More specifically to the skillset and security rating of original article poster: BAN chip programming research. Once we're done losing to inferior technology enemies due to bad tactics, we will eventually have to face high technology armies on the battlefield. For that we're going to need ROM based, hardened, wireless networking among our troops. Bonus if you can also pinpoint the battlefield encrypted tranmissions of the opposing army on the heads up displays of our troops. That's where the excitement you're looking for lies. Battlefield Area Networking. Encrypted Packet IPV6 on top of a 802.16 Mesh Network I would suspect, but getting it all working will be a challenge when you consider you're going to have to make it scaleable from 4 nodes to more than a million nodes and deployable in a war zone. The human equivalent of the Borg- and it can't be Microsoft.
I think we're talking on different levels. What I mean is- without pointers, how do you create the query language engine that contains the relational operators? My understanding (obviously outdated, but then again, the link you provided didn't contain anything other than SQL and QUIL databases anyway, for which this problem still stands) is that the more foreign keys you have, the more pointers the query engine has to juggle- and that this is a logrithmic curve that rises to infinity very quickly.
Now obviously, there have been a few new tricks (otherwise, the data warehousing I do every day would require HUGE amounts of processing time on the server); but it was my understanding that a completely relational logical model would contain so many connections between the tables that it would be impossible to create a query language interpreter to handle it. While most certainly there are better languages than the ever-pervasive SQL to do this in, their context sensitivity prevents them from being efficient. Or in some cases, even possible to create.
Or perhaps just having a CS degree doesn't actually make you qualified for every one of those 100,000 jobs?
Then almost none of the H-1bs should be qualified- most of them only have a 4 year CS degree from IIT anyway. Why complain about the lack of CS degree holders if the 100,000 jobs aren't for CS degree holders? I myself would rather they be SE holders- but let's face facts, maybe only 10,000 of those 100,000 jobs will really require an SE degree. The majority will require *maybe* a weekend's study in a single set of skills.
Yes - I've pointed out in another post. The same newspaper has an editorial only less than a week ago that says in 2004 the U.S. produced over 57,000 C.S. graduates. Coupled with his 65,000 H-1B visas, if his 100,000 new jobs a year is accurate, there's a 22k surplus.
That's downright funny- guess what we really need is a basic arithmetic requirement for journalists.
I don't know where you live but outside of the coasts, most big cities have safe neighborhoods where a recent college grad earning $35K/year can do okay.
I live on the coast- and I'm all for disolving the cities if that's what you want to do, but the point is this: If the major populace has no money, who will be the consumers for this so-called "robust" economy?
Compare this to high-tech college grad wages in the $45-$50K range in those same cities today. A 30 year old with 8 years' experience earning 70% of today's wage-earner should be able to do okay. Yes, he'll probably have to move and lose all the equity in his house and the banks will take a beating on all the short-sales and foreclosures, but that's part of the transition costs. Heck, since his house will have depreciated due to many others having lower wages too, the bank may be willing to work out a new payment plan, particularly if he's not upside-down. Once the adjustment is made I think it will be good for America.
True- but that will NOT be a "robust" economy. That will be a "depressed" economy. Now while I'd agree that one could make the argument that America needs such a depression (with associated deflation) to become competitive with the third world (that is, to become a two-class, third world nation with the majority of the people being poor and slaves to the minority rich), I'm not sure we'd WANT too- and you could not possibly call the resulting economy "robust".
Realistically, my plan won't happen overnight. What MAY happen is that immigration and HB-1 quotas are gradually raised until they become meaningless. This will lessen the shock and may even mask it completely, resulting in wage stagnation or slower-than-expected wage-inflation rather than wage deflation.
Either way, you kill inflation- and inflation is the driver of a robust economy. The result is exactly the same as if every small town in America became totally isolationist- which also, while not neccesarily being a bad idea overall, certainly could not be called a robust economy.
A robust economy *requires* that people have enough money to be both consumers and investors- otherwise inflation will fall below that magical.02% and a deflationary cycle will set in, like it did in the 1930s.
but the president that presides of this disaster will go down in history right next to Herbert Hoover.
Some would say he currently is. Certainly this so-called "free trade" madness is heading in this direction, regardless of what the H-1b "labor shortage" whiners say. Anybody who thinks they deserve more than a billion a year to cut salaries is a wimp and a coward.
Is such a thing even possible? I thought the number of pointers approached infinity as relationships increased- but then again I'm 12 years in the industry now and have not kept up with the theoretical side of things.
Any well run business should want the same thing as those that allow salaries to grow out of control are doomed in the long run.
Mr. Ford proved that wrong back in 1908. Increasing salaries causes inflation, which increases the number of consumers that can afford luxury products like computers- and allows you to charge more for your operating systems.
As much as people like you want to bleat about how much you need to make to live like a human being the reality is that there are thousands of people right now making rafts out of the empty chemical barrels we sent them our waste in, preparing to cross miles and miles of ocean, so they can crawl through a drain pipe, just for the privlege of doing twice as much as you do for half the pay and far less than half the complaining.
Now there's an idea of what to do with all of those excess cargo containers China is sending us! Unemployed, overeducated Americans need to make rafts out of them to cross thousands of miles of ocean to become illegal immigrants in India! I wonder what that overpopulated country would do in that case? Something tells me they won't treat us as well as we've treated their H-1bs.
Mabye if we realized that international corporations owe no loyalty to any country, not even the one that they are headquartered in, there'd be no reason for such a tag because America isn't the problem. The problem is that economics is profoundly nationalistic and a form of warfare- and we've got a bunch of people selling weapons to both sides.
So what if I and my fellow technocrats see wages drop to below $35,000 for starting college grads and proportionately lower for experienced programmers? If it means a more robust American economy and better cultural exchanges with the larger immigrant populations then I'm all for it.
If everybody who has a college degree is earning under $35,000/year- and porportionately lower for experience- who exactly will pay for your more robust economy? An economy needs consumers as well as owners- or else it will collapse.
My recommendation- only trade with countries willing to pay HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES a minimum of $100,000 a year or more. Try to bring the entire world up to that level. With more money out there, inflation will happen, prices will rise, and you'll get more money per unit! It'll trash investing and dividends, but you can always go back to work....
Not to mention- it sure would be nice to make computer science an evolutionarily viable career. Say, enough time off to find a wife, have kids, raise a family; while still keeping a salary large enough to pay for such things. That sort of thing.
You will only have crap employees. Maybe it's time to start actually being competitive in hiring and lifestyle as well as being competitive in the marketplace; after all, full time employees in Europe and Japan enjoy the ability to buy a home, settle down in one place, and raise a family.
Either that or it's time for the United States to realize that economics is a form of warfare for rich countries- and get serious about winning economic wars with our peers instead of wasting money losing military wars with our inferiors. If so, we'll need to realize that the international corporation is effectively a double agent traitor or the arms dealer who sells to both sides- and treat those businesses accordingly.
It's not the current quarter they are worried about- investors understand investment. It's the NEXT quarter when that investment doesn't pay off that investors will punish them for.
Hmm, hadn't thought about that- would surely limit the number of clients. But I think far easier would be my other proposed solution to the GWOT which would actually make several media companies happier: isolationism. If we cut off the backbone at the borders of the United States, leaving only links to our protectorates, that would certainly limit the number of high bandwidth clients to about 500 million.
That's wierd- Verizon on the west coast has a POTS-free DSL deal at $14.95/month if you don't need a static IP. As long as the place you moved into has EDTS (emergency dialtone service, only dialable numbers are indeed 911 and 0) you can get it for $15 a month. Of course, that's only a VERY low bandwidth 768k down, 128k up. Maybe you should check into that. At any rate- even POTS basic (no outbound dialing) is supposed to be $12.00 before taxes....But I'll bet the taxes would bring that up to $40.
I never had a copy of RipTerm- and it certainly was NOT available for my Geneve 9640.
Remember watching a screenful of text come down? I tended to measure modem performance in terms of "read factor," i.e. how many times faster did it send text, compared to how fast I could read it:-)
Yep, and 14.4kbaud was just about right for me....it was where my read factor went positive (more text downloading than I could read).
I don't care about amortization over 4 months. Unrealistic amortization schedules do not mean that margins are razor-thin, only that your accounting sucks.
Actually, what it really means is that when your stockholders dig into your balance statement, and see the same project losing money two accounting periods in a row, your stock price has a tendency to go down. So if you're an executive with stock options, you kill projects that loose you money in a 4 month period. Seems pretty obvious to me.
As far as DSL, I would love to pay $20/month. I'm paying $37/month before all those stupid taxes, plus another $20 (plus taxes) for a phone line I wouldn't have if it weren't for the fact that my DSL would be almost as expensive as the DSL plus phone if I didn't have it. Bottom line, I pay about $67/month.
But if you're smart, you have the phone line anyway- to support your security system. You'd just switch to some form of "BDS"- basic dialtone service.
I'm switching to cable. My internet bill will "only" be $33/month... except I can't just get internet. If I did, it would be $60/month. I'm getting internet, phone, and TV all together, for a bit over $100/month. Bellsouth and Comcast sure suck, from the responses I've gotten. I think you'd have to move to Virgina.
Yep- I was slow to move to GUIs and never could see the point of moving beyond a 33.6kbaud modem back then. My connection (to my UNIX command line account at the college) with Pine and Lynx was plenty for me- and worked just as well on my (then) 12 year old TI-99/4a or my 6 year old Geneve 9640 as it did on my homebrewed '386 running DOS.
:-) Slashdot on Lynx is much easier to read anyway- no flashing graphics from ad.doubleclick.com that include a portscan. Oh, did you think I meant SMS?
Not true. In Bulgaria, for instance, internet providers are usually local enthusiasts with the necessary equipment who build large LANs (probably not the best thing in terms of safety) and provide cheap access with ridiculous BG bandwith (though international speeds vary but they are often about 800-1000 kbps)...
Ok, once again, this is a model that isn't common in the US (and where it is, such as in Portland OR with PersonalTelco, it can be pretty downright destructive to local broadband, either in prices or numbers of subcribers, depending upon where it is. Notice these are opposing forces- such competition makes prices fall, but *also* with fewer subscribers costs are harder to recover, so individual bills may actually go up for a secure connection). It's not common because it's hard to get the investment to pay for the neccessary equipment (about $200-$300 per customer of the ISP). While that's not much for some, remember that the United States is in the process of turning into a feudal/serf economy; and that most of the rich unless they are *very* geeky are not going to invest in a venture that has no return.
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically to the skillset and security rating of original article poster: BAN chip programming research. Once we're done losing to inferior technology enemies due to bad tactics, we will eventually have to face high technology armies on the battlefield. For that we're going to need ROM based, hardened, wireless networking among our troops. Bonus if you can also pinpoint the battlefield encrypted tranmissions of the opposing army on the heads up displays of our troops. That's where the excitement you're looking for lies. Battlefield Area Networking. Encrypted Packet IPV6 on top of a 802.16 Mesh Network I would suspect, but getting it all working will be a challenge when you consider you're going to have to make it scaleable from 4 nodes to more than a million nodes and deployable in a war zone. The human equivalent of the Borg- and it can't be Microsoft.
I think we're talking on different levels. What I mean is- without pointers, how do you create the query language engine that contains the relational operators? My understanding (obviously outdated, but then again, the link you provided didn't contain anything other than SQL and QUIL databases anyway, for which this problem still stands) is that the more foreign keys you have, the more pointers the query engine has to juggle- and that this is a logrithmic curve that rises to infinity very quickly.
Now obviously, there have been a few new tricks (otherwise, the data warehousing I do every day would require HUGE amounts of processing time on the server); but it was my understanding that a completely relational logical model would contain so many connections between the tables that it would be impossible to create a query language interpreter to handle it. While most certainly there are better languages than the ever-pervasive SQL to do this in, their context sensitivity prevents them from being efficient. Or in some cases, even possible to create.
Or perhaps just having a CS degree doesn't actually make you qualified for every one of those 100,000 jobs?
Then almost none of the H-1bs should be qualified- most of them only have a 4 year CS degree from IIT anyway. Why complain about the lack of CS degree holders if the 100,000 jobs aren't for CS degree holders? I myself would rather they be SE holders- but let's face facts, maybe only 10,000 of those 100,000 jobs will really require an SE degree. The majority will require *maybe* a weekend's study in a single set of skills.
Ðere are no pointers in the relational model.
Without pointers, how would one link foreign keys internally to the interpreter?
Yes - I've pointed out in another post. The same newspaper has an editorial only less than a week ago that says in 2004 the U.S. produced over 57,000 C.S. graduates. Coupled with his 65,000 H-1B visas, if his 100,000 new jobs a year is accurate, there's a 22k surplus.
That's downright funny- guess what we really need is a basic arithmetic requirement for journalists.
I don't know where you live but outside of the coasts, most big cities have safe neighborhoods where a recent college grad earning $35K/year can do okay.
.02% and a deflationary cycle will set in, like it did in the 1930s.
I live on the coast- and I'm all for disolving the cities if that's what you want to do, but the point is this: If the major populace has no money, who will be the consumers for this so-called "robust" economy?
Compare this to high-tech college grad wages in the $45-$50K range in those same cities today. A 30 year old with 8 years' experience earning 70% of today's wage-earner should be able to do okay. Yes, he'll probably have to move and lose all the equity in his house and the banks will take a beating on all the short-sales and foreclosures, but that's part of the transition costs. Heck, since his house will have depreciated due to many others having lower wages too, the bank may be willing to work out a new payment plan, particularly if he's not upside-down. Once the adjustment is made I think it will be good for America.
True- but that will NOT be a "robust" economy. That will be a "depressed" economy. Now while I'd agree that one could make the argument that America needs such a depression (with associated deflation) to become competitive with the third world (that is, to become a two-class, third world nation with the majority of the people being poor and slaves to the minority rich), I'm not sure we'd WANT too- and you could not possibly call the resulting economy "robust".
Realistically, my plan won't happen overnight. What MAY happen is that immigration and HB-1 quotas are gradually raised until they become meaningless. This will lessen the shock and may even mask it completely, resulting in wage stagnation or slower-than-expected wage-inflation rather than wage deflation.
Either way, you kill inflation- and inflation is the driver of a robust economy. The result is exactly the same as if every small town in America became totally isolationist- which also, while not neccesarily being a bad idea overall, certainly could not be called a robust economy.
A robust economy *requires* that people have enough money to be both consumers and investors- otherwise inflation will fall below that magical
but the president that presides of this disaster will go down in history right next to Herbert Hoover.
Some would say he currently is. Certainly this so-called "free trade" madness is heading in this direction, regardless of what the H-1b "labor shortage" whiners say. Anybody who thinks they deserve more than a billion a year to cut salaries is a wimp and a coward.
truly RDBMSs (*not* SQL)
Is such a thing even possible? I thought the number of pointers approached infinity as relationships increased- but then again I'm 12 years in the industry now and have not kept up with the theoretical side of things.
Any well run business should want the same thing as those that allow salaries to grow out of control are doomed in the long run.
Mr. Ford proved that wrong back in 1908. Increasing salaries causes inflation, which increases the number of consumers that can afford luxury products like computers- and allows you to charge more for your operating systems.
As much as people like you want to bleat about how much you need to make to live like a human being the reality is that there are thousands of people right now making rafts out of the empty chemical barrels we sent them our waste in, preparing to cross miles and miles of ocean, so they can crawl through a drain pipe, just for the privlege of doing twice as much as you do for half the pay and far less than half the complaining.
Now there's an idea of what to do with all of those excess cargo containers China is sending us! Unemployed, overeducated Americans need to make rafts out of them to cross thousands of miles of ocean to become illegal immigrants in India! I wonder what that overpopulated country would do in that case? Something tells me they won't treat us as well as we've treated their H-1bs.
Mabye if we realized that international corporations owe no loyalty to any country, not even the one that they are headquartered in, there'd be no reason for such a tag because America isn't the problem. The problem is that economics is profoundly nationalistic and a form of warfare- and we've got a bunch of people selling weapons to both sides.
So what if I and my fellow technocrats see wages drop to below $35,000 for starting college grads and proportionately lower for experienced programmers? If it means a more robust American economy and better cultural exchanges with the larger immigrant populations then I'm all for it.
If everybody who has a college degree is earning under $35,000/year- and porportionately lower for experience- who exactly will pay for your more robust economy? An economy needs consumers as well as owners- or else it will collapse.
My recommendation- only trade with countries willing to pay HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES a minimum of $100,000 a year or more. Try to bring the entire world up to that level. With more money out there, inflation will happen, prices will rise, and you'll get more money per unit! It'll trash investing and dividends, but you can always go back to work....
Not to mention- it sure would be nice to make computer science an evolutionarily viable career. Say, enough time off to find a wife, have kids, raise a family; while still keeping a salary large enough to pay for such things. That sort of thing.
You will only have crap employees. Maybe it's time to start actually being competitive in hiring and lifestyle as well as being competitive in the marketplace; after all, full time employees in Europe and Japan enjoy the ability to buy a home, settle down in one place, and raise a family.
Either that or it's time for the United States to realize that economics is a form of warfare for rich countries- and get serious about winning economic wars with our peers instead of wasting money losing military wars with our inferiors. If so, we'll need to realize that the international corporation is effectively a double agent traitor or the arms dealer who sells to both sides- and treat those businesses accordingly.
It's not the current quarter they are worried about- investors understand investment. It's the NEXT quarter when that investment doesn't pay off that investors will punish them for.
Hmm, hadn't thought about that- would surely limit the number of clients. But I think far easier would be my other proposed solution to the GWOT which would actually make several media companies happier: isolationism. If we cut off the backbone at the borders of the United States, leaving only links to our protectorates, that would certainly limit the number of high bandwidth clients to about 500 million.
By then, IPTV will be as boring as Network TV.
You mean something like slashdot.org?
Yes, but with a twist:
Preferances...Hompeage...Simple Design...Save Changes.
Do that and you'll never have to see an ugly green bar ever again.
My options are Verizon
That's wierd- Verizon on the west coast has a POTS-free DSL deal at $14.95/month if you don't need a static IP. As long as the place you moved into has EDTS (emergency dialtone service, only dialable numbers are indeed 911 and 0) you can get it for $15 a month. Of course, that's only a VERY low bandwidth 768k down, 128k up. Maybe you should check into that. At any rate- even POTS basic (no outbound dialing) is supposed to be $12.00 before taxes....But I'll bet the taxes would bring that up to $40.
I never had a copy of RipTerm- and it certainly was NOT available for my Geneve 9640.
:-)
Remember watching a screenful of text come down? I tended to measure modem performance in terms of "read factor," i.e. how many times faster did it send text, compared to how fast I could read it
Yep, and 14.4kbaud was just about right for me....it was where my read factor went positive (more text downloading than I could read).
I don't care about amortization over 4 months. Unrealistic amortization schedules do not mean that margins are razor-thin, only that your accounting sucks.
Actually, what it really means is that when your stockholders dig into your balance statement, and see the same project losing money two accounting periods in a row, your stock price has a tendency to go down. So if you're an executive with stock options, you kill projects that loose you money in a 4 month period. Seems pretty obvious to me.
As far as DSL, I would love to pay $20/month. I'm paying $37/month before all those stupid taxes, plus another $20 (plus taxes) for a phone line I wouldn't have if it weren't for the fact that my DSL would be almost as expensive as the DSL plus phone if I didn't have it. Bottom line, I pay about $67/month.
But if you're smart, you have the phone line anyway- to support your security system. You'd just switch to some form of "BDS"- basic dialtone service.
I'm switching to cable. My internet bill will "only" be $33/month... except I can't just get internet. If I did, it would be $60/month. I'm getting internet, phone, and TV all together, for a bit over $100/month.
Bellsouth and Comcast sure suck, from the responses I've gotten. I think you'd have to move to Virgina.
A full height (5'11') nude blonde takes up a hell of a lot less space in ASCII than as a JPG.
Yep- I was slow to move to GUIs and never could see the point of moving beyond a 33.6kbaud modem back then. My connection (to my UNIX command line account at the college) with Pine and Lynx was plenty for me- and worked just as well on my (then) 12 year old TI-99/4a or my 6 year old Geneve 9640 as it did on my homebrewed '386 running DOS.
:-) Slashdot on Lynx is much easier to read anyway- no flashing graphics from ad.doubleclick.com that include a portscan. Oh, did you think I meant SMS?
Return to text based services to minimize my bandwidth usage
Not true. In Bulgaria, for instance, internet providers are usually local enthusiasts with the necessary equipment who build large LANs (probably not the best thing in terms of safety) and provide cheap access with ridiculous BG bandwith (though international speeds vary but they are often about 800-1000 kbps)...
Ok, once again, this is a model that isn't common in the US (and where it is, such as in Portland OR with PersonalTelco, it can be pretty downright destructive to local broadband, either in prices or numbers of subcribers, depending upon where it is. Notice these are opposing forces- such competition makes prices fall, but *also* with fewer subscribers costs are harder to recover, so individual bills may actually go up for a secure connection). It's not common because it's hard to get the investment to pay for the neccessary equipment (about $200-$300 per customer of the ISP). While that's not much for some, remember that the United States is in the process of turning into a feudal/serf economy; and that most of the rich unless they are *very* geeky are not going to invest in a venture that has no return.