I guarantee you that those college educated foreign workers have withstood more competition and rigor than you are ever likely too, and they deserve the new consideration that they are recieving from American corporations. Overseas much more than over here, the cream rises to the top.
The problem with paying foreigners to work for american companies is the answer to the question, "Where is money to pay them coming from?" The answer is, the American public and companies. Since I'm the one buying computers, software, etc., and not the poor folks in India, I should be the one getting paid to create the stuff. A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
Maybe that is the American worker's fault - but the fact remains - jobs are taken away by immigrants. If we need immigrants in US companies - they should be from Alabama or Texas.
The problem with paying foreigners to work for american companies is the answer to the question, "Where is money to pay them coming from?" The answer is, the American public and companies. Since I'm the one buying computers, software, etc., and not the poor folks in India, I should be the one getting paid to create the stuff. A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
I stand corrected. Actually, analyzing microarrays is one *very good* example of data mining. But I am curious why you need to learn CS to do this kind of stuff? Aren't there plenty of programs that will do this automatically?
I must apologize for my angry tone before. I just got back from a conference from some folks at ncbi, and the guy threw the term of "data mining" around like water. I think it is important for biologists to understand the difference. Extracting information from microarray data is quite different than searching ncbi for a single piece of sequence information, or BLAST. They're really two different search methodologies.
At this point even, using data mining on the sequence data at ncbi might be useful, though I don't know for what at the moment.
I'm a CS major that works in Bioinformatics. And it is *very* frustrating working with biologists who don't have the first clue about computer science or how it can help them. There is complete lack of understanding about the basic technology. They don't really understand what a database is. They don't understand the purpose and value of batch processing. They seem to live a world based on how work is done in the lab. Lots of work for little results. They just assume that everything takes a long time and doing things a hundred times takes a hundred times longer.
Your post just makes my point clear. I hear the term, "data mining" all the time from biologists-turned-computer-people. Computer-people being their term and not mine. Somehow they think that learning to use a computer is like learning to use a microscope. Something that you can become expert in with just a few courses. Well, what most of them mean when they say "data mining" is simply USING A DATABASE. Data mining requires understanding of machine learning and not simply searching ncbi for stuff. Stop using terms/buzzwords that you don't even understand.
Really? I've only found two groups using bittorrent for anything. And both were TV episodes and movies. There's a lot more types of files being shared than video.
I think he is suggesting that his accouting department are idiots.
Re:Notice the absence of music notation programs
on
Turn-Key Linux Audio
·
· Score: 1
My point is that from what I can see from the screenshots, Rosegarden is nowhere near the functionality of Finale. Finale has all kinds of options and features for notation, and notation only. It isn't mucked up with sequencing. A lot of programs have tried to do both and haven't worked. Finale and programs like Rosegarden are like word processors and computer speech generators. They both deal with words, but in fundamentally different ways.
Re:Notice the absence of music notation programs
on
Turn-Key Linux Audio
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Except that it looks to me from the screenshots that rosegarden is a sequencer. Finale is a music typesetting tool
No, MS got lucky and sold their OS to IBM. They were smart enough to not sell them all the rights. There were other OS's out there. PCs became mainstream because they're cool. Not because DOS was so great, which it wasn't.
Almost true. Each tense has a different set of 6 conjugations. But usually there are 5 different spellings, not 6. This of course, doesn't make it any simpler. For regular -ER verbs, 3 of the 5 spellings are pronounces *exactly the same*. Here goes:
person Singular Plural 1st Je parle Nous parlons 2nd Tu parles Vous parlez 3rd Il parle Ils parlent
parle, parles, parlent are all pronounced parl. Silent ent? Come on! The thing is, most french people have serious problems getting the spelling correct for these words. I found that I spelled French a lot better than a lot of native speakers because I learned to write it first, without all the confusion of having words that you thought were the same turned into 3 different forms. Oh, and it doesn't help that Il and Ils are said the same as well. Well most of the time, sometimes they're different. Confused yet?
Another way of talking about these numbers is the multliplier. That is, (for pure contracting jobs), you charge the client twice or three times as much as you pay the employee (2.0 and 3.0 multipliers respectively). 25% and 33% would be 4.0 and 3.0 multipliers. That's horrendous. I worked for a company that had a 1.4 multiplier. While that was a small company with fewer overhead expenses, most companies shouldn't have a multiplier bigger than 2.5. It's robbery.
Don't use generalizations, they'll always get you in trouble.
Here's a quote, "Generalizations aren't worth a damn, including this one."
I personally don't agree that "much" of the web is made up of flash animations.
Fine. Until *you* come with "numbers" to support this, then I will continue in my belief.
Yeah you, the designer, think it's perfectly fine, but your opinion is, of course, biased.
One, I'm not a designer. Any examples where I put myself in the place of the designer were for illustrative purposes only. Two, isn't that what an opinion is, a bias? How is *your* opinion any less biased than mine? If opinions weren't biased by experience/knowledge/etc. then they would all be the same. They're not, that's why we call them opinions.
it is used in ways that annoy the sh*t out of people.
Hey look, a generalization. It may annoy the sh*t out of you, but how can you speak for everyone else? Same as goes for TV, if you don't like it, close the window.
I've seen a lot of beautifully animated sites that didn't contain a byte of Flash and were perfectly searchable because of it.
Well, either they used animated gifs (can anyone say "bandwidth hog"?), or a bunch of crazy weird *inaccessible* javascript and html hacks that probably only work in Internet Explorer. Isn't accessibility what this whole discussion is all about? Flash works in a whole lot more browsers than hacked up html does, and it does so consistently. My Flash animation will look the same in all browsers that support it.
If someone cannot access your content, the content is useless to them regardless of the presentation.
Thank you for stating the obvious. You're a friggin' genius.
Try to read between the lines next time. What I meant is that there is a give and take between accessibility and presentation. The better presentation often makes it less accessible. I just think folks are wrong to assume that accessibility should take such a big priority over presentation.
That statement was referring to the users of your websites, who you suggest should view your pages exactly as you intended (ignoring the fact that this is not possible), rather than in the manner that is most useful to them.
Actually, it is possible. I use flash for the whole site.
What you suggest is to indulge in a fallacy of platform-specificity, when really you only enjoy the disadvantages of both approaches.
What you suggest is to indulge in a fallacy of platform-non-specificity, where every browser will render all HTML pages correctly. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how loud you complain. Why not help people do what they obviously want to do, instead of telling them that they aren't creating the web the way you (and the w3c zealots) think it should be.
HTML is great for what it was "designed" to do. My point is that people want to do things on the web (and in a larger sense the internet) that can't be done with HTML. You yourself have admitted that. Why are you so dead set against me using tools that do what I want?
I don't think that we should be catering to the least common denominator.
And BTW, you attempts to paint me as a moron are becoming annoying. I do know what I am talking about, even if we don't agree. I would appreciate if you would refrain trying to imply that I am ignorant, in your reply, and just reply.
I said that HTML was a poor language for graphic design, essentially that graphic design doesn't belong on the web, and that those who
think it does just don't get it.
Get what? Your vision of what the web should be?
So does HTML. They assume that you're using an HTML browser. What if I want to use a gopher browser to view their web pages?
That's just not worthy of a serious response
Yes it is. You can view web pages via gopher web gateways. Many "pure HTML" pages don't come up right. You should design web pages so I can view them in my gopher browser.
If you really believe in what you're saying, you shouldn't be using the web. The web is a terrible platform for what you want. What you describe is much better accomplished with platform specific software, or PDF files. What you would realize if you actually tried that
approach, however, is that no one would take the trouble to view your information.
Why should the web be a terrible platform for what I want? Just because it doesn't fit into your vision of what the web should be? Platform specific software is exactly what the web was trying to get away with. I agree with your philosophy that folks on the web should
be able to create content that can be viewed on multiple platforms, as can be done with "pure" HTML as it is now, but the problem is that
HTML isn't powerful enough to do all the things that people want to be able to do. If it was, then Flash wouldn't be as popular as it is.
People would've said, "Why should I use Flash, when I can do the same thing in HTML?"
hyper TEXT markup language was never meant to include graphics.
Not sure where that came from...the IMG tag has been there since the beginning.
Really? I didn't know that! My point was that HTML wasn't designed with the idea of using graphics on a page to enhance the presentation. The IMG tag was created to include square images on a mostly text filled page. The IMG tag doesn't even come close to being able to present graphics in the many ways that someone might want. I was talking about graphics, not images.
The hacks you're talking about are not HTML, they're the kludges that people use to try to make HTML do things that it was intended not to
do.
Then make HTML so that I *can* do those things in a platform non-specific manner. People use these kludges because they can't "get
the silly image in the right place" or want menus on their page. If a
site designer was able to easily create a menu system on his site that
was *good*, do you think that he would use a kludge?
forcing a large number of people to conform to your presumptions of
how they should browse the web.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. You're the one that
wants to force people to not use technologies like Flash, streaming
video, animated GIFs, font tags, etc. on the web when it is clear that
most people like these things. The "pure HTML" spouting folks are in the
minority. I can't believe that you actually think that most people want accessibility over presentation.
If I want my content available to cell phones, then I should make sure
that it can be viewed on cell phones. If I want it available on text
terminals, then I should make sure that it can be viewed on text
terminals. If I want my site to pretty, engaging, then maybe I want
to use flash. Maybe I conclude that the presentation of my
information in the way that I want is more important to me than making
it viewable to the *minority* of users who don't have such and such
plugin or browser technology.
In fact, I had to make this decision at one point. I wrote a web
application that pretty much required the use of IE. It made
extensive use of custom ActiveX plugins, ActiveX objects, and lots of
Windows specific stuff. It couldn't be done in a text browser. The
app wouldn't have made sense without graphics. The app was *visual*.
Information was conveyed visually through the use of graphics. And it
was a rousing success, among the audience it was intended for. They
were for the most part IE users. Yes, the netscape users couldn't use
it, but the truth is that they were in the minority. And we didn't
have any blind people using it, because again, it was graphical and
well... I wish I could've designed the graphical portions of the site
with Flash, that would have made it accessible to other browsers, but
even then it wouldn't make it ADA compliant. It was visual and it was
valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
I guarantee you that those college educated foreign workers have withstood more competition and rigor than you are ever likely too, and they deserve the new consideration that they are recieving from American corporations. Overseas much more than over here, the cream rises to the top.
The problem with paying foreigners to work for american companies is the answer to the question, "Where is money to pay them coming from?" The answer is, the American public and companies. Since I'm the one buying computers, software, etc., and not the poor folks in India, I should be the one getting paid to create the stuff. A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
Maybe that is the American worker's fault - but the fact remains - jobs are taken away by immigrants. If we need immigrants in US companies - they should be from Alabama or Texas.
The problem with paying foreigners to work for american companies is the answer to the question, "Where is money to pay them coming from?" The answer is, the American public and companies. Since I'm the one buying computers, software, etc., and not the poor folks in India, I should be the one getting paid to create the stuff. A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
Try 700kB/s on a uni connection. Fastest I get.
I stand corrected. Actually, analyzing microarrays is one *very good* example of data mining. But I am curious why you need to learn CS to do this kind of stuff? Aren't there plenty of programs that will do this automatically?
I must apologize for my angry tone before. I just got back from a conference from some folks at ncbi, and the guy threw the term of "data mining" around like water. I think it is important for biologists to understand the difference. Extracting information from microarray data is quite different than searching ncbi for a single piece of sequence information, or BLAST. They're really two different search methodologies.
At this point even, using data mining on the sequence data at ncbi might be useful, though I don't know for what at the moment.
I'm a CS major that works in Bioinformatics. And it is *very* frustrating working with biologists who don't have the first clue about computer science or how it can help them. There is complete lack of understanding about the basic technology. They don't really understand what a database is. They don't understand the purpose and value of batch processing. They seem to live a world based on how work is done in the lab. Lots of work for little results. They just assume that everything takes a long time and doing things a hundred times takes a hundred times longer.
Your post just makes my point clear. I hear the term, "data mining" all the time from biologists-turned-computer-people. Computer-people being their term and not mine. Somehow they think that learning to use a computer is like learning to use a microscope. Something that you can become expert in with just a few courses. Well, what most of them mean when they say "data mining" is simply USING A DATABASE. Data mining requires understanding of machine learning and not simply searching ncbi for stuff. Stop using terms/buzzwords that you don't even understand.
he's the figurehead of the Linux movement
He's hardly a figurehead. He's in charge of the code. Figureheads don't do anything.
Except in the physical-goods world, you put a repossesion clause in the contract.
Last time I checked, secretaries weren't management.
You make a point, but did you take into account the fact that electronic timecards don't require a secretary to reinput?
Really? I've only found two groups using bittorrent for anything. And both were TV episodes and movies. There's a lot more types of files being shared than video.
I think he is suggesting that his accouting department are idiots.
My point is that from what I can see from the screenshots, Rosegarden is nowhere near the functionality of Finale. Finale has all kinds of options and features for notation, and notation only. It isn't mucked up with sequencing. A lot of programs have tried to do both and haven't worked. Finale and programs like Rosegarden are like word processors and computer speech generators. They both deal with words, but in fundamentally different ways.
Except that it looks to me from the screenshots that rosegarden is a sequencer. Finale is a music typesetting tool
No, MS got lucky and sold their OS to IBM. They were smart enough to not sell them all the rights. There were other OS's out there. PCs became mainstream because they're cool. Not because DOS was so great, which it wasn't.
Thanks mom
I thought that german was even worse?
25 and 33 percent of your billable rate
Another way of talking about these numbers is the multliplier. That is, (for pure contracting jobs), you charge the client twice or three times as much as you pay the employee (2.0 and 3.0 multipliers respectively). 25% and 33% would be 4.0 and 3.0 multipliers. That's horrendous. I worked for a company that had a 1.4 multiplier. While that was a small company with fewer overhead expenses, most companies shouldn't have a multiplier bigger than 2.5. It's robbery.
He is also more encouraging than your mates down the pub.
"He congratulates you if you get a high score," said Mr Larsen.
Wow, that is some *sweet* technology. It will congratulates you if you get a high score.I wonder how long it took the geniuses at Microsoft to write that code.
Don't use generalizations, they'll always get you in trouble.
Here's a quote, "Generalizations aren't worth a damn, including this one."
I personally don't agree that "much" of the web is made up of flash animations.
Fine. Until *you* come with "numbers" to support this, then I will continue in my belief.
Yeah you, the designer, think it's perfectly fine, but your opinion is, of course, biased.
One, I'm not a designer. Any examples where I put myself in the place of the designer were for illustrative purposes only. Two, isn't that what an opinion is, a bias? How is *your* opinion any less biased than mine? If opinions weren't biased by experience/knowledge/etc. then they would all be the same. They're not, that's why we call them opinions.
it is used in ways that annoy the sh*t out of people.
Hey look, a generalization. It may annoy the sh*t out of you, but how can you speak for everyone else? Same as goes for TV, if you don't like it, close the window.
I've seen a lot of beautifully animated sites that didn't contain a byte of Flash and were perfectly searchable because of it.
Well, either they used animated gifs (can anyone say "bandwidth hog"?), or a bunch of crazy weird *inaccessible* javascript and html hacks that probably only work in Internet Explorer. Isn't accessibility what this whole discussion is all about? Flash works in a whole lot more browsers than hacked up html does, and it does so consistently. My Flash animation will look the same in all browsers that support it.
By your logic, since I haven't heard any music played on the accordian which is decent, then the accordian is useless and nobody should play it.
The technology isn't the content. Don't mix the two. And BTW, there are quite a few very good uses of flash. Maybe you just haven't seen them.
If someone cannot access your content, the content is useless to them regardless of the presentation.
Thank you for stating the obvious. You're a friggin' genius.
Try to read between the lines next time. What I meant is that there is a give and take between accessibility and presentation. The better presentation often makes it less accessible. I just think folks are wrong to assume that accessibility should take such a big priority over presentation.
That statement was referring to the users of your websites, who you suggest should view your pages exactly as you intended (ignoring the fact that this is not possible), rather than in the manner that is most useful to them.
Actually, it is possible. I use flash for the whole site.
What you suggest is to indulge in a fallacy of platform-specificity, when really you only enjoy the disadvantages of both approaches.
What you suggest is to indulge in a fallacy of platform-non-specificity, where every browser will render all HTML pages correctly. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how loud you complain. Why not help people do what they obviously want to do, instead of telling them that they aren't creating the web the way you (and the w3c zealots) think it should be.
HTML is great for what it was "designed" to do. My point is that people want to do things on the web (and in a larger sense the internet) that can't be done with HTML. You yourself have admitted that. Why are you so dead set against me using tools that do what I want?
I don't think that we should be catering to the least common denominator.
And BTW, you attempts to paint me as a moron are becoming annoying. I do know what I am talking about, even if we don't agree. I would appreciate if you would refrain trying to imply that I am ignorant, in your reply, and just reply.
If content isn't accessible, its no use to anyone. I can't believe you can't understand that.
Don't twist my words. I mean accessible in regards to things like the ADA. Not the broad dictionary definition.
Get what? Your vision of what the web should be?
So does HTML. They assume that you're using an HTML browser. What if I want to use a gopher browser to view their web pages?
That's just not worthy of a serious response
Yes it is. You can view web pages via gopher web gateways. Many "pure HTML" pages don't come up right. You should design web pages so I can view them in my gopher browser.
If you really believe in what you're saying, you shouldn't be using the web. The web is a terrible platform for what you want. What you describe is much better accomplished with platform specific software, or PDF files. What you would realize if you actually tried that approach, however, is that no one would take the trouble to view your information.
Why should the web be a terrible platform for what I want? Just because it doesn't fit into your vision of what the web should be? Platform specific software is exactly what the web was trying to get away with. I agree with your philosophy that folks on the web should be able to create content that can be viewed on multiple platforms, as can be done with "pure" HTML as it is now, but the problem is that HTML isn't powerful enough to do all the things that people want to be able to do. If it was, then Flash wouldn't be as popular as it is. People would've said, "Why should I use Flash, when I can do the same thing in HTML?"
hyper TEXT markup language was never meant to include graphics.
Not sure where that came from...the IMG tag has been there since the beginning.
Really? I didn't know that! My point was that HTML wasn't designed with the idea of using graphics on a page to enhance the presentation. The IMG tag was created to include square images on a mostly text filled page. The IMG tag doesn't even come close to being able to present graphics in the many ways that someone might want. I was talking about graphics, not images.
The hacks you're talking about are not HTML, they're the kludges that people use to try to make HTML do things that it was intended not to do.
Then make HTML so that I *can* do those things in a platform non-specific manner. People use these kludges because they can't "get the silly image in the right place" or want menus on their page. If a site designer was able to easily create a menu system on his site that was *good*, do you think that he would use a kludge?
forcing a large number of people to conform to your presumptions of how they should browse the web.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. You're the one that wants to force people to not use technologies like Flash, streaming video, animated GIFs, font tags, etc. on the web when it is clear that most people like these things. The "pure HTML" spouting folks are in the minority. I can't believe that you actually think that most people want accessibility over presentation.
If I want my content available to cell phones, then I should make sure that it can be viewed on cell phones. If I want it available on text terminals, then I should make sure that it can be viewed on text terminals. If I want my site to pretty, engaging, then maybe I want to use flash. Maybe I conclude that the presentation of my information in the way that I want is more important to me than making it viewable to the *minority* of users who don't have such and such plugin or browser technology.
In fact, I had to make this decision at one point. I wrote a web application that pretty much required the use of IE. It made extensive use of custom ActiveX plugins, ActiveX objects, and lots of Windows specific stuff. It couldn't be done in a text browser. The app wouldn't have made sense without graphics. The app was *visual*. Information was conveyed visually through the use of graphics. And it was a rousing success, among the audience it was intended for. They were for the most part IE users. Yes, the netscape users couldn't use it, but the truth is that they were in the minority. And we didn't have any blind people using it, because again, it was graphical and well... I wish I could've designed the graphical portions of the site with Flash, that would have made it accessible to other browsers, but even then it wouldn't make it ADA compliant. It was visual and it was valuable.