2) The "jobs are going overseas" mechanic implies a zero-sum game, when there isn't one.
I want to expand on this point. A lot of programmers I know seem to be missing something fundamental here, for reasons that I don't get.
Look, there are two core facts about programming as a career that trump everything else. The first is that not everybody can do it. I'd guess that only 25% of the population (tops) even has the potential to become a useful programmer. There is something about being able to decompose a technical problem into its constituent parts and then generating solutions for each of those parts that is simply beyond the capacity of the vast majority of people. I'm not saying they're stupid--brilliant poets are brilliant regardless of whether they have the capacity to learn C in any meaningful way. I am saying that there is some mental capacity that is not universal, and that people without that capacity are literally untrainable in the craft of creating software.
The second core fact about programming as a career is that software creates its own demand. If you have one system and you write a second system, then in addition to all of the from-scratch systems that you could write, you also have the option of writing a system that integrates the first two. The mere existence of software increases the number of potential projects that exist, and it does so on a super-exponential curve. Most of those possible systems aren't actually useful, so they're never developed, but the number of useful possible systems also is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Now apply these two core facts to the current labor situation. We've created so much demand for software in the Western world through our ever-increasing automation of an ever-increasing number of our activities that we can no longer satisfy the internal demand of our economy for persons able and willing to create software. We've already hired everybody who wants to be a coder and is able to produce usable code, but we still are demanding more and more software from them. In addition to bidding up prices for Western talent (take a look at where 'Software Engineer' falls on the annual salary charts and then cry me a river $100k/year wide) our society is also now hiring up everybody able and willing to write code in other parts of the world (and bidding up their prices, as well). Our own population is insufficient to meet our needs, so now we're skimming the cream of everybody else's crop.
Unfortunately, even India and China don't have an infinite number of citizens who can actually create useful systems. As we send more and more work their way we're pumping the oil field of software talent dry. Not only that, but the better jobs and higher wages relative to their home economies that third-world programmers enjoy reinforce most of these trends. By making more they consume and invest more. This steadily pushes up the demand for middle-class and luxury goods in their home societies. But what does that really mean? That means that they're pushing up the overall demand for software in their home economies (virtuous circle == (more money == more businesses == more technology investment)), which brings us back to where we started. Software creates its own demand, and not everybody can create software.
What happens when the Indians and Chinese are using all of their programmers for their own economies is anybody's guess. The fact that someday they will be seems pretty solid.
Imagine it this way--how would you feel if someone guessed your slashdot password, logged in as you, and posted a whole bunch of insightful comments. You'd be pissed, especially when none of your troll friends would talk to your karma-whoring self anymore and you were left to a life of loneliness and misery.
The other thing that makes me wonder is "how can this thing actually work?"
Well, it can't. At least not at the level that you are thinking about. But they don't appear to be discussing implementing this as "anonymous IP". They want to implement something below the IP level--I quote from their list of goals-
Ability to carry IP traffic, and possibly other network-layer trafic.
To me, the word carry implies that they are intending to encapsulate IP inside their new protocol. Now, if they're going to try to craft a network level replacement for IP they may be able to achieve the goals they have.
Unfortunately, this almost eradicates any chance of anything they produce being useful, at least in the short term. The installed base of IP aware devices is so great that anything new would spend about 99% of its time in IP-mode where the (pseudo|ano)nymity features will probably have to be unavailable.
Yes, let's. It's as good as any to display the fallacy inherent in your claim.
last presidential elections, there were more than a dozen parties running, ranging from comunists, socialists,
greens, republicans...all the way to extreme right wing party...those are just a few of the most important ones
For what appears to be a complete enumeration of French political parties please see this wonderful list.
so you see, to someone used to seeing a great variety of political parties, the choice between republicans and
democrats is really irrelevant, since they will pretty much do the same thing with just a few minor differences.
Now we get to the heart of the fallacy. You conclude that since we only use two names for our parties that we only have two
factions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our political process is actually at least as diverse as any other
industrialized nation and probably more so.
The two parties are both so fractured into warring factions that an election doesn't pass without some pithy political pundit
publically pondering the possibility that the Log Cabin Republicans will finally force the Christian Coalition to disperse itself into a new political entity. And while it's difficult to
find public discussion of the infighting among the Democratic factions one simply needs to compare the agenda of the AFL-CIO, with it's heavy focus on keeping high-polluting manufacturing jobs domestic, and the Sierra Club's focus on the environment above all else to see that the party is as
fundamentally fractured as the GOP.
The net result is that our government is effectively run by a coalition of factions, just as in other western nations. While
we don't explicitly name the factions, no one doubts that they exist. John McCain's agenda was markedly different from George
Bush's which is markedly different from Pat Robertson's. Al Gore and Bill Bradley were representing completely different interests
and constituencies than Jesse Jackson.
See past the simplistic media presentation to what's really there.
Furthermore, since this is actual income for me, tax law makes that into a deduction for the company (ie: They take $75 off of their tax bill).
I am not a tax accountant, but I think that a deduction means that the $75 is deducted from their net profit before figuring taxes, not from the total tax due. In Cisco's case, the number last year exceed total profits for the year which left them with $0 in taxable federal income and, thus, $0 in tax due.
This completely confuses me. What interest does Cisco have in property tax legislation?
Only the interest conferred by
Being a property owner in the jurisdiction in question
Being staffed by thousands of property owners in the jurisdiction in question
Being staffed by thousands of people living, working, sleeping, playing, and rasing their kids in the area. People who have a vested, long-term interested in the health and future of the region.
More importantly, why is Cisco's "support" relevant?
See above.
What does it mean for a corporation to support legislation that has nothing to do with they way they operate their business?
I don't think I even understand the question. The company has operations and staff in the area. For these people, everything that happens in the area affects the way they operate their business. Maybe a simple example will help-
Pretend for a moment that you own a company with 20 employees. I don't know if you've ever worked someplace that small, but if you haven't you don't understand what loving work can be like. When there are only 20 of you, everybody is friends. You babysit eachother's kids, you go to barbecues, everyone's children are in the same soccer leagues--it's almost like having a family that you got to pick.
Now say that there is a measure on the ballot that would raise the property tax by some exorbitant amount. After this happens your rent is going to go up by some amount.
Unfortunately, the company can't afford to have its rent go up right now. You're having a rough year. The employess were good about it and willingly accepted a year with no raises--they understand having hard times, like last year when Denise's husband was hurt and you her gave a bonus equal to his salary for 3 months so that they'd be ok. But the fact remains, if rent goes up the company is going down.
Do you think that in these circumstances the company has an interest in the legislation? If so, how should they express it other than by supporting one of the candidates? If not, how else do you propose to give the voice of these
20 people a chance to be heard?
Gosh, given the outcry you'd think that Cisco, Microsoft, Boeing, Cisco, Ford, and all of the other large corporations that have made these deductions had broken the law. But they haven't, they've followed exactly what the rules are for calculating and remitting taxes.
Taxes are a necessary evil, but no one is obligated to pay more than the share that the tax code specifies for them. I'm not going to fault anyone, individual or corporation, for not paying EXTRA taxes.
How many people are really gonna buy several different speeds for a box.
It seems to me that buying several different speeds will be the norm as multiprocessor machines move into the mainstream. Think about it--you buy a motherboard that can take 8 processors, but you only have enough cash for 2. So you go ahead and buy the 2, confident that in 6 months you'll be able to buy 2 more for the same price, but at a much higher processor speed, and just toss them into the machine.
Incremental upgrades are a compelling benefit from the consumer's perspective, and shouldn't be dismissed.
Ok, so this law is intended to ensure that professors retain control over their teaching materials--it's not transferring copyright to the Board of Regents as suggested. Specifically,
the law says-
Nothing in this chapter is intended to change existing law as it pertains to the ownership of academic presentations.
That said, it still looks like a bad law, rooted--once again--in the silly notion that ideas are a scarce resource. This one is a little more obviously bad than most, but only because the material it is protecting is more obviously intended for sharing. I mean, come on, it's a school--are we really supposed to believe that students shouldn't apply the ideas encountered to other parts of their lives? Or maybe we should think that students shouldn't use what they learn at school to make money?
This won't go away until people are making more money from sharing ideas than they do from hoarding them. When that happens, the balance of political power will shift away from the copyright holders and to the information consumers--right where it should be today. There are several ways this could happen; the open source movement is the best example so far although there are signs of similar trends in other industries.
Damn, people! At least get your history straight if you're going to comment.
Michael Tiemann was one of the founding members of Cygnus. In case you've forgotten, Cygnus is the company that took gcc from being a second-rate compiler for a small number of architectures and turned it into a world-class system that is the standard for embedded systems development.
If anyone deserves to claim to have started the open-source movement, it's Cygnus. They're the ones who demonstrated that you could pay the bills while giving the source code away.
The most telling part of the article is this quote from Kerry Rowe, the senior vp at IITRI who will be overseeing the project, when asked about the clause in the Justice Department's Request For Proposals requiring that the feds be able to edit the report before publication-
I don't anticipate major edits...We're gonna be working very closely together [with Justice] throughout the evaluation and I think it's going to be a fair [report].
Of course they don't expect any major edits. No one is going to willingly sign up to be a meaningless rubberstamp for bad law enforcement. But the edits will come anyway--especially if they discover that the system is exploitable.
They've (meaning the staff of IITRI) convinced themseleves that Justice is serious when they say a "fair and open" review is what is wanted. They've justified and rationalized to themselves that this isn't a political issue--that it's a technical one. It's an understandable mistake to make, we all want to believe that everyone else is acting in good faith.
But I think they'll probably regret this later, when they discover that federal agents are political beasts and they aren't always acting in good faith.
This seems like a really bad idea to me. It's practically an engraved invitation to someone to modify or create a version of the GPS system that spews bad data into the network.
When will these guys figure out that you absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, trust externally supplied data. You cannot safely use any data from an outside source in your computations--and these guys are going to go and make our entire air infrastructure run on a trust model?
It's already hard enough to get to the web-page you're looking for without having
a bunch of porn site operators or script kiddies skewing the results by embedding background
text. If you know the code for the search engine, then it makes it that much easier for them
to do so.
The point that everybody seems to be missing is that the
search engines shouldn't have to rely on
implementation tricks. The relevancy algorithms should
be adaptive (to catch drift in word usage) and personalized
(to account for differences in word usage between individuals).
The best way to make the engine unexploitable is to not compute
the same relevancy ranking for each user.
I expect that eventually the big search engines are going
to have to provide client side software to do much of the
necessary processing. The privacy issues are too dear to
the hearts of most people for them to be comfortable
giving away enough data to make the engines as relevant as
we want them to be.
With enough experimenting someone can find out how the system works. Either
through keywords,page text,bribing.. etc whatever. People will find out how it works. Just a
matter of time.
No need to waste tons of time experimenting, Google
is documented well enough in this
paper (presented by the founders of the company at the 7th WWW conference)
that someone could implement a look alike system. Of course, since most of the
technology described in the paper is patented, actually implementing
a system would be illegal.
That means, if someone wants to have his or her personal "persoanl profile", the person has to go through an almost endless loop of work to define his or her "taste".
Nonsense. Amazon.com and other retailers are doing an amazing job of building personal profiles that produce solid, relevant recommendations for nearly anything you've ever bought from them--even if it was only a single purchase. While most of them offer the ability to further refine your profile interactively, they all manage to capture enough data for their recommendation engines just from your actual behavior.
All Mr. Curry is suggesting is that this same technology be developed by the open source community and applied to the creation of playlists
in your mp3 player.
Oops, didn't mean to hit that button. Here are better links.
The source is
available
, but it doesn't appear to work with the standard linux toolkit (gcc, make, configure, perl, etc.). It requires something called FunnelWeb
(which appears to be some sort of literate programming aid) to build.
Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).
Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).
I prefer pull media like most of the Net[1] because if it's no good, you can choose to go elsewhere. This means if a media company wants to succeed, they'll have to compete based on their merit than on what is basically a captive audience.
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Remote Control and his seldom seen older brother, Mr. Television Dial. Through the magical service that they provide it has now become possible to actually *Change*The*Channel* if you don't like what you are watching.
If you think about it, the internet is just as 'push'y as television. It's just that on the internet there are a hell of a lot more people pushing.
I don't think that omega == 1 indicates perpetual expansion.
If omega == 1 then the universe will eventually reach a point of balance and neither expand nor contract any further. This is the flat universe discussed in the article. I think this implies the Big Freeze, but my physics is a little rusty.
If omega < 1 then the universe will expand forever. This corresponds to the Big Freeze scenario.
If omega > 1 then the universe will eventually recollapse under its own gravitational weight. This is the Big Crunch scenario.
Re:These agencies are a bit out of hand...
on
Feature:Geek Jobs
·
· Score: 1
> I'd love to start a website like > www.techjobsdirect.com, where smart > people could bypass all this broker/agency > nonsense.
Hmmmmm.... wouldn't your website then be the source of the middleman/broker/agency nonsense?
Slashdot Mirror
As you can tell from the UID, I've been using that name for a long time.
I don't want to lose the karma and the low UID
Lol. 6-digit "low" uid. Freakin' newbies. ;-)
Hey! Welcome. Don't worry, you won't be a newbie for long.
I want to expand on this point. A lot of programmers I know seem to be missing something fundamental here, for reasons that I don't get.
Look, there are two core facts about programming as a career that trump everything else. The first is that not everybody can do it. I'd guess that only 25% of the population (tops) even has the potential to become a useful programmer. There is something about being able to decompose a technical problem into its constituent parts and then generating solutions for each of those parts that is simply beyond the capacity of the vast majority of people. I'm not saying they're stupid--brilliant poets are brilliant regardless of whether they have the capacity to learn C in any meaningful way. I am saying that there is some mental capacity that is not universal, and that people without that capacity are literally untrainable in the craft of creating software.
The second core fact about programming as a career is that software creates its own demand. If you have one system and you write a second system, then in addition to all of the from-scratch systems that you could write, you also have the option of writing a system that integrates the first two. The mere existence of software increases the number of potential projects that exist, and it does so on a super-exponential curve. Most of those possible systems aren't actually useful, so they're never developed, but the number of useful possible systems also is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Now apply these two core facts to the current labor situation. We've created so much demand for software in the Western world through our ever-increasing automation of an ever-increasing number of our activities that we can no longer satisfy the internal demand of our economy for persons able and willing to create software. We've already hired everybody who wants to be a coder and is able to produce usable code, but we still are demanding more and more software from them. In addition to bidding up prices for Western talent (take a look at where 'Software Engineer' falls on the annual salary charts and then cry me a river $100k/year wide) our society is also now hiring up everybody able and willing to write code in other parts of the world (and bidding up their prices, as well). Our own population is insufficient to meet our needs, so now we're skimming the cream of everybody else's crop.
Unfortunately, even India and China don't have an infinite number of citizens who can actually create useful systems. As we send more and more work their way we're pumping the oil field of software talent dry. Not only that, but the better jobs and higher wages relative to their home economies that third-world programmers enjoy reinforce most of these trends. By making more they consume and invest more. This steadily pushes up the demand for middle-class and luxury goods in their home societies. But what does that really mean? That means that they're pushing up the overall demand for software in their home economies (virtuous circle == (more money == more businesses == more technology investment)), which brings us back to where we started. Software creates its own demand, and not everybody can create software.
What happens when the Indians and Chinese are using all of their programmers for their own economies is anybody's guess. The fact that someday they will be seems pretty solid.
Imagine it this way--how would you feel if someone guessed your slashdot password, logged in as you, and posted a whole bunch of insightful comments. You'd be pissed, especially when none of your troll friends would talk to your karma-whoring self anymore and you were left to a life of loneliness and misery.
daniel
Well, it can't. At least not at the level that you are thinking about. But they don't appear to be discussing implementing this as "anonymous IP". They want to implement something below the IP level--I quote from their list of goals-
To me, the word carry implies that they are intending to encapsulate IP inside their new protocol. Now, if they're going to try to craft a network level replacement for IP they may be able to achieve the goals they have.
Unfortunately, this almost eradicates any chance of anything they produce being useful, at least in the short term. The installed base of IP aware devices is so great that anything new would spend about 99% of its time in IP-mode where the (pseudo|ano)nymity features will probably have to be unavailable.
daniel
Yes, let's. It's as good as any to display the fallacy inherent in your claim.
For what appears to be a complete enumeration of French political parties please see this wonderful list.
Now we get to the heart of the fallacy. You conclude that since we only use two names for our parties that we only have two factions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our political process is actually at least as diverse as any other industrialized nation and probably more so.
The two parties are both so fractured into warring factions that an election doesn't pass without some pithy political pundit publically pondering the possibility that the Log Cabin Republicans will finally force the Christian Coalition to disperse itself into a new political entity. And while it's difficult to find public discussion of the infighting among the Democratic factions one simply needs to compare the agenda of the AFL-CIO, with it's heavy focus on keeping high-polluting manufacturing jobs domestic, and the Sierra Club's focus on the environment above all else to see that the party is as fundamentally fractured as the GOP.
The net result is that our government is effectively run by a coalition of factions, just as in other western nations. While we don't explicitly name the factions, no one doubts that they exist. John McCain's agenda was markedly different from George Bush's which is markedly different from Pat Robertson's. Al Gore and Bill Bradley were representing completely different interests and constituencies than Jesse Jackson.
See past the simplistic media presentation to what's really there.
daniel
I am not a tax accountant, but I think that a deduction means that the $75 is deducted from their net profit before figuring taxes, not from the total tax due. In Cisco's case, the number last year exceed total profits for the year which left them with $0 in taxable federal income and, thus, $0 in tax due.
daniel
Only the interest conferred by
See above.
I don't think I even understand the question. The company has operations and staff in the area. For these people, everything that happens in the area affects the way they operate their business. Maybe a simple example will help-
Pretend for a moment that you own a company with 20 employees. I don't know if you've ever worked someplace that small, but if you haven't you don't understand what loving work can be like. When there are only 20 of you, everybody is friends. You babysit eachother's kids, you go to barbecues, everyone's children are in the same soccer leagues--it's almost like having a family that you got to pick.
Now say that there is a measure on the ballot that would raise the property tax by some exorbitant amount. After this happens your rent is going to go up by some amount.
Unfortunately, the company can't afford to have its rent go up right now. You're having a rough year. The employess were good about it and willingly accepted a year with no raises--they understand having hard times, like last year when Denise's husband was hurt and you her gave a bonus equal to his salary for 3 months so that they'd be ok. But the fact remains, if rent goes up the company is going down.
Do you think that in these circumstances the company has an interest in the legislation? If so, how should they express it other than by supporting one of the candidates? If not, how else do you propose to give the voice of these 20 people a chance to be heard?
daniel
Gosh, given the outcry you'd think that Cisco, Microsoft, Boeing, Cisco, Ford, and all of the other large corporations that have made these deductions had broken the law. But they haven't, they've followed exactly what the rules are for calculating and remitting taxes.
Taxes are a necessary evil, but no one is obligated to pay more than the share that the tax code specifies for them. I'm not going to fault anyone, individual or corporation, for not paying EXTRA taxes.
daniel
It seems to me that buying several different speeds will be the norm as multiprocessor machines move into the mainstream. Think about it--you buy a motherboard that can take 8 processors, but you only have enough cash for 2. So you go ahead and buy the 2, confident that in 6 months you'll be able to buy 2 more for the same price, but at a much higher processor speed, and just toss them into the machine.
Incremental upgrades are a compelling benefit from the consumer's perspective, and shouldn't be dismissed.
daniel
Ok, so this law is intended to ensure that professors retain control over their teaching materials--it's not transferring copyright to the Board of Regents as suggested. Specifically, the law says-
That said, it still looks like a bad law, rooted--once again--in the silly notion that ideas are a scarce resource. This one is a little more obviously bad than most, but only because the material it is protecting is more obviously intended for sharing. I mean, come on, it's a school--are we really supposed to believe that students shouldn't apply the ideas encountered to other parts of their lives? Or maybe we should think that students shouldn't use what they learn at school to make money?
This won't go away until people are making more money from sharing ideas than they do from hoarding them. When that happens, the balance of political power will shift away from the copyright holders and to the information consumers--right where it should be today. There are several ways this could happen; the open source movement is the best example so far although there are signs of similar trends in other industries.
daniel
Damn, people! At least get your history straight if you're going to comment.
Michael Tiemann was one of the founding members of Cygnus. In case you've forgotten, Cygnus is the company that took gcc from being a second-rate compiler for a small number of architectures and turned it into a world-class system that is the standard for embedded systems development.
If anyone deserves to claim to have started the open-source movement, it's Cygnus. They're the ones who demonstrated that you could pay the bills while giving the source code away.
daniel
Oops!
Later information made clear that these people did, indeed, sign up to be a rubberstamp committee.
Oh, well. It never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt to people.
daniel
The most telling part of the article is this quote from Kerry Rowe, the senior vp at IITRI who will be overseeing the project, when asked about the clause in the Justice Department's Request For Proposals requiring that the feds be able to edit the report before publication-
Of course they don't expect any major edits. No one is going to willingly sign up to be a meaningless rubberstamp for bad law enforcement. But the edits will come anyway--especially if they discover that the system is exploitable.
They've (meaning the staff of IITRI) convinced themseleves that Justice is serious when they say a "fair and open" review is what is wanted. They've justified and rationalized to themselves that this isn't a political issue--that it's a technical one. It's an understandable mistake to make, we all want to believe that everyone else is acting in good faith.
But I think they'll probably regret this later, when they discover that federal agents are political beasts and they aren't always acting in good faith.
daniel
This seems like a really bad idea to me. It's practically an engraved invitation to someone to modify or create a version of the GPS system that spews bad data into the network.
When will these guys figure out that you absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, trust externally supplied data. You cannot safely use any data from an outside source in your computations--and these guys are going to go and make our entire air infrastructure run on a trust model?
The mind boggles.
daniel
The point that everybody seems to be missing is that the search engines shouldn't have to rely on implementation tricks. The relevancy algorithms should be adaptive (to catch drift in word usage) and personalized (to account for differences in word usage between individuals). The best way to make the engine unexploitable is to not compute the same relevancy ranking for each user.
I expect that eventually the big search engines are going to have to provide client side software to do much of the necessary processing. The privacy issues are too dear to the hearts of most people for them to be comfortable giving away enough data to make the engines as relevant as we want them to be.
daniel
No need to waste tons of time experimenting, Google is documented well enough in this paper (presented by the founders of the company at the 7th WWW conference) that someone could implement a look alike system. Of course, since most of the technology described in the paper is patented, actually implementing a system would be illegal.
daniel
Nonsense. Amazon.com and other retailers are doing an amazing job of building personal profiles that produce solid, relevant recommendations for nearly anything you've ever bought from them--even if it was only a single purchase. While most of them offer the ability to further refine your profile interactively, they all manage to capture enough data for their recommendation engines just from your actual behavior.
All Mr. Curry is suggesting is that this same technology be developed by the open source community and applied to the creation of playlists in your mp3 player.
daniel
Oops, didn't mean to hit that button. Here are better links.
The source is available , but it doesn't appear to work with the standard linux toolkit (gcc, make, configure, perl, etc.). It requires something called FunnelWeb (which appears to be some sort of literate programming aid) to build.
Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).
daniel
The source is available, but it doesn't appear to work with the standard linux toolkit (gcc, make, configure, perl, etc.). It requires something called FunnelWeb (which appears to be some sort of literate programming aid) to build.
Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).
daniel
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Remote Control and his seldom seen older brother, Mr. Television Dial. Through the magical service that they provide it has now become possible to actually *Change*The*Channel* if you don't like what you are watching.
If you think about it, the internet is just as 'push'y as television. It's just that on the internet there are a hell of a lot more people pushing.
daniel
I don't think that omega == 1 indicates perpetual expansion.
If omega == 1 then the universe will eventually reach a point of balance and neither expand nor contract any further. This is the flat universe discussed in the article. I think this implies the Big Freeze, but my physics is a little rusty.
If omega < 1 then the universe will expand forever. This corresponds to the Big Freeze scenario.
If omega > 1 then the universe will eventually recollapse under its own gravitational weight. This is the Big Crunch scenario.
> I'd love to start a website like
> www.techjobsdirect.com, where smart
> people could bypass all this broker/agency
> nonsense.
Hmmmmm.... wouldn't your website then be the
source of the middleman/broker/agency nonsense?