star-stuff.
You need planets for that.
The space.com article called it a "burp", but it seems like more of a "hiccup". The normal jet-like jets seem more like a burp.
> This new game, Tabula Rasa (or "blank slate"), won't be out for another couple of years, Garriott said.
These guys are big on the wordplay.
Tabula Rasa.
A game that hasn't been written yet, throws away their old model, and basically is so pre-production that "another couple of years" is a plan horizon for it?
I'm betting that any other gamehack who just read this article (and there are 90,000 potential gamehacks reading slashdot on any given day) can whack up something with the same user-selectable-parallel-universe model in a couple of months, if not a couple of weeks.
> TV resolution is not really good enough to judge.
Which is why I gave the clip a bye on rendering quality.
As a friend who actually makes his money making props for outrageously popular TV sci-fi shows says: TV is like catching a glimpse of something out of the corner of your eye while going 60 mph in a rainstorm.
If you ever get a chance to look at a TV prop in-person, try not to laugh. What looks like glossy precision-manufactured technology onscreen is usually just styrofoam that could have been carved by palsaics and painted by the kids at your local day-care center. And if it actually looks like crap onscreen it was carved by drunks as a joke and had to be repainted by the PAs ten minutes before shooting.
...
> The Matrix.
There was only one thing wrong with The Matrix.
You know the part that started right after the coming attractions and ended right before the end-credits? The part with the actors and the sets and the dialogue and the stunts and the story? Yeah, that part. That sucked.
1. Don't change prices too quickly. Small changes on the order of a day might be reasonable (e.g. the 5% daily wiggle in wholesale memory prices making 0.8% change in a computer's retail price) but large changes should not induce people to try to beat the system by buying at 9:45 p.m. on Saturday night. That just leaves people who bought right after lunch on Tuesday feeling they got ripped off because of some joker who doesn't have a life.
2. Price-protect. If a buyer finds the identical item for less at your site or a competitor's site within a week or 30 days or whatever, refund the difference. Those buyers who make the effort will be satisfied by your refund, and those who don't will never notice.
--Blair
Re:Ask this guy to reply to Mundie?
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 2
> Microsoft vs. Hollywood...who would win... Hollywood would. They have better PR.
Amen to that.
Microsoft has revenues of $25B/year.
Hollywood--the whole damned feature-film industry, studios, theaters, and all--has revenues of $20B/year (give or take).
Microsoft is a worldwide pariah.
Hollywood is a popular earthly substitute for heaven.
But, if you polled the respective insiders, you'd find that the people who run Microsoft are mostly honest and hardworking (if greedy and arrogant), while the people who run Hollywood are scum and villainy (and greedy and arrogant).
PR rules.
--Blair
Re:I'm afraid it's gonna suck.
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 2
Dr. Spork wrote:
>I'm sorry about all the Pokemon-fan-mentality
>lusers who modded your post as flamebait.
>Sounds to me you're just telling it like it is.
You sir, are a Mensch. And a fork and a spoon.
And anyway: The counter really does peg at 50, and doesn't care how much more up-modded you get after that, but subtracts just fine. This will at least give me the satisfaction of getting 50 all over again.
I saw Mike Meyers on Letterman last night, with his Shrek clip, and what I saw sucked.
It looked and played like a bad cut-scene from a PSX game.
The little bit of dialogue was insipid. The little bit of characterization was banal. (Remember, this is in a clip for a nationally broadcast late-night talk show. Where you don't send your crap and say "work in progress".)
And the visuals didn't look like an improvement on anything. E.g., characters' feet slipped when they walked. Movement looked like puppetry. Environmental elements didn't react to contact by characters. I'll reserve judgment on the graphical quality, since it was a video transfer, but still, for one 30-second clip they should have tried their best to map the digital film format to NTSC or ATSC or whatever Lettoman is using these days.
The only thing the clip seemed to feature well was sarcasm and quirkiness, but it was a weak, stilted, amateurish sort of sarcasm and quirkiness. You want the good stuff, watch The Emperor's New Groove four or five more times.
I may eat my words on this, and I'd eat them gladly, but Shrek may suck, huge. It might also make a zillion dollars, but that won't change my IMDB vote.
--Blair
"I don't even know why we have that lever."
The ratio of ads to content on the internet is way lower than it is in any other medium.
One little banner ad at the top of this page is nothing compared to the full-page ads in your paper, the pages with six column-inches of Human Interest and three square feet of brassieres, the 8 minutes per 30 that commercials take over your TV or Radio, the Vogue and Byte where the ad pages outweigh most other magazines, or the billboards where there is no information and all paid advertising even if the ad is a PSA. Some pages like Slate's now have the Big Picture instead of the Banner, but very few are 10% content and 90% bras, mortuaries, and golf discounters.
The internet producer makes no money because the internet sells its reach short.
Except, of course, porn links, where the banner ad is the content.
And the producer can't get per-user fees because that burden on the user is paid to the pipe mechanics. No user wants to pay two people for the same thing.
The problem here isn't it seems that the internet can't be profitable, it's that the people trying to make it profitable haven't figured out that to be profitable it has to work like all the other profitable businesses that came before it.
We had one guy that had been there 11 years find out that a fresh from the U. new hire was making $15,000 more than he was (When he demanded a raise he was told to shove it, and found a new job three days later).
I don't work there any more. Go Figure.
You are *not* the weakest link.
I didn't say your current boss will reward your talent. He won't. Not if you'll keep doing your job at the same lame price, increased by the annual changing of the carrot.
You can always make more by going to another job. But only if the other job wants you more.
It's the ones who never get that who end up making low-five-figures for their entire lives.
And if you really want options, buy some. The risk/reward works out the same, without the golden-handcuff effect.
They're the ones who come around the corner every half-hour asking me to explain pointer arithmetic or how a driver interface works.
I'm the star, they're the droids. Pay is commensurate. If this was an egalitarian industry with no pyramid of skill distribution, we'd all be making low-five-figure salaries, and thinking it was as right as the mid-six we're making now, because our peers would be, too. The broader the competition, the better your superiority stands out. It's better to be one in a million than one in a thousand. You get my drift.
It will take a few years after you graduate to sort you to your spot in the hierarchy. But you know how the playing field is laid out. Use that to your advantage.
--Blair
"U. of Macchiavelli, '84"
Re:carrying on after wilbur and orville
on
To the Moon, Alice
·
· Score: 2
The Wright Brothers' "impact" was only visible in retrospect and as a result of legend-building by the aerospace industry.
They were only one of dozens of teams out to achieve the same goal, and only by slightly better skill and knowledge, and significantly better luck, were they the first not to fail.
Remember also that it wasn't for five years after they performed their first powered flight that they recorded their first sale of a powered aircraft.
Until that sale, to the U.S. Army, many people disbelieved they had actually done what they claimed.
But by that time there were others who had accomplished the feat, and perhaps hundreds who had seen airplanes flying in person.
And also by that time, and for several hundred years before, there were many attempts that ended extremely badly.
Heck, they didn't even bother to get a patent for the first three years of their success.
I'm with those who think that it would be suicide to ride this thing into the sky the first time it's launched. There's no reason a sandbag and some remote control gear couldn't go as a test, except pure stupidity.
Even if he succeeds, what will he have proved?
That rockets fly? It's been done.
That peroxide and silver make a propulsion unit? It's been done.
That hypercomplex systems can work on the first try? Not any more than any other Lottery has proved that you can win the first time you buy a ticket.
And, in the case of the Statue of Liberty pics, if you merely Photoshop it to add a word balloon saying "All your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore are belong to us", then nobody would even question the checksum diff between your image and the LOC's reference copy.
If you can watermark your data, I can watermark it too, and if my watermark process steps on your watermark process, then you lose your ability to detect your watermark, while mine remains intact.
At the bottom of the Jane's article, there are some pictures.
I scrolled through these using the down arrow, and what I saw immediately after the last one (the plane in the crate) was just the first line of the item that followed. It was not unamusing.
Computers are cute toys, but we've already seen wetware being used to mediate the control of mechanisms. If we can use it to mediate information processing, computers will be relegated to the status of diagnostic tool, low-end user interface, and arithmetic calculator.
Cybernetics is machines that think.
Encephalonetics will be brains used as machines.
The spelling with the k's (kibernetics, enkephalonetics) is just how you say it if you're actually ancient Greek.
What we need now is a way to re-animate Norbert Wiener.
We can tell him, "you know back when you said that machines could do the thinking? Called it 'kibernetics'? Well, it turns out we couldn't do that, so we've adapted humans to do the thinking and we feed it into machines so they can digest it seven times better than fishing around the Science Citation Index. It's only half as good as experimentation but at a micro-fraction of the cost..."
I think at that point he'd understand the human mind and we could get onto Enkephalonetics, which is where this little electromechanical distraction is really leading us.
Intel has grown about a thousand-fold in the past thirty years, while AMD has been trading in the same $10-30 range for the same thirty years, except for a bubble last year, wherupon AMD followed the rest of the bubble into the shitter.
When AMD actually invents a technology, I'll start to believe they're a viable technology play instead of just a guy selling apples on the streetcorner who is surprised that people like apples.
--Blair
"I've mentioned Steve Jobs. This thread is now ended."
Unless you also want to count driving, eating, sleeping, and looking for sex as addictions.
So I'm online 100+ hours a week. I work at a computer, and I have a computer in front of me in the livingroom at home.
Is it obsessive? or just integrated into my life?
F'rinstance, I can discuss a baseball game on the TV with eighteen other people, real-time, who are genuinely interested in it, not just stuck in some stanky bar somewhere wondering what they're gonna do with their lives if they ever kick their addictions.
I do know what obsessive-compulsive behavior feels like. I lost sleep three nights in a row once trying to remember something that had slipped my mind on a distraction, and then trying to ignore that I was trying to remember it, and then trying to forget that I was trying to ignore it. (The solution was to re-associate the obsession so that if I felt myself falling into it I would insert the pleasurable train of thought; since it was powerful enough to distract me from the obsession and wasn't obsessional itself, it stopped the cycle; Hyapatia Lee saved my life).
And the first six weeks I had my Palm V, I played Go about 40 times a day.
I won't talk about the months and months of Minesweeper. I never got hooked on Tetris, though.
But, seriously, I do know the difference. And what I do on the computer and on the net are not manifestations of the small obsessive-compulsive anteroom of my personality.
Online there are millions of things to do. If I do several of them, and then go get a beer from the fridge, does that add the beer and the fridge to the obsessive pattern? No.
It's rash to lump the entire computing and internet paradigm together. Rash enough to form the basis for a faulty deduction such as the one made by this book.
to a significant extent because that's where there are trained people.
Okay, Gordon, then why did you lobby to get an extra half-million H-1 visas issued in this country over the next few years?
Gordon is being disingenuous. He built plants in places like Malaysia and Ireland because that's where the depressed economies and low taxes were. The major design work is still being done in the U.S., using engineers imported from other countries. Minor developments in other countries have come only after intense internal lobbying by engineers formerly imported from those countries. This "because that's where the talent is" is nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc hogwash.
And if Intel wanted American engineers, it'd pay more than AMD or Sun or IBM, which it hasn't, doesn't, and never will. And it would take the initiative to sponsor computer engineering labs at universities, which it specifically refused to do, like it was the stupidest thing it could spend money on, when I suggested they give us a little help at my school. But thanks for the Academic Discount all the same, Gordon.
When you can rent four foreign engineers for the price to educate and run one local...
Slashdot Mirror
The density of the matter in gas jets is very low. It's a vapor, not a fluid. Rudimentary lifeforms would require many orders of magnitude more density in order to coalesce molecules of more than a few atoms each.
And it's mostly hydrogen and water. No mention of carbon or silicon or sulphur other biological atoms. Which doesn't mean they're absent, just that they're not abundant. But maybe you're thinking of the possibility of a carbon blob being spit out from a star...maybe...
Also, jets don't stay in one place too long. This spherical one is said to be only 33 years old at the time we're seeing it, delayed by 2400 light years. And it's expanding outward. Neither 33 nor even 2400 years is enough time for life to evolve from star-stuff.
You need planets for that.
The space.com article called it a "burp", but it seems like more of a "hiccup". The normal jet-like jets seem more like a burp.
--Blair
> This new game, Tabula Rasa (or "blank slate"), won't be out for another couple of years, Garriott said.
These guys are big on the wordplay.
Tabula Rasa.
A game that hasn't been written yet, throws away their old model, and basically is so pre-production that "another couple of years" is a plan horizon for it?
I'm betting that any other gamehack who just read this article (and there are 90,000 potential gamehacks reading slashdot on any given day) can whack up something with the same user-selectable-parallel-universe model in a couple of months, if not a couple of weeks.
--Blair
> Left claw North! RIGHTCLAWSOUTH!!
AYBABTU it aint...
--Blair
> TV resolution is not really good enough to judge.
Which is why I gave the clip a bye on rendering quality.
As a friend who actually makes his money making props for outrageously popular TV sci-fi shows says: TV is like catching a glimpse of something out of the corner of your eye while going 60 mph in a rainstorm.
If you ever get a chance to look at a TV prop in-person, try not to laugh. What looks like glossy precision-manufactured technology onscreen is usually just styrofoam that could have been carved by palsaics and painted by the kids at your local day-care center. And if it actually looks like crap onscreen it was carved by drunks as a joke and had to be repainted by the PAs ten minutes before shooting.
...
> The Matrix.
There was only one thing wrong with The Matrix.
You know the part that started right after the coming attractions and ended right before the end-credits? The part with the actors and the sets and the dialogue and the stunts and the story? Yeah, that part. That sucked.
--Blair
1. Don't change prices too quickly. Small changes on the order of a day might be reasonable (e.g. the 5% daily wiggle in wholesale memory prices making 0.8% change in a computer's retail price) but large changes should not induce people to try to beat the system by buying at 9:45 p.m. on Saturday night. That just leaves people who bought right after lunch on Tuesday feeling they got ripped off because of some joker who doesn't have a life.
2. Price-protect. If a buyer finds the identical item for less at your site or a competitor's site within a week or 30 days or whatever, refund the difference. Those buyers who make the effort will be satisfied by your refund, and those who don't will never notice.
--Blair
> Microsoft vs. Hollywood...who would win... Hollywood would. They have better PR.
Amen to that.
Microsoft has revenues of $25B/year.
Hollywood--the whole damned feature-film industry, studios, theaters, and all--has revenues of $20B/year (give or take).
Microsoft is a worldwide pariah.
Hollywood is a popular earthly substitute for heaven.
But, if you polled the respective insiders, you'd find that the people who run Microsoft are mostly honest and hardworking (if greedy and arrogant), while the people who run Hollywood are scum and villainy (and greedy and arrogant).
PR rules.
--Blair
Dr. Spork wrote:
>I'm sorry about all the Pokemon-fan-mentality
>lusers who modded your post as flamebait.
>Sounds to me you're just telling it like it is.
You sir, are a Mensch. And a fork and a spoon.
And anyway: The counter really does peg at 50, and doesn't care how much more up-modded you get after that, but subtracts just fine. This will at least give me the satisfaction of getting 50 all over again.
--Blair
"Karma whore--with a heart."
I saw Mike Meyers on Letterman last night, with his Shrek clip, and what I saw sucked.
It looked and played like a bad cut-scene from a PSX game.
The little bit of dialogue was insipid. The little bit of characterization was banal. (Remember, this is in a clip for a nationally broadcast late-night talk show. Where you don't send your crap and say "work in progress".)
And the visuals didn't look like an improvement on anything. E.g., characters' feet slipped when they walked. Movement looked like puppetry. Environmental elements didn't react to contact by characters. I'll reserve judgment on the graphical quality, since it was a video transfer, but still, for one 30-second clip they should have tried their best to map the digital film format to NTSC or ATSC or whatever Lettoman is using these days.
The only thing the clip seemed to feature well was sarcasm and quirkiness, but it was a weak, stilted, amateurish sort of sarcasm and quirkiness. You want the good stuff, watch The Emperor's New Groove four or five more times.
I may eat my words on this, and I'd eat them gladly, but Shrek may suck, huge. It might also make a zillion dollars, but that won't change my IMDB vote.
--Blair
"I don't even know why we have that lever."
Your lawyer said:
> "one of the most one-sided contracts I've seen in my life."
Your lawyer has never seen an EULA or ISP TOS before, has he?
--Blair
"All your right are innate to us."
The ratio of ads to content on the internet is way lower than it is in any other medium.
One little banner ad at the top of this page is nothing compared to the full-page ads in your paper, the pages with six column-inches of Human Interest and three square feet of brassieres, the 8 minutes per 30 that commercials take over your TV or Radio, the Vogue and Byte where the ad pages outweigh most other magazines, or the billboards where there is no information and all paid advertising even if the ad is a PSA. Some pages like Slate's now have the Big Picture instead of the Banner, but very few are 10% content and 90% bras, mortuaries, and golf discounters.
The internet producer makes no money because the internet sells its reach short.
Except, of course, porn links, where the banner ad is the content.
And the producer can't get per-user fees because that burden on the user is paid to the pipe mechanics. No user wants to pay two people for the same thing.
The problem here isn't it seems that the internet can't be profitable, it's that the people trying to make it profitable haven't figured out that to be profitable it has to work like all the other profitable businesses that came before it.
Bold new world, indeed.
--Blair
Go watch Pirates of Silicon Valley again.
CP/M lost because the people who owned it blew off the meeting, believing they had no competition.
Bill Gates won because he lied to IBM about having an OS, then went out and bought DOS for $50k.
--Blair
We had one guy that had been there 11 years find out that a fresh from the U. new hire was making $15,000 more than he was (When he demanded a raise he was told to shove it, and found a new job three days later).
I don't work there any more. Go Figure.
You are *not* the weakest link.
I didn't say your current boss will reward your talent. He won't. Not if you'll keep doing your job at the same lame price, increased by the annual changing of the carrot.
You can always make more by going to another job. But only if the other job wants you more.
It's the ones who never get that who end up making low-five-figures for their entire lives.
And if you really want options, buy some. The risk/reward works out the same, without the golden-handcuff effect.
--Blair
"The rest of us go into consulting."
Repeat after me (whined to the sound of "Marcia Marcia Marcia!"):
CORBA CORBA CORBA!
--Blair
Are you kidding?
I love these guys, and you should too.
They're the ones who come around the corner every half-hour asking me to explain pointer arithmetic or how a driver interface works.
I'm the star, they're the droids. Pay is commensurate. If this was an egalitarian industry with no pyramid of skill distribution, we'd all be making low-five-figure salaries, and thinking it was as right as the mid-six we're making now, because our peers would be, too. The broader the competition, the better your superiority stands out. It's better to be one in a million than one in a thousand. You get my drift.
It will take a few years after you graduate to sort you to your spot in the hierarchy. But you know how the playing field is laid out. Use that to your advantage.
--Blair
"U. of Macchiavelli, '84"
The Wright Brothers' "impact" was only visible in retrospect and as a result of legend-building by the aerospace industry.
They were only one of dozens of teams out to achieve the same goal, and only by slightly better skill and knowledge, and significantly better luck, were they the first not to fail.
Remember also that it wasn't for five years after they performed their first powered flight that they recorded their first sale of a powered aircraft.
Until that sale, to the U.S. Army, many people disbelieved they had actually done what they claimed.
But by that time there were others who had accomplished the feat, and perhaps hundreds who had seen airplanes flying in person.
And also by that time, and for several hundred years before, there were many attempts that ended extremely badly.
Heck, they didn't even bother to get a patent for the first three years of their success.
(Wright State U. Special Collections has online more documentation than you'll ever want to read about this unless you throw a shoe and become a biographical historian - and it's just a catalog!)
I'm with those who think that it would be suicide to ride this thing into the sky the first time it's launched. There's no reason a sandbag and some remote control gear couldn't go as a test, except pure stupidity.
Even if he succeeds, what will he have proved?
That rockets fly? It's been done.
That peroxide and silver make a propulsion unit? It's been done.
That hypercomplex systems can work on the first try? Not any more than any other Lottery has proved that you can win the first time you buy a ticket.
--Blair
And, in the case of the Statue of Liberty pics, if you merely Photoshop it to add a word balloon saying "All your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore are belong to us", then nobody would even question the checksum diff between your image and the LOC's reference copy.
--Blair
If you can watermark your data, I can watermark it too, and if my watermark process steps on your watermark process, then you lose your ability to detect your watermark, while mine remains intact.
--Blair
"All your IP are belong to us."
At the bottom of the Jane's article, there are some pictures.
I scrolled through these using the down arrow, and what I saw immediately after the last one (the plane in the crate) was just the first line of the item that followed. It was not unamusing.
--Blair
There are those who say this has already happened.
--Blair
P.S. If you think the sysadmins at your ISP aren't giggling and pointing at your emails, you're wrong.
>>>Enkephalonetics
>>Which is?
>using your head
Or, more generally, using anyone's head.
Computers are cute toys, but we've already seen wetware being used to mediate the control of mechanisms. If we can use it to mediate information processing, computers will be relegated to the status of diagnostic tool, low-end user interface, and arithmetic calculator.
Cybernetics is machines that think.
Encephalonetics will be brains used as machines.
The spelling with the k's (kibernetics, enkephalonetics) is just how you say it if you're actually ancient Greek.
--Blair
What we need now is a way to re-animate Norbert Wiener.
We can tell him, "you know back when you said that machines could do the thinking? Called it 'kibernetics'? Well, it turns out we couldn't do that, so we've adapted humans to do the thinking and we feed it into machines so they can digest it seven times better than fishing around the Science Citation Index. It's only half as good as experimentation but at a micro-fraction of the cost..."
I think at that point he'd understand the human mind and we could get onto Enkephalonetics, which is where this little electromechanical distraction is really leading us.
--Blair
Intel has grown about a thousand-fold in the past thirty years, while AMD has been trading in the same $10-30 range for the same thirty years, except for a bubble last year, wherupon AMD followed the rest of the bubble into the shitter.
When AMD actually invents a technology, I'll start to believe they're a viable technology play instead of just a guy selling apples on the streetcorner who is surprised that people like apples.
--Blair
"I've mentioned Steve Jobs. This thread is now ended."
IIRC, it was part of an economic analysis Moore did as general manager of the semiconductor business unit at Fairchild.
--Blair
Unless you also want to count driving, eating, sleeping, and looking for sex as addictions.
So I'm online 100+ hours a week. I work at a computer, and I have a computer in front of me in the livingroom at home.
Is it obsessive? or just integrated into my life?
F'rinstance, I can discuss a baseball game on the TV with eighteen other people, real-time, who are genuinely interested in it, not just stuck in some stanky bar somewhere wondering what they're gonna do with their lives if they ever kick their addictions.
I do know what obsessive-compulsive behavior feels like. I lost sleep three nights in a row once trying to remember something that had slipped my mind on a distraction, and then trying to ignore that I was trying to remember it, and then trying to forget that I was trying to ignore it. (The solution was to re-associate the obsession so that if I felt myself falling into it I would insert the pleasurable train of thought; since it was powerful enough to distract me from the obsession and wasn't obsessional itself, it stopped the cycle; Hyapatia Lee saved my life).
And the first six weeks I had my Palm V, I played Go about 40 times a day.
I won't talk about the months and months of Minesweeper. I never got hooked on Tetris, though.
But, seriously, I do know the difference. And what I do on the computer and on the net are not manifestations of the small obsessive-compulsive anteroom of my personality.
Online there are millions of things to do. If I do several of them, and then go get a beer from the fridge, does that add the beer and the fridge to the obsessive pattern? No.
It's rash to lump the entire computing and internet paradigm together. Rash enough to form the basis for a faulty deduction such as the one made by this book.
--Blair
"Tomorrow: Patterns of Denial"
to a significant extent because that's where there are trained people.
Okay, Gordon, then why did you lobby to get an extra half-million H-1 visas issued in this country over the next few years?
Gordon is being disingenuous. He built plants in places like Malaysia and Ireland because that's where the depressed economies and low taxes were. The major design work is still being done in the U.S., using engineers imported from other countries. Minor developments in other countries have come only after intense internal lobbying by engineers formerly imported from those countries. This "because that's where the talent is" is nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc hogwash.
And if Intel wanted American engineers, it'd pay more than AMD or Sun or IBM, which it hasn't, doesn't, and never will. And it would take the initiative to sponsor computer engineering labs at universities, which it specifically refused to do, like it was the stupidest thing it could spend money on, when I suggested they give us a little help at my school. But thanks for the Academic Discount all the same, Gordon.
When you can rent four foreign engineers for the price to educate and run one local...
--Blair