Now if they'd fix the "economic problems" - the ones that show the need for good regulation against this kind of thing. Not to spoil it, but the free market that you think exists, is trumped by outright force. You may not be able to blot out the sun, but you can still block undesirable actions and sources of items/services with the degree of efficiency that the "free market" portrays.
This is where force exists, albeit hidden by some who think only of life/death issues when thinking of force. Save the string for something more useful.
For the record, I'm waiting it out - for the modchips.
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Somehow there is a bit of irony to it. Stanford University [of Elitism, West Coast] has all but fallen in line with the Ivy League in the East Coast where the only thing new is an outright lack of Midwestern students. You'd have to:
1. Declare them a minority 2. Force universities to accept them under the most favored terms (Works for the spies and International Students who take up unrightful amounts of the class), and 3. Make sure there is no "unreasonable condition" such as maintaining a grade inconsistent with known performance given a certain instructor or non-standard courseload *cough*Harvard*cough*.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
As Google has taken their policy right from Stanford, by no means do you have a meritocracy there. Since they are a private entity, they are outright having their cake and eating it. Thankfully there are places that keep this kind of thing in check, such as France and non-globally exploited European countries(read: ones that shield heavily against offshoring) that would probably keep Google (and anyone who helped them) in the dark.
When Google starts having to look actively for putting work in the Midwest with the same advantages as now (and not as a mock effort ala the Miers nomination) and the full opening of their services. When that is done, they will have made the first steps to ridding themselves of problems found from their use of the Stanford System.
As for China, I do not see any logic to exchange one prison for another. Regardless, I'm not going to help make what kills me by helping globalization. That's given that the bullet is fired from a gun made with low-quality steel, by a government of equally low quality, with the order sent by electronics that are a hazard not to be touched. To them, I say "Cao ni ma de." - and I'd put even odds on Sam "Boss Tweed" Walton understanding that one as well.
You might look here for a start. If it is carefully managed along with guaranteed (catch free) universal admissions to higher education, it might just work.
Despite what globalized exploitation brings in possible benefits, all it really does is bring them to the top 2%. What this means, is that it might be a bit better to line things up in politics, and start thinking about how to stop the trend, if not just to slow it down.
Even if you're going to stay in IT, supporting any measure of offshoring/globalism is making the bullet that will be used to kill you, even if you're the rarity coder at Google that is State educated, or otherwise educated that got a slot meant for a domestic person *cough*MIT*cough*. If you're neither, and you have no way of getting there, get into politics, and get to a point where you can undo the damage globalized exploitation started in 2003 (and possibly earlier).
Also, with the combination of job theft and rising tuition, it's more or less that one would have to bring protectionism and force universal open, cost free admissions to higher education. This would have the purpose to remove the cost out of the decision, as it would equally be shared - and there would be no need for selective admissions (what is really meant by the euphemism of "competitive admissions"). If anyone with a diploma can enter and get the same advantages and connections as the ones in an Ivy without the unrightful power derived from refusal, there would be a lot more than just IT receiving the benefit.
The "free-in-theory market" system had its day, now it's just churning out cheap, low quality equipment at the cost of many jobs on a global scale, with the output being no "equality" but a further entrenchment of the top 2%.
You misspelled Verizon. Given how they cripple phones and make the only practical choice be their own services, as well as silencing critics, the title is quite apt for Verizon.
The government could implement laws, but what's the point?
Unlike business decisions, laws stick. When the practical choice is limited to *which* sweatshop makes your clothing or your electronics, you (short of a few billion dollars) are not going to remove the problem. Now with regulations that are well-crafted, those low-quality products would not even make it to the US.
Now, on the other hand, products from countries that put more emphasis on quality of worker and product (such as non-globalized France and Germany) need no real regulation as they practice laws that
Outsourcing helps the US economy greatly.
Unfortunately, it's being used as a loophole to remove the high-quality domestic worker outside of the equation. If it is so good, then why do corporations have to use loopholes and lobbyists to defend it? When you have requirements for a job that are unattainable for even the H1-B/L-1 that steals it, and it goes to a country that will not reciprocate in allowing the US citizen to get the job over there - there's your 2nd and 3rd strikes.
As for educating people, you will have to be able to force every university to accept any student and to fund them for the whole time. That is unfortunately the only way you can get domestic talent to increase. "Competitive Admissions" only perpetuates the problem, as it only allows the top 1% and the 9% who have the money to bribe the admissions board. Those foreign workers would be better used to educate, not to steal educated jobs or university slots - until force is authorized to pack every university with anyone who has a diploma and a willingness to learn.
If you have to use taxes to pay for the forced open admissions, fine. This is where force is needed and can be well applied to remove the Ivy League problem of university elitism.
If one thing gets to you clearly, it's this: I will not help Asia make the bullet that they use to kill me by support of offshoring and denouncing business regulation. They are stealing jobs for low quality products, and there is no way around admitting it.
I believe you forgot the near-dead, services based sellout known as National Cash Register. They only share small amounts of history in the early times of the cash register. After that, they're mostly separate. Now, they both do their own types, but on a much lesser scale than known previously - current NCR machines are just NCR labeled hardware with NT and BassPoiNT loaded in.
As for both IBM/NCR's R&D divisions, they are probably best stated as standstill due to "globalization". The kind that sells off anything, even land to land grab happy entities that overstate their moral character, or moves jobs (uncompetitively) to places far enough out of the US to keep them well out of reach of any interested US citizen willing to rightfully take back his job in the "not-so-free market".
Maybe the human factor might need to be put back in economics before a C-level be publicly executed (and with noone to care to act as a witness) to return the lack of their organization's humanity in kind.
Well, now WoW finally has taken indiscriminate PK to a whole new level with your body itself as the weapon. Question is, would those be honorable or non-honorable kills for every person you spread the disease to (disregarding the rollback)?
(provided you're qualified, and someone wants you at a price you're willing to accept)
Maybe you might want to step back into reality.
When you have collusion that acts to preserve less than perfect mobility (e.g. sending jobs to nations that the displaced workers cannot even move to, combined with exorbitantly high cost of education with the added detriment of them able to abuse private entity status e.g. nearly any "prestigious" university), choice as you speak of it, is inexistent. Well sure - right up until payday. And then, with that cash in your bank account, they don't owe you until you do more work for them. On the other hand, if you're a customer of that corporation... they only owe you if you pay in advance for whatever it is that they do for you.
Well, when they start wrecking nations for using the shield of "private entity" to defend their actions, you might as well consider the debt unpaid. Google is quite the example of this - consider how many hired (I bet it's a minority that's well managed in a bad way) from Midwestern/State Educated backgrounds - where truth and honesty trumps secrecy(in at least the Midwestern background). Stanford, MIT, and others are equally guilty parties for their promotion of exclusive backgrounds that feed organizations such as Google, and support short-term gains and deception.
The best way to avoid feeling "owned" by a company is to start one yourself. Or, be so valuable that you can either strike those non-compete terms from your contract, or get paid so much while you do work there that you don't really care if you have to take a year off of your career when you leave. But there is no "slavery essentially" involved, in that it's all about choice, for everybody involved.
Small companies that last long enough soon exceed the threshold for which they are only able to do evil to survive. Google crossed that mark from day zero, the time they were a Stanford project. Favoring honesty and true humility over elitism seems to be a factor in rejection there.
You might want to take a look at the practical choice reality brings people. The choice you talk about is really theoretical. When access to Ivy-League quality education can be unconditionally guaranteed to 250m+ people, the removal of any restriction to worker mobility, and the proper penalization of those who have worked against such, maybe you'll have your theoretical choice meet reality. It wont be easy or clean, but you're going to have to forcibly remove some abilities of groups that have proven themselves unable to handle it responsibly.
Sometimes you have to have the guts to use force if you're going to create choice that is in line with reality.
You probably dont know of the recent history of the company from which he left. Search for "NCR Corp" "Healthcare" "cuts". That should give you a starting point on what they've recently become, and what you might see from Hurd.
And what about those who are equally as talented that are from colleges that cant exclude as easily? They have more than enough from the coastal states.
As for buying stock in Google, I'll wait for them to actually follow their policy of "do no evil".
(As for bringing democracy to the tech industry, there's going to have to be practical alternatives within to what's out there that dont involve "foot voting" to start ripping out the collusion)
Maybe you might want to ask Orkut, these exclusionists(who inspired Google towards their current policy), this guy, and maybe CNET. Also, it wouldnt be too far off of them to be evil by making it policy to consider the Midwest as talentless "flyover country".
Maybe they ought to get out there in the sun and take a look at rest of the nation that didnt have blessed connections but has plenty of talent.
Agreed. It's not "I'll pay this much for this work." (It's "How much can we screw you over?"), when there is a economic lockin by employers that restricts mobility. That is in every way, wage slavery when you combine the part of insanely expensive education that doesnt mind overcharging the people who least afford it with a job market that works against the people in it. I'll take slightly higher taxes if it means everyone is educated at a level comparable to Ivy League standards, and is afforded the same connections to the job market.
That's also why you see countries such as France recognize this and stand up to it when the wrong type of globalism enters their country. They might be the ones you look to, not China when you want something done right, the first time. At worst, you have the rest of mainland Europe that also resists the problem that this kind of globalism brings.
There is no competition when companies work against the other side of the market. It is only when you can help your own domestically as well as others to the same level instead of lowering yourself that you have it.
...and/or expensive, maybe you might have a large enough talent pool. It might call for immigrant instructors to bring down cost(said tuition/board costs being well out of reality), but you definitely can get Ivy quality with a State educated person if you only prohibit the exclusionism and funding games that are present in every private college to keep their image.
The way I see it, Google never departed from being evil straight from day 1, as they have inherited things from their Stanford upbringing that do not go well with the public they interact with. First of all, they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the "invite system" (see Orkut and Gmail). The practice might have been good when elitism was king (pardon the pun), but this version of divine right fell out of favor many ages ago. Google isnt evil for creating competition, just that they come from a very questionable background (Stanford) with obsolete practices.
In other words - Google, the Midwest isnt just something you fly over to get people from private/exclusive colleges. It's the untapped pool of talent that you think is just a bunch of rednecks. Not all the best talent comes from places that pride on exclusion, nor do they all come from outside the US.
In the university that I work at we've seen a reduction in the number of students that come to us from India, simply because we can no longer offer the radically better education that we used to be able to. That might actually might be a good thing for the US, as it will free slots for very deserving people of the States instead of educating for offshoring.
(Dunno or care about the parent poster's intentions, applies anyhow)
uhh, Paul Krugman, NYT editorialist, is professor of economics at Princeton University. So id lay a fair wager he counts as a competent economist. Or perhaps you simply define competent economists as those who agree with you.
I'll put my bets against this one, and wait to hear from someone not blessed with a degree from the Ivy League (as well as all equivalents- East, West, and Flyover Country) - so far they've given themselves a black eye for at least 15 years. Whether it be using "globalism", and the concept of "impractical freedom"**, I'll wait for someone who has gone to somewhere with open admissions and doesnt play the "MIT Tuition Game"* to speak about economics.
* - The practice of using high tuition and free ride scholarships to exclude 90%+ of the population, leaving room for allowing Ivy League Idiots to buy their way in if they did not make the numbers. This is not exclusive to MIT, but applies to ignoble places such as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and others. ** - Impractical freedom is the concept of using economics and exclusionism to generate force to get around safeguards protecting freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Made in China.
Enough said.
Microsoft Co., Ltd.
Some here would think that would be redundant to say due to quality.
Now if they'd fix the "economic problems" - the ones that show the need for good regulation against this kind of thing. Not to spoil it, but the free market that you think exists, is trumped by outright force. You may not be able to blot out the sun, but you can still block undesirable actions and sources of items/services with the degree of efficiency that the "free market" portrays.
This is where force exists, albeit hidden by some who think only of life/death issues when thinking of force. Save the string for something more useful.
For the record, I'm waiting it out - for the modchips.
Somehow, they misspelled the Stanford System.
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Somehow there is a bit of irony to it. Stanford University [of Elitism, West Coast] has all but fallen in line with the Ivy League in the East Coast where the only thing new is an outright lack of Midwestern students. You'd have to:
1. Declare them a minority
2. Force universities to accept them under the most favored terms (Works for the spies and International Students who take up unrightful amounts of the class), and
3. Make sure there is no "unreasonable condition" such as maintaining a grade inconsistent with known performance given a certain instructor or non-standard courseload *cough*Harvard*cough*.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
As Google has taken their policy right from Stanford, by no means do you have a meritocracy there. Since they are a private entity, they are outright having their cake and eating it. Thankfully there are places that keep this kind of thing in check, such as France and non-globally exploited European countries(read: ones that shield heavily against offshoring) that would probably keep Google (and anyone who helped them) in the dark.
When Google starts having to look actively for putting work in the Midwest with the same advantages as now (and not as a mock effort ala the Miers nomination) and the full opening of their services. When that is done, they will have made the first steps to ridding themselves of problems found from their use of the Stanford System.
As for China, I do not see any logic to exchange one prison for another. Regardless, I'm not going to help make what kills me by helping globalization. That's given that the bullet is fired from a gun made with low-quality steel, by a government of equally low quality, with the order sent by electronics that are a hazard not to be touched. To them, I say "Cao ni ma de." - and I'd put even odds on Sam "Boss Tweed" Walton understanding that one as well.
You might look here for a start. If it is carefully managed along with guaranteed (catch free) universal admissions to higher education, it might just work.
Despite what globalized exploitation brings in possible benefits, all it really does is bring them to the top 2%. What this means, is that it might be a bit better to line things up in politics, and start thinking about how to stop the trend, if not just to slow it down.
Even if you're going to stay in IT, supporting any measure of offshoring/globalism is making the bullet that will be used to kill you, even if you're the rarity coder at Google that is State educated, or otherwise educated that got a slot meant for a domestic person *cough*MIT*cough*. If you're neither, and you have no way of getting there, get into politics, and get to a point where you can undo the damage globalized exploitation started in 2003 (and possibly earlier).
Also, with the combination of job theft and rising tuition, it's more or less that one would have to bring protectionism and force universal open, cost free admissions to higher education. This would have the purpose to remove the cost out of the decision, as it would equally be shared - and there would be no need for selective admissions (what is really meant by the euphemism of "competitive admissions"). If anyone with a diploma can enter and get the same advantages and connections as the ones in an Ivy without the unrightful power derived from refusal, there would be a lot more than just IT receiving the benefit.
The "free-in-theory market" system had its day, now it's just churning out cheap, low quality equipment at the cost of many jobs on a global scale, with the output being no "equality" but a further entrenchment of the top 2%.
You misspelled Verizon. Given how they cripple phones and make the only practical choice be their own services, as well as silencing critics, the title is quite apt for Verizon.
The government could implement laws, but what's the point?
Unlike business decisions, laws stick. When the practical choice is limited to *which* sweatshop makes your clothing or your electronics, you (short of a few billion dollars) are not going to remove the problem. Now with regulations that are well-crafted, those low-quality products would not even make it to the US.
Now, on the other hand, products from countries that put more emphasis on quality of worker and product (such as non-globalized France and Germany) need no real regulation as they practice laws that
Outsourcing helps the US economy greatly.
Unfortunately, it's being used as a loophole to remove the high-quality domestic worker outside of the equation. If it is so good, then why do corporations have to use loopholes and lobbyists to defend it? When you have requirements for a job that are unattainable for even the H1-B/L-1 that steals it, and it goes to a country that will not reciprocate in allowing the US citizen to get the job over there - there's your 2nd and 3rd strikes.
As for educating people, you will have to be able to force every university to accept any student and to fund them for the whole time. That is unfortunately the only way you can get domestic talent to increase. "Competitive Admissions" only perpetuates the problem, as it only allows the top 1% and the 9% who have the money to bribe the admissions board. Those foreign workers would be better used to educate, not to steal educated jobs or university slots - until force is authorized to pack every university with anyone who has a diploma and a willingness to learn.
If you have to use taxes to pay for the forced open admissions, fine. This is where force is needed and can be well applied to remove the Ivy League problem of university elitism.
If one thing gets to you clearly, it's this:
I will not help Asia make the bullet that they use to kill me by support of offshoring and denouncing business regulation. They are stealing jobs for low quality products, and there is no way around admitting it.
Premier Executive Transport Services! Non-Stop First-Class flights to anywhere in the world.
We noticed your Google searches, and we're here to give you a free flight to Egypt, on us.
I believe you forgot the near-dead, services based sellout known as National Cash Register. They only share small amounts of history in the early times of the cash register. After that, they're mostly separate. Now, they both do their own types, but on a much lesser scale than known previously - current NCR machines are just NCR labeled hardware with NT and BassPoiNT loaded in.
As for both IBM/NCR's R&D divisions, they are probably best stated as standstill due to "globalization". The kind that sells off anything, even land to land grab happy entities that overstate their moral character, or moves jobs (uncompetitively) to places far enough out of the US to keep them well out of reach of any interested US citizen willing to rightfully take back his job in the "not-so-free market".
Maybe the human factor might need to be put back in economics before a C-level be publicly executed (and with noone to care to act as a witness) to return the lack of their organization's humanity in kind.
I dont think you'll be able to toss those dwarves or gnomes if you had that in mind.
Well, now WoW finally has taken indiscriminate PK to a whole new level with your body itself as the weapon. Question is, would those be honorable or non-honorable kills for every person you spread the disease to (disregarding the rollback)?
(provided you're qualified, and someone wants you at a price you're willing to accept)
Maybe you might want to step back into reality.
When you have collusion that acts to preserve less than perfect mobility (e.g. sending jobs to nations that the displaced workers cannot even move to, combined with exorbitantly high cost of education with the added detriment of them able to abuse private entity status e.g. nearly any "prestigious" university), choice as you speak of it, is inexistent.
Well sure - right up until payday. And then, with that cash in your bank account, they don't owe you until you do more work for them. On the other hand, if you're a customer of that corporation... they only owe you if you pay in advance for whatever it is that they do for you.
Well, when they start wrecking nations for using the shield of "private entity" to defend their actions, you might as well consider the debt unpaid. Google is quite the example of this - consider how many hired (I bet it's a minority that's well managed in a bad way) from Midwestern/State Educated backgrounds - where truth and honesty trumps secrecy(in at least the Midwestern background). Stanford, MIT, and others are equally guilty parties for their promotion of exclusive backgrounds that feed organizations such as Google, and support short-term gains and deception.
The best way to avoid feeling "owned" by a company is to start one yourself. Or, be so valuable that you can either strike those non-compete terms from your contract, or get paid so much while you do work there that you don't really care if you have to take a year off of your career when you leave. But there is no "slavery essentially" involved, in that it's all about choice, for everybody involved.
Small companies that last long enough soon exceed the threshold for which they are only able to do evil to survive. Google crossed that mark from day zero, the time they were a Stanford project. Favoring honesty and true humility over elitism seems to be a factor in rejection there.
You might want to take a look at the practical choice reality brings people. The choice you talk about is really theoretical. When access to Ivy-League quality education can be unconditionally guaranteed to 250m+ people, the removal of any restriction to worker mobility, and the proper penalization of those who have worked against such, maybe you'll have your theoretical choice meet reality. It wont be easy or clean, but you're going to have to forcibly remove some abilities of groups that have proven themselves unable to handle it responsibly.
Sometimes you have to have the guts to use force if you're going to create choice that is in line with reality.
You probably dont know of the recent history of the company from which he left. Search for "NCR Corp" "Healthcare" "cuts". That should give you a starting point on what they've recently become, and what you might see from Hurd.
Eventually, someone will make a WoW-killer in the MMORPG arena. It may take a few years, but it'll happen.
WoW Killer? Do you not know about the exclusion of existing games in some statistics? Or do you need a recent chart?
with this guy and his shill, as well as someone who's dealt with Ewing? You might give that some consideration with licensing.
And what about those who are equally as talented that are from colleges that cant exclude as easily? They have more than enough from the coastal states.
As for buying stock in Google, I'll wait for them to actually follow their policy of "do no evil".
(As for bringing democracy to the tech industry, there's going to have to be practical alternatives within to what's out there that dont involve "foot voting" to start ripping out the collusion)
Maybe you might want to ask Orkut, these exclusionists(who inspired Google towards their current policy), this guy, and maybe CNET. Also, it wouldnt be too far off of them to be evil by making it policy to consider the Midwest as talentless "flyover country".
Maybe they ought to get out there in the sun and take a look at rest of the nation that didnt have blessed connections but has plenty of talent.
Agreed. It's not "I'll pay this much for this work." (It's "How much can we screw you over?"), when there is a economic lockin by employers that restricts mobility. That is in every way, wage slavery when you combine the part of insanely expensive education that doesnt mind overcharging the people who least afford it with a job market that works against the people in it. I'll take slightly higher taxes if it means everyone is educated at a level comparable to Ivy League standards, and is afforded the same connections to the job market.
That's also why you see countries such as France recognize this and stand up to it when the wrong type of globalism enters their country. They might be the ones you look to, not China when you want something done right, the first time. At worst, you have the rest of mainland Europe that also resists the problem that this kind of globalism brings.
There is no competition when companies work against the other side of the market. It is only when you can help your own domestically as well as others to the same level instead of lowering yourself that you have it.
...and/or expensive, maybe you might have a large enough talent pool. It might call for immigrant instructors to bring down cost(said tuition/board costs being well out of reality), but you definitely can get Ivy quality with a State educated person if you only prohibit the exclusionism and funding games that are present in every private college to keep their image.
The way I see it, Google never departed from being evil straight from day 1, as they have inherited things from their Stanford upbringing that do not go well with the public they interact with. First of all, they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the "invite system" (see Orkut and Gmail). The practice might have been good when elitism was king (pardon the pun), but this version of divine right fell out of favor many ages ago. Google isnt evil for creating competition, just that they come from a very questionable background (Stanford) with obsolete practices.
In other words - Google, the Midwest isnt just something you fly over to get people from private/exclusive colleges. It's the untapped pool of talent that you think is just a bunch of rednecks. Not all the best talent comes from places that pride on exclusion, nor do they all come from outside the US.
In the university that I work at we've seen a reduction in the number of students that come to us from India, simply because we can no longer offer the radically better education that we used to be able to.
That might actually might be a good thing for the US, as it will free slots for very deserving people of the States instead of educating for offshoring.
(Dunno or care about the parent poster's intentions, applies anyhow)
uhh, Paul Krugman, NYT editorialist, is professor of economics at Princeton University. So id lay a fair wager he counts as a competent economist. Or perhaps you simply define competent economists as those who agree with you.
I'll put my bets against this one, and wait to hear from someone not blessed with a degree from the Ivy League (as well as all equivalents- East, West, and Flyover Country) - so far they've given themselves a black eye for at least 15 years. Whether it be using "globalism", and the concept of "impractical freedom"**, I'll wait for someone who has gone to somewhere with open admissions and doesnt play the "MIT Tuition Game"* to speak about economics.
* - The practice of using high tuition and free ride scholarships to exclude 90%+ of the population, leaving room for allowing Ivy League Idiots to buy their way in if they did not make the numbers. This is not exclusive to MIT, but applies to ignoble places such as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and others.
** - Impractical freedom is the concept of using economics and exclusionism to generate force to get around safeguards protecting freedom.
2nd url was supposed to be this, oops!
Not to mention having the freedom to make superior machines without the Ivory Tower Syndrome.
...would you like some hot coffee?
...You forgot Electronic Arts.