"But for some reason the idea of the Jews having a homeland drives people berserk."
Probably because jewish religious/historical texts claim the jews bailed on Egypt then wandered the desert and finally invaded and stole the Palestinian's homeland. Personally I think all the sky fairy worshipers are crackpots but I fail to see what is disputed on that bit. You could (probably rightly) argue that it is the homeland of everyone born there and yesterday doesn't matter but I can't see any logical basis for calling Isreal the homeland of the jews.
"Thus, CRISPR could be best compared to replacing a hacksaw with a laser cutter. The general public has no need of such a tool"
On the contrary, like a laser cutter the general public does have much use for the tool. Unlike laser cutters the fundamental tools are being locked behind non-disclosure agreements and patents artificially inflating the price to play dramatically. If the general public had no use for such tools makers clubs, diy bio groups, etc wouldn't exist at all. As it stands diy bio groups are limited to mostly cookie cutter protocols that repeat previous experiments because the more general purpose tools (both those which exist and those which they could produce) are locked behind paywalls.
There is no great magic behind synthesizing RNA and PCR for instance and certainly no reason for these materials to be expensive but getting your hands on the materials for a laymen is rather difficult and even if you can it normally comes with an agreement which precludes using those tools to replicate those precursors and share along with information on how to do the same. Information on using common bacterial, viral, etc vectors and basic tools to work with them should be completely free as well.
We desperately need a bioGNU. Many of these processes are actually refined nearly to the point of being programmable like code but access is kept strictly controlled and/or key pieces that allow one to cheaply and easily replicate the precursors is held back to artificially limit access and drive up prices.
On the contrary, this has been something you could work with $5 worth of raw material, a few dozen hours of self study, and a few hundred bucks worth of diy equipment for at least a decade now. Thanks to IP and strict agreements no share terms on that $5 worth of material plus ethical concerns has remained something that in practice will require you to be associated with a multi-million dollar organization to play at all.
It is saying a lot more than that, it is saying to limit technology to only treat major illnesses instead of actually giving people an advantage. There seems to be no reason for that.
"Well, by the time they can use that patent in any meaningful way beyond simply experimentation it will have expired. "
By the time it expires everything meaningful that can be done with the base technology will be locked behind reams of patents like most work that can be done with DNA. With $500-1000, a bunch of DIY equipment, 3-6months worth of self-study, you can set up a mini lab and do all sorts of experimentation... at least you could if everything you need weren't locked up in patents that turn 15 cents worth of raw materials into $5000 a shot IP licenses with promises not to share with others.
Doesn't sound like a product or invention to me, sounds like a discovery of natural phenomenon and shouldn't be covered by patent but rather immediately rendered into the global public domain for free use by all.
"Netflix enters every market with local servers, and as such, the streaming is fast, even in a place like China"
No kidding, they do that because they have to. A Google cache appliance isn't going to help with anything but browsing the web... I'm not really sure The only way it makes sense with Netflix or most US industry to open up shop in India or China closing up shop in the US if they were opening shop to sell to Indians/Chinese. It would not work for Netflix to stream to the US from China because there is too much latency the pipes between the two nations aren't fat enough to carry that massive load of traffic.
"a wonderful example of an entitlement issue. Just because you want it doesn't mean you should get it. Also there is no particular reason the job should require it just to give those people jobs."
Look, I can just copy and paste from the last time I made a counterargument you have no effective argument against.
" He wasn't going to get there as a "self-starter", like just about everyone else outside of fiction he needed some help."
Everyone gets help at some point that doesn't mean they aren't a self starter. There is a difference between getting helped at some point and spending a significant chunk of your adult life being trained to think someone is going to spoon fed everything you need to know.
"How about taking a step back and think of it rationally instead of emotionally."
It isn't emotional. I should restate though. Those with higher degrees tend to want to think those with degrees superior to those without them. They almost have to after investing so much into that path.:"Either could effectively be apprenticed to someone exceptional afterwards with the same result but different approaches to fill in the different gaps"
That is probably true. In my experience if someone straight out of formal education can do the job it would make more sense to hire self starters who have demonstrated skills that would give them an edge in advancing on the job either with or without calling it an apprenticeship. It certainly should carry the same suitable entry level salary that would have gone to someone with a degree. If they make it a year or two they could qualify for any tuition assistance and go to fill out their education if that is believed to be the better path. Good for everyone if people who aren't meant for the field find out BEFORE they have degrees and debt and go around adding taking a spot that someone with the skill and passion for the field could fill.
"Self starters are incredibly rare (outside of fiction) and you'd be excluding 99% of people in technology"
Maybe not 99%, probably more like 95% based on my anecdotal evidence. Self starters are indeed incredibly rare but not only exist in fiction rare they seem rarer than they are though a lot incredibly intelligent people self start on various in depth topics that aren't tech or their profession. You just said it yourself, "I taught myself a lot of programming and ended up going down a lot of irrelevant dead ends before." So, you are a self-starter then. Going down a lot of irrelevant dead ends, even better is how you start training yourself to automatically home in on what you need when seeking information and to seek that information doggedly, training your pattern matching brain like a neural net with frustration at failure and reward on hard found success. Other critical skills trained in this way include learning to mentally and rapidly reverse engineer solutions based on whatever information is available to you. Building a mental working model for EVERYTHING in a similar fashion to the scientific method (maybe not even realize you do it). And doing the same for problems freely borrowing pieces from other models that fit. Last but not least both insight into what you are learning when you do get formal training and how it will apply for real and appreciating and valuing that information.
A formal education environment is fine for filling in gaps after someone has learned at least some of that.
"It's not just about being bright it's about being able to work out what you need to know and being able to do that without help is a very rare situation."
I agree, being bright is a requirement but not the only one. Plenty of those 95% I mentioned above are actually very bright. I guess that depends on how you define help. Speaking of defining we may have a miscommunication. When I'm talking about a self starter I'm talking about someone who had the drive and initiative to seek information and better themselves. Someone who either likes learning or can't stand feeling like they don't know something. It occurred to me that you might be under the impression I'm referring to someone learning an entire degree worth of information before day 1 of their professional career. They should have taught themselves enough to establish they can do so independently without looking to others to spoonfeed them answers. If it is a coding related position I'd expect them to have some proficiency in a language they'll be working with so there will be tasks they can work on.
I don't believe it is reasonable to think anyone should be able to jump in and do a tech job now. Unless it is an unskilled role like management or some kind of low level work in a very standard environment nobody actually "hits the ground running." Certainly not someone who is entry level.
Even for an experienced candidate there is a reasonable expectation they'll need to learn your tools, pick up whatever language and coding standards you are following if their experience is with another language. Possibly add a bit to their skillset that is needed for what you are working on if it is highly specialized *cough* seismic data processing especially if bringing in technical talent to crossover. Someone with experience doing anything somewhat similar to that specific position who can demonstrate proficiency on at least one of three generic challenges under the same conditions that exist in the actual work environment (tools set up, open book aka online resources available, etc) counts as qualified. I wouldn't think a degree should count for or against them or impact salary/experience requirements.
For something entry level (and you can make room on a team for someone entry level especially in a specialized field) they should have taught themselves something that demonstrates they will genuinely attempt to find solutions when they encounter problems and have an aptitude for succeeding and at least do a solid enough job bullshitt
"How do you mean? I've worked for a variety of international companies, and connections to the consumers are always good. Yes, sometimes you have to use Google Drive, or One Drive, or some other cloud file service that's replicated around the world, but two people editing the same file at the same time on opposite sides of the world is trivial in India, China, and even Detroit."
That depends on the filetype actually. But I'm going to assume you mean text and especially code. That is a task that is suited to work over a distance and already commonly outsourced as it isn't latency sensitive. Being able to coordinate a file edit is not the end all definition of every company being able to outsource all its operations. The low overall bandwidth, great firewall, and 200-300ms+ mandatory latency to most locations is a severe impediment to operations which developed in the US with fast low latency pipes and complaints when you have to add the delay of another domestic hop let alone an oceanic one. Good luck streaming Netflix from servers in China, India, or even Detroit (which isn't particularly well peered). You aren't going to find a fortune 500 willing to host and deliver most any content to people in the US with offshore or Detroit level connections or people in the US willing to consume the result. Lets be honest with the rampant H1B abuse and therefore 99.999% of current H1B's exported there won't be anyone left on this side who can understand those strong Asian accents especially the rumbling heavily clipped by most phone systems Indian accents. There won't be nearly as many of those resources adapting to better communicate either because they won't be here. This problem wasn't truly solved, companies just kept importing H1B's and replacing domestic workers until almost everyone an H1B works with is either a current or former H1B.
What is the point when neither response impacts the validity of my prior arguments? Are there points for catering to a request to over-simply my response to your irrelevant tangent? The answer still has no logical impact on the validity of any of the premises. I've already answered your question. Perhaps you think there are points to be gained by begging the question.
You are making the mistake of thinking there are topics that aren't a valid basis for humor. I don't find the above funny but freedom to express oneself about every topic, including the absurd and horrific, is a very crucial fundamental right.
Maybe not that result but that result is unlikely to happen, offshoring wouldn't be very cost effective under this scheme and neither would most of the international tax dodges being used by companies who are actually deriving most of their revenue in the US without paying the taxes in the US.
"Uh huh. As if you wouldn't want more money from a job that required a master's degree and continuing education, than a mere bachelors."
Thinking that statement has an impact on the truth of mine (quoted again below) is a wonderful example of an entitlement issue. Just because you want it doesn't mean you should get it. Also there is no particular reason the job should require it just to give those people jobs. WGU has courses with some kind of test requirement to pass the course and a duration of when you can prove proficiency by accomplishing that no matter how fast or slow that is. Passing something of that sort is more than qualification enough to teach the course, only the person who develops the course material used by many needs a higher requirement anyone proficient with the material can start from that base and adapt to their personal style with no additional qualification necessary. Degrees, diplomas, etc are only worth whatever aid they gave you in becoming proficient and not having them doesn't matter provided you are proficient.
Going to art school or spending time practicing in Paris might help you become a great artist but if you are a great artist who cares if you went to art school or spent time practicing in Paris?
"Uh huh. As if you wouldn't want more money from a job that required a master's degree and continuing education, than a mere bachelors."
"I know people in certain VERY new fields where american companies have more job openings than there are qualified people on earth for those jobs."
Then you probably have an dramatically over inflated sense of qualified. There are likely dozens of other professions people could step out of and adapt under the tutelage of anyone that dramatically over inflated definition includes and do just fine in far far less than five years. A huge part of the problem is companies need to develop the talent they need and instead they are trying to dump the job on universities. The method of learning used in universities is the antithesis of the mindset and kind of skill at learning that is the defining characteristic of someone with the talent to perform the tasks most of these H1B's are performing well.
Being unqualified and having to figure out what to do and how to do it on the fly is exactly what is creating the environment which cultivates the talents we are looking for. We are perfectly capable of hiring untested and unqualified talent and throwing into the fire under experienced people here if we drop this mindset that every seat must be filled with a god and the ageism that pushes out the best talent in the industry to shape those inexperienced people.
"But if people are using something like vicodin for a long time, th euse needs monitored and a withdrawal program needs to start."
Not necessarily. We say "addicted" like it is this terrible and harmful thing that must be stopped at all costs. Everyone is addicted to sugar, most are addicted to caffeine, a huge portion of your insurance rates are because of people addicted to the endorphins your body generates in response to exercise.
Someone who takes Vicodine for a long time will be physically addicted to it without question. So long as the amount they take is limited to reasonable levels there is no particular reason to force them off it and frankly there is no moral justification for pretending you are their parent and have a right to even limit to those reasonable levels let alone restrict like we do now. We'd do far better spreading information about the risks, safe dosing, etc along with changing this attitude we spread to support addiction clinic business models. Quitting an addiction is damn hard and nobody has the right to judge but telling these people they can't do it on their own and have to give in to a higher power is just feeding into the self-reenforcing delusion that they can't quit or control their behavior. The only way to quit an addiction is to find the mental and psychological strength to break fight the part of yourself that doesn't want to quit and finds any excuse including "its too hard" to give in.
They are when you are talking about connectivity back to where the consumers are in the US. Latency on a connection to India/China is terrible and will always be terrible because physics. And Detroit doesn't have a good enough infrastructure and connectivity to support most technical operations. Also, in India the major cities are worse than Detroit particularly in the parts where you'd save anything moving your tech operations. China actually has parts which are far superior to anything you find in the US but again the costs are higher in those parts and that pesky physics problem.
Operations run out of India and China will always be limited to a subset of services so long as their purpose is to service the US market, their domestic markets are another story.
"A university (or trade school) is there because most people are not self-starters with the resources to individually arrange what they need to learn about a topic."
Absolutely and those people are not suitable for the technology field, most people are not suitable for tech.
"Example - a bit over twenty years ago despite being utter crap at welding I could design weld joints in a difficult material that the experienced welders could not. It wasn't that they were crap at their job it was just that it was a situation that diverged a lot from anything they had welded before and they hadn't studied the theory.
However if they had that trade experience and had cracked open a few books to learn the theory they would have been much better at it than I - but that's getting beyond the initial training/education thing."
Great example and your second statement is where we can find the common ground and get on the same page. I have no doubt there are welders out there who have cracked open books and learned theory to advance their trade further.
Because they had experience BEFORE they cracked open those books the information contained in them had more value to them and because they were actually doing the job they had real world scenarios in which to test and gain a deeper understanding of that information as they went. There will even have been many welders who were self starters and tried and simply lacked the capacity to succeed down that path. That guy who does it successfully is exceptional and not typical. The traits that guy has are what define quality tech talent. Anyone without that ability to self-start, learn, hunt out information valuing it and therefore retaining it and using that insight to dig deeper; is what we are sifting through to try to find that guy in tech. It is those traits more so than what the person actually knows to begin with that are important because what the person needs to know evolves quickly and you can adapt even insight into how you design and solve problems with weld joints into more generic concepts that become new and novel industry changing solutions and algorithms.
Note, I'm not saying that guy can't start with the degree as you did. I think the capacity to be that person is nature and the realization is a product of environment. I don't believe a university environment is designed to nurture and cultivate that realization or that a degree of any level is a valid indicator of whether someone has that capacity or has realized it. For anything you are qualified for in the tech work force with less than four years of experience it makes little difference if you are that exceptional person or have a degree. I think it is easier to determine if someone who has four years experience shows signs of having realized that capacity than someone starting with four years of university experience. So for myself, I'd rather see these people cooked for four years on the job with plenty of resources and support for self-advancement and study to make sure the opportunity to realize that capacity is there than spending four years learning information without learning how to learn.
Part of the problem is technology is everyone wants all their people to be "the best" so they are only willing to hire already experienced people and want them to have degrees or be even more experienced and this is for what are actually relatively junior level positions. The industry is set up in such a way that people are then pushed to shift from position to position so nobody in position really has in depth experience in that specific environment and it takes at least two years to really get familiar with a complex environment which is about the time you need to hop positions. So there are no jobs to gain experience in and people who are reasonably intelligent but not particularly skilled can ride the "learning" period and shift companies again and again appearing to be "proven." And then there is faulty but widely believed ageism in the industry. I'm not talking about that near re
"However some people have to have enough understanding of the topic to be able to deal with change and lay out procedures for those who have only had the vocational training. That's part of what universities are supposed to be for."
That is how it is supposed to work but in tech (the field in question) that isn't the typical result. Those who graduate from universities (foreign or otherwise) have no higher degree of skill and/or knowledge vs someone without said degree when both have about 2yrs experience. If anything those without degrees tend to do better and be ahead since they've gained all their knowledge via the adaptive and dynamic learning strategies that must be used not only to grow their skills but solve problems while university graduates must learn the same while saddled with the baggage of learning information the way it is taught at a university. Someone who began with a solid knack and headstart in maths sans degree can find everything they can learn in academia online and build their knowledge through real life dynamic problems and real application on a day-to-day basis.
You and those who defend degrees argue that for many parts of computer science you need the heavy maths and theory taught in a university course. And yes, at the PHD level some excellent work is done. Most advances don't come from this group but from individuals who have with some lesser level of academic study possibly without university study at all have instead focused on learning everything they needed to do a better job on the problems they actually face until they've beefed up their knowledge and skills to the point where they have expertise on enough areas and in the theory surrounding the particular problem they are facing to develop a new solution that revolutionizes the industry. These individuals are not typical, they are extremely exceptional, but so are those with university training who do something worthwhile are as well. While these few are seen flukes somehow all the university grads are given a reputation bump when the outliers in their group are accomplished and exceptional even though almost all of the university grads are anything but. This is probably because those with higher degrees tend to want to think themselves superior to those without and project that opinion into venture capital and hiring decisions helping perpetuate the idea.
"That's some sort of a trade school thing, and in no way even remotely equivalent to a bachelors degree."
You seem to suggest the difference between the two results in increased competency in a profession. For the most part that isn't accurate. Some of the most talented people I've known learned entirely through self-study, on the job training, and experience and were far more competent people with bachelors and masters degrees working alongside them. There is a reason almost every employer accepts equivalent experience in place of a degree these days.
Not only did they exist vibrators were invented as treatment for vapors and hysteria. Women would pretend to have the vapors so the doctor would give them orgasms.
Slashdot Mirror
"But for some reason the idea of the Jews having a homeland drives people berserk."
Probably because jewish religious/historical texts claim the jews bailed on Egypt then wandered the desert and finally invaded and stole the Palestinian's homeland. Personally I think all the sky fairy worshipers are crackpots but I fail to see what is disputed on that bit. You could (probably rightly) argue that it is the homeland of everyone born there and yesterday doesn't matter but I can't see any logical basis for calling Isreal the homeland of the jews.
"Thus, CRISPR could be best compared to replacing a hacksaw with a laser cutter. The general public has no need of such a tool"
On the contrary, like a laser cutter the general public does have much use for the tool. Unlike laser cutters the fundamental tools are being locked behind non-disclosure agreements and patents artificially inflating the price to play dramatically. If the general public had no use for such tools makers clubs, diy bio groups, etc wouldn't exist at all. As it stands diy bio groups are limited to mostly cookie cutter protocols that repeat previous experiments because the more general purpose tools (both those which exist and those which they could produce) are locked behind paywalls.
There is no great magic behind synthesizing RNA and PCR for instance and certainly no reason for these materials to be expensive but getting your hands on the materials for a laymen is rather difficult and even if you can it normally comes with an agreement which precludes using those tools to replicate those precursors and share along with information on how to do the same. Information on using common bacterial, viral, etc vectors and basic tools to work with them should be completely free as well.
We desperately need a bioGNU. Many of these processes are actually refined nearly to the point of being programmable like code but access is kept strictly controlled and/or key pieces that allow one to cheaply and easily replicate the precursors is held back to artificially limit access and drive up prices.
That is a short term problem. The rich and the poor still mate and have offspring which will be poor as often as rich.
On the contrary, this has been something you could work with $5 worth of raw material, a few dozen hours of self study, and a few hundred bucks worth of diy equipment for at least a decade now. Thanks to IP and strict agreements no share terms on that $5 worth of material plus ethical concerns has remained something that in practice will require you to be associated with a multi-million dollar organization to play at all.
It is saying a lot more than that, it is saying to limit technology to only treat major illnesses instead of actually giving people an advantage. There seems to be no reason for that.
"Well, by the time they can use that patent in any meaningful way beyond simply experimentation it will have expired. "
By the time it expires everything meaningful that can be done with the base technology will be locked behind reams of patents like most work that can be done with DNA. With $500-1000, a bunch of DIY equipment, 3-6months worth of self-study, you can set up a mini lab and do all sorts of experimentation... at least you could if everything you need weren't locked up in patents that turn 15 cents worth of raw materials into $5000 a shot IP licenses with promises not to share with others.
This being found to be owned by either is a win for deep pockets and a loss for the rest of the world
Doesn't sound like a product or invention to me, sounds like a discovery of natural phenomenon and shouldn't be covered by patent but rather immediately rendered into the global public domain for free use by all.
"Netflix enters every market with local servers, and as such, the streaming is fast, even in a place like China"
No kidding, they do that because they have to. A Google cache appliance isn't going to help with anything but browsing the web... I'm not really sure The only way it makes sense with Netflix or most US industry to open up shop in India or China closing up shop in the US if they were opening shop to sell to Indians/Chinese. It would not work for Netflix to stream to the US from China because there is too much latency the pipes between the two nations aren't fat enough to carry that massive load of traffic.
"a wonderful example of an entitlement issue. Just because you want it doesn't mean you should get it. Also there is no particular reason the job should require it just to give those people jobs."
Look, I can just copy and paste from the last time I made a counterargument you have no effective argument against.
" He wasn't going to get there as a "self-starter", like just about everyone else outside of fiction he needed some help."
Everyone gets help at some point that doesn't mean they aren't a self starter. There is a difference between getting helped at some point and spending a significant chunk of your adult life being trained to think someone is going to spoon fed everything you need to know.
"How about taking a step back and think of it rationally instead of emotionally."
It isn't emotional. I should restate though. Those with higher degrees tend to want to think those with degrees superior to those without them. They almost have to after investing so much into that path.
That is probably true. In my experience if someone straight out of formal education can do the job it would make more sense to hire self starters who have demonstrated skills that would give them an edge in advancing on the job either with or without calling it an apprenticeship. It certainly should carry the same suitable entry level salary that would have gone to someone with a degree. If they make it a year or two they could qualify for any tuition assistance and go to fill out their education if that is believed to be the better path. Good for everyone if people who aren't meant for the field find out BEFORE they have degrees and debt and go around adding taking a spot that someone with the skill and passion for the field could fill.
"Self starters are incredibly rare (outside of fiction) and you'd be excluding 99% of people in technology"
Maybe not 99%, probably more like 95% based on my anecdotal evidence. Self starters are indeed incredibly rare but not only exist in fiction rare they seem rarer than they are though a lot incredibly intelligent people self start on various in depth topics that aren't tech or their profession. You just said it yourself, "I taught myself a lot of programming and ended up going down a lot of irrelevant dead ends before." So, you are a self-starter then. Going down a lot of irrelevant dead ends, even better is how you start training yourself to automatically home in on what you need when seeking information and to seek that information doggedly, training your pattern matching brain like a neural net with frustration at failure and reward on hard found success. Other critical skills trained in this way include learning to mentally and rapidly reverse engineer solutions based on whatever information is available to you. Building a mental working model for EVERYTHING in a similar fashion to the scientific method (maybe not even realize you do it). And doing the same for problems freely borrowing pieces from other models that fit. Last but not least both insight into what you are learning when you do get formal training and how it will apply for real and appreciating and valuing that information.
A formal education environment is fine for filling in gaps after someone has learned at least some of that.
"It's not just about being bright it's about being able to work out what you need to know and being able to do that without help is a very rare situation."
I agree, being bright is a requirement but not the only one. Plenty of those 95% I mentioned above are actually very bright. I guess that depends on how you define help. Speaking of defining we may have a miscommunication. When I'm talking about a self starter I'm talking about someone who had the drive and initiative to seek information and better themselves. Someone who either likes learning or can't stand feeling like they don't know something. It occurred to me that you might be under the impression I'm referring to someone learning an entire degree worth of information before day 1 of their professional career. They should have taught themselves enough to establish they can do so independently without looking to others to spoonfeed them answers. If it is a coding related position I'd expect them to have some proficiency in a language they'll be working with so there will be tasks they can work on.
I don't believe it is reasonable to think anyone should be able to jump in and do a tech job now. Unless it is an unskilled role like management or some kind of low level work in a very standard environment nobody actually "hits the ground running." Certainly not someone who is entry level.
Even for an experienced candidate there is a reasonable expectation they'll need to learn your tools, pick up whatever language and coding standards you are following if their experience is with another language. Possibly add a bit to their skillset that is needed for what you are working on if it is highly specialized *cough* seismic data processing especially if bringing in technical talent to crossover. Someone with experience doing anything somewhat similar to that specific position who can demonstrate proficiency on at least one of three generic challenges under the same conditions that exist in the actual work environment (tools set up, open book aka online resources available, etc) counts as qualified. I wouldn't think a degree should count for or against them or impact salary/experience requirements.
For something entry level (and you can make room on a team for someone entry level especially in a specialized field) they should have taught themselves something that demonstrates they will genuinely attempt to find solutions when they encounter problems and have an aptitude for succeeding and at least do a solid enough job bullshitt
"How do you mean? I've worked for a variety of international companies, and connections to the consumers are always good. Yes, sometimes you have to use Google Drive, or One Drive, or some other cloud file service that's replicated around the world, but two people editing the same file at the same time on opposite sides of the world is trivial in India, China, and even Detroit."
That depends on the filetype actually. But I'm going to assume you mean text and especially code. That is a task that is suited to work over a distance and already commonly outsourced as it isn't latency sensitive. Being able to coordinate a file edit is not the end all definition of every company being able to outsource all its operations. The low overall bandwidth, great firewall, and 200-300ms+ mandatory latency to most locations is a severe impediment to operations which developed in the US with fast low latency pipes and complaints when you have to add the delay of another domestic hop let alone an oceanic one. Good luck streaming Netflix from servers in China, India, or even Detroit (which isn't particularly well peered). You aren't going to find a fortune 500 willing to host and deliver most any content to people in the US with offshore or Detroit level connections or people in the US willing to consume the result. Lets be honest with the rampant H1B abuse and therefore 99.999% of current H1B's exported there won't be anyone left on this side who can understand those strong Asian accents especially the rumbling heavily clipped by most phone systems Indian accents. There won't be nearly as many of those resources adapting to better communicate either because they won't be here. This problem wasn't truly solved, companies just kept importing H1B's and replacing domestic workers until almost everyone an H1B works with is either a current or former H1B.
What is the point when neither response impacts the validity of my prior arguments? Are there points for catering to a request to over-simply my response to your irrelevant tangent? The answer still has no logical impact on the validity of any of the premises. I've already answered your question. Perhaps you think there are points to be gained by begging the question.
You are making the mistake of thinking there are topics that aren't a valid basis for humor. I don't find the above funny but freedom to express oneself about every topic, including the absurd and horrific, is a very crucial fundamental right.
Maybe not that result but that result is unlikely to happen, offshoring wouldn't be very cost effective under this scheme and neither would most of the international tax dodges being used by companies who are actually deriving most of their revenue in the US without paying the taxes in the US.
"Uh huh. As if you wouldn't want more money from a job that required a master's degree and continuing education, than a mere bachelors."
Thinking that statement has an impact on the truth of mine (quoted again below) is a wonderful example of an entitlement issue. Just because you want it doesn't mean you should get it. Also there is no particular reason the job should require it just to give those people jobs. WGU has courses with some kind of test requirement to pass the course and a duration of when you can prove proficiency by accomplishing that no matter how fast or slow that is. Passing something of that sort is more than qualification enough to teach the course, only the person who develops the course material used by many needs a higher requirement anyone proficient with the material can start from that base and adapt to their personal style with no additional qualification necessary. Degrees, diplomas, etc are only worth whatever aid they gave you in becoming proficient and not having them doesn't matter provided you are proficient.
Going to art school or spending time practicing in Paris might help you become a great artist but if you are a great artist who cares if you went to art school or spent time practicing in Paris?
"Uh huh. As if you wouldn't want more money from a job that required a master's degree and continuing education, than a mere bachelors."
"I know people in certain VERY new fields where american companies have more job openings than there are qualified people on earth for those jobs."
Then you probably have an dramatically over inflated sense of qualified. There are likely dozens of other professions people could step out of and adapt under the tutelage of anyone that dramatically over inflated definition includes and do just fine in far far less than five years. A huge part of the problem is companies need to develop the talent they need and instead they are trying to dump the job on universities. The method of learning used in universities is the antithesis of the mindset and kind of skill at learning that is the defining characteristic of someone with the talent to perform the tasks most of these H1B's are performing well.
Being unqualified and having to figure out what to do and how to do it on the fly is exactly what is creating the environment which cultivates the talents we are looking for. We are perfectly capable of hiring untested and unqualified talent and throwing into the fire under experienced people here if we drop this mindset that every seat must be filled with a god and the ageism that pushes out the best talent in the industry to shape those inexperienced people.
"But if people are using something like vicodin for a long time, th euse needs monitored and a withdrawal program needs to start."
Not necessarily. We say "addicted" like it is this terrible and harmful thing that must be stopped at all costs. Everyone is addicted to sugar, most are addicted to caffeine, a huge portion of your insurance rates are because of people addicted to the endorphins your body generates in response to exercise.
Someone who takes Vicodine for a long time will be physically addicted to it without question. So long as the amount they take is limited to reasonable levels there is no particular reason to force them off it and frankly there is no moral justification for pretending you are their parent and have a right to even limit to those reasonable levels let alone restrict like we do now. We'd do far better spreading information about the risks, safe dosing, etc along with changing this attitude we spread to support addiction clinic business models. Quitting an addiction is damn hard and nobody has the right to judge but telling these people they can't do it on their own and have to give in to a higher power is just feeding into the self-reenforcing delusion that they can't quit or control their behavior. The only way to quit an addiction is to find the mental and psychological strength to break fight the part of yourself that doesn't want to quit and finds any excuse including "its too hard" to give in.
They are when you are talking about connectivity back to where the consumers are in the US. Latency on a connection to India/China is terrible and will always be terrible because physics. And Detroit doesn't have a good enough infrastructure and connectivity to support most technical operations. Also, in India the major cities are worse than Detroit particularly in the parts where you'd save anything moving your tech operations. China actually has parts which are far superior to anything you find in the US but again the costs are higher in those parts and that pesky physics problem.
Operations run out of India and China will always be limited to a subset of services so long as their purpose is to service the US market, their domestic markets are another story.
"A university (or trade school) is there because most people are not self-starters with the resources to individually arrange what they need to learn about a topic."
Absolutely and those people are not suitable for the technology field, most people are not suitable for tech.
"Example - a bit over twenty years ago despite being utter crap at welding I could design weld joints in a difficult material that the experienced welders could not. It wasn't that they were crap at their job it was just that it was a situation that diverged a lot from anything they had welded before and they hadn't studied the theory.
However if they had that trade experience and had cracked open a few books to learn the theory they would have been much better at it than I - but that's getting beyond the initial training/education thing."
Great example and your second statement is where we can find the common ground and get on the same page. I have no doubt there are welders out there who have cracked open books and learned theory to advance their trade further.
Because they had experience BEFORE they cracked open those books the information contained in them had more value to them and because they were actually doing the job they had real world scenarios in which to test and gain a deeper understanding of that information as they went. There will even have been many welders who were self starters and tried and simply lacked the capacity to succeed down that path. That guy who does it successfully is exceptional and not typical. The traits that guy has are what define quality tech talent. Anyone without that ability to self-start, learn, hunt out information valuing it and therefore retaining it and using that insight to dig deeper; is what we are sifting through to try to find that guy in tech. It is those traits more so than what the person actually knows to begin with that are important because what the person needs to know evolves quickly and you can adapt even insight into how you design and solve problems with weld joints into more generic concepts that become new and novel industry changing solutions and algorithms.
Note, I'm not saying that guy can't start with the degree as you did. I think the capacity to be that person is nature and the realization is a product of environment. I don't believe a university environment is designed to nurture and cultivate that realization or that a degree of any level is a valid indicator of whether someone has that capacity or has realized it. For anything you are qualified for in the tech work force with less than four years of experience it makes little difference if you are that exceptional person or have a degree. I think it is easier to determine if someone who has four years experience shows signs of having realized that capacity than someone starting with four years of university experience. So for myself, I'd rather see these people cooked for four years on the job with plenty of resources and support for self-advancement and study to make sure the opportunity to realize that capacity is there than spending four years learning information without learning how to learn.
Part of the problem is technology is everyone wants all their people to be "the best" so they are only willing to hire already experienced people and want them to have degrees or be even more experienced and this is for what are actually relatively junior level positions. The industry is set up in such a way that people are then pushed to shift from position to position so nobody in position really has in depth experience in that specific environment and it takes at least two years to really get familiar with a complex environment which is about the time you need to hop positions. So there are no jobs to gain experience in and people who are reasonably intelligent but not particularly skilled can ride the "learning" period and shift companies again and again appearing to be "proven." And then there is faulty but widely believed ageism in the industry. I'm not talking about that near re
"However some people have to have enough understanding of the topic to be able to deal with change and lay out procedures for those who have only had the vocational training. That's part of what universities are supposed to be for."
That is how it is supposed to work but in tech (the field in question) that isn't the typical result. Those who graduate from universities (foreign or otherwise) have no higher degree of skill and/or knowledge vs someone without said degree when both have about 2yrs experience. If anything those without degrees tend to do better and be ahead since they've gained all their knowledge via the adaptive and dynamic learning strategies that must be used not only to grow their skills but solve problems while university graduates must learn the same while saddled with the baggage of learning information the way it is taught at a university. Someone who began with a solid knack and headstart in maths sans degree can find everything they can learn in academia online and build their knowledge through real life dynamic problems and real application on a day-to-day basis.
You and those who defend degrees argue that for many parts of computer science you need the heavy maths and theory taught in a university course. And yes, at the PHD level some excellent work is done. Most advances don't come from this group but from individuals who have with some lesser level of academic study possibly without university study at all have instead focused on learning everything they needed to do a better job on the problems they actually face until they've beefed up their knowledge and skills to the point where they have expertise on enough areas and in the theory surrounding the particular problem they are facing to develop a new solution that revolutionizes the industry. These individuals are not typical, they are extremely exceptional, but so are those with university training who do something worthwhile are as well. While these few are seen flukes somehow all the university grads are given a reputation bump when the outliers in their group are accomplished and exceptional even though almost all of the university grads are anything but. This is probably because those with higher degrees tend to want to think themselves superior to those without and project that opinion into venture capital and hiring decisions helping perpetuate the idea.
"That's some sort of a trade school thing, and in no way even remotely equivalent to a bachelors degree."
You seem to suggest the difference between the two results in increased competency in a profession. For the most part that isn't accurate. Some of the most talented people I've known learned entirely through self-study, on the job training, and experience and were far more competent people with bachelors and masters degrees working alongside them. There is a reason almost every employer accepts equivalent experience in place of a degree these days.
Not only did they exist vibrators were invented as treatment for vapors and hysteria. Women would pretend to have the vapors so the doctor would give them orgasms.