What really puzzles me is that Republican's aren't more on the protectionist agenda. Losing all this capacity means our military is rapidly becoming dependent on foreign suppliers for just about everything.
I've been fearsome confused about this as well. The DOD has even refused to do background checks on foreign nationals working for the department.
I think you're missing the point here. You're defending your `right' to do your job at an artificially high salary, at the expense of everyone who holds stock in your company, or who would benefit from the products you make being cheaper.
End game. I knew you were talking through your ass. The company I work for is privately held. Only the current employees hold stock, and they are American IT workers. The company was eager to hire me and increase my compensation according to my performance. Why should they suddenly (and blindly) assume that some unknown coder who doesn't even share a common language with management is better for the salary equivalent than I?
Your horse shoe alegory and the rest makes no sense. The programming job is hardly becoming extinct - it's just the opposite.
Perhaps if the greedy scumbags who ran IT didn't start demanding $60k for one line code changes so they could pay mindless drone programmers $120k per year we wouldn't be in this mess.
Could you please, pretty please, please with sugar on it, tell me where they're paying "mindless drone programmers" $120K per year. That's my dream job. If you can't link to it, you're pulling numbers out of your ass. "Perhaps if the greedy scumbags" who ran the companies didn't make many millions of dollars per year, "we wouldn't be in this mess."
Actually, the shareholders are the ones who win when a company does well , and that means anyone with investments stands to benefit (and as I mentioned above, that's seventy percent of Americans these days, including anyone with a pension, 401k, or other invested retirement plan.
Enlighten me, oh wise one. I work for an American company that just signed a partnership agreement with a body shop in India. I think most of us know what that means.
I am a shareholder in the company. I also have a fully vested 401k that is heavily invested in the company. How does it benefit me when my job is outsourced? I cannot survive by selling my paltry stock holdings and beaten-down 401k.
Is it even really good for the companies? When American companies move all the workers' jobs offshore, how many people in America will be able to buy the companies' products? I think that companies that offshore the workers' jobs should be forced to do the same with management jobs. Sauce for the goose should be good for the gander. Think how much companies could save by reducing multi-million dollar compensation for CEOs to a few thousand dollars! We should share the "benefits" equally.
how can the first post (I'm browsing at level 1) be redundant?
Because there are a lot of 12 year-old moderators who don't know what redundant means but use it anyway. There are also moderators browsing at -1 (yeah, I know we're supposed to do that) who don't take into account that most of us aren't seeing those AC and troll posts.
Lemme guess, when you retire [soon], you'll be one of the people sitting on your ass doing nothing. No volunteering, no gardening, no politics; just sitting in front of AOL and the cable TV?
I have no intention of retiring soon since there is no way I could afford it. The original post was about people not keeping their skills current and thus losing their jobs, to which you blithely replied that you'd be taking those peoples' jobs.
I may be idealistic, and coupled with "enthusiasm" [not arrogance as you suggest], I will find a nice job, thank you very much.
Umm, yeah, right. I wish you a happy life on the help desk.
It's exactly this short-sightedness that proves my point. Bluntly, CEOs want to be able to yell at the people working on the project.
Perhaps you work for a smaller company. CEOs in larger companies don't lower themselves to yell at anyone lower than a vice president. The only input they get is from the CFO who tells them how their stock options are doing. And if those options are not doing well, then by god, the CEO sends out a company-wide email demanding that all employees demonstrate their commitment to the company by increasing cash flow. It's not a joke - I've received those emails.
I'm sure many companies will make the mistake of shipping products offshore, but they will only serve as examples of what not to do after they fail.
I agree with you there, but what is the fallout here until the companies (sans the golden-parachuted CEOs who raped the companies and "retired" to spend more time with their families) realize their mistake? A whole missing generation of American IT professionals?
you blow your brains out at age 30. This is the only industry I know of that eviscerates itself every few years and rejects the knowledge of its senior experts.
That's graphic but well put. It's (not) funny that the IT-heavy companies are all run by old codgers who think that anyone over 35 is a has-been (except for themselves who are all eternally brilliant because of the MBA, of course).
After 40, I've found the only way to get an IT job is to know someone in the company who is willing to present in your resume (many times a company won't advertise a position - they just ask for recommendations from current employees). Once you're hired and working, they're thrilled.
It's bad. Just keep talking to anyone and everyone who might turn up a lead. Good luck.
The only reason I can think of to doubt the long-term potential of an IT career is that systems may become so intuitive there's no need for a admins. But given the way software progresses, one doesn't see much chance of that.
I think that's called tunnel vision. If it was only "admins" work, I could go along with you. I think the focus of the question was the much larger programmer/analyst occupation which is disappearing. I'm sure (well, not absolutely) we'll keep the company help desk local too, but is that a lifetime IT career path you want?
I almost feel sorry for the people who I will be replacing in a few years, when they take a permanent vacation from contributing to society.
Thanks for the laugh. I don't have to worry about being replaced by you. Do you really believe most companies are concerned about social contributions or individual abilities? You have a rude awakening awaiting when you find out it's all about the bottom line and the CEOs stock options.
Idealism is something most young people suffer from, but when coupled with arrogance, it's very annoying.
if you're willing to move to India and take 1/10 of your current pay, you can have a lifetime job.
Nope. Not unless you're young and Indian. The Indian "consulting" companies (body shops) here have made it clear they don't hire Americans. The comment was funny, though.
Umm, nobody modded me up. Apparently you don't understand how things work here. And you obviously don't understand the difference between a claim and an analogy. First, check dictionary.com for the difference, then read the FAQ here for your edification on posting, karma, and moderation.
You are so clueless. What moron modded that AC up? The original movie rental business was based on Betamax. Duh, they rented whole movies on a single Betamax tape. VHS came later. There was nothing about "superiour open standards" to do with either format.
At the time of the Betamax/VHS war, both tapes were priced pretty much the same. Most of the cheap pr0n was on Betamax tapes - you could find them in a bargain bin in the local tape rental store. Try again with a better argument.
a service given by a person is not the same as a product given away by a company.
And you have no compunction about shorting either one?:) The person works for the company - the company provides the service. No obvious point there. I think you're becoming deliberately obtuse. See ya.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 1
...and now I am 28. And eventually I ALWAYS ask for help, and they always never have the time. I have tried posting on slashdot, but never get responses as well for help. SO I simply abandoned the task.
I have too many other things to do than try to learn a completely new OS. Hence the Windows shackles. Ho hum.
I think you've identified your problem - attitude. Although older than you and, like you, with way too many things to do (like post on slashdot?), I can still pick up a book and use a new OS when necessary. You need to put a *little* bit of effort into it. You're not likely to get responses to questions that are covered in the *nix for Dummies books.
VHS won because it gave people more of less, in a way. Just like McDonalds makes money hand over fist serving "food" that would make a french chef gag.:)
Thanks for that enlightenment. I think I now understand Microsoft's success.:)
I thought the guy basically said that betamax videos were too short, 1 hour, meaning that people couldn't record a movie.
Those would have been the very first tapes, and I doubt more than a very few rich people bought those machines. By the time VHS was declared the winner, there wasn't much difference between the two types - IIRC, six hours for VHS and about five hours for Betamax tapes (and of course the Betamax tapes were smaller).
Most of the rest of the author's claims were a load of bull as well, like his claim that there's no difference in picture quality. I owned both types of machines at the same time because I bought the Betamax before VHS became more popular and I then had to buy the second machine. The picture quality of the Betamax recordings were obviously better than recordings made on the newer VHS machine.
Slashdot Mirror
What really puzzles me is that Republican's aren't more on the protectionist agenda. Losing all this capacity means our military is rapidly becoming dependent on foreign suppliers for just about everything.
I've been fearsome confused about this as well. The DOD has even refused to do background checks on foreign nationals working for the department.
I think you're missing the point here. You're defending your `right' to do your job at an artificially high salary, at the expense of everyone who holds stock in your company, or who would benefit from the products you make being cheaper.
End game. I knew you were talking through your ass. The company I work for is privately held. Only the current employees hold stock, and they are American IT workers. The company was eager to hire me and increase my compensation according to my performance. Why should they suddenly (and blindly) assume that some unknown coder who doesn't even share a common language with management is better for the salary equivalent than I?
Your horse shoe alegory and the rest makes no sense. The programming job is hardly becoming extinct - it's just the opposite.
Perhaps if the greedy scumbags who ran IT didn't start demanding $60k for one line code changes so they could pay mindless drone programmers $120k per year we wouldn't be in this mess.
Could you please, pretty please, please with sugar on it, tell me where they're paying "mindless drone programmers" $120K per year. That's my dream job. If you can't link to it, you're pulling numbers out of your ass. "Perhaps if the greedy scumbags" who ran the companies didn't make many millions of dollars per year, "we wouldn't be in this mess."
Check the cost of living in Mexico. Your understanding of the situation is undergraduate and underwhelming.
Actually, the shareholders are the ones who win when a company does well , and that means anyone with investments stands to benefit (and as I mentioned above, that's seventy percent of Americans these days, including anyone with a pension, 401k, or other invested retirement plan.
Enlighten me, oh wise one. I work for an American company that just signed a partnership agreement with a body shop in India. I think most of us know what that means.
I am a shareholder in the company. I also have a fully vested 401k that is heavily invested in the company. How does it benefit me when my job is outsourced? I cannot survive by selling my paltry stock holdings and beaten-down 401k.
Is it even really good for the companies? When American companies move all the workers' jobs offshore, how many people in America will be able to buy the companies' products? I think that companies that offshore the workers' jobs should be forced to do the same with management jobs. Sauce for the goose should be good for the gander. Think how much companies could save by reducing multi-million dollar compensation for CEOs to a few thousand dollars! We should share the "benefits" equally.
how can the first post (I'm browsing at level 1) be redundant?
Because there are a lot of 12 year-old moderators who don't know what redundant means but use it anyway. There are also moderators browsing at -1 (yeah, I know we're supposed to do that) who don't take into account that most of us aren't seeing those AC and troll posts.
Irony See 2.
When everyone else is always wrong, you might want to reexamine your assumptions.
Lemme guess, when you retire [soon], you'll be one of the people sitting on your ass doing nothing. No volunteering, no gardening, no politics; just sitting in front of AOL and the cable TV?
I have no intention of retiring soon since there is no way I could afford it. The original post was about people not keeping their skills current and thus losing their jobs, to which you blithely replied that you'd be taking those peoples' jobs.I may be idealistic, and coupled with "enthusiasm" [not arrogance as you suggest], I will find a nice job, thank you very much.
Umm, yeah, right. I wish you a happy life on the help desk.
It's exactly this short-sightedness that proves my point. Bluntly, CEOs want to be able to yell at the people working on the project.
Perhaps you work for a smaller company. CEOs in larger companies don't lower themselves to yell at anyone lower than a vice president. The only input they get is from the CFO who tells them how their stock options are doing. And if those options are not doing well, then by god, the CEO sends out a company-wide email demanding that all employees demonstrate their commitment to the company by increasing cash flow. It's not a joke - I've received those emails.
I'm sure many companies will make the mistake of shipping products offshore, but they will only serve as examples of what not to do after they fail.
I agree with you there, but what is the fallout here until the companies (sans the golden-parachuted CEOs who raped the companies and "retired" to spend more time with their families) realize their mistake? A whole missing generation of American IT professionals?
In fact, at my work we're actually bringing lots of QE in from India because we want them working extra hard helping our American-based developers.
"QE" is not familiar, but the Indians work "extra hard", where Americans would not? Interesting.
There's no way real development by American companies will move offshore.
I believe you've underestimated the short-sighted avarice of the typical American CEO, but I hope you're right.
Then google "washtech" and "programmers guild" for a start. There are others.
you blow your brains out at age 30. This is the only industry I know of that eviscerates itself every few years and rejects the knowledge of its senior experts.
That's graphic but well put. It's (not) funny that the IT-heavy companies are all run by old codgers who think that anyone over 35 is a has-been (except for themselves who are all eternally brilliant because of the MBA, of course).
After 40, I've found the only way to get an IT job is to know someone in the company who is willing to present in your resume (many times a company won't advertise a position - they just ask for recommendations from current employees). Once you're hired and working, they're thrilled.
It's bad. Just keep talking to anyone and everyone who might turn up a lead. Good luck.
Where was this post yesterday, when I still had a mod point? Yeah, I know -- in the future.
The only reason I can think of to doubt the long-term potential of an IT career is that systems may become so intuitive there's no need for a admins. But given the way software progresses, one doesn't see much chance of that.
I think that's called tunnel vision. If it was only "admins" work, I could go along with you. I think the focus of the question was the much larger programmer/analyst occupation which is disappearing. I'm sure (well, not absolutely) we'll keep the company help desk local too, but is that a lifetime IT career path you want?
I almost feel sorry for the people who I will be replacing in a few years, when they take a permanent vacation from contributing to society.
Thanks for the laugh. I don't have to worry about being replaced by you. Do you really believe most companies are concerned about social contributions or individual abilities? You have a rude awakening awaiting when you find out it's all about the bottom line and the CEOs stock options.
Idealism is something most young people suffer from, but when coupled with arrogance, it's very annoying.
if you're willing to move to India and take 1/10 of your current pay, you can have a lifetime job.
Nope. Not unless you're young and Indian. The Indian "consulting" companies (body shops) here have made it clear they don't hire Americans. The comment was funny, though.
Umm, nobody modded me up. Apparently you don't understand how things work here. And you obviously don't understand the difference between a claim and an analogy. First, check dictionary.com for the difference, then read the FAQ here for your edification on posting, karma, and moderation.
That is the best summary I've seen of this whole holy war.
You are so clueless. What moron modded that AC up? The original movie rental business was based on Betamax. Duh, they rented whole movies on a single Betamax tape. VHS came later. There was nothing about "superiour open standards" to do with either format.
At the time of the Betamax/VHS war, both tapes were priced pretty much the same. Most of the cheap pr0n was on Betamax tapes - you could find them in a bargain bin in the local tape rental store. Try again with a better argument.
a service given by a person is not the same as a product given away by a company.
And you have no compunction about shorting either one? :) The person works for the company - the company provides the service. No obvious point there. I think you're becoming deliberately obtuse. See ya.
I have too many other things to do than try to learn a completely new OS. Hence the Windows shackles. Ho hum.
I think you've identified your problem - attitude. Although older than you and, like you, with way too many things to do (like post on slashdot?), I can still pick up a book and use a new OS when necessary. You need to put a *little* bit of effort into it. You're not likely to get responses to questions that are covered in the *nix for Dummies books.
Does this make flaming people anything like "information superhighway rage"?
Hmm, it's not a real catchy phrase. How about "troll-road rage"? :)
VHS won because it gave people more of less, in a way. Just like McDonalds makes money hand over fist serving "food" that would make a french chef gag. :)
Thanks for that enlightenment. I think I now understand Microsoft's success. :)
I thought the guy basically said that betamax videos were too short, 1 hour, meaning that people couldn't record a movie.
Those would have been the very first tapes, and I doubt more than a very few rich people bought those machines. By the time VHS was declared the winner, there wasn't much difference between the two types - IIRC, six hours for VHS and about five hours for Betamax tapes (and of course the Betamax tapes were smaller).
Most of the rest of the author's claims were a load of bull as well, like his claim that there's no difference in picture quality. I owned both types of machines at the same time because I bought the Betamax before VHS became more popular and I then had to buy the second machine. The picture quality of the Betamax recordings were obviously better than recordings made on the newer VHS machine.