And to discredit network neutrality. Mark my words. Without network neutrality, the conservative elements will attempt to make the net into a broadcast medium dominated by a few mega-players, with 1-1 communications as an expensive add-on. The micropayment scheme discourages any use of the 'Net that isn't 'money-making'. Either one of these concepts transforms the 'Net into aol, msn, and compu-serve in the bad old days where you paid by the hour or by the bit. IOW, just like the cell phone networks are right now (profitable, certainly, but not as useful as the net not fully controlled by telcos).
Whenever 'value' is equated to function of 'cost' and the units are $$, you're gonna get this.
DAMN, this is a bad, fascist, stupid bill! It goes against everything American! It's the work of cowards! It's going to marginalize the US, and it's a case of "all your words are belong to us"!
Better? Guess what - it wasn't the 'my team, your team' mentality that got people upset over the Bush regime - it was the ACTIONS AND WORDS of the Bush regime that marginalized the Republican Party. Now the Republicans aren't going to be able to balance the Democrats, and EVERYBODY will suffer the consequences.
You're a funny guy! I may agree with your first statement, but your second is just Republican "But We Were SUPPOSED To Rule Forever Without Opposition Or Restraint" sour grapes. C'mon. You're just mad that it's Democrats taking away rights instead of Republicans - after all, that's supposed to be YOUR schtick!
No, it IS data. It's just that 'personal experience' is naturally more heavily weighted by the individual that had said 'personal experience'. The plural of anecdote IS data; it's just that it's not ALL - or many times, even typical - of the dataset. It might be an outlier. It might be typical, though.
Just because something is an anecdote, doesn't mean it should be disregarded.
ROFLMAO. Sure. Anyone can tear up streets, run cables on telephone poles, etc, etc.
Now, there WAS a measure that required telcos to open up their (government subsidized) copper to competition. No more. Am I wrong in assuming that you naturally opposed that because it was government regulation?...
It never got as far as cable, of course.
The government ('right' and 'left') favors less competition and bigger corps (that makes it more convenient to get lobbyist $). Also, free availability of information is threatening to our leaders; and they need to be able to promise stability (read: prop up failing business models). A slew of providers makes that harder. Even further I submit that our leaders only REALLY understand broadcast as a communications medium, and so naturally favor a one way type of network - one in which there are a few fat cats on top, and everybody else just 'consumes' their 'content' on the bottom. People creating and sharing content? Anarchy! And, if allowed to continue, who KNOWS what the people might come up with! That's the kind of question that keeps politicians up at night...
The ONLY (and I mean ONLY) realistic way to bring competition back is to wait on some kind of disruptive technology. Even then, expect legislative blockades, and perhaps 'national security' rationalizations to prevent even that, though.
That's how it's 'sold' to the public but it's a FACT that H1Bs are popular because they are cheaper. For instance, they want to hire an H1B programmer analyst here for 41k/yr. (they just posted it, to satisfy legal requirements) For this area, that's about 20k/yr lower than the median salary. They'll do as they always do, and hire from our outsourcing 'solution'. Yes, that's ~33% cheaper.
Further, you say 'since a comparably skilled American couldn't be found' - but the skills required are c/c++, vb,.net, and sql. Ordinary skills found everywhere. (and when we get another, odds are thatAnd - if you spout the nonsense that I should report my company - well. This is an 'at will' state. You're a fool if you think they wouldn't get rid of anyone that rocked the boat. The reality in this country is that corporate campaign donors are far more important to the politicians than individual voters. The government just gives a wink and a nod to these practices. Hell there are companies that specialize in advertising for, yet not hiring, US workers - for the sole purpose of hiring cheaper workers under H1B auspices.
In short - your reasoning might be correct if corporate America were interested in behaving ethically OR legally. It's too bad that (by and large) this is NOT the case.
Now: If H1Bs were used as they are supposed to be? I have no problem with that. Hell, by coming here, they are participating in the US economy, and that's great (as you pont out)! But. That's. Not. The. Case. Workers are brought here to undercut talent that already exists here. Having watched the abuses progress, I advise all younger people to stay the hell away from IT; become a a plumber, locksmith, or electrician instead. If you are lucky, IT might pay your bills (just) - You probably won't be able to pay for your college tuition if you are foolish enough to take CS, though.
No, like becoming a physicist, a mathematician or an astronomer - the only valid reason to go into IT in the 'States in the future will be for the love of the field. Even then, like the physicists, mathematicians and astronomers I personally know - be prepared to work two jobs to survive. The days of IT being a viable career path are going fast.
In short? I find your post to be almost charmingly naive.
Because we all know how monopoly-busting works in the US. The Feds will just end up not only legitimizing, but requiring the practices that got them in 'trouble' in the first place.
Money talks. I'd say bullshit walks, but here in the US, the bullshitters are the ones with the money.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, there is no problem so large that it cannot be solved with duct-tape and quick-lime.
And to discredit network neutrality. Mark my words. Without network neutrality, the conservative elements will attempt to make the net into a broadcast medium dominated by a few mega-players, with 1-1 communications as an expensive add-on. The micropayment scheme discourages any use of the 'Net that isn't 'money-making'. Either one of these concepts transforms the 'Net into aol, msn, and compu-serve in the bad old days where you paid by the hour or by the bit. IOW, just like the cell phone networks are right now (profitable, certainly, but not as useful as the net not fully controlled by telcos).
Whenever 'value' is equated to function of 'cost' and the units are $$, you're gonna get this.
How's this?
YEEEEAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMN, this is a bad, fascist, stupid bill! It goes against everything American! It's the work of cowards! It's going to marginalize the US, and it's a case of "all your words are belong to us"!
Better? Guess what - it wasn't the 'my team, your team' mentality that got people upset over the Bush regime - it was the ACTIONS AND WORDS of the Bush regime that marginalized the Republican Party. Now the Republicans aren't going to be able to balance the Democrats, and EVERYBODY will suffer the consequences.
You're a funny guy! I may agree with your first statement, but your second is just Republican "But We Were SUPPOSED To Rule Forever Without Opposition Or Restraint" sour grapes. C'mon. You're just mad that it's Democrats taking away rights instead of Republicans - after all, that's supposed to be YOUR schtick!
ROFL. Because academics have no exposure to vicious politics.
Not an academic, are you?
It hasn't happened before. Heck, one of the original stereotypes of the 'typical' F/OSS developer was the 'unemployed guy living in a basement'.
By THAT measure, an economic apocalypse should drive F/OSS forward by leaps and bounds...
No, it IS data. It's just that 'personal experience' is naturally more heavily weighted by the individual that had said 'personal experience'. The plural of anecdote IS data; it's just that it's not ALL - or many times, even typical - of the dataset. It might be an outlier. It might be typical, though.
Just because something is an anecdote, doesn't mean it should be disregarded.
ROFLMAO. Sure. Anyone can tear up streets, run cables on telephone poles, etc, etc.
Now, there WAS a measure that required telcos to open up their (government subsidized) copper to competition. No more. Am I wrong in assuming that you naturally opposed that because it was government regulation?...
It never got as far as cable, of course.
The government ('right' and 'left') favors less competition and bigger corps (that makes it more convenient to get lobbyist $). Also, free availability of information is threatening to our leaders; and they need to be able to promise stability (read: prop up failing business models). A slew of providers makes that harder. Even further I submit that our leaders only REALLY understand broadcast as a communications medium, and so naturally favor a one way type of network - one in which there are a few fat cats on top, and everybody else just 'consumes' their 'content' on the bottom. People creating and sharing content? Anarchy! And, if allowed to continue, who KNOWS what the people might come up with! That's the kind of question that keeps politicians up at night...
The ONLY (and I mean ONLY) realistic way to bring competition back is to wait on some kind of disruptive technology. Even then, expect legislative blockades, and perhaps 'national security' rationalizations to prevent even that, though.
That's how it's 'sold' to the public but it's a FACT that H1Bs are popular because they are cheaper. For instance, they want to hire an H1B programmer analyst here for 41k/yr. (they just posted it, to satisfy legal requirements) For this area, that's about 20k/yr lower than the median salary. They'll do as they always do, and hire from our outsourcing 'solution'. Yes, that's ~33% cheaper.
.net, and sql. Ordinary skills found everywhere. (and when we get another, odds are thatAnd - if you spout the nonsense that I should report my company - well. This is an 'at will' state. You're a fool if you think they wouldn't get rid of anyone that rocked the boat. The reality in this country is that corporate campaign donors are far more important to the politicians than individual voters. The government just gives a wink and a nod to these practices. Hell there are companies that specialize in advertising for, yet not hiring, US workers - for the sole purpose of hiring cheaper workers under H1B auspices.
Further, you say 'since a comparably skilled American couldn't be found' - but the skills required are c/c++, vb,
In short - your reasoning might be correct if corporate America were interested in behaving ethically OR legally. It's too bad that (by and large) this is NOT the case.
Now: If H1Bs were used as they are supposed to be? I have no problem with that. Hell, by coming here, they are participating in the US economy, and that's great (as you pont out)! But. That's. Not. The. Case. Workers are brought here to undercut talent that already exists here. Having watched the abuses progress, I advise all younger people to stay the hell away from IT; become a a plumber, locksmith, or electrician instead. If you are lucky, IT might pay your bills (just) - You probably won't be able to pay for your college tuition if you are foolish enough to take CS, though.
No, like becoming a physicist, a mathematician or an astronomer - the only valid reason to go into IT in the 'States in the future will be for the love of the field. Even then, like the physicists, mathematicians and astronomers I personally know - be prepared to work two jobs to survive. The days of IT being a viable career path are going fast.
In short? I find your post to be almost charmingly naive.
I have checked luggage 6 times in the last 3 years.
Airlines have lost said luggage (defining 'lost' as 1 or more days to return it to me) 4 times.
Thats split between 3 different airlines.
Yeah. That reputation is 'history'.
Not.
Bill Gates learned every dirty trick he knows from IBM - though he was a precocious student, and learned fast.
The thing is, while BG may have learned everything he knows from IBM, IBM didn't teach BG everything IBM knows!
Because we all know how monopoly-busting works in the US. The Feds will just end up not only legitimizing, but requiring the practices that got them in 'trouble' in the first place.
Money talks. I'd say bullshit walks, but here in the US, the bullshitters are the ones with the money.
...they figured out how to leverage security flaws for increased profits.