"People would be able to see writing in the skies from the Earth no worse than they see the stars," he said.
Considering how bad light pollution is in most urban areas, it's tough to see all but the very brightest stars on any given clear night. Perhaps the silver lining to this absurd idea is that space advertisers would work to reduce light pollution caused by regular outdoor advertising so the majority of the population could actually see their ads in space.
Just a thought...
Where is all this going...
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Reading the article it occurred to me that in the future jobs may require that an employee get brain implants in order to perform some job related task or interact with future computer systems where manual user interface interaction is no longer practical. Would such systems separate workers into a group who are willing to submit to such an invasive operation and those who would refuse implants. I wonder how long we have before implant specifications start to appear on job descriptions and resumes?
The article did touch on the ethics of placing such implants into healthy soldiers, but ethics and morals that would prohibit such activity tend to be very fluid.
Non-invasive techniques may one day be developed for interacting with machines through thought, but this technology is probably much further off than taking the short-cut of hardwiring the brain.
I learned 6809 assembly language on a TRS-80 Color Computer as a kid back around 1978 and I feel that an early start in understanding CPUs from the ground up has given me a leg up on many of my peers over the years. 25 years later I can still tell the difference between programmers who have a basic understanding of how assembly language relates to CPUs and higher level languages and those who don't. It may not make much of a difference when writing Perl scripts or Java apps, but it makes a world of difference in being able to write robust and efficient C code.
I tend to agree with you regarding NASA TV coverage of the Mars landing. I recall watching on some cable channel (CSPAN?) the Viking landings and Voyager encounters when I was a kid in the late '70s. If I'm not mistaking these were broadcast as well directly from JPL and hosted by Carl Sagan who was explaining the meaning of the images and made it sound really exciting? Does anyone else have memories of these broadcasts? They seem much better than we saw from NASA TV today, but perhaps my memory is foggy.
I'm disappointed that I had to tune in over the Internet. I wish NASA TV could have cut a deal with CSPAN to broadcast the landing live so I could have watched the coverage a television. CSPAN covered the Columbia disaster press conferences in pretty good detail. You think they could have covered the good news from NASA as well.
Same exact thing happened to me as well. I lost the NASA TV feed just as they announced indications were that the rover was bouncing and they lost the signal from Mars. I finally got it back after 10 minutes of nail biting to see everyone in the control room patting each other on the back.
I attributed it to thousands of people trying to see NASA TV over the web at that specific time, but who knows...
When a match comes up positive they will claim that it was done "accidentally". I bet that DNA fingerprints would never actually get purged either due to "computer errors".
Such an "accident" would seem to be a defense lawyers dream case as such evidence would be tossed out under The Doctrine of The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. In other words, if the means of gathering evidence is tainted, the ends or fruits of those means and the evidence must likewise be poisonous.
BTW, do you have any specific references to the "many cases" where police refused to purge DNA fingerprints? If so, these are probably in states where DNA identification is legally treated just like fingerprint identification. The proposed law for California would have specific clauses to protect against this and I doubt police would be able to easily weasel their way out from under the law.
These kinds of details of the proposed law weren't described in the article, but I would presume that a DNA sample would be taken at the same time a fingerprint and mug shot are taken. In other words, when an actual arrest is made which is predicated on much more than just "round up all tall Hispanics with a goatee".
The essence of the proposed law is whether the voting public will view DNA identification as being equivalent to fingerprint identification. I believe that rational arguments can be made either way. It seems logical that DNA can treated as a perfectly legitimate means of identification for law enforcement. However, there is the potential for abuse which would have to be carefully considered.
To answer your question: I wouldn't have a real problem giving a DNA sample for identity purposes under the same conditions that today I would have to give a fingerprint (drivers licenses, childcare licenses and background checks, sensitive public sector jobs, etc.) Under such circumstances my DNA is a very accurate identifier and I can envision scenarios where such accuracy may indeed serve to protect my rights. I would much rather be wrongly accused under circumstances where DNA can clear my name than face a situation where a traumatized victim wrongly points their finger at me saying I'm the one because I remind them of perpetrator in some vague way.
Perhaps someone more familiar with the technology can better answer this question, but I believe the DNA procedures used for identity purposes are much different than DNA processes use for health screening and other purposes. This may make DNA fingerprinting less than useful for some of the outlandish abuses proposed.
The article states: "the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated."
Presuming that such protections are in place a person who is found innocent or in cases where charges are not pressed will have their records purged from the database. I'm not sure if this happens with fingerprints and mug shots today -- probably not.
Agreed. We all must learn to walk before we can run.
It should also be pointed out that although the Redstone rocket used to launch Alan Shepard into space was not capable of putting the Mercury capsule into orbit, it set the stage for later orbital Mercury missions using the larger Atlas rocket. Even NASA in the 60's took a methodical and evolutionary approach to space flight -- although on a hastened and expensive timetable that small private enterprise cannot hope to match.
Also note that the Redstone rocket used to launch the first US satellite Explorer I was a direct descendant of the German V2 which began development some 20 years or so earlier.
I for one can't wait to see where the descendants of the X-Prize efforts will be in 20 years.
Collectively we all pay the full cost of defending our country and homes from foreign invasion. I'm not against this.
What I'm against are instances of the government interfering with efficiencies of the free market by artificially supporting one alternative versus another alternative that may be better. In such cases, I would prefer to make my decision as a consumer and vote with my dollars rather than have the decision made for me by a politician -- even a politician elected in a democratic manner. In such cases, the government should function as a referee to ensure a level playing field rather than a distributor of subsidies to maintain the status quo.
SUBURBAN NATION: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2000)
------------ To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon. If this tax were to account for "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would he as high as $9.00 per gallon. The cost of these subsidies-approximately $5,000 per car per year-is passed directly on to the American citizen in the form of increased prices for products or, more often, as income, property, and sales taxes. This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with the heavily subsidized highways......Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners choose to drive as much as possible. They are making the correct economic decision, but not in a free-market economy. ------------
To read a more extensive quote with footnotes search for "Hart and Spivak" in the book section of Amazon.
I'm actually not against transportation and draw a conclusion different from the authors who propose a high tax imposed by the government to compensate for subsidies to drivers. Rather, I believe the government should stop supporting such subsidies altogether as they interfere with efficiencies of the free market. Instead, the government's role should be to make sure that the true cost of driving gasoline automobiles is fully borne by the market. Only then are we likely to realistic alternatives to gasoline.
Re:Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT.
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The transportation industry as a whole is massively subsidized through taxes. Americans only pay a small fraction of the true cost of driving our vehicles in the form of the gas tax. These subsidies go to build/maintain roads, fight wars to control/maintain/secure energy supplies, fix environmental damage, smog prevention, DMV operations, law enforcement, and a myriad of other costs associated with driving. The oil companies aren't paying for the war in Iraq, our taxes are.
If these subsidies were removed and the true cost of driving was more accurately reflected at the pump the free market could produce better alternatives much faster. As things are now, trying to develop alternatives that compete with an entrenched industry that is heavily subsidized by taxes is extremely difficult, if not foolish.
It's already happening. At a few airports here on the West Coast (and I assume for the rest of the country) I've noticed that those flying first class get their own express line through security. For now, suck ticket holder still have to undergo the same security check as everyone else, but those who can affort a first class ticket already have preferential treatment and can avoid the multi-hour long security lines that plague airports during peak travel times.
Avoiding the security check altogether just seems like the next logical step for those who can afford it.
I understand the attempt to diffuse legal responsibility for false and defamatory information in the GIA database, but wouldn't the public interest be better served to create a GIA-like database where the information was known to be unbiased and accurate?
The credibility of such a database is defined by it's weakest links. If the database becomes cluttered with inaccurate information from any conspiracy loon who comes along or person with an axe to grind against a political rival it will fail to be a credible source of information on individuals and organizations who influence public policy. This problem is exacerbated if sources of information remain anonymous and can't be verified.
Such a database could typify the old adage of "garbage in, garbage out" with truly important information getting lost in the noise.
Your comments remind me of a conversation I had with a lawyer friend a week ago regarding whether outsourcing IT jobs overseas was ultimately good or bad for the United States. My friend's argument was that any loss of jobs due to increased productivity brought on by outsourcing jobs overseas was more than made up by the resulting growth in the economy.
Consider the following simple example. Instead of hiring an IT working for $100K/yr to perform a job, a business outsources the same work to a worker in India for $50K/yr. For the business, this is an increase in efficiency in that it now only pays $50K/yr for the same work that used to cost $100K/yr. An additional $50K/yr is now available for reinvestment into the business, stock dividends, executive bonuses, whatever...
However, another way of looking at it is that although the business gained $50K/yr through increased productivity, the overall U.S. economy lost $50K/yr because the outsourced employee in India will spend that money in his/her own country. Part of the capitol will eventually return to the U.S. through U.S. goods purchased from India, but it will likely be a long time in coming. India and other third world countries can absorb a lot of capital building their local economy and infrastructure before being able to purchase goods or make investments in the U.S.
Multiply such instances of outsourcing by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and it results in a large amount of capital exiting the country that would otherwise be cycled through the U.S. economy keeping people employed.
The question I have is: When just considering the U.S. economy is the increase in productivity through outsourcing overseas real in that it frees capital for additional investment within the U.S. or is it just an illusion because of the exodus of capital from the U.S?
I've hear it described that VC operate in only one of two modes: extreme fear or extreme greed. This combined with a herd mentality may explain a lot of the craziness on the part of VC funding over the last few years.
Now, I don't want to sound like some bleeding-heart liberal and I'm hardly defending terrorists, kidnappers or child molesters but the truth is that, in the United States, those people do have Constutionally-guaranteed rights.
I don't think you have to be a bleeding heart liberal to advocate constraints on government power. Even a rational conservative like myself can understand the danger and folly in unbridled government monitoring of law abiding citizens.
And America is one of the few nations, to this very day, the still believes in this principle. At least, I hope we still do.
Over the last 80 years the movie studios have had their business models dramatically disrupted on numerous occasions. In the 40's the movie studios lost anti-trust suits which forced them out of the exhibition business leaving them only control over movie production and distribution. Revenue and profits plummeted within the span of a single year and started the end of the "studio system" of stamping out movies on a weekly basis. Additional jarring changes came in the 50's with the advent of television, the rise of independent studios and actor/producers in the 60's, purchases by multinational conglomerates in the 70's, and then the introduction of the VCR in the 80's. While it is natural to resist change to the status quo, the movie studios have repeatedly demonstrated an amazing adaptability to change when left no other recourse. Learning to cope with disruptive change may be one reason the industry has been able to turn movie video/DVD sales into greater revenue than the actual exhibition of movies.
Only time will tell if the recording industry can demonstrate similar adaptability to challenges of their traditional business model or go the way of the Dodo.
A lot of companies that create proprietary software are outsourcing their development to India and other cheap countries. Pretty soon, the only development done in the U.S. will be open source. We should support American programmers, and use only open source software! In fact, if open source software were in wider use, there would be more demand for American programmers.
You make a very interesting point. Lately I've been wondering what hope programmers in the U.S. and Europe have against the seemingly irreversible trend of outsourcing software development to less expensive, but well educated, software engineers in developing nations. Not all private sector development jobs will disappear, but enough will that the industry will look dramatically different within a few years.
What I like about open source development as a method of combating outsourcing is that it discriminates against none and is largely a meritocracy in terms of who contributes and who benefits. A programmer in India is as free to contribute to an open source project just as any American or European. Likewise, an American or European is not at a disadvantage because of our higher labor costs. The playing field is level and the end result is what truly matters. If anything, the higher standard of living in the West affords many the luxury of time needed to contribute to open source projects in meaningful ways.
Shifting industry to a more open source friendly model of software development to combat outsourcing seems preferable to insisting on artificial trade barriers and sanctions. Not only are such tactics highly discriminatory with unanticipated consequences, but ultimately fail and succumb to the irresistible forces of free markets and capital.
I haven't thought through all the ramifications of your statement, but I believe there is certainly something worthy of further exploration.
I believe this is called natural selection. For better or worse, mankind has been turning the tables on natural selection for the last 50,000 years or so and only getting better at it. It's scary to think these people will procreate.
Slashdot Mirror
"People would be able to see writing in the skies from the Earth no worse than they see the stars," he said.
Considering how bad light pollution is in most urban areas, it's tough to see all but the very brightest stars on any given clear night. Perhaps the silver lining to this absurd idea is that space advertisers would work to reduce light pollution caused by regular outdoor advertising so the majority of the population could actually see their ads in space.
Just a thought...
Reading the article it occurred to me that in the future jobs may require that an employee get brain implants in order to perform some job related task or interact with future computer systems where manual user interface interaction is no longer practical. Would such systems separate workers into a group who are willing to submit to such an invasive operation and those who would refuse implants. I wonder how long we have before implant specifications start to appear on job descriptions and resumes?
The article did touch on the ethics of placing such implants into healthy soldiers, but ethics and morals that would prohibit such activity tend to be very fluid.
Non-invasive techniques may one day be developed for interacting with machines through thought, but this technology is probably much further off than taking the short-cut of hardwiring the brain.
I learned 6809 assembly language on a TRS-80 Color Computer as a kid back around 1978 and I feel that an early start in understanding CPUs from the ground up has given me a leg up on many of my peers over the years. 25 years later I can still tell the difference between programmers who have a basic understanding of how assembly language relates to CPUs and higher level languages and those who don't. It may not make much of a difference when writing Perl scripts or Java apps, but it makes a world of difference in being able to write robust and efficient C code.
I tend to agree with you regarding NASA TV coverage of the Mars landing. I recall watching on some cable channel (CSPAN?) the Viking landings and Voyager encounters when I was a kid in the late '70s. If I'm not mistaking these were broadcast as well directly from JPL and hosted by Carl Sagan who was explaining the meaning of the images and made it sound really exciting? Does anyone else have memories of these broadcasts? They seem much better than we saw from NASA TV today, but perhaps my memory is foggy.
I'm disappointed that I had to tune in over the Internet. I wish NASA TV could have cut a deal with CSPAN to broadcast the landing live so I could have watched the coverage a television. CSPAN covered the Columbia disaster press conferences in pretty good detail. You think they could have covered the good news from NASA as well.
Same exact thing happened to me as well. I lost the NASA TV feed just as they announced indications were that the rover was bouncing and they lost the signal from Mars. I finally got it back after 10 minutes of nail biting to see everyone in the control room patting each other on the back.
I attributed it to thousands of people trying to see NASA TV over the web at that specific time, but who knows...
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
And all this time I thought AC stood for Anonymous Coward...
Very interesting link and worth a read by all. Thanks for posting it.
When a match comes up positive they will claim that it was done "accidentally". I bet that DNA fingerprints would never actually get purged either due to "computer errors".
Such an "accident" would seem to be a defense lawyers dream case as such evidence would be tossed out under The Doctrine of The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. In other words, if the means of gathering evidence is tainted, the ends or fruits of those means and the evidence must likewise be poisonous.
BTW, do you have any specific references to the "many cases" where police refused to purge DNA fingerprints? If so, these are probably in states where DNA identification is legally treated just like fingerprint identification. The proposed law for California would have specific clauses to protect against this and I doubt police would be able to easily weasel their way out from under the law.
These kinds of details of the proposed law weren't described in the article, but I would presume that a DNA sample would be taken at the same time a fingerprint and mug shot are taken. In other words, when an actual arrest is made which is predicated on much more than just "round up all tall Hispanics with a goatee".
The essence of the proposed law is whether the voting public will view DNA identification as being equivalent to fingerprint identification. I believe that rational arguments can be made either way. It seems logical that DNA can treated as a perfectly legitimate means of identification for law enforcement. However, there is the potential for abuse which would have to be carefully considered.
To answer your question: I wouldn't have a real problem giving a DNA sample for identity purposes under the same conditions that today I would have to give a fingerprint (drivers licenses, childcare licenses and background checks, sensitive public sector jobs, etc.) Under such circumstances my DNA is a very accurate identifier and I can envision scenarios where such accuracy may indeed serve to protect my rights. I would much rather be wrongly accused under circumstances where DNA can clear my name than face a situation where a traumatized victim wrongly points their finger at me saying I'm the one because I remind them of perpetrator in some vague way.
Perhaps someone more familiar with the technology can better answer this question, but I believe the DNA procedures used for identity purposes are much different than DNA processes use for health screening and other purposes. This may make DNA fingerprinting less than useful for some of the outlandish abuses proposed.
The article states: "the measure has extensive protections that purge DNA information when a suspect or convict is exonerated."
Presuming that such protections are in place a person who is found innocent or in cases where charges are not pressed will have their records purged from the database. I'm not sure if this happens with fingerprints and mug shots today -- probably not.
Agreed. We all must learn to walk before we can run.
It should also be pointed out that although the Redstone rocket used to launch Alan Shepard into space was not capable of putting the Mercury capsule into orbit, it set the stage for later orbital Mercury missions using the larger Atlas rocket. Even NASA in the 60's took a methodical and evolutionary approach to space flight -- although on a hastened and expensive timetable that small private enterprise cannot hope to match.
Also note that the Redstone rocket used to launch the first US satellite Explorer I was a direct descendant of the German V2 which began development some 20 years or so earlier.
I for one can't wait to see where the descendants of the X-Prize efforts will be in 20 years.
Well it seems to have survived the first 10 minutes...
Collectively we all pay the full cost of defending our country and homes from foreign invasion. I'm not against this.
What I'm against are instances of the government interfering with efficiencies of the free market by artificially supporting one alternative versus another alternative that may be better. In such cases, I would prefer to make my decision as a consumer and vote with my dollars rather than have the decision made for me by a politician -- even a politician elected in a democratic manner. In such cases, the government should function as a referee to ensure a level playing field rather than a distributor of subsidies to maintain the status quo.
SUBURBAN NATION: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2000)
...Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners choose to drive as much as possible. They are making the correct economic decision, but not in a free-market economy.
------------
To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon. If this tax were to account for "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would he as high as $9.00 per gallon. The cost of these subsidies-approximately $5,000 per car per year-is passed directly on to the American citizen in the form of increased prices for products or, more often, as income, property, and sales taxes. This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with the heavily subsidized highways...
------------
To read a more extensive quote with footnotes search for "Hart and Spivak" in the book section of Amazon.
I'm actually not against transportation and draw a conclusion different from the authors who propose a high tax imposed by the government to compensate for subsidies to drivers. Rather, I believe the government should stop supporting such subsidies altogether as they interfere with efficiencies of the free market. Instead, the government's role should be to make sure that the true cost of driving gasoline automobiles is fully borne by the market. Only then are we likely to realistic alternatives to gasoline.
The transportation industry as a whole is massively subsidized through taxes. Americans only pay a small fraction of the true cost of driving our vehicles in the form of the gas tax. These subsidies go to build/maintain roads, fight wars to control/maintain/secure energy supplies, fix environmental damage, smog prevention, DMV operations, law enforcement, and a myriad of other costs associated with driving. The oil companies aren't paying for the war in Iraq, our taxes are.
If these subsidies were removed and the true cost of driving was more accurately reflected at the pump the free market could produce better alternatives much faster. As things are now, trying to develop alternatives that compete with an entrenched industry that is heavily subsidized by taxes is extremely difficult, if not foolish.
It's already happening. At a few airports here on the West Coast (and I assume for the rest of the country) I've noticed that those flying first class get their own express line through security. For now, suck ticket holder still have to undergo the same security check as everyone else, but those who can affort a first class ticket already have preferential treatment and can avoid the multi-hour long security lines that plague airports during peak travel times.
Avoiding the security check altogether just seems like the next logical step for those who can afford it.
I understand the attempt to diffuse legal responsibility for false and defamatory information in the GIA database, but wouldn't the public interest be better served to create a GIA-like database where the information was known to be unbiased and accurate?
The credibility of such a database is defined by it's weakest links. If the database becomes cluttered with inaccurate information from any conspiracy loon who comes along or person with an axe to grind against a political rival it will fail to be a credible source of information on individuals and organizations who influence public policy. This problem is exacerbated if sources of information remain anonymous and can't be verified.
Such a database could typify the old adage of "garbage in, garbage out" with truly important information getting lost in the noise.
Your comments remind me of a conversation I had with a lawyer friend a week ago regarding whether outsourcing IT jobs overseas was ultimately good or bad for the United States. My friend's argument was that any loss of jobs due to increased productivity brought on by outsourcing jobs overseas was more than made up by the resulting growth in the economy.
Consider the following simple example. Instead of hiring an IT working for $100K/yr to perform a job, a business outsources the same work to a worker in India for $50K/yr. For the business, this is an increase in efficiency in that it now only pays $50K/yr for the same work that used to cost $100K/yr. An additional $50K/yr is now available for reinvestment into the business, stock dividends, executive bonuses, whatever...
However, another way of looking at it is that although the business gained $50K/yr through increased productivity, the overall U.S. economy lost $50K/yr because the outsourced employee in India will spend that money in his/her own country. Part of the capitol will eventually return to the U.S. through U.S. goods purchased from India, but it will likely be a long time in coming. India and other third world countries can absorb a lot of capital building their local economy and infrastructure before being able to purchase goods or make investments in the U.S.
Multiply such instances of outsourcing by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and it results in a large amount of capital exiting the country that would otherwise be cycled through the U.S. economy keeping people employed.
The question I have is: When just considering the U.S. economy is the increase in productivity through outsourcing overseas real in that it frees capital for additional investment within the U.S. or is it just an illusion because of the exodus of capital from the U.S?
I've hear it described that VC operate in only one of two modes: extreme fear or extreme greed. This combined with a herd mentality may explain a lot of the craziness on the part of VC funding over the last few years.
Now, I don't want to sound like some bleeding-heart liberal and I'm hardly defending terrorists, kidnappers or child molesters but the truth is that, in the United States, those people do have Constutionally-guaranteed rights.
I don't think you have to be a bleeding heart liberal to advocate constraints on government power. Even a rational conservative like myself can understand the danger and folly in unbridled government monitoring of law abiding citizens.
And America is one of the few nations, to this very day, the still believes in this principle. At least, I hope we still do.
We still do. We just don't know it yet.
Over the last 80 years the movie studios have had their business models dramatically disrupted on numerous occasions. In the 40's the movie studios lost anti-trust suits which forced them out of the exhibition business leaving them only control over movie production and distribution. Revenue and profits plummeted within the span of a single year and started the end of the "studio system" of stamping out movies on a weekly basis. Additional jarring changes came in the 50's with the advent of television, the rise of independent studios and actor/producers in the 60's, purchases by multinational conglomerates in the 70's, and then the introduction of the VCR in the 80's. While it is natural to resist change to the status quo, the movie studios have repeatedly demonstrated an amazing adaptability to change when left no other recourse. Learning to cope with disruptive change may be one reason the industry has been able to turn movie video/DVD sales into greater revenue than the actual exhibition of movies.
Only time will tell if the recording industry can demonstrate similar adaptability to challenges of their traditional business model or go the way of the Dodo.
I want my backups to last a billion years. The cool case is a plus as well.
The Return of Apollo?
What are we waiting for? Let's get started...
Seriously, does anyone else think that a plan that sounds as rational and reasonable as this has a snow balls chance in hell of actually happening?
A lot of companies that create proprietary software are outsourcing their development to India and other cheap countries. Pretty soon, the only development done in the U.S. will be open source. We should support American programmers, and use only open source software! In fact, if open source software were in wider use, there would be more demand for American programmers.
You make a very interesting point. Lately I've been wondering what hope programmers in the U.S. and Europe have against the seemingly irreversible trend of outsourcing software development to less expensive, but well educated, software engineers in developing nations. Not all private sector development jobs will disappear, but enough will that the industry will look dramatically different within a few years.
What I like about open source development as a method of combating outsourcing is that it discriminates against none and is largely a meritocracy in terms of who contributes and who benefits. A programmer in India is as free to contribute to an open source project just as any American or European. Likewise, an American or European is not at a disadvantage because of our higher labor costs. The playing field is level and the end result is what truly matters. If anything, the higher standard of living in the West affords many the luxury of time needed to contribute to open source projects in meaningful ways.
Shifting industry to a more open source friendly model of software development to combat outsourcing seems preferable to insisting on artificial trade barriers and sanctions. Not only are such tactics highly discriminatory with unanticipated consequences, but ultimately fail and succumb to the irresistible forces of free markets and capital.
I haven't thought through all the ramifications of your statement, but I believe there is certainly something worthy of further exploration.
...clueless people need to die.
I believe this is called natural selection. For better or worse, mankind has been turning the tables on natural selection for the last 50,000 years or so and only getting better at it. It's scary to think these people will procreate.