I don't have a huge issue with a lot of things being outsourced. Manufacturing has been largely outsourced for a very long time, and that didn't kill our economy; I don't think programming being outsourced will kill our economy, either.
But I do think there are jobs that are innapropriately being outsourced. The biggest type is technical and customer support. Trying to get technical support or customer support from Hewlett-Packard, for example, is impossible--they outsource all of their support to a call center in New Delhi. I'm not sure what the issue is, but the standard of customer service I've received from the Delhi center is very low compared to the standard I've received from most U.S. based centers, and the standard of support I've supplied when I've been in customer contact positions. And it's not a fluke; out of twenty-six calls I placed to the India centers, my problem was never resolved, I was placed on hold an average of eight to ten minutes per call, and fourteen calls were disconnected, nine by the agents (not by the phone system). (To put this in perspective, I'm not an irate customer; I've done support for similar products. I'm aware they've heard, "I'm Cisco certified" or "I do networking" a million times, so I listen to what they have to say, and give them concrete examples of troubleshooting steps I've taken before we get into troubleshooting on the phone.)
I think the distinction needs to be drawn between customer contact (visible) and non-customer contact (invisible, at least to the consumer) jobs. "Invisible" jobs can, by and large, be outsourced without too much trouble. But barriers like standards, culture, and language (I lived in India for a year and I still have trouble sometimes understanding technical jargon through some Indian accents) make it simply a bad move to outsource jobs that have a high level of customer visibility.
In most movies, I would find that moment in the movie very over-the-top and emotionally manipulative, which I generally *hate*. But in Return of the King it worked; it had legitimacy because it was appropriate and, well, *deserved*.
I thought I'd had enough after seeing the movie twice opening day. But I'll be going back for more with friends who haven't gotten to see it, and I'll look forward to that bit in the film.
Agreed--I just got done re-reading Down and Out. I wonder if Doctorow's concept of the "death of scarcity" is present here, too?
Nullifying IP laws not necessarily too strong
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I disagree that nullifying IP laws is too strong. I think that is exactly what is needed.
Intellectual property law is based on a very large assumption: that one is entitled to full protection under law for an intangible idea without any effort on the part of the idea-holder. Why bother with developing effective encryption and copy-protection measures when you can wrap your ideas in the threat of a lawsuit? Why stay on top of the latest threats to the security of the products you put out, when you can simply write a statement on the cover that it is illegal to breach the (non-existant) security measures?
Why bother wearing your seatbelt, buying a car with good safety ratings and practicing safe driving habits if it is simply illegal to get in car accidents?
Laws such as those which theoretically protect intellectual property really only create artificial scarcity, which only really exists on the surface. Without intellectual property "rights", individuals and corporations seeking to protect their works would have to actually exert effort to do so. You don't want people to have the ability to copy and redistribute your software? Encrypt it and distribute it securely. Don't slap a checksum on it that my six-year-old sister could reproduce and expect that no-one will figure it out.
Getting rid of frivolous laws that only protect on the surface forces people to think of ways to protect themselves and their efforts. I think making people think for themselves is a big step in the right direction.
From a different point of view
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 1
My husband and I have worked for several ISPs. I won't claim to know much about the disconnection department, because we've only ever done tech support, but perhaps I can offer a little insight into why it's harder to disconnect than to connect.
Many ISPs don't release email addresses when a person cancels. Back when the popular-internet stuff started and there were fewer ISPs, companies assumed that once you had their service, you had their service and wouldn't need to shop around. Most didn't build in the functionality to release or reassign email addresses.
So, you make the phone call or go online to connect through the WOL (World OnLine) dialup provider. During that transaction, you're giving them your name, method of payment, and usually address and phone number too. That's a lot of information that can potentially be used to verify that you are who you say you are.
You're saying that you want a button to disconnect on the website, or something to that effect. Well, what if you were at the library and the computer didn't log you out properly? What if you were at home and walked away from the computer for a minute, and your toddler/cat/iguana decided the mouse was their new favorite toy?
No big deal, right? You just call up WOL and tell them you/your pet disconnected accidentally.
And they say, "Too bad, so sad." The email address you got when WOL first started, the very original and much sought after bob@wol.com, is gone. If you want service, you're going to have to pick a new one, something more along the lines of bob249002578@wol.com. I'm sure you're itching to.
Now, I hear you saying that doesn't bother you. It really wouldn't bother me, either. I change email addresses almost as often as I change my clothes. (Not literally, but you understand what I mean.) But to Bob Businessman, who has been using that address for 6 years and has it printed on his business cards and stationery, it matters.
The point is, the repercussions of someone being incorrectly subscribed are few. "Oh, your 12-year-old hormonal daughter got ahold of your credit card and ordered? No problem, here's your $5-10 that we charged you, and that account will be cancelled. Bye!" The repercussions of someone being incorrectly UNsubscribed are a nightmare of, "But, but, I've had that email address for four years! What do you mean I can't have it back?!"
I do agree that if you say, "No, no problems with the service, I just don't need it anymore," that should be it. Assuming you can verify identity, disconnecting should be a breeze. Just wanted to add a different point of view.
If there is a Hospital or a goverment database running on software that fails, the developers SHOULD be prosecuted by LAW for this.
But what about the hospital or government? Shouldn't they bear a good deal of the responsibility for either selecting solid software, or hiring someone to select such? In what manner is the liability to be limited? If I install RandomLittleUtilityX and it runs fine, and then install BigCorporateAndGenerallyTrustedProgramY and it breaks all over the place but runs fine on computers that don't have RLUX installed, is that RLUX's designer's fault, BCAGTPY's designer's/distributor's fault, or mine? If I write up a quick little utility to do something on my computer and it gets onto other computers through some P2P utility unintentionally and causes problems, should I have to pay for damages?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a huge issue with a lot of things being outsourced. Manufacturing has been largely outsourced for a very long time, and that didn't kill our economy; I don't think programming being outsourced will kill our economy, either.
But I do think there are jobs that are innapropriately being outsourced. The biggest type is technical and customer support. Trying to get technical support or customer support from Hewlett-Packard, for example, is impossible--they outsource all of their support to a call center in New Delhi. I'm not sure what the issue is, but the standard of customer service I've received from the Delhi center is very low compared to the standard I've received from most U.S. based centers, and the standard of support I've supplied when I've been in customer contact positions. And it's not a fluke; out of twenty-six calls I placed to the India centers, my problem was never resolved, I was placed on hold an average of eight to ten minutes per call, and fourteen calls were disconnected, nine by the agents (not by the phone system). (To put this in perspective, I'm not an irate customer; I've done support for similar products. I'm aware they've heard, "I'm Cisco certified" or "I do networking" a million times, so I listen to what they have to say, and give them concrete examples of troubleshooting steps I've taken before we get into troubleshooting on the phone.)
I think the distinction needs to be drawn between customer contact (visible) and non-customer contact (invisible, at least to the consumer) jobs. "Invisible" jobs can, by and large, be outsourced without too much trouble. But barriers like standards, culture, and language (I lived in India for a year and I still have trouble sometimes understanding technical jargon through some Indian accents) make it simply a bad move to outsource jobs that have a high level of customer visibility.
In most movies, I would find that moment in the movie very over-the-top and emotionally manipulative, which I generally *hate*. But in Return of the King it worked; it had legitimacy because it was appropriate and, well, *deserved*. I thought I'd had enough after seeing the movie twice opening day. But I'll be going back for more with friends who haven't gotten to see it, and I'll look forward to that bit in the film.
Agreed--I just got done re-reading Down and Out. I wonder if Doctorow's concept of the "death of scarcity" is present here, too?
I disagree that nullifying IP laws is too strong. I think that is exactly what is needed.
Intellectual property law is based on a very large assumption: that one is entitled to full protection under law for an intangible idea without any effort on the part of the idea-holder. Why bother with developing effective encryption and copy-protection measures when you can wrap your ideas in the threat of a lawsuit? Why stay on top of the latest threats to the security of the products you put out, when you can simply write a statement on the cover that it is illegal to breach the (non-existant) security measures?
Why bother wearing your seatbelt, buying a car with good safety ratings and practicing safe driving habits if it is simply illegal to get in car accidents?
Laws such as those which theoretically protect intellectual property really only create artificial scarcity, which only really exists on the surface. Without intellectual property "rights", individuals and corporations seeking to protect their works would have to actually exert effort to do so. You don't want people to have the ability to copy and redistribute your software? Encrypt it and distribute it securely. Don't slap a checksum on it that my six-year-old sister could reproduce and expect that no-one will figure it out.
Getting rid of frivolous laws that only protect on the surface forces people to think of ways to protect themselves and their efforts. I think making people think for themselves is a big step in the right direction.
My husband and I have worked for several ISPs. I won't claim to know much about the disconnection department, because we've only ever done tech support, but perhaps I can offer a little insight into why it's harder to disconnect than to connect.
Many ISPs don't release email addresses when a person cancels. Back when the popular-internet stuff started and there were fewer ISPs, companies assumed that once you had their service, you had their service and wouldn't need to shop around. Most didn't build in the functionality to release or reassign email addresses.
So, you make the phone call or go online to connect through the WOL (World OnLine) dialup provider. During that transaction, you're giving them your name, method of payment, and usually address and phone number too. That's a lot of information that can potentially be used to verify that you are who you say you are.
You're saying that you want a button to disconnect on the website, or something to that effect. Well, what if you were at the library and the computer didn't log you out properly? What if you were at home and walked away from the computer for a minute, and your toddler/cat/iguana decided the mouse was their new favorite toy?
No big deal, right? You just call up WOL and tell them you/your pet disconnected accidentally.
And they say, "Too bad, so sad." The email address you got when WOL first started, the very original and much sought after bob@wol.com, is gone. If you want service, you're going to have to pick a new one, something more along the lines of bob249002578@wol.com. I'm sure you're itching to.
Now, I hear you saying that doesn't bother you. It really wouldn't bother me, either. I change email addresses almost as often as I change my clothes. (Not literally, but you understand what I mean.) But to Bob Businessman, who has been using that address for 6 years and has it printed on his business cards and stationery, it matters.
The point is, the repercussions of someone being incorrectly subscribed are few. "Oh, your 12-year-old hormonal daughter got ahold of your credit card and ordered? No problem, here's your $5-10 that we charged you, and that account will be cancelled. Bye!" The repercussions of someone being incorrectly UNsubscribed are a nightmare of, "But, but, I've had that email address for four years! What do you mean I can't have it back?!"
I do agree that if you say, "No, no problems with the service, I just don't need it anymore," that should be it. Assuming you can verify identity, disconnecting should be a breeze. Just wanted to add a different point of view.
If there is a Hospital or a goverment database running on software that fails, the developers SHOULD be prosecuted by LAW for this. But what about the hospital or government? Shouldn't they bear a good deal of the responsibility for either selecting solid software, or hiring someone to select such? In what manner is the liability to be limited? If I install RandomLittleUtilityX and it runs fine, and then install BigCorporateAndGenerallyTrustedProgramY and it breaks all over the place but runs fine on computers that don't have RLUX installed, is that RLUX's designer's fault, BCAGTPY's designer's/distributor's fault, or mine? If I write up a quick little utility to do something on my computer and it gets onto other computers through some P2P utility unintentionally and causes problems, should I have to pay for damages?