Similarly, consider an interactive system, where the software pauses at each step to get input from the user. If the high level scripted system is responding within 0.1 seconds, seemingly instant to the user.
Yeah. How often does that happen? If you can manage to allow ALL of your code to run while waiting for a user response (or the hard drive or whatever) then bravo. But that is not the case for the vast majority of the code out there and you know it. Obviously no one is going to start optimizing code without the use of a profiler, or at least without having a good idea which parts of the code are resource hogs. This is just the typical straw man tossed out, I am guessing, by coders who are not proficient or comfortable with assembly. The right tool for the right job. The problem today is not the overuse of hand coded assembly routines, but the overuse of 'managed' code and just barely compiled (JIT) languages which rely too much on wasted CPU cycles to try to make programming easier and safer (uggh).
Feel free to use Visual Basic or Java or Python or Lisp or whatever for those few routines where speed is virtually irrelevant, where a 286 would be more than sufficient do get the job done. But for the rest, there is no (good) excuse for ignoring execution speed. That, IMO, is one of the most important responsibilities of any developer.
This is also the reason why a mere increase in the number of cores is no panacea. Although programmers need to start taking explicit parallelism more seriously, certain tasks simply cannot be split up. In many cases a task cannot continue until it has data that has been calculated by a previous task. There is no way around this. So, with the exception of embarrassingly parallel tasks developers and corporations are just going to have to bite the bullet in terms of increased development time and cost if they want to produce programs that run faster than the competition.
It's not only the compiler. It is also the whether the language allows for sufficiently 'fine-grained' (for lack of a better term) functions. If I only need to do task A and B and the standard library of the language only includes a somewhat related function that does A,B,C,D,E,F all in one, I am forced to write my own function in assembly (or whatever). IMO, what makes C one of the fastest languages ever devised is not the compiler, but its low-level bias. Sure, it is a high level language but it retains a tight grounding with assembly, (i.e. well integrated inline assembly, macros, etc).
It is common these days to assume that a compiler can beat hand coding every time, but that is not always true. And unless you actually check, you will never really know. The biggest problem I have had with standard library functions in any language was not that the authors wrote inefficient code, but rather that they tried to do too much, far more than I needed and used extra cycles to be more 'safe'. It is difficult for a general purpose function to be as efficient as one that was coded with a specific task in mind.
[Note: I didn't realize that common lisp had a compiler. That's pretty cool. I'd like to try that.]
First, we don't have to import engineers. They are falling all over themselves to get here. We are merely allowing them to do so. You know, the brain drain and all that. For some reason the smartest folks from all those countries are incredibly desperate to come here. You might want to ask them why. Second, do a little reading about Indian teachers. You might learn something. Many of them don't even bother to show up for class. They are paid almost nothing. Yeah. That's a real dedication to teaching and education. It's considered a serious problem in India. At least our teachers show up.
It is true that the US does have a very anti-intellectual (mainstream) culture, but then so do many countries. I don't know how that problem could be fixed. American women are not attracted to intelligence. They are attracted to physically large and strong guys. Maybe this is at the root of the problem. Or maybe not.
In terms of technology at least I don't see this 'failure' you are referring to. When was the last time you heard about some new tech coming from any of those countries. In China you'd have to go back thousands of years I think. In Russia, if you discount their space program, you'd probably have to go back even farther. And India? Has anything ever been invented there? Not that I don't like a good curry. And I love Basmati rice.
I played WOW for the first (free) month, but quickly became bored with the whole level grind approach without any story or anything. I believe that the real interest in such games is in the social aspect, sort of like a fancy chat room or something. For an antisocial misfit like myself all that socializing is not any more interesting in-game than it is in real life. I strongly prefer single player games. I like to be immersed in my own unique world and story. I dislike most of the social aspects of these games. And that's without even considering the abundance of arseholes just as in real life.
I think neverwinter nights is a much better approach. Sure there is socialization, but there is also a strong, unique story. And no camping. The whole idea of camping really represents everything that is wrong with these games.
Even if looked at solely from the POV of the content producer, DRM has serious issues. Let me give an example. I am a big fan of a particular developer of computer role playing games, Black Isle/Obsidian. There are some highly creative folks over there like designer/writer Chris Avellone whose work I have particularly admired over the years. I am highly supportive of the overall aims of this company. It is very important to me that they succeed. Their next game, NeverWinter Nights 2 will be released this October.
I sincerely hope that they sell record numbers, allowing them to more easily get funding for future projects. However, I am currently trying to decide whether or not I should buy the game or download a cracked version. How could I be rooting so strongly for a company and yet at the same time possibly planning to not buy the game, not vote with my dollars for their continued success and efforts? The answer is DRM.
Atari is the publisher of the game and they will almost certainly be using Securom, a form of copy protection, the latest versions of which do not allow any backup copies to be made. But this will not stop the serious hackers from producing cracked versions of the game with all the checks removed so that 1:1 copies are made irrelevant.
I purchased Neverwinter Nights 1 (Bioware) in the first weeks that it was released, but instead of installing it, I downloaded and ran the cracked version. No CD check slowdowns or crashes, no worries about a small scratch or fingerprint making the original disc unreadable. No worries about losing a disc. I was a paying customer. Why should I have to deal with that whole mess, when thousands of people who hadn't paid a dime had access to a far, far better version? It just didn't make any sense.
For the moment I have (tentatively) decided NOT to buy the game but instead to wait for a cracked version to be released. In my particular case, the DRM is the only factor in my non-purchase. Hell, I would donate money to them on a regular basis if they allowed for such a thing. Money is not the issue. The issue is that when I buy content I am (mainly) buying the information, not the media. Even if I were willing to continue to rebuy the same content again and again due to scratches and losing discs, eventually the publisher would stop selling the game. That publishers like Atari are encouraging even the most passionate fans of the developer to download the (superior) cracked version of the game is what I find ironic. Unless the copy protection is SO incredibly unbreakable that it will not even allow one hacker to crack and release the game online all the rest is useless. And even in that (very hypothetical) situation you will still succeed in getting your paying customers angry and annoyed with you. And for what? For a slight increase in sales?
But if...a dog, somehow someway contracted a common cold, and was completely unprepared to accept the virus and combat it, the dog would die without much of a fight.
There is no evidence for that. Quite the contrary. A pathogen needs to be sufficiently well adapted to its host to cause any real symptoms. For instance a virus that is well adapted to attack a rose or a tobacco leaf is not likely to do any damage to a human. Also, (to use a famous example) consider how deadly Ebola Reston is to monkeys and how benign it is in humans. A virus that is versatile enough to jump species is the exception, not the rule. Even in that case, your characterization is way exaggerated. A dog's immune system would in most cases be more than sufficient to fight off the common cold. Do a little studying of how the immune system works, and you will quickly see why. It is quite able to handle pathogens it has never encountered before. That is mostly the point. The immune system is well suited for precisely that.
Some people choose to believe in a god because it makes them feel better. You choose to believe in 'the explosion of artificial intelligence' and 'nanotechnology' instead, but for the same reason. You are speculating on nothing but your own hopes. Could be 10 years (unlikely) or 100 years or 1000 years or 10000 years. It is simply unknown when or if such advances will take place. There is no data upon which to base a realistic estimate.
If this 'solution' also includes a method for allowing ugly-but-intelligent guys to get laid and/or enslaving the beautiful female population toward said end then I'm all for it. Might give new life to the term 'public service'. Even if the beautiful chicks were dumb as rocks it would (presumably) benefit the gene pool due to the either/or nature of genetics. However we could always screen the beautiful chicks to weed out the ones who only seem dumb but in fact possess obscene levels of intelligence which have never been put to use until now.
The same is true for workers. Anyone who says "I can't get a job" could either accept lower pay, or work harder.
Sorry, but free market theory often does not translate directly into the real world. At least in the U.S., the working world is just not set up that way. If you had ever actually tried to lowball an employer in that fashion you would see that. The system almost never allows for it. I'm not sure why. You'd have to ask someone who works in HR. I'm guessing it has something to do with the position already having a certain salary associated with it. And this is not just true in IT. I'm not aware of any field where offering a low price (salary) to an employer increases your chances of getting the job, at least in my country. Maybe if you were applying at a very small startup company and interviewing directly with the owner, lowballing would give you some advantage. Of course asking for too high a salary can hurt your chances. I hate giving salary requirements for that reason. I will either like the job or I won't. If I like it they can pay me whatever they think is fair. If I don't it doesn't matter how much they pay me. I'll walk.
Actually the best move is to grab the cellphone out of their hand without saying a word and stomp on it with your boot (which of course will do nothing). Then you pocket the phone and tell the rude SOB that he can have his phone back at the end of the movie. Then sneak out of said theatre and spend the next 90 minutes conversing with your friend in Mozambique. When the jerk returns for his phone you stab him in the neck with your boot knife. If the bastard utters even the slightest protest, be ready to decapitate him with the machete that you brought along, grab his severed (and perhaps screaming) head, whirl it around and roll it right down the aisle like a bowling ball. Repeat as needed.
I like Carlin, but what he said doesn't really make sense. Based on that logic we should be exposing our children to Ebola, Lassa, Malaria, Rabies, Smallpox, and whatever other nasty viruses we can think of to toughen 'em up while they're still young. I cannot really understand the logic of it. Why should it matter at what age the organism is exposed to the pathogen? Is it somehow better to be exposed to a virus when you are 5 then when you are 25? If so, I think we should be trying to figure out why. Also, didn't those great flu epidemics that occured a few times in the 20th century kill more children than it did adults. I have always thought that children were more at risk to infectious disease due to less developed immune systems.
Good point. I have severe allergies to plants and animals, but my sister, who grew up in the same environments and no doubt had similar genetics, never developed any allergies.
People who were not allergic to these things can apparently develop an allergy to something that didn't elicit a reaction before.
With all allergies there must be one or more exposures before the body develops the characteristic over-response, attacking harmless substances as though they really were a threat. You cannot be allergic to anything until you are exposed at least once.
Poison ivy is an interesting example. The shiny, shellac-like oil secreted from the plant should be quite harmless. It is certainly non-toxic (and its berries and leaves are often eaten by animals). But a large majority of human beings become highly allergic to it after just one or two exposures. What is it about immune individuals that makes them different? How does the body 'decide' what substances to attack and which to leave alone?
Yeah, I hate the safety reason because it's a zero sum game. They are hoping to get in a head-on collision (the only case where it could actually be safer for them) and survive by killing the occupants of the more practical fuel efficient car driven by the folks that can't afford to pay for all that petrol. Your survival rate increases only to the extent that the survival rate of the occupants of the other vehicle decreases. Every man for himself indeed.
They don't like to discuss the roll-over dangers or side collisions. I think I was reading somewhere that the belief is that the greater safety in a head-on collision is offset by the greater probability of a roll-over in an otherwise non-fatal accident.
If anything the patent would make it easier to stifle. Just buy the patent and sit on it. The patent would prevent anyone from using the new competing format for many years. Actually this is an economically viable strategy in a case where the industry really would be hurt by new tech. In this case I'm not so sure that it will be disruptive. Generally patent protected new tech is so expensive as not to significantly effect the market for many, many years. This sounds like just a remarketing press release that says nothing new. LEDs of any breed are not likely to replace the flourescent/incandescent market for at least a decade. Nothing to see here.
for people who want to abuse the system. I also would like to take issue with the word 'abuse' in this context. This would only be true for ISPs which specifically ban all P2P usage. I am not aware of any that actually do that. And, no, "server" does not cover it. They are referring to HTTP or FTP servers, not P2P. ISPs could simply ban all P2P usage and terminate your service after a few warnings if you persisted in using it. That is their right. They would lose a lot of customers, but no doubt their niche internet business would still be very profitable due to their extremely low bandwidth needs from a websurfer only network.
Just curious, but how do you know that your candidate from China/India isn't BSing you with their resumé etc? How do you know they really have the specific skills you are looking for? It must be specific skills because the US has some of the best (aka most selective) universities on the planet (MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Princeton etc...) from which some of the most intelligent human beings in the world graduate from. You could just troll those schools for recent graduates and quickly get them up to speed on your specific application. I realize that the India Institutes of Technology are HIGHLY selective and the graduates of such schools tend to be VERY smart, but it's not like we have some kind of shortage of such people in our country. Sounds to me like you are just out to save money, pure and simple. Why not just admit it?
Have you considered the idea that maybe it is not a lack of potential employees that is the problem but rather something in your advertising or your ridiculous paper requirements (that mean little in the real world and can even be easily faked) that is the problem? I have no problem with you hiring foreigners, but that "skilled people in our own country don't exist" excuse is such BS.
Take a look at the history of science and which countries were most responsible for moving it forward. Then check to see the extent to which India or China are on it. Americans are not any less intelligent or less educated than citizens from India or China (and especially not the geek population). You do not NEED to hire from other countries. That is just a fact.
And even if you did want to hire from other countries, if money were not your first concern you would be hiring from Japan, the UK, Germany etc as well. You're not going to tell me they are too expensive are you?
In IBM's best case scenario, it might even create more Walmart jobs, but 9 would seem a big stretch. Maybe 1.77 walmart greeters and cashiers per outsourced job. That could happen if IBM reallly does get more bang for the buck (productivity/$) from workers with a lower cost of living etc. Of course anytime anyone makes more money (IBM execs for instance) it tends to go back into the economy somehow and helps someone else in the process. Even keeping it in a bank account helps the banking industry which in turn helps the bank execs who then purchase... But it doesn't help CS graduates. At all.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, consider an interactive system, where the software pauses at each step to get input from the user. If the high level scripted system is responding within 0.1 seconds, seemingly instant to the user.
Yeah. How often does that happen? If you can manage to allow ALL of your code to run while waiting for a user response (or the hard drive or whatever) then bravo. But that is not the case for the vast majority of the code out there and you know it. Obviously no one is going to start optimizing code without the use of a profiler, or at least without having a good idea which parts of the code are resource hogs. This is just the typical straw man tossed out, I am guessing, by coders who are not proficient or comfortable with assembly. The right tool for the right job. The problem today is not the overuse of hand coded assembly routines, but the overuse of 'managed' code and just barely compiled (JIT) languages which rely too much on wasted CPU cycles to try to make programming easier and safer (uggh).
Feel free to use Visual Basic or Java or Python or Lisp or whatever for those few routines where speed is virtually irrelevant, where a 286 would be more than sufficient do get the job done. But for the rest, there is no (good) excuse for ignoring execution speed. That, IMO, is one of the most important responsibilities of any developer.
9 women can have one baby in one month
This is also the reason why a mere increase in the number of cores is no panacea. Although programmers need to start taking explicit parallelism more seriously, certain tasks simply cannot be split up. In many cases a task cannot continue until it has data that has been calculated by a previous task. There is no way around this. So, with the exception of embarrassingly parallel tasks developers and corporations are just going to have to bite the bullet in terms of increased development time and cost if they want to produce programs that run faster than the competition.
It's not only the compiler. It is also the whether the language allows for sufficiently 'fine-grained' (for lack of a better term) functions. If I only need to do task A and B and the standard library of the language only includes a somewhat related function that does A,B,C,D,E,F all in one, I am forced to write my own function in assembly (or whatever). IMO, what makes C one of the fastest languages ever devised is not the compiler, but its low-level bias. Sure, it is a high level language but it retains a tight grounding with assembly, (i.e. well integrated inline assembly, macros, etc).
It is common these days to assume that a compiler can beat hand coding every time, but that is not always true. And unless you actually check, you will never really know. The biggest problem I have had with standard library functions in any language was not that the authors wrote inefficient code, but rather that they tried to do too much, far more than I needed and used extra cycles to be more 'safe'. It is difficult for a general purpose function to be as efficient as one that was coded with a specific task in mind.
[Note: I didn't realize that common lisp had a compiler. That's pretty cool. I'd like to try that.]
1. Firefox with noscript. Don't allow just anyone to run javascript routines on your computer. Just say no to javascript.
First, we don't have to import engineers. They are falling all over themselves to get here. We are merely allowing them to do so. You know, the brain drain and all that. For some reason the smartest folks from all those countries are incredibly desperate to come here. You might want to ask them why. Second, do a little reading about Indian teachers. You might learn something. Many of them don't even bother to show up for class. They are paid almost nothing. Yeah. That's a real dedication to teaching and education. It's considered a serious problem in India. At least our teachers show up.
It is true that the US does have a very anti-intellectual (mainstream) culture, but then so do many countries. I don't know how that problem could be fixed. American women are not attracted to intelligence. They are attracted to physically large and strong guys. Maybe this is at the root of the problem. Or maybe not.
In terms of technology at least I don't see this 'failure' you are referring to. When was the last time you heard about some new tech coming from any of those countries. In China you'd have to go back thousands of years I think. In Russia, if you discount their space program, you'd probably have to go back even farther. And India? Has anything ever been invented there? Not that I don't like a good curry. And I love Basmati rice.
ranging in age from 12 to 57
With 75% in the 12-15 range, right?
I played WOW for the first (free) month, but quickly became bored with the whole level grind approach without any story or anything. I believe that the real interest in such games is in the social aspect, sort of like a fancy chat room or something. For an antisocial misfit like myself all that socializing is not any more interesting in-game than it is in real life. I strongly prefer single player games. I like to be immersed in my own unique world and story. I dislike most of the social aspects of these games. And that's without even considering the abundance of arseholes just as in real life.
I think neverwinter nights is a much better approach. Sure there is socialization, but there is also a strong, unique story. And no camping. The whole idea of camping really represents everything that is wrong with these games.
Even if looked at solely from the POV of the content producer, DRM has serious issues. Let me give an example. I am a big fan of a particular developer of computer role playing games, Black Isle/Obsidian. There are some highly creative folks over there like designer/writer Chris Avellone whose work I have particularly admired over the years. I am highly supportive of the overall aims of this company. It is very important to me that they succeed. Their next game, NeverWinter Nights 2 will be released this October.
I sincerely hope that they sell record numbers, allowing them to more easily get funding for future projects. However, I am currently trying to decide whether or not I should buy the game or download a cracked version. How could I be rooting so strongly for a company and yet at the same time possibly planning to not buy the game, not vote with my dollars for their continued success and efforts? The answer is DRM.
Atari is the publisher of the game and they will almost certainly be using Securom, a form of copy protection, the latest versions of which do not allow any backup copies to be made. But this will not stop the serious hackers from producing cracked versions of the game with all the checks removed so that 1:1 copies are made irrelevant.
I purchased Neverwinter Nights 1 (Bioware) in the first weeks that it was released, but instead of installing it, I downloaded and ran the cracked version. No CD check slowdowns or crashes, no worries about a small scratch or fingerprint making the original disc unreadable. No worries about losing a disc. I was a paying customer. Why should I have to deal with that whole mess, when thousands of people who hadn't paid a dime had access to a far, far better version? It just didn't make any sense.
For the moment I have (tentatively) decided NOT to buy the game but instead to wait for a cracked version to be released. In my particular case, the DRM is the only factor in my non-purchase. Hell, I would donate money to them on a regular basis if they allowed for such a thing. Money is not the issue. The issue is that when I buy content I am (mainly) buying the information, not the media. Even if I were willing to continue to rebuy the same content again and again due to scratches and losing discs, eventually the publisher would stop selling the game. That publishers like Atari are encouraging even the most passionate fans of the developer to download the (superior) cracked version of the game is what I find ironic. Unless the copy protection is SO incredibly unbreakable that it will not even allow one hacker to crack and release the game online all the rest is useless. And even in that (very hypothetical) situation you will still succeed in getting your paying customers angry and annoyed with you. And for what? For a slight increase in sales?
Some people choose to believe in a god because it makes them feel better. You choose to believe in 'the explosion of artificial intelligence' and 'nanotechnology' instead, but for the same reason. You are speculating on nothing but your own hopes. Could be 10 years (unlikely) or 100 years or 1000 years or 10000 years. It is simply unknown when or if such advances will take place. There is no data upon which to base a realistic estimate.
If this 'solution' also includes a method for allowing ugly-but-intelligent guys to get laid and/or enslaving the beautiful female population toward said end then I'm all for it. Might give new life to the term 'public service'. Even if the beautiful chicks were dumb as rocks it would (presumably) benefit the gene pool due to the either/or nature of genetics. However we could always screen the beautiful chicks to weed out the ones who only seem dumb but in fact possess obscene levels of intelligence which have never been put to use until now.
This deserves more than a 5. This is one of the best posts I've seen here. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
I love that! Thanks.
The same is true for workers. Anyone who says "I can't get a job" could either accept lower pay, or work harder.
Sorry, but free market theory often does not translate directly into the real world. At least in the U.S., the working world is just not set up that way. If you had ever actually tried to lowball an employer in that fashion you would see that. The system almost never allows for it. I'm not sure why. You'd have to ask someone who works in HR. I'm guessing it has something to do with the position already having a certain salary associated with it. And this is not just true in IT. I'm not aware of any field where offering a low price (salary) to an employer increases your chances of getting the job, at least in my country. Maybe if you were applying at a very small startup company and interviewing directly with the owner, lowballing would give you some advantage. Of course asking for too high a salary can hurt your chances. I hate giving salary requirements for that reason. I will either like the job or I won't. If I like it they can pay me whatever they think is fair. If I don't it doesn't matter how much they pay me. I'll walk.
Actually the best move is to grab the cellphone out of their hand without saying a word and stomp on it with your boot (which of course will do nothing). Then you pocket the phone and tell the rude SOB that he can have his phone back at the end of the movie. Then sneak out of said theatre and spend the next 90 minutes conversing with your friend in Mozambique. When the jerk returns for his phone you stab him in the neck with your boot knife. If the bastard utters even the slightest protest, be ready to decapitate him with the machete that you brought along, grab his severed (and perhaps screaming) head, whirl it around and roll it right down the aisle like a bowling ball. Repeat as needed.
I like Carlin, but what he said doesn't really make sense. Based on that logic we should be exposing our children to Ebola, Lassa, Malaria, Rabies, Smallpox, and whatever other nasty viruses we can think of to toughen 'em up while they're still young. I cannot really understand the logic of it. Why should it matter at what age the organism is exposed to the pathogen? Is it somehow better to be exposed to a virus when you are 5 then when you are 25? If so, I think we should be trying to figure out why. Also, didn't those great flu epidemics that occured a few times in the 20th century kill more children than it did adults. I have always thought that children were more at risk to infectious disease due to less developed immune systems.
Good point. I have severe allergies to plants and animals, but my sister, who grew up in the same environments and no doubt had similar genetics, never developed any allergies.
People who were not allergic to these things can apparently develop an allergy to something that didn't elicit a reaction before.
With all allergies there must be one or more exposures before the body develops the characteristic over-response, attacking harmless substances as though they really were a threat. You cannot be allergic to anything until you are exposed at least once.
Poison ivy is an interesting example. The shiny, shellac-like oil secreted from the plant should be quite harmless. It is certainly non-toxic (and its berries and leaves are often eaten by animals). But a large majority of human beings become highly allergic to it after just one or two exposures. What is it about immune individuals that makes them different? How does the body 'decide' what substances to attack and which to leave alone?
Yeah, I hate the safety reason because it's a zero sum game. They are hoping to get in a head-on collision (the only case where it could actually be safer for them) and survive by killing the occupants of the more practical fuel efficient car driven by the folks that can't afford to pay for all that petrol. Your survival rate increases only to the extent that the survival rate of the occupants of the other vehicle decreases. Every man for himself indeed.
They don't like to discuss the roll-over dangers or side collisions. I think I was reading somewhere that the belief is that the greater safety in a head-on collision is offset by the greater probability of a roll-over in an otherwise non-fatal accident.
I think you are missing the humour/sarcasm in his post. I am going to have to bill him for a new keyboard and another cup of coffee though.
There is no patent protecting this invention...
If anything the patent would make it easier to stifle. Just buy the patent and sit on it. The patent would prevent anyone from using the new competing format for many years. Actually this is an economically viable strategy in a case where the industry really would be hurt by new tech. In this case I'm not so sure that it will be disruptive. Generally patent protected new tech is so expensive as not to significantly effect the market for many, many years. This sounds like just a remarketing press release that says nothing new. LEDs of any breed are not likely to replace the flourescent/incandescent market for at least a decade. Nothing to see here.
for people who want to abuse the system.
I also would like to take issue with the word 'abuse' in this context. This would only be true for ISPs which specifically ban all P2P usage. I am not aware of any that actually do that. And, no, "server" does not cover it. They are referring to HTTP or FTP servers, not P2P. ISPs could simply ban all P2P usage and terminate your service after a few warnings if you persisted in using it. That is their right. They would lose a lot of customers, but no doubt their niche internet business would still be very profitable due to their extremely low bandwidth needs from a websurfer only network.
Just curious, but how do you know that your candidate from China/India isn't BSing you with their resumé etc? How do you know they really have the specific skills you are looking for? It must be specific skills because the US has some of the best (aka most selective) universities on the planet (MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Princeton etc...) from which some of the most intelligent human beings in the world graduate from. You could just troll those schools for recent graduates and quickly get them up to speed on your specific application. I realize that the India Institutes of Technology are HIGHLY selective and the graduates of such schools tend to be VERY smart, but it's not like we have some kind of shortage of such people in our country. Sounds to me like you are just out to save money, pure and simple. Why not just admit it?
Have you considered the idea that maybe it is not a lack of potential employees that is the problem but rather something in your advertising or your ridiculous paper requirements (that mean little in the real world and can even be easily faked) that is the problem? I have no problem with you hiring foreigners, but that "skilled people in our own country don't exist" excuse is such BS.
Take a look at the history of science and which countries were most responsible for moving it forward. Then check to see the extent to which India or China are on it. Americans are not any less intelligent or less educated than citizens from India or China (and especially not the geek population). You do not NEED to hire from other countries. That is just a fact.
And even if you did want to hire from other countries, if money were not your first concern you would be hiring from Japan, the UK, Germany etc as well. You're not going to tell me they are too expensive are you?
In IBM's best case scenario, it might even create more Walmart jobs, but 9 would seem a big stretch. Maybe 1.77 walmart greeters and cashiers per outsourced job. That could happen if IBM reallly does get more bang for the buck (productivity/$) from workers with a lower cost of living etc. Of course anytime anyone makes more money (IBM execs for instance) it tends to go back into the economy somehow and helps someone else in the process. Even keeping it in a bank account helps the banking industry which in turn helps the bank execs who then purchase... But it doesn't help CS graduates. At all.
Yes. I can see from your previous post that your 'people skills' are really amazing.