The IT immigrants I know in Australia are getting paid more
than the locally produced talent!
In my experience the immigrants aren't coming from third
world contries and being used to force down Australia's wages.
Rather they are from other countries with major (well paid) IT industries
and Australia is poaching hard to get talent from these contries.
Hence the higher wages for the off shore talent. They are
commanding higher wages as there is hardly any competition
for the job from within Australia.
Others may have different experiences, but I can only comment
on what I have observed. The people I know
aren't 'entry level', though not all of them
have a degree (lots of experience though).
So, does the TPM constitute damage, and will the Internet route around it?
My vote is yes. The Internet will route around it by gradually dividing from what is currently called the Internet. Most people will use what used to be the Internet, and will consider it to still be the Internet. A minority of tech savvy people will be running on an alternative network, and will consider their network to be the Internet.
There will be one way links between the Internet and the former Internet (new can suck data from old, but not the other way around). The new Internet will be under the radar, but will be a hotbed of technical innovation. In time the new Internet will appear on the radar, as the majority hear of it and decide that they want to be able to do all the neat things Internetters can do as well. The majority join the Internet. The Internet gets 'tamed' as large companies join it. The Internet routes around the damage by breaking away over time. The cycle repeats...
Perhaps Google should just remove those who complain about copyright violations from their index? Site visitations would plummet and the complainer, and their copyright, would soon be consigned to irrelevance.
The same would work with the RIAA. Don't want your stuff on the Internet? Fine just remove it and let people find other content to replace it. I'm sure lots of up and coming bands would welcome the lack of competition from the RIAA.
"The page remained unchanged for so long because it wasn't linked to from any other Wikipedia articles, depriving it of traffic that might have led to closer scrutiny."
So where is the problem? Seigenthaler is complaining that he was bad mouthed by an article that hardly anyone read? Most likely the only reason the article and its contents became well known is because Seigenthaler complained. I didn't know about suggestions that Seigenthaler was involved in JFK's assassination or suggestions that he visited Russia, until I heard it from Seigenthaler. Once Seigenthaler highlighted the article and it started getting significant traffic the article was corrected. I conclude that Wikipedia works in its current form.
The problem isn't anonymous article creation. The real problem with Wikipedia is that it outside the control of the big end of town. First step is to ban anonymous article creation. The final step is to have each Wikipedia edit vetted by lawyers, owned by the big end of town, before posting.
If wikipedia has a problem it is that Jimmy Wales is a point of attack.
Startups don't need grunt programmers or engineers. Ideally startups need top notch programmers and engineers, who can take the skeleton of an idea or rough prototype, and with minimal supervision it into a something that is worth buying.
Most startup owners don't have the skills of a specialist programmer or engineer, or the skills to provide detailed technical guidance to such a person. They need to trustworthy technical people, who can fill the gaps in their own knowledge.
Good engineers and programmers are hard to find. If they were easy to find ' marshrew' could have just placed a job ad in the local classifies. Instead he/she has to resort to posting on Slashdot.
What is in it for the developers? The real value in any start up is the people,
not the product. Rather than being a start up company looking for a development team, perhaps you are really a product looking for a start up company?
I don't mean to be facetious. It's just the team you describe would normally be 90%
of the value of a company, so they will be in the position of strength. In their position my first question would be "Why should we
go with you when we could probably get to same position by ourselves?", especially given that you
seem to be low on resources.
Microsoft still doesn't get free software. Free software
isn't about the cost, it's about the freedom. Consequently
the MS rep is right when he says costs isn't the major issue,
and his arguments about expertise strengthen the position of
free software.
Free software gives Africans a better
chance of learning how to use software and build a local
industry modifying it.
I bet the next generation of African mechanics already spend their days under the bonnet of any car they can get access to. These are the people who will own small mechanics business in tomorrow's Africa. Tough luck if your car is a Microsoft car with the bonnet welded shut.
Microsoft's aim is to keep Africa dependent on Microsoft.
Some people are using the 'give them food before computers' argument. The philosophy behind free software is larger than computer software. It's about the abilityto determine your own course in life. I'm sure Monsanto is using the same arguments as Microsoft about the sterile seed they sell.
You're confusing bandwidth and capacitity. The formula you gave is
Shannon's Theorem for capacity. In actual fact you have assumed
a single antenna system. For a multi antenna system, the capacity is:
H.log(S/N)(bandwidth)
H is a matrix with dimensions corresponding to the number of receive
and transmit antennas.
This is how the magic happens. Add more antennas and you get more capacity. There are some limitations based on the volume (measured in cubic wavelengths) occupied by the antennas, but to a first approximation capacity is limited only by the intelligence of the transmitter and receiver. It's a generalised type of beamforming.
Believe it or not Moglen is right. The spectrum allocation function of the FCC (and others) is heading towards white elephant status. The 802.11 sytems on the market don't fall into the category of intelligent receivers. There is an inkling of what's to come in 802.11n, but even the 82.11n systems in the market place fall into teh 'crude' category. The smart stuff is still in the R&D labs (though it has been built).
Is this serious? Putting something in someone's letterbox is illegal in the US? I would have thought that freedom of access to people's letterbox is fundamental to democracy. The written word in the letterbox (or banging on the front door) is one of the few ways people have of communicating irrespective of their social standing.
Here in Australia it's accepted that anyone has the right to put mail in a letterbox. It's part of participating in society. In practise most junk mail distributors will honour 'no junk mail' signs, but it's only to preserve goodwill, not to comply with any law (that I am aware of).
There's no need to. Pledgebank is for things that might be risky, but there
is safety in numbers. For example "I will refuse to submit to arbitrary police
searches if 100,000 other people will too".
Putting 1000 leaflets in letterboxes is an immediate action you can do yourself
right now. There is no need to get consensus or permission from anyone. Just go out and
DO IT!
every slashdotter to make 1000 copies of the Adelphi Charter and deliver them to random letterboxes in his/her neighbourhood.
It will be a worry when...
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
space tourists begin displacing scientists as astronauts.
Right now it doesn't seem to be a problem, but what happens
when scientists can't get a ride on a rocket because all the
places are taken by tourists? Space then stops being a
scientific endeavour and becomes a joyride.
When this happens, space travel may cease to advance due to
lack of research. Perhaps progress towards interplanetary
travel will cease because all the time in space has been
bought by tourists? We will have hit a 'local minima'
where there is incentive to put lots of people in orbit but
no way fo developing the technology to get them further out.
There is an alternative to whistleblowing: Resign.
In fact an engineer's professional ethics more
or less requires that he/she resign when overruled
on a safety issue, he/she cannot satisfy their conscience
that the overruling was justified and there is no chance
of reversing the decision.
If every engineer was ethical there would be a reduced need for
whistleblowers. Technical problems would be highlighted by a mass resignation
of engineers.
I suspect that in the long term there would be an awful lot more happy engineers,
and safer systems, if engineers were not afraid of resigning.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience the immigrants aren't coming from third world contries and being used to force down Australia's wages. Rather they are from other countries with major (well paid) IT industries and Australia is poaching hard to get talent from these contries.
Hence the higher wages for the off shore talent. They are commanding higher wages as there is hardly any competition for the job from within Australia.
Others may have different experiences, but I can only comment on what I have observed. The people I know aren't 'entry level', though not all of them have a degree (lots of experience though).
I sometimes wonder what would happen if GNUarch was merged with wikimedia. (And while we're at it, let's merge with BOINC as well! ;-) )
Yeah, but at least authors can use the defence "but Your Honour, this summons was written using my Free software!"
Is Wikimedia still working on distributing itself across the net? I'd rather donate disk space, bandwidth and CPU cycles than dollars.
I'd rather just read the source code! ;-)
Maybe Slashdot eds should arrange an "Ask Kari" interview?
My vote is yes. The Internet will route around it by gradually dividing from what is currently called the Internet. Most people will use what used to be the Internet, and will consider it to still be the Internet. A minority of tech savvy people will be running on an alternative network, and will consider their network to be the Internet.
There will be one way links between the Internet and the former Internet (new can suck data from old, but not the other way around). The new Internet will be under the radar, but will be a hotbed of technical innovation. In time the new Internet will appear on the radar, as the majority hear of it and decide that they want to be able to do all the neat things Internetters can do as well. The majority join the Internet. The Internet gets 'tamed' as large companies join it. The Internet routes around the damage by breaking away over time. The cycle repeats...
The same would work with the RIAA. Don't want your stuff on the Internet? Fine just remove it and let people find other content to replace it. I'm sure lots of up and coming bands would welcome the lack of competition from the RIAA.
Down under? A popular misconception. Hold on a sec, just gotta feed my kangaroo and get the dropbear of the kid...
So where is the problem? Seigenthaler is complaining that he was bad mouthed by an article that hardly anyone read? Most likely the only reason the article and its contents became well known is because Seigenthaler complained. I didn't know about suggestions that Seigenthaler was involved in JFK's assassination or suggestions that he visited Russia, until I heard it from Seigenthaler. Once Seigenthaler highlighted the article and it started getting significant traffic the article was corrected. I conclude that Wikipedia works in its current form.
The problem isn't anonymous article creation. The real problem with Wikipedia is that it outside the control of the big end of town. First step is to ban anonymous article creation. The final step is to have each Wikipedia edit vetted by lawyers, owned by the big end of town, before posting.
If wikipedia has a problem it is that Jimmy Wales is a point of attack.
Translate into English
Most startup owners don't have the skills of a specialist programmer or engineer, or the skills to provide detailed technical guidance to such a person. They need to trustworthy technical people, who can fill the gaps in their own knowledge.
Good engineers and programmers are hard to find. If they were easy to find ' marshrew' could have just placed a job ad in the local classifies. Instead he/she has to resort to posting on Slashdot.
I don't mean to be facetious. It's just the team you describe would normally be 90% of the value of a company, so they will be in the position of strength. In their position my first question would be "Why should we go with you when we could probably get to same position by ourselves?", especially given that you seem to be low on resources.
It makes an interesting read/rant.
Without mu-metal they just use magnetic fields to control your thoughts, instead of electric fields.
The technology was developed but was not commercialised due to public pressure.
It's worth noting that Monsanto has achieved pratically the same outcome by sueing any farmer who propagates seed containing 'their' genes.
Microsoft still doesn't get free software. Free software isn't about the cost, it's about the freedom. Consequently the MS rep is right when he says costs isn't the major issue, and his arguments about expertise strengthen the position of free software.
Free software gives Africans a better chance of learning how to use software and build a local industry modifying it.
I bet the next generation of African mechanics already spend their days under the bonnet of any car they can get access to. These are the people who will own small mechanics business in tomorrow's Africa. Tough luck if your car is a Microsoft car with the bonnet welded shut.
Microsoft's aim is to keep Africa dependent on Microsoft.
Some people are using the 'give them food before computers' argument. The philosophy behind free software is larger than computer software. It's about the abilityto determine your own course in life. I'm sure Monsanto is using the same arguments as Microsoft about the sterile seed they sell.
H.log(S/N)(bandwidth)
H is a matrix with dimensions corresponding to the number of receive and transmit antennas.
This is how the magic happens. Add more antennas and you get more capacity. There are some limitations based on the volume (measured in cubic wavelengths) occupied by the antennas, but to a first approximation capacity is limited only by the intelligence of the transmitter and receiver. It's a generalised type of beamforming.
Believe it or not Moglen is right. The spectrum allocation function of the FCC (and others) is heading towards white elephant status. The 802.11 sytems on the market don't fall into the category of intelligent receivers. There is an inkling of what's to come in 802.11n, but even the 82.11n systems in the market place fall into teh 'crude' category. The smart stuff is still in the R&D labs (though it has been built).
Here in Australia it's accepted that anyone has the right to put mail in a letterbox. It's part of participating in society. In practise most junk mail distributors will honour 'no junk mail' signs, but it's only to preserve goodwill, not to comply with any law (that I am aware of).
Putting 1000 leaflets in letterboxes is an immediate action you can do yourself right now. There is no need to get consensus or permission from anyone. Just go out and DO IT!
every slashdotter to make 1000 copies of the Adelphi Charter and deliver them to random letterboxes in his/her neighbourhood.
Right now it doesn't seem to be a problem, but what happens when scientists can't get a ride on a rocket because all the places are taken by tourists? Space then stops being a scientific endeavour and becomes a joyride.
When this happens, space travel may cease to advance due to lack of research. Perhaps progress towards interplanetary travel will cease because all the time in space has been bought by tourists? We will have hit a 'local minima' where there is incentive to put lots of people in orbit but no way fo developing the technology to get them further out.
Yahoo's shopping centre?
In fact an engineer's professional ethics more or less requires that he/she resign when overruled on a safety issue, he/she cannot satisfy their conscience that the overruling was justified and there is no chance of reversing the decision.
If every engineer was ethical there would be a reduced need for whistleblowers. Technical problems would be highlighted by a mass resignation of engineers.
I suspect that in the long term there would be an awful lot more happy engineers, and safer systems, if engineers were not afraid of resigning.
How about lethal, deadly, death-bringing, slaughterous, death-dealing, cruel, ...
(Thanks to Mr Roget)