I was going to retract everything I said this morning, but the rest of this comment is pasted from a link in tfa. I don't buy the projections. Particularly, the 1m jobs will be at the bottom of the pay scale, not the $80k average.
Summary of source data for Code.org infographic
1mm more jobs than students in computing, $500B over 10 years: From the 2010 - 2012 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/, across all industries we are adding 136,620 jobs per year in computing. Subtract 40,000 annual computer science graduates (see NSF data below) and you get roughly a gap of 100,000 jobs. 100,000 jobs adds up over 10 years to 1mm jobs, with an average salary of $80,000 (the average salary in computing), that results in: first year: 100,000 x $80,000 2nd year: 200,000 x $80,000 3rd year: 300,000 x $80,000 10th year: 1,000,000 x $80,000 TOTAL SALARIES = $440,000,000,000 ($440 billion)
This is slightly below $500b, but it doesn't account for inflation over the next 10 years. on top of that, there are many studies that show that each new software job results in many more jobs in the neighborhood. The latest such study suggested a 4.3x multiplier in terms of generating supporting/neighborhood jobs. With a 4.3x multiplier, weâ(TM)d be talking about 5.3mm jobs over 10 years, and much more than $440b, so to be conservative we just rounded up to $500b. Hereâ(TM)s a very rough back of envelope analysis that suggests that the total opportunity size in this space may actually be closer to $1T in 10 years.
Do you buy Oracle hardware and licenses because its what the DBA knows, or are your requirements satisfied by something less expensive? Do you need the Rsa connection so admins can remote in, or is that something that should be airgapped?
My point is that you have to either know or trust, and trust is expensive. So hire well and pay generously. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't mean it will be solved well, or at all. As such, it is too simplistic to be taken as advice.
You may not have a choice, and that's the point. When the going rate drops, everyone is affected. There will always be exceptions, of course. But, before this goes away, it has to run its course. Why? Deep pockets of IT are behind it, the most to gain but also the most to spend. By the time they realize that paper qualifications mean squat because the good teachers are spread too thin, and people think real back office code is 10 lines of JavaScript - salaries will be depressed overall, and will take time to recover. I'm sure you're more awesome than me and can find a job anywhere, but to get one of the jobs that operates and pays at a high level, instead of accepting Access/Vba solutions that lose data, you will be relocating. I have no fear, but I fear for you and everyone else here. In 10 years we will know, because you will have college grads with 6 years experience in something they don't care for personally, and that will set the entry level salary, or wage perhaps.
With a proper installer, an application requiring those would provide the version it needs, aka DLL hell. If some form of SxS is implemented, you get version specific runtime and no DLL hell.
There has been no need to rewrite those, for that reason, other than having stubs to link against. And since they reuse wine libs, it may be a wine stub rather than something reactos intends to work.
Once you are enlightened, your statement is now false. It will get more compatible. And if you require those libraries and it is legal do to so, you can obtain them directly from Microsoft, or the app developer, or anyone.
There is a reason they are called redistributables. Guess what that is? Go on, I'll give you a hint if you need one.
And most programs need terminal services? No, some very specific ones do. And that is the idea behind thorium virtual kickstarter. If people fund it, it will exist.
3 mod point left. Do I mod you down or suggest it's not a conspiracy? 12 points all to marking people off topic for exceeding the boundaries of common sense. Best not to waste them on whinging I suppose.
The researchers said the humans who left the footprints may have been related to Homo antecessor, or "pioneer man," whose fossilized remains have been found in Spain. That species died out about 800,000 years ago.
Direct quote. Fuck me, I won't have to try very hard to boycott.
And because I'm mobile and went through enough trouble on your behalf already, you may on your own find more about suggestions that people have essentially rafted about the world longer than we have had actual ships.
In addition to land bridges and other possibilities, it is very easy to imagine without requiring ship building, unless you spend no time reading or thinking about how ancient people lived.
Ships are the obvious and sole answer if you lived in the past hundred years, but might they have built weather balloons created by the gas from volcanic vents? Domesticated flying dinosaurs? Tamed dolphins? Oh no, ships are not the only possibility.
You just described marketing induced denial. Sure its bad for you, but look at all the other people not quitting, join our community with a shirt - all that.
There are other sources for denial, but marketing is still powerful. And messages from earlier in life can still be strong in the later years.
Induce is a word, it has meaning, and at least one of those is appropriate here.
It is odd to see a brown bag meeting like this. But rarely would the CEO address employees in their workplace. It is usually in a place intended for such meetings, and then webcast remotely if needed. In other words, if you don't know what you are talking about, don't jump to conclusions and then post about how your conclusions are terrible.
This idea is for computers hosting credit card info, personal information, and other potential targets. A development environment may host interesting bits, but should never have these tempting bits on it.
Your implementation is everything whitelisting was never intended to be, and is unrelated to this story except tangentially as a cautionary tale of where to draw the line as an employee.
I don't see how whitelisting on a POS device will possibly work if it needs updates, delivered remotely, and whitelist updates, delivered remotely, so the Target breach seems like the best option in the future. And proper network administration was the main issue there.
It may help in some cases, but as you described, any computer being used and modified by users will remain vulnerable. Anything maintained in a wa other than imaging will not be protected, and only with proper network access control for the imaging access. It always comes down to, which computers should I trust to authenticate a user before I even acknowledge a connection?
I've been moderating them off-topic, and I'm no admin. We were supposed to have a day of protest, then there was the boycott I think for next week. There is zero point in continuing this childish nonsense. Yay, sticking it to the man, we feel awesome about ourselves, now start acting like people care about the community instead of pissing on it.
There is something between no science and public science, and that's what we currently have. The public, not just Congress, would need access to the data models used. Not just the papers, which goes beyond what we have today, but the backing data and the model. Open access journal would not be enough.
We can agree that this is an improvement.
However, Congress is not held to the same standard. There is no requirement to put public funded research in the public domain. There is nothing in this bill except a wish for a scientific community that does not exist.
And because it does not exist, no Administration office will be able to make the regulations that Congress delegated responsibility for. Dumping asbestos in a lake? We need an open access study that says asbestos is still harmful when wet.
I'm being serious, go back and read the bill. Being obvious or accepted or well known is not enough. Citing a meta-study is not enough. A report from Nature or Science is not enough. A reviewed and published study in a respectable journal is not enough.
All of these are pro-science, but they fall short of this bill. Argue for open science all you want, but here is why it doesn't matter:
This bill, on the surface, asks for what makes the most sense. It does nothing to get us there. It is no different from saying only moon people can make EPA regulations, and at the same time providing no funding to put people on the moon. The text of the bill, as written, is asking for what is nearly impossible. If this is unintentional, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise it needs to die.
Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.
Are you 4000 years old? I'm not. I grew up in a world ruled by greedy bastards. I may disagree, but I don't expect my culture to ignore itself from time to time.
Pay someone to build a repeater, and license the content. If you couldn't access it before the cable converter giveaway, you lost nothing and deserve nothing.
Fuck damn, bring on the beta because the comments eat balls. IOC grants exclusive access, not NBC. NBC bids based on the ability to recoup expenses plus. As part of the deal, NBC is not required to provide free access to taxpayers. The defense expenditures are unrelated to the IOC NBC deal. NBC buys an upstream link and spends money, and it sould be free because taxes? Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.
Ther are people who would like to get back to normal. The fuck beta was supposed to last a day. It's obvious some won't let go, so is it that hard to believe no user with mid points would mark off topic posts as such? I have 12 points left. Tell me why I shouldn't spend them all marking off topic posts, so the people who say they like the discussions can read them?
You can tell when I'm mobile because spellcheck fucks up apostrophes. And when I am, I don't want a shell page followed by partially loading the rest. So I disable scripts. When the page is ready, it is obvious. When it isn't I'm wasting time. 3g is about like dial-up, because I am on the edge of service. Sometimes it works, sometimes no. If I will read your site, I care whether the front page loads. Not if it can deliver chrome once and do updates quicker. It makes no difference because between readings, even with the browser topmost, it dumps the cache after 30 minutes or so, and the browser eventually. So no, you are not saving bandwidth. Only forcing me to refresh many requests instead of one. Don't think just of JavaScript. Think of how it is used, and abused. Most sites seem to think JavaScript is the answer to mobile. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. Slashdot does not get updated fast enough to use JavaScript efficiently on the front page. And as long as comment pages are generated periodically, I do not want to wait on scroll. So yes, it is a reason. I do not view the mobile site when mobile for the same reason. Be smart and use the best technology for your content. Image heavy sites might speed the experience with scripting, but this is text.
If they are that far behind, they may have categories they don't know well. Getting a $200 question, hoping the time runs out, and moving to either new categories or final jeopardy, is not a horrible strategy if it is your only option.
Or did you assume that no one gives any thought to such things? Because you can't tell if it just did not occur to them, which is another possibility.
Sounds like you are easily stunned, or cannot understand that people may think differently, or had not considered that, while on a show with competition and an audience, people might make bad choices.
20 minutes in, they announce the final jeopardy category and go to a commercial. 10 minutes for a single question, including watching people think while listening to the theme music.
I think your opinion of jeopardy is rose colored, since if it did not sell commercials it would be off the air. Some shows definitely have less content, but the format has been around long enough that they couldn't mess with it. Which means we won't know if they really would like to, so we can't assume that they would not love to remove a category and open more time for commercials.
Were it new this year with the same people, it would waste time just as much. It is unchanged from many years back, which is the only reason it does not follow the trend
You responded to "not everyone had a bad experience" with "I had a bad experience", which was a given, and redundant.
Your further extrapolation was clearly buttressed by your anecdote, and therefore colored by it. Specifically, you feel wounded, and attribute things that have not happened yet and probably will not, to the program as you have experienced it, not to facts you could research.
I only respond so I can find this later as a textbook example of egocentric pessimism. The need to post your anecdote in such context is natural, but based on emotion rather than logic, which makes it difficult to present rational argument that disagrees with your perception, and so we reach a stalemate.
It would be difficult, and this is my point, to argue you into actively pursuing questioning if the numbers are correct, because you have accepted them, even though you put no faith in the system to begin with. A self induced vapor lock.
The misery we inflict upon ourselves through abuse of reason should be illegal. Hopefully you feel not anger, but rather enlightenment.
Why should more people read it? The people who would learn from it are most likely already aware of the dangers, or at least open to it. The people who most need to learn from it would disagree with any obvious points, and possibly not see any subtle points.
It can't be informative as a work of fiction if the reader does not want to be informed, and the audience will suffer a self-selection bias where the people who most need to read it won't.
Your comment is exactly the guy with an outdated sweater vest and pipe at a dinner party who insists, "Well you absolutely must read [author].." with an explanation of all of the dazzling insights the author has and all of the wonderful things to be learned, but you're talking to a chihuahua. The audience you mean will not learn anything from this if they read it, if it were read to them, if they were strapped in to a chair to listen to the book on tape, or if it were tattooed on their eyeballs. I applaud you for recognizing a hint of the plot of something you read, but that's really all that happened here.
If you hire people who know what the alternative is, and the company is small enough, they may make personal sacrifices to ensure the company with the digital boss goes under so it does not become a reality. And that was the point - hiring people who object to this.
And if you hire wisely instead of taking every rat from the ship, you can probably do more with fewer people. Breaking even is not hard to do in this scenario, and recruitment/replacement costs could start to eat up the budget gained from the digital bosses, leaving the victory with the hippies.
It is one of many possible scenarios, it is just as likely as is yours, if not more so.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to retract everything I said this morning, but the rest of this comment is pasted from a link in tfa. I don't buy the projections. Particularly, the 1m jobs will be at the bottom of the pay scale, not the $80k average.
Summary of source data for Code.org infographic
1mm more jobs than students in computing, $500B over 10 years: From the 2010 - 2012 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/, across all industries we are adding 136,620 jobs per year in computing. Subtract 40,000 annual computer science graduates (see NSF data below) and you get roughly a gap of 100,000 jobs. 100,000 jobs adds up over 10 years to 1mm jobs, with an average salary of $80,000 (the average salary in computing), that results in: first year: 100,000 x $80,000 2nd year: 200,000 x $80,000 3rd year: 300,000 x $80,000 10th year: 1,000,000 x $80,000 TOTAL SALARIES = $440,000,000,000 ($440 billion)
This is slightly below $500b, but it doesn't account for inflation over the next 10 years. on top of that, there are many studies that show that each new software job results in many more jobs in the neighborhood. The latest such study suggested a 4.3x multiplier in terms of generating supporting/neighborhood jobs. With a 4.3x multiplier, weâ(TM)d be talking about 5.3mm jobs over 10 years, and much more than $440b, so to be conservative we just rounded up to $500b. Hereâ(TM)s a very rough back of envelope analysis that suggests that the total opportunity size in this space may actually be closer to $1T in 10 years.
Do you buy Oracle hardware and licenses because its what the DBA knows, or are your requirements satisfied by something less expensive?
Do you need the Rsa connection so admins can remote in, or is that something that should be airgapped?
My point is that you have to either know or trust, and trust is expensive. So hire well and pay generously. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't mean it will be solved well, or at all. As such, it is too simplistic to be taken as advice.
You may not have a choice, and that's the point. When the going rate drops, everyone is affected. There will always be exceptions, of course.
But, before this goes away, it has to run its course. Why? Deep pockets of IT are behind it, the most to gain but also the most to spend.
By the time they realize that paper qualifications mean squat because the good teachers are spread too thin, and people think real back office code is 10 lines of JavaScript - salaries will be depressed overall, and will take time to recover.
I'm sure you're more awesome than me and can find a job anywhere, but to get one of the jobs that operates and pays at a high level, instead of accepting Access/Vba solutions that lose data, you will be relocating.
I have no fear, but I fear for you and everyone else here. In 10 years we will know, because you will have college grads with 6 years experience in something they don't care for personally, and that will set the entry level salary, or wage perhaps.
With a proper installer, an application requiring those would provide the version it needs, aka DLL hell. If some form of SxS is implemented, you get version specific runtime and no DLL hell.
There has been no need to rewrite those, for that reason, other than having stubs to link against. And since they reuse wine libs, it may be a wine stub rather than something reactos intends to work.
Once you are enlightened, your statement is now false. It will get more compatible. And if you require those libraries and it is legal do to so, you can obtain them directly from Microsoft, or the app developer, or anyone.
There is a reason they are called redistributables. Guess what that is? Go on, I'll give you a hint if you need one.
And most programs need terminal services? No, some very specific ones do. And that is the idea behind thorium virtual kickstarter. If people fund it, it will exist.
How is that misleading? The next release of debian is codenamed jessie, apparently.
3 mod point left. Do I mod you down or suggest it's not a conspiracy? 12 points all to marking people off topic for exceeding the boundaries of common sense. Best not to waste them on whinging I suppose.
The researchers said the humans who left the footprints may have been related to Homo antecessor, or "pioneer man," whose fossilized remains have been found in Spain. That species died out about 800,000 years ago.
Direct quote. Fuck me, I won't have to try very hard to boycott.
http://arstechnica.com/science...">Ars has an interesting take on this question, which does not require full ships.
And because I'm mobile and went through enough trouble on your behalf already, you may on your own find more about suggestions that people have essentially rafted about the world longer than we have had actual ships.
In addition to land bridges and other possibilities, it is very easy to imagine without requiring ship building, unless you spend no time reading or thinking about how ancient people lived.
Ships are the obvious and sole answer if you lived in the past hundred years, but might they have built weather balloons created by the gas from volcanic vents? Domesticated flying dinosaurs? Tamed dolphins? Oh no, ships are not the only possibility.
You just described marketing induced denial. Sure its bad for you, but look at all the other people not quitting, join our community with a shirt - all that.
There are other sources for denial, but marketing is still powerful. And messages from earlier in life can still be strong in the later years.
Induce is a word, it has meaning, and at least one of those is appropriate here.
It is odd to see a brown bag meeting like this. But rarely would the CEO address employees in their workplace. It is usually in a place intended for such meetings, and then webcast remotely if needed.
In other words, if you don't know what you are talking about, don't jump to conclusions and then post about how your conclusions are terrible.
This idea is for computers hosting credit card info, personal information, and other potential targets. A development environment may host interesting bits, but should never have these tempting bits on it.
Your implementation is everything whitelisting was never intended to be, and is unrelated to this story except tangentially as a cautionary tale of where to draw the line as an employee.
I don't see how whitelisting on a POS device will possibly work if it needs updates, delivered remotely, and whitelist updates, delivered remotely, so the Target breach seems like the best option in the future. And proper network administration was the main issue there.
It may help in some cases, but as you described, any computer being used and modified by users will remain vulnerable. Anything maintained in a wa other than imaging will not be protected, and only with proper network access control for the imaging access. It always comes down to, which computers should I trust to authenticate a user before I even acknowledge a connection?
I've been moderating them off-topic, and I'm no admin. We were supposed to have a day of protest, then there was the boycott I think for next week. There is zero point in continuing this childish nonsense.
Yay, sticking it to the man, we feel awesome about ourselves, now start acting like people care about the community instead of pissing on it.
There is something between no science and public science, and that's what we currently have. The public, not just Congress, would need access to the data models used. Not just the papers, which goes beyond what we have today, but the backing data and the model.
Open access journal would not be enough.
We can agree that this is an improvement.
However, Congress is not held to the same standard. There is no requirement to put public funded research in the public domain. There is nothing in this bill except a wish for a scientific community that does not exist.
And because it does not exist, no Administration office will be able to make the regulations that Congress delegated responsibility for. Dumping asbestos in a lake? We need an open access study that says asbestos is still harmful when wet.
I'm being serious, go back and read the bill. Being obvious or accepted or well known is not enough. Citing a meta-study is not enough. A report from Nature or Science is not enough. A reviewed and published study in a respectable journal is not enough.
All of these are pro-science, but they fall short of this bill. Argue for open science all you want, but here is why it doesn't matter:
This bill, on the surface, asks for what makes the most sense. It does nothing to get us there. It is no different from saying only moon people can make EPA regulations, and at the same time providing no funding to put people on the moon. The text of the bill, as written, is asking for what is nearly impossible. If this is unintentional, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise it needs to die.
Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.
And then the comments revert to duck beta, then go away, and no one really cares except for dice. So let it be.
Are you 4000 years old? I'm not. I grew up in a world ruled by greedy bastards. I may disagree, but I don't expect my culture to ignore itself from time to time.
Pay someone to build a repeater, and license the content. If you couldn't access it before the cable converter giveaway, you lost nothing and deserve nothing.
Fuck damn, bring on the beta because the comments eat balls. IOC grants exclusive access, not NBC. NBC bids based on the ability to recoup expenses plus.
As part of the deal, NBC is not required to provide free access to taxpayers. The defense expenditures are unrelated to the IOC NBC deal.
NBC buys an upstream link and spends money, and it sould be free because taxes?
Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.
Ther are people who would like to get back to normal. The fuck beta was supposed to last a day. It's obvious some won't let go, so is it that hard to believe no user with mid points would mark off topic posts as such?
I have 12 points left. Tell me why I shouldn't spend them all marking off topic posts, so the people who say they like the discussions can read them?
You can tell when I'm mobile because spellcheck fucks up apostrophes. And when I am, I don't want a shell page followed by partially loading the rest. So I disable scripts. When the page is ready, it is obvious. When it isn't I'm wasting time.
3g is about like dial-up, because I am on the edge of service. Sometimes it works, sometimes no. If I will read your site, I care whether the front page loads. Not if it can deliver chrome once and do updates quicker. It makes no difference because between readings, even with the browser topmost, it dumps the cache after 30 minutes or so, and the browser eventually.
So no, you are not saving bandwidth. Only forcing me to refresh many requests instead of one.
Don't think just of JavaScript. Think of how it is used, and abused. Most sites seem to think JavaScript is the answer to mobile. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. Slashdot does not get updated fast enough to use JavaScript efficiently on the front page. And as long as comment pages are generated periodically, I do not want to wait on scroll.
So yes, it is a reason. I do not view the mobile site when mobile for the same reason. Be smart and use the best technology for your content. Image heavy sites might speed the experience with scripting, but this is text.
If they are that far behind, they may have categories they don't know well. Getting a $200 question, hoping the time runs out, and moving to either new categories or final jeopardy, is not a horrible strategy if it is your only option.
Or did you assume that no one gives any thought to such things? Because you can't tell if it just did not occur to them, which is another possibility.
Sounds like you are easily stunned, or cannot understand that people may think differently, or had not considered that, while on a show with competition and an audience, people might make bad choices.
20 minutes in, they announce the final jeopardy category and go to a commercial. 10 minutes for a single question, including watching people think while listening to the theme music.
I think your opinion of jeopardy is rose colored, since if it did not sell commercials it would be off the air. Some shows definitely have less content, but the format has been around long enough that they couldn't mess with it. Which means we won't know if they really would like to, so we can't assume that they would not love to remove a category and open more time for commercials.
Were it new this year with the same people, it would waste time just as much. It is unchanged from many years back, which is the only reason it does not follow the trend
You responded to "not everyone had a bad experience" with "I had a bad experience", which was a given, and redundant.
Your further extrapolation was clearly buttressed by your anecdote, and therefore colored by it. Specifically, you feel wounded, and attribute things that have not happened yet and probably will not, to the program as you have experienced it, not to facts you could research.
I only respond so I can find this later as a textbook example of egocentric pessimism. The need to post your anecdote in such context is natural, but based on emotion rather than logic, which makes it difficult to present rational argument that disagrees with your perception, and so we reach a stalemate.
It would be difficult, and this is my point, to argue you into actively pursuing questioning if the numbers are correct, because you have accepted them, even though you put no faith in the system to begin with. A self induced vapor lock.
The misery we inflict upon ourselves through abuse of reason should be illegal. Hopefully you feel not anger, but rather enlightenment.
Why should more people read it? The people who would learn from it are most likely already aware of the dangers, or at least open to it. The people who most need to learn from it would disagree with any obvious points, and possibly not see any subtle points.
It can't be informative as a work of fiction if the reader does not want to be informed, and the audience will suffer a self-selection bias where the people who most need to read it won't.
Your comment is exactly the guy with an outdated sweater vest and pipe at a dinner party who insists, "Well you absolutely must read [author].." with an explanation of all of the dazzling insights the author has and all of the wonderful things to be learned, but you're talking to a chihuahua. The audience you mean will not learn anything from this if they read it, if it were read to them, if they were strapped in to a chair to listen to the book on tape, or if it were tattooed on their eyeballs. I applaud you for recognizing a hint of the plot of something you read, but that's really all that happened here.
This sounds familiar. But in case it's not, pardon the interruption. Please, continue...
If you hire people who know what the alternative is, and the company is small enough, they may make personal sacrifices to ensure the company with the digital boss goes under so it does not become a reality. And that was the point - hiring people who object to this.
And if you hire wisely instead of taking every rat from the ship, you can probably do more with fewer people. Breaking even is not hard to do in this scenario, and recruitment/replacement costs could start to eat up the budget gained from the digital bosses, leaving the victory with the hippies.
It is one of many possible scenarios, it is just as likely as is yours, if not more so.