Microwave ovens are made to be ovens. That the idea arose because of radar systems is irrelevant to this discussion.
You're right that CDs were intended for audio. I would argue that they are not great for computer systems precisely for this reason. Unlike the old floppy disks, CDs do not do random-access writes and are not covered by a dust and dirt-blocking shell. On the other hand, standadizing on a non-optimal solution has had the great advantage of making CDs and CD players cheap as dirt, as well as allowing computers and audio systems to share music. The original poster in this thread presumably values reliability over cost savings based upon his negative experience with CDs.
Actually, when I read this, I couldn't help but laugh at all of the dumb companies that thought that they could save money by investing in [India]
There is no question that companies are saving (and making) money by investing billions in India. A few VOIP taxes are not going to change that.
[India] is still, essentially, a third world country.
Nobody said otherwise. India is a developing economy. You have a very strange understanding of economics if you think that you cannot make money in a developing economy. Look at the bushfulls of money that have been made in the last 50 years in (e.g.) Korea, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, China, etc.
They should've realized that a few McDonald's and a rudimentary grasp of English doesn't make a country a first world country, (a good place to do business).
Rapidly growing economies are precisely where you go to do business.
I hope the backwater Indian government continues to tax "outsiders" in their own provincial way so that these stupid companies will learn their lessons.
America's backwater government also taxes "outsiders" in a provicial way. Haven't you heard about Bush's protectionism:
http://www.progress.org/2003/trade12.htm
I think that India has a LONG way to go before it should be considered as any kind of technological powerhouse, and I think that this is a strong sign that that is true.
India's software industry alone is worth $20 billion. Tata infotech took 23 years to make its first billion and 23 months to make its second. Is that a powerhouse comparable to the American industry? Probably not. Does it matter? India's tech industry is strong, healthy and growing, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. Save your schadenfreude for someone who deserves it. You might want to read this to learn what's really going on in India: http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly. cfm?story_id=5300960
The standard of living for the poor in America is dramatically higher than it was 100 years ago - in this sense they are wealthier.
Yes, but what about since 25 years ago? In the last 25 years have the number of children going hungry decreased dramatically? Has the number of people without health insurance decreased dramatically? Has the number of people using food banks decreased?
It doesn't make sense to look at this from the point of view of 100 years. The last 100 years includes the policies that previous generations have put in place. What about the policies of our own generation?
. The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.
It is far better to act on the basis of authority than not act at all. 98% of people do not have the ability or time to work through the equations and models themselves. Does this mean we should never act on environmental issues? If a parent is told that scientific consensus says that taking Thalidomide while pregnant will result in birth defects should the parent continue to take Thalidomide until they go back to school to study up on statistical methods and double blind tests?
When you go off and research the issue and come back to us with arguments that undermine the authorities then you have a right to tell us we're on the wrong path. But it is totally irresponsible for you to just wave your hands and say: "Don't believe the authorities! Don't act! Don't do anything until you've studied it yourself! I'm not studying it, but you should!" You're just parroting what the oil companies have been saying for the last decade. "In the absence of absolute proof, inaction is preferable."
In this case, there is one aspect which is totally undisputed. We are changing the atmosphere. Where I come from, pissing in the bathtub is considered impolite whether anyone is guaranteed to get sick from it or not. Human beings should minimize their impact on the atmosphere precisely because we do not know with certainty what the consequences are likely to be.
Upgrading Office isn't about getting new features. It's about being able to read the new.doc and.ppt files that you get from other companies in your e-mail.
People who complain about Microsoft's constant backwards-incompatible file format changes tend to be people who haven't used office seriously in a decade. Look around this thread. You'll find many people who have been using Office 2000 for 6 years with few compatibility problems. I know that I frequently pass files between Office 2000 at home and Office XP at work with no problems.
In the last decade, Microsoft has incremented its file format at roughly the same rate as OpenOffice/StarOffice. They've provided plugins to allow older versions to work. When they've incremented, the new file formats are better than the old ones in almost every conceivable way. The 2007 file formats are more reliable, more open and more feature rich.
I'm in NO SENSE a Microsoft advocate, and in fact am switching my computers to Mac. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let BS go unchallenged. Truth is truth.
In addition, XML was never intended to be an "invention". It was a simpification. Some innovation slipped in, but the vast majority was just debating what aspects of SGML to strip out and how to fix some well-known flaws in it. The innovation primarily was about how to integrate modern standards like URLs and Unicode.
A curly brace syntax would have been a better format for "large scale enterprise publishing"? As someone who has spent more than a decade in that field, I must disagree strongly. A curly brace would have been better to allow enable generic SGML to be served, received, and processed on the Web in the way that is now possible with HTML. Please do not confuse what XML is used for with what it was designed for. There is a reason that XML delivery units are called "documents" and not "messages".
Somebody who is good at interpersonal skills has to spend a *HUGE* amount of time developing and maintaining those skills- time spent at parties and at bars and in social situations. Without that time spent, any human being's interpersonal skills will degrade- to the point that we consider a prisoner kept in solitary for a mere three weeks to be insane.
pThat's frankly the silliest thing I've heard in several days. It is crazy on so many levels. For example: the idea that a human being loses ANY skill in as short as three weeks. Or that a skill that we are biologically programmed to acquire would be so fragile. Or that it is very difficult to maintain that skill. Or that one cannot mix some social stuff into the job (even as a DBA!). Or that you can only learn social skills at parties and bars, and not in the lunch room or during meetings. Whew! The whole notion is crazy. Many preeminant scientists and programmers (and even DBAs) are also very socially skilled. After all, many big projects (like Linux) take a lot of collaboration in addition to technical skill.
Re:It's the all encompassing .com that's the probl
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
Ummmm. Who is going to maintain this ontology? And what happens when companies span industries? And what about when they shift industries? Your system is more complicated, more expensive and causes more typing. What's not to love? Let's shift the complexity from the well-established legal/trademark system to every single user of the Internet!
I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name - it was back in the 60's - trying to write an operating system based on the idea that each part should do one distinct thing, and do it well. I don't know if anything ever came of it, but I thought that it sounded like a good idea.
What influence did these guys have on desktop operating systems? Is their idea the basis of popular applications like Microsoft Office, Firefox and Mac OS X? Have the masses shown a preference for buying their hardware one place, their operating system another place, their GUI a third place, their file browser a fourth place, their Word processor a fifth place, their spreadshet a sixth place and so forth? You are confusing a framework for programmers to build processing pipelines with a desktop environment for rich end-user applications. Different jobs, different strategies.
There is a major distinction between MY computer and the rest of the world. One is mine; the rest belongs to others. I treat them differently. I want my desktop to reflect it.
That is so short-sighted it makes me sad. Your computer is a shell. It is just a user interface to your data and your appications. And increasingly, most people want their data to be unshackled from the shell. They want their data and applications to be available wherever they are. The thing that makes me sad is that the computer geeks who hand around here should be the first to understand that a computer is just an interface and that it makes no sense to tie the data and applications to a PARTICULAR I/O device or storage system. Anywhere I can authenticate myself, I should have access to my applications and my data.
I'm sure she has no problem with compliments that point out, not only is she an intelligent and skilled researcher but she is also quite attractive.
It is just as likely that she wants people to concentrate on her ideas and not focus on her looks. You're not in her head and neither am I. What we do know for sure is that it isn't going to offend her or other female readers if we focus on the technology issues. So why don't we do that and leave the catcalls for wrestling fans and strip club patrons.
This country really needs more so-called conservative justices. By "conservative", I don't mean conservatives pushing their agendas from the bench (like O'Connor), I mean justices who follow the Constitution (like Scalia).
Scalia ruled that it is okay for the federal government to prohibit individuals growing marijuana in their own homes because that impacts "interstate commerce."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Judge Thomas said that the people involved in this case "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.
That's a ridiculously short-sighted assertion along the lines of: "The world only needs five computers" and "nobody will ever need more than 640 K of RAM." The Web is the most important application development platform in the history of computing and HTML still lacks some form and navigation widgets that were common on graphical platforms 15 years ago. These limitations mean that sites are full of accessibility and security-destroying Javscript.
Huh??? Google doesn't rely on ASP.NET or SQL Server. Google is the original LAMP shop.
First, I presume that the original poster was joking, because everybody knows that Google does not use ASP.NET or SQL Server (except perhaps in some properties they acquired). Second, Google may be an open source shop, but they are NOT a LAMP shop. They don't use a stack of off-the-shelf components at all.
No, it is not accurate. Stallman wants to encourage person A (Linus) to reduce the freedom of person B (a hardware manufacturer) in order to increase the freedom of person C (a hardware purchaser). He is not trying to increase the amount of freedom in the world. He is trying to shift it from the people he doesn't like to the people he does like. Congratulations to Linus for not trying to play God.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
People are being extradited to secret camps. Others are being shot for reporting on corrupt regimes. Some live in house arrest for years on end. Others are tortured for crimes that they have nothing to do with. It is VERY GENEROUS to call someone who fights against the right of software developers to control the distribution of their works a "freedom fighter." Considering the state of the world today, I find it amazing that people really see their ability to tweak their software as a humans rights violation. It is a minor licensing issue. MINOR. LICENSING. ISSUE.
Given petabytes of storage, we would take a very different approach to media. For example, we might make much more significant use of webcam capture, perhaps putting webcams in every room to catch anything interesting that might happen (especially for people with children). We also might capture everything that comes over the airwaves or television cable. We also might cache HD movies forever. We might move to a software caching mode whereby we have all of Microsoft's or Red Hat's software on our computer (auto-updated during the night) and we just turn it on when we need it. A lot depends on the ratio of bandwidth to disk space.
Imagine if 70% of all computer-users wanted Vista. Wouldn't it make sense to nevertheless try to generate a demand from the other 30%? It's just standard business talk. Windows 95 was wildly successful but it still had a huge marketing campaign with a demand generation component. This is just business 101 not a smoking gun.
The desktop app is not going away. But the PURELY desktop application WILL go away. In 10 years, applications will install themselves from the Web based upon a simple click. They will primarily work with caches of data stored in a network-accessible location. You'll be able to go to any computer, click the link and get the same data and application installed. There is no rocket science required to enable this scenario and it is obviously better than having either data or software licenses tied to a single physical machine (which is both risky and inconvenient).
A good analogy is email. If you use IMAP then you can have the same email available at any web browser, through webmail, in a cached offline app and on your handheld device through a cache on that device. The next step is an easy way to set up the app and its cache on any computer you sit down at (rather than having to work through a web browser on other people's machines).
And this is the problem, countries like India and China can get away with horrible working conditions, lapses in saftey standards and employee rights that we take for granted in the U.S.
First: we are talking about IT workers, right? Safety standards are at best a minor issue. Americans get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome too.
Second: you are responding to a post that says that there is fierce competition for IT workers and therefore burgeoning salaries. These are not abused factory workers. They are PHP programmers who don't get free sof drinks.
Another problem, and I think this is the biggest one, is the lack of national pride in the U.S. If the country you live in is say no more important to you then $200 off a plasma TV at Wal-Mart, what are you to care if jobs go overseas? I'm just saying that economically speaking, there is no added value in the tag "made in U.S.A." anymore since it is no longer associated with quality or pride with the average consumer. I suppose an employer sees their employees the same way now, looking at the individual and their qualities instead of "made in U.S.A.". However, if the U.S. does want to stay competitive it still must maintain self interest.
A country is an artificial abstraction. You should be happy for your peers in India building a parallel high technology business that will help the whole human race move forward more quickly by providing global IT at reduced rates while supporting investments into the Indian school system.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that software needs to be "compiled" for large projects? Yahoo is primarily delivered with PHP. Amazon.com is largely Perl. MySpace is largely ColdFusion (migrating to .NET).
Yahoo: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1 491221
Amazon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_(Perl)
MySpace: http://www.tomasbecklin.com/cf/
Microwave ovens are made to be ovens. That the idea arose because of radar systems is irrelevant to this discussion. You're right that CDs were intended for audio. I would argue that they are not great for computer systems precisely for this reason. Unlike the old floppy disks, CDs do not do random-access writes and are not covered by a dust and dirt-blocking shell. On the other hand, standadizing on a non-optimal solution has had the great advantage of making CDs and CD players cheap as dirt, as well as allowing computers and audio systems to share music. The original poster in this thread presumably values reliability over cost savings based upon his negative experience with CDs.
Actually, when I read this, I couldn't help but laugh at all of the dumb companies that thought that they could save money by investing in [India]
There is no question that companies are saving (and making) money by investing billions in India. A few VOIP taxes are not going to change that.
[India] is still, essentially, a third world country.
Nobody said otherwise. India is a developing economy. You have a very strange understanding of economics if you think that you cannot make money in a developing economy. Look at the bushfulls of money that have been made in the last 50 years in (e.g.) Korea, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, China, etc.
They should've realized that a few McDonald's and a rudimentary grasp of English doesn't make a country a first world country, (a good place to do business).
Rapidly growing economies are precisely where you go to do business.
I hope the backwater Indian government continues to tax "outsiders" in their own provincial way so that these stupid companies will learn their lessons.
America's backwater government also taxes "outsiders" in a provicial way. Haven't you heard about Bush's protectionism: http://www.progress.org/2003/trade12.htm
I think that India has a LONG way to go before it should be considered as any kind of technological powerhouse, and I think that this is a strong sign that that is true.
India's software industry alone is worth $20 billion. Tata infotech took 23 years to make its first billion and 23 months to make its second. Is that a powerhouse comparable to the American industry? Probably not. Does it matter? India's tech industry is strong, healthy and growing, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. Save your schadenfreude for someone who deserves it. You might want to read this to learn what's really going on in India: http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly. cfm?story_id=5300960
The standard of living for the poor in America is dramatically higher than it was 100 years ago - in this sense they are wealthier.
Yes, but what about since 25 years ago? In the last 25 years have the number of children going hungry decreased dramatically? Has the number of people without health insurance decreased dramatically? Has the number of people using food banks decreased?
It doesn't make sense to look at this from the point of view of 100 years. The last 100 years includes the policies that previous generations have put in place. What about the policies of our own generation?
How is a mileage tax more of a whacky liberal idea than a gas tax?
. The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.
It is far better to act on the basis of authority than not act at all. 98% of people do not have the ability or time to work through the equations and models themselves. Does this mean we should never act on environmental issues? If a parent is told that scientific consensus says that taking Thalidomide while pregnant will result in birth defects should the parent continue to take Thalidomide until they go back to school to study up on statistical methods and double blind tests?
When you go off and research the issue and come back to us with arguments that undermine the authorities then you have a right to tell us we're on the wrong path. But it is totally irresponsible for you to just wave your hands and say: "Don't believe the authorities! Don't act! Don't do anything until you've studied it yourself! I'm not studying it, but you should!" You're just parroting what the oil companies have been saying for the last decade. "In the absence of absolute proof, inaction is preferable."
In this case, there is one aspect which is totally undisputed. We are changing the atmosphere. Where I come from, pissing in the bathtub is considered impolite whether anyone is guaranteed to get sick from it or not. Human beings should minimize their impact on the atmosphere precisely because we do not know with certainty what the consequences are likely to be.
Upgrading Office isn't about getting new features. It's about being able to read the new .doc and .ppt files that you get from other companies in your e-mail.
Microsoft has gone out of its way to provide file format compatibility from Office 2000 through 2007: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924074 .
People who complain about Microsoft's constant backwards-incompatible file format changes tend to be people who haven't used office seriously in a decade. Look around this thread. You'll find many people who have been using Office 2000 for 6 years with few compatibility problems. I know that I frequently pass files between Office 2000 at home and Office XP at work with no problems.
In the last decade, Microsoft has incremented its file format at roughly the same rate as OpenOffice/StarOffice. They've provided plugins to allow older versions to work. When they've incremented, the new file formats are better than the old ones in almost every conceivable way. The 2007 file formats are more reliable, more open and more feature rich.
I'm in NO SENSE a Microsoft advocate, and in fact am switching my computers to Mac. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let BS go unchallenged. Truth is truth.
In addition, XML was never intended to be an "invention". It was a simpification. Some innovation slipped in, but the vast majority was just debating what aspects of SGML to strip out and how to fix some well-known flaws in it. The innovation primarily was about how to integrate modern standards like URLs and Unicode.
A curly brace syntax would have been a better format for "large scale enterprise publishing"? As someone who has spent more than a decade in that field, I must disagree strongly. A curly brace would have been better to allow enable generic SGML to be served, received, and processed on the Web in the way that is now possible with HTML. Please do not confuse what XML is used for with what it was designed for. There is a reason that XML delivery units are called "documents" and not "messages".
Somebody who is good at interpersonal skills has to spend a *HUGE* amount of time developing and maintaining those skills- time spent at parties and at bars and in social situations. Without that time spent, any human being's interpersonal skills will degrade- to the point that we consider a prisoner kept in solitary for a mere three weeks to be insane.
pThat's frankly the silliest thing I've heard in several days. It is crazy on so many levels. For example: the idea that a human being loses ANY skill in as short as three weeks. Or that a skill that we are biologically programmed to acquire would be so fragile. Or that it is very difficult to maintain that skill. Or that one cannot mix some social stuff into the job (even as a DBA!). Or that you can only learn social skills at parties and bars, and not in the lunch room or during meetings. Whew! The whole notion is crazy. Many preeminant scientists and programmers (and even DBAs) are also very socially skilled. After all, many big projects (like Linux) take a lot of collaboration in addition to technical skill.Ummmm. Who is going to maintain this ontology? And what happens when companies span industries? And what about when they shift industries? Your system is more complicated, more expensive and causes more typing. What's not to love? Let's shift the complexity from the well-established legal/trademark system to every single user of the Internet!
I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name - it was back in the 60's - trying to write an operating system based on the idea that each part should do one distinct thing, and do it well. I don't know if anything ever came of it, but I thought that it sounded like a good idea.
What influence did these guys have on desktop operating systems? Is their idea the basis of popular applications like Microsoft Office, Firefox and Mac OS X? Have the masses shown a preference for buying their hardware one place, their operating system another place, their GUI a third place, their file browser a fourth place, their Word processor a fifth place, their spreadshet a sixth place and so forth? You are confusing a framework for programmers to build processing pipelines with a desktop environment for rich end-user applications. Different jobs, different strategies.
There is a major distinction between MY computer and the rest of the world. One is mine; the rest belongs to others. I treat them differently. I want my desktop to reflect it.
That is so short-sighted it makes me sad. Your computer is a shell. It is just a user interface to your data and your appications. And increasingly, most people want their data to be unshackled from the shell. They want their data and applications to be available wherever they are. The thing that makes me sad is that the computer geeks who hand around here should be the first to understand that a computer is just an interface and that it makes no sense to tie the data and applications to a PARTICULAR I/O device or storage system. Anywhere I can authenticate myself, I should have access to my applications and my data.
I'm sure she has no problem with compliments that point out, not only is she an intelligent and skilled researcher but she is also quite attractive.
It is just as likely that she wants people to concentrate on her ideas and not focus on her looks. You're not in her head and neither am I. What we do know for sure is that it isn't going to offend her or other female readers if we focus on the technology issues. So why don't we do that and leave the catcalls for wrestling fans and strip club patrons.
This country really needs more so-called conservative justices. By "conservative", I don't mean conservatives pushing their agendas from the bench (like O'Connor), I mean justices who follow the Constitution (like Scalia).
Scalia ruled that it is okay for the federal government to prohibit individuals growing marijuana in their own homes because that impacts "interstate commerce." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Judge Thomas said that the people involved in this case "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4257So please don't hold Scalia up as some kind of paragon of purity. He makes shit up when it's in his ideological favour just as the other justices do.
As it is, html serves its purpose
That's a ridiculously short-sighted assertion along the lines of: "The world only needs five computers" and "nobody will ever need more than 640 K of RAM." The Web is the most important application development platform in the history of computing and HTML still lacks some form and navigation widgets that were common on graphical platforms 15 years ago. These limitations mean that sites are full of accessibility and security-destroying Javscript.
Huh??? Google doesn't rely on ASP.NET or SQL Server. Google is the original LAMP shop.
First, I presume that the original poster was joking, because everybody knows that Google does not use ASP.NET or SQL Server (except perhaps in some properties they acquired). Second, Google may be an open source shop, but they are NOT a LAMP shop. They don't use a stack of off-the-shelf components at all.
I think it is accurate though.
No, it is not accurate. Stallman wants to encourage person A (Linus) to reduce the freedom of person B (a hardware manufacturer) in order to increase the freedom of person C (a hardware purchaser). He is not trying to increase the amount of freedom in the world. He is trying to shift it from the people he doesn't like to the people he does like. Congratulations to Linus for not trying to play God.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
People are being extradited to secret camps. Others are being shot for reporting on corrupt regimes. Some live in house arrest for years on end. Others are tortured for crimes that they have nothing to do with. It is VERY GENEROUS to call someone who fights against the right of software developers to control the distribution of their works a "freedom fighter." Considering the state of the world today, I find it amazing that people really see their ability to tweak their software as a humans rights violation. It is a minor licensing issue. MINOR. LICENSING. ISSUE.
This isn't bootloader software. It is virtual machine software. Your argument makes no sense in that context.
The PDF file format is not a container format. What do you think it contains? Bitmaps?
Given petabytes of storage, we would take a very different approach to media. For example, we might make much more significant use of webcam capture, perhaps putting webcams in every room to catch anything interesting that might happen (especially for people with children). We also might capture everything that comes over the airwaves or television cable. We also might cache HD movies forever. We might move to a software caching mode whereby we have all of Microsoft's or Red Hat's software on our computer (auto-updated during the night) and we just turn it on when we need it. A lot depends on the ratio of bandwidth to disk space.
Imagine if 70% of all computer-users wanted Vista. Wouldn't it make sense to nevertheless try to generate a demand from the other 30%? It's just standard business talk. Windows 95 was wildly successful but it still had a huge marketing campaign with a demand generation component. This is just business 101 not a smoking gun.
The desktop app is not going away. But the PURELY desktop application WILL go away. In 10 years, applications will install themselves from the Web based upon a simple click. They will primarily work with caches of data stored in a network-accessible location. You'll be able to go to any computer, click the link and get the same data and application installed. There is no rocket science required to enable this scenario and it is obviously better than having either data or software licenses tied to a single physical machine (which is both risky and inconvenient).
A good analogy is email. If you use IMAP then you can have the same email available at any web browser, through webmail, in a cached offline app and on your handheld device through a cache on that device. The next step is an easy way to set up the app and its cache on any computer you sit down at (rather than having to work through a web browser on other people's machines).
And this is the problem, countries like India and China can get away with horrible working conditions, lapses in saftey standards and employee rights that we take for granted in the U.S.
First: we are talking about IT workers, right? Safety standards are at best a minor issue. Americans get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome too.
Second: you are responding to a post that says that there is fierce competition for IT workers and therefore burgeoning salaries. These are not abused factory workers. They are PHP programmers who don't get free sof drinks.
Another problem, and I think this is the biggest one, is the lack of national pride in the U.S. If the country you live in is say no more important to you then $200 off a plasma TV at Wal-Mart, what are you to care if jobs go overseas? I'm just saying that economically speaking, there is no added value in the tag "made in U.S.A." anymore since it is no longer associated with quality or pride with the average consumer. I suppose an employer sees their employees the same way now, looking at the individual and their qualities instead of "made in U.S.A.". However, if the U.S. does want to stay competitive it still must maintain self interest.
A country is an artificial abstraction. You should be happy for your peers in India building a parallel high technology business that will help the whole human race move forward more quickly by providing global IT at reduced rates while supporting investments into the Indian school system.
Is that true or an urban myth? Can you cite a source?