My assertion was the combination of proprietary software and hardware leaves you with a more proprietary platform than x86/Windows. I also explained why, emphasis on facts not super intellectual phrases like "steamy pile of BS".
My point is exactly that Apple does forbid it, not that it cant be done. Calling my comments unfounded while at the same time confirming them is unfortunate. The way the supossedly open minded free speech Mac people have reacted to this post is tragic.
I find it comical that so many of you cannot accept the truth that Mac Software will only run on Mac Hardware both of which are proprietary. If you do not believe this is so then try to build A Mac from spare parts you buy, Install a copy of OS X on it that you buy then sell it and see if Mac does not sue the hell out of you. This is not true of either Microsoft or SCO they will let you install their stuff on anything that will run it (not saying either are any better. Additionally Apple takes Open Source software adds a gui and will sue the hell out of you if you try to port it to Non Mac hardware. Closed hardware and closed software, it does not matter what OS X starts with but where they ends up. My original post hhas been modded to 5 twice but the Mac Fanboys have modded me down to troll (as predicted in one of the replies). I must admit that I am surprised about this. I made no disparaging remarks about the quality of Macs and am quite correct in my assertion of their proprietary nature. Mac people pride themselves on their open mindedness I guess we can see how they deal with an alternnative viewpoint.
What I have never understood about certain segments of the open source community is why Apple gets such a big pass. The average slashdrone will rant endlessly (and probably rightly so) about the evils of SCO and Microsoft. When in fact Apple is more closed source and proprietary than both of them combined and talk about how cool Apple is and if only the world were a better place we would all use Mac's. Any model that fails to give you control of the hardware and software that you pay for is a bad one. Apple locks down both, a claim that is not applicable to either Microsoft or SCO.
The open source community should get out of bed with Apple before we get another SCO situation on our hands. To those who say Apple would never do something like SCO look here.
This article makes interesting advertising for outsourcing firms and raises some very valid points but hardly can be considered either objective or entirely factual. The article
talks about the quality of Indian IT firms (and they do have some high quality professional firms). However, they fail to mention the many negative experiences U.S. firms have had with botched projects, poor service and support compounded by language issues despite claims that Indian English skills are adequate (albeit this is not true in every instance). One of the main issues offsetting these facts is that they work for a tenth of what their US counterparts do. Companies find it cost effective to allow them to make these mistakes and learn from them (which they seem to be doing). Outsourcing is a minefield that can lead to extraordinary success or disastrous failure. From an economic perspective the cost savings you reap from outsourcing you pay for in the long term (as a nation) by the erosion of your markets buying power. 3 Million consumers in your home market (making $70,000 dollars a year) are replaced by consumers in a market hostile to foreign competition making $8000 dollars a year (for the top tier anyway). Sooner or later America will realize this and legislation will be put into place to stop it. But in the meantime hang onto your seats.
This article makes interesting advertising for outsourcing firms and raises some very valid points but hardly can be considered either objective or entirely factual. The article
talks about the quality of Indian IT firms (and they do have some high quality professional firms). However, they fail to mention the many negative experiences U.S. firms have had with botched projects, poor service and support compounded by language issues despite claims that Indian English skills are adequate (albeit this is not true in every instance). One of the main issues offsetting these facts is that they work for a tenth of what their US counterparts do. Companies find it cost effective to allow them to make these mistakes and learn from them (which they seem to be doing). Outsourcing is a minefield that can lead to extraordinary success or disastrous failure. From an economic perspective the cost savings you reap from outsourcing you pay for in the long term (as a nation) by the erosion of your markets buying power. 3 Million consumers in your home market (making $70,000 dollars a year) are replaced by consumers in a market hostile to foreign competition making $8000 dollars a year (for the top tier anyway). Sooner or later America will realize this and legislation will be put into place to stop it. But in the meantime hang onto your seats
Why is it a more secure standard? The poster asserts that it is more secure but nothing in the articles indicate this. All I see is the standard from China NOT using AES for encryption. This would seem to make it less secure.
Why is it a better standard? I have yet to read or see anything telling me why it is a better
standard. What I have read tells me that they do not have good encryption(no AES)in the standard China is proposing. What do they propose to replace AES with? Someone tell me why this is a bbetter standard please.
I disagree with the assertion of the poster that the Chineese standard has better security. For starters it does not use AES (the new advanced encryption standard) and the article does not specify what (if any) encryption protocol the Chineese standard uses.
What this seems to me to be is an attempt to give the Chineese government a larger voice in
the implementation of new networking standards. If hardware vendors and the IEEE roll over on this one the next thing you will see out of China (and other like minded countries who will follow suit) are the emergence of protocols which make it easier to censor and control content on the web. The market pressure to comply with this standard will be huge however. Given the size and growth of the Chineese market the financial rewards for early adopters will be great not to mention the potential to establish a major vendor footprint in an emerging market.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
While Win 2003 has not been out long enough yet to make an objective comparison as to how it secure it is compared to its predecessors. There have been some significant security exploits out for an OS which was supposed to be a vast improvement over 2K/NT. The RPC exploit for instance stands out as a glaring example. I would not give it anything better than average marks (for a windows system) in terms of security or uptime (largely as a result having to reboot for patches).
The Good and the Bad
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Personally, I think this is welcome news. First of all, this puts the potential wide scale deployment of palladium another year down the road. Secondly, a year is long enough down the road for another generation of open source alternatives to eat more market share from Microsoft perhaps bringing a semblance of legitimate competition to the market. For you guys who are holding onto Win NT boxes who are waiting on Longhorn this probably isnt the most welcome news though.
1.) You are entirely right this is the fault of the American Government but 90% of the public working outside of IT does not know what H1B is let alone the negative impact is has had on the american economy.
2.) NAFTA is another example of the exporting of american jobs to pennies on the dollar competition hurting our economy. Neither India or China have such a program and yet profit immensely by it in the way of cash and expertise sent back home.
3.) The US Trade representative says you will indeed see that money. When the time comes to collect I am sure you will find out how to collect.
No you dont you just have to have someone sponsor you who says you fill a critical need. Burger King could hire H1/L1 workers if they wanted to. By the way IT people are not the only ones using this program many other fields are taking adavntage of this program as well to get educated labor at sweatshop prices.
I find it unfortunate that you seem so angry and defensive on this issue. Your first point has a certain amount of merit to it, although I do not know how hard it is to get responsored. From here you denigrate into some illogical emotional diatribe. You can tell yourself that it is illegal to underpay H1/L1 workers if you would like and you might actually be in the tiny minority who actually does not underpay these workers. But they are for the most part grossly underpaid when comapred to the American workers they replace. This can easily be established from a variety of sources. Not to mention the "workers" actually working in offshore shops. They are making around $200/month (again the folks at Dell are an example here) to fill the call center jobs which were going for 25K/35K in this country. This is sweatshop labor brought to you by voice over IP. I can source any point above upon request. By the way just because they are sweatshop level employees does not mean they cant be ignorant assholes as well. By the angry reaction to what seem to me to be very rational objections to a program (you have yet to provide anything but angry anectdotal ranting and childish name calling as evidence to support your position). My facts of my argument are still thus the H1/L1 program replaces highly paid very qualified geeks with cheaper and usually less qualified labor. This economy has lost 3 million jobs and most of their accompanying tax revenue. There are to date 1 million H1/L1 visas issued with over 200,000 more issued each year. While SOME H1/L1 workers may be very talented it does not change this fact. My well paying IT job is secure probably beacuse it is government but many, many American jobs are being lost to this program.
1.) A lot of very qualified geeks have been displaced by much lesser qualified H1/L1 replacements. Hence the term "knowledge transfer" used by companies as a euphemism for the 3 week extensions laid off geeks are getting to TRAIN cheap foriegn replacements. Also you obviosly have not had to deal with the very shitty offshore scripted tech support from companies like Dell just to get a replacement for a fualty part.
2.) Read the Law They are not mobile at all. They BY LAW can only work for the company sponsoring their visa.
3.) There is negative flow of tax from H1/L1 workers because they are paid so much less than their replaced counterparts. Usually less than half a salary translates to less than half of the tax revenue on top of the fact that we will pay them social security benefits. An as for the supporting article for my Social Security article it may be found at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/un comp/articleshow?msid=23736
This situation did not come about until the institution of the H1-B and L-1 visa program. This program should be scrapped for the following reasons.
1.) Labor Shortage: The stated purpose of these programs was to fill a temporary shortage of american tech talent obviously this is no longer a shortage of American geeks to fill these jobs.
2.) Anti-Competitive: The way the H-1/L-1 visas are written the sponsored geek is can only be employed by the sponsoring corporation. If he/she is forbidden by law seek other employment employers do not have to compete for talented labor or worry about retention once these guys have been trained. This creates a type of indentured servitude and an artificially depreciated labor market.
3.) Lack Of Parity: There are no similar programs in the countries who are the major sources of imported labor. We should not open American labor markets while foriegn labor markets are protected.
4.) Tax Drain: The maximum time an H1/L1 visa holder can work in the US is 6 years. They have been assured by the Bush administration that they will still recieve Social Security benefits even though the current law says you must contribute for 10 years to be eligible.
Slashdot Mirror
My assertion was the combination of proprietary software and hardware leaves you with a more proprietary platform than x86/Windows. I also explained why, emphasis on facts not super intellectual phrases like "steamy pile of BS".
Holy shit, you are so right I never would have believed it.
My point is exactly that Apple does forbid it, not that it cant be done. Calling my comments unfounded while at the same time confirming them is unfortunate. The way the supossedly open minded free speech Mac people have reacted to this post is tragic.
I find it comical that so many of you cannot accept the truth that Mac Software will only run on Mac Hardware both of which are proprietary. If you do not believe this is so then try to build A Mac from spare parts you buy, Install a copy of OS X on it that you buy then sell it and see if Mac does not sue the hell out of you. This is not true of either Microsoft or SCO they will let you install their stuff on anything that will run it (not saying either are any better. Additionally Apple takes Open Source software adds a gui and will sue the hell out of you if you try to port it to Non Mac hardware. Closed hardware and closed software, it does not matter what OS X starts with but where they ends up. My original post hhas been modded to 5 twice but the Mac Fanboys have modded me down to troll (as predicted in one of the replies). I must admit that I am surprised about this. I made no disparaging remarks about the quality of Macs and am quite correct in my assertion of their proprietary nature. Mac people pride themselves on their open mindedness I guess we can see how they deal with an alternnative viewpoint.
What I have never understood about certain segments of the open source community is why Apple gets such a big pass. The average slashdrone will rant endlessly (and probably rightly so) about the evils of SCO and Microsoft. When in fact Apple is more closed source and proprietary than both of them combined and talk about how cool Apple is and if only the world were a better place we would all use Mac's. Any model that fails to give you control of the hardware and software that you pay for is a bad one. Apple locks down both, a claim that is not applicable to either Microsoft or SCO. The open source community should get out of bed with Apple before we get another SCO situation on our hands. To those who say Apple would never do something like SCO look here.
This article makes interesting advertising for outsourcing firms and raises some very valid points but hardly can be considered either objective or entirely factual. The article talks about the quality of Indian IT firms (and they do have some high quality professional firms). However, they fail to mention the many negative experiences U.S. firms have had with botched projects, poor service and support compounded by language issues despite claims that Indian English skills are adequate (albeit this is not true in every instance). One of the main issues offsetting these facts is that they work for a tenth of what their US counterparts do. Companies find it cost effective to allow them to make these mistakes and learn from them (which they seem to be doing). Outsourcing is a minefield that can lead to extraordinary success or disastrous failure. From an economic perspective the cost savings you reap from outsourcing you pay for in the long term (as a nation) by the erosion of your markets buying power. 3 Million consumers in your home market (making $70,000 dollars a year) are replaced by consumers in a market hostile to foreign competition making $8000 dollars a year (for the top tier anyway). Sooner or later America will realize this and legislation will be put into place to stop it. But in the meantime hang onto your seats.
This article makes interesting advertising for outsourcing firms and raises some very valid points but hardly can be considered either objective or entirely factual. The article talks about the quality of Indian IT firms (and they do have some high quality professional firms). However, they fail to mention the many negative experiences U.S. firms have had with botched projects, poor service and support compounded by language issues despite claims that Indian English skills are adequate (albeit this is not true in every instance). One of the main issues offsetting these facts is that they work for a tenth of what their US counterparts do. Companies find it cost effective to allow them to make these mistakes and learn from them (which they seem to be doing). Outsourcing is a minefield that can lead to extraordinary success or disastrous failure. From an economic perspective the cost savings you reap from outsourcing you pay for in the long term (as a nation) by the erosion of your markets buying power. 3 Million consumers in your home market (making $70,000 dollars a year) are replaced by consumers in a market hostile to foreign competition making $8000 dollars a year (for the top tier anyway). Sooner or later America will realize this and legislation will be put into place to stop it. But in the meantime hang onto your seats
Why is it a more secure standard? The poster asserts that it is more secure but nothing in the articles indicate this. All I see is the standard from China NOT using AES for encryption. This would seem to make it less secure.
Why is it a better standard? I have yet to read or see anything telling me why it is a better standard. What I have read tells me that they do not have good encryption(no AES)in the standard China is proposing. What do they propose to replace AES with? Someone tell me why this is a bbetter standard please.
I disagree with the assertion of the poster that the Chineese standard has better security. For starters it does not use AES (the new advanced encryption standard) and the article does not specify what (if any) encryption protocol the Chineese standard uses. What this seems to me to be is an attempt to give the Chineese government a larger voice in the implementation of new networking standards. If hardware vendors and the IEEE roll over on this one the next thing you will see out of China (and other like minded countries who will follow suit) are the emergence of protocols which make it easier to censor and control content on the web. The market pressure to comply with this standard will be huge however. Given the size and growth of the Chineese market the financial rewards for early adopters will be great not to mention the potential to establish a major vendor footprint in an emerging market.
While Win 2003 has not been out long enough yet to make an objective comparison as to how it secure it is compared to its predecessors. There have been some significant security exploits out for an OS which was supposed to be a vast improvement over 2K/NT. The RPC exploit for instance stands out as a glaring example. I would not give it anything better than average marks (for a windows system) in terms of security or uptime (largely as a result having to reboot for patches).
Personally, I think this is welcome news. First of all, this puts the potential wide scale deployment of palladium another year down the road. Secondly, a year is long enough down the road for another generation of open source alternatives to eat more market share from Microsoft perhaps bringing a semblance of legitimate competition to the market. For you guys who are holding onto Win NT boxes who are waiting on Longhorn this probably isnt the most welcome news though.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_h arris/index.html
1.) You are entirely right this is the fault of the American Government but 90% of the public working outside of IT does not know what H1B is let alone the negative impact is has had on the american economy. 2.) NAFTA is another example of the exporting of american jobs to pennies on the dollar competition hurting our economy. Neither India or China have such a program and yet profit immensely by it in the way of cash and expertise sent back home. 3.) The US Trade representative says you will indeed see that money. When the time comes to collect I am sure you will find out how to collect.
No you dont you just have to have someone sponsor you who says you fill a critical need. Burger King could hire H1/L1 workers if they wanted to. By the way IT people are not the only ones using this program many other fields are taking adavntage of this program as well to get educated labor at sweatshop prices.
I find it unfortunate that you seem so angry and defensive on this issue. Your first point has a certain amount of merit to it, although I do not know how hard it is to get responsored. From here you denigrate into some illogical emotional diatribe. You can tell yourself that it is illegal to underpay H1/L1 workers if you would like and you might actually be in the tiny minority who actually does not underpay these workers. But they are for the most part grossly underpaid when comapred to the American workers they replace. This can easily be established from a variety of sources. Not to mention the "workers" actually working in offshore shops. They are making around $200/month (again the folks at Dell are an example here) to fill the call center jobs which were going for 25K/35K in this country. This is sweatshop labor brought to you by voice over IP. I can source any point above upon request. By the way just because they are sweatshop level employees does not mean they cant be ignorant assholes as well. By the angry reaction to what seem to me to be very rational objections to a program (you have yet to provide anything but angry anectdotal ranting and childish name calling as evidence to support your position). My facts of my argument are still thus the H1/L1 program replaces highly paid very qualified geeks with cheaper and usually less qualified labor. This economy has lost 3 million jobs and most of their accompanying tax revenue. There are to date 1 million H1/L1 visas issued with over 200,000 more issued each year. While SOME H1/L1 workers may be very talented it does not change this fact. My well paying IT job is secure probably beacuse it is government but many, many American jobs are being lost to this program.
1.) A lot of very qualified geeks have been displaced by much lesser qualified H1/L1 replacements. Hence the term "knowledge transfer" used by companies as a euphemism for the 3 week extensions laid off geeks are getting to TRAIN cheap foriegn replacements. Also you obviosly have not had to deal with the very shitty offshore scripted tech support from companies like Dell just to get a replacement for a fualty part. 2.) Read the Law They are not mobile at all. They BY LAW can only work for the company sponsoring their visa. 3.) There is negative flow of tax from H1/L1 workers because they are paid so much less than their replaced counterparts. Usually less than half a salary translates to less than half of the tax revenue on top of the fact that we will pay them social security benefits. An as for the supporting article for my Social Security article it may be found at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/un comp/articleshow?msid=23736
This situation did not come about until the institution of the H1-B and L-1 visa program. This program should be scrapped for the following reasons. 1.) Labor Shortage: The stated purpose of these programs was to fill a temporary shortage of american tech talent obviously this is no longer a shortage of American geeks to fill these jobs. 2.) Anti-Competitive: The way the H-1/L-1 visas are written the sponsored geek is can only be employed by the sponsoring corporation. If he/she is forbidden by law seek other employment employers do not have to compete for talented labor or worry about retention once these guys have been trained. This creates a type of indentured servitude and an artificially depreciated labor market. 3.) Lack Of Parity: There are no similar programs in the countries who are the major sources of imported labor. We should not open American labor markets while foriegn labor markets are protected. 4.) Tax Drain: The maximum time an H1/L1 visa holder can work in the US is 6 years. They have been assured by the Bush administration that they will still recieve Social Security benefits even though the current law says you must contribute for 10 years to be eligible.