If you normalise variables then you're clearly not comparing raw numbers. Different analyses will give different insight, but there's nothing wrong with looking at raw numbers.
If you're trying to compare sample populations of different sizes then you have to normalize. Otherwise they've reached the brilliant conclusion that the country with the most internet traffic also has the most spam. Shocking, I know, news at 11.
Can I use Cascading Style Sheets on my websites now?
Of course, and that's not what this decision was about. This was about *De*CSS, which means that you can now *remove* the style sheets from your website.
I bet there are a lot of web sites where people tried style sheets once but then realized it was illegal to remove them.
Slashdot hasn't covered this well, but evidence in the lawsuit has suggested that employees were heavily exposed to chemicals and that IBM was aware that their employees got cancer at higher rates than the general population.
And IBM was aqcuitted. You seem not to be focussing on that part. And with medical evidence, you give me a small enough data set, or enough parameters to fit against, and I'll find a tenuous, statistically-insignificant relationship between *something* and some kind of cancer.
Bottom line, let's stick to reporting news, and letting the nominally intelligent reader base make up its own mind. We don't need preaching, Michael, and you put it in every story.
... that there is a direct correlation between the amount of spam generated by a nation and the percentage it creates of the total amount of world Email. In other words if a nation generates x% of spam it must also generate x% of the world email traffic. It would thus follow, by your logic, that 280+ million Americans produce 60% of the world E-mail while 200+ million Germans French and English are responsible for only 1.83%+1.50%+1.31%=4.64% of it? That seems a bit far fetched to me. You should rethink this theory, we Europeans may not be quite as advanced as you North Americans but we do not live in the stone age either.
That certainly may be, I'm actually NOT drawing conclusions as you'll notice, and as such have no theory. I'm simply criticizing the statistical method - whatever numbers pop up are fine with me, I've got no ego invested in living in a "spam free," nation as I know that's simply not true anyway.
If you're right and servers track population, then you're conclusions would be correct. They very well may be.
B.S.
it isn't a case of "one spam for every x legitimate emails"
the number of spam emails and legitimate emails are completely unrelated.
Read the response by the second guy to respond to me. Both legitimate and illegitimate email are going to track with the number of total servers (scaled by how many are unprotected) and number of internet-connected citizens (scaled by how many are internet-connected) among other variables he mentioned.
I mean, actually think about what you're saying. You would congratulate Antarctica for generating 0 spam. If you want to look at this without considering "ham" emails, look at the spam difference - (spam sent = spam received). I would argue that even this difference should be fractioned by how many total emails are sent received which really is a decent measure of internet presence, but even without it, you at least separate net spam "donors" from "recipients"
Honestly, if you don't normalize variables in comparing large sample sets with small, you absolutely cannot compare raw numbers. I could recommend statistical reference texts if you like.
For too long, US Sys & Law Administrators have taken cover saying that the source of spam is almost always foreign and there's nothing they can do about it. This article is the wake up call. It doesn't matter what email traffic the US generates, but it just proves that much of the spam is from within.
That's an interesting take, and if true it's the only take-home lesson - that over half of US spam is generated from within.
However, to look at this from yet another angle, who's "responsible" for spam - the sender or the asshat who left his server open? And which are they tracking? (I'm presuming servers).
I'd like to see a split of legal and illegal spam, ie cases where a server was or wasn't hijacked. I'd also like to see spam as a total fraction of a nation's mail - sent and/or received.
Yes, so the US generates 60% of the world's spam. However, what fraction of the world's total email traffic does the US generate? I bet it's near 60%.
Without having some idea of what fraction of a country's email traffic is spam, these numbers just tell you which countries have a bigger internet presence, and absolutely nothing more.
While both of those are obviously bad and wrong behavior, I don't think either would fall into the category of unpatchable exploit.
1) Patchable by changing Outlook settings.
2) Not an exploit. It is incorrect behavior, which leads to user confusion and trust where it doesn't belong, but it does not directly give an attacker any power over the machine.
Certainly this becomes a semantic point, but ultimately whether they're officially exploits (or what), it is an example of "problems" with Windows that weren't corrected until someone "took advantage" of them. And in the spirit of things, I think this certainly counters the points made in the interview.
Also, while those were the first off my head, it shouldn't be hard for someone to come up with examples of buffer overflows in the wild before they were patched. Anyone?
OK, so let's get a list going of examples to the contrary of what this dipshit says.
I'll give 2:
1) The original Melissa email virus (enabled by idiotic default settings in OE)
2) The one recently where remote web sites could hijack your address bar while redirecting you and doing nasty shit - that MS didn't patch for 6 months.
Someone might say those weren't strictly "Windows," but both OE and IE come installed by default, so it counts for me.
I'd like to know how "not let any 3rd party distribute their own Java" qualifies as open sourcing Java. See Open Source Definition
It's "open" in the sense that you can see it. I don't think many of us are interested in a pedantic analysis of terms that mean something specific to one group and something general to another. In other words, not all of us subscribe to the Gospel according to Stallman, Perens, or whoever. You knew what he meant, so did the rest of us, let's move on.
What's more likely is that any 3rd party can distribute their own "Java", but they can't call it "Java". without Sun's permission because Sun owns the trademark.
That would help with confusion, but would still create dilution. I don't blame Sun for not wanting incompatible versions, even if they're not called Java (which obviously they couldn't be without permission that would certainly never be given). Even still, I agree with g'parent, access to view code without distributing it makes more sense.
What about people browsing with images turned off, you insensitive clods?!
I'd suggest updating that 300 baud, acoustically-coupled "modem" you have to something modern, like at least a 2400 bps. Seriously, stuff doesn't load *that* slow on a 53k, even.
Geeze it's just inventory tracking. There's no "you" in the tracking so give it a rest. I'm sick of this idiotic scaremongering over these non-issues.
Are you trying to imply that Michael might have over-reacted again to some perceived rights issue that's not actually a rights issue? Or are you perhaps suggesting he doesn't actually read the submitted articles before posting this paranoid crap?
I believe it's clear that Michael's tinfoil hat has worn out, and it's time to send him another. Perhaps if slashdot gets some more subscribers, they can afford to buy him one on the company tab.
this is a patent application, not an actual patent. All patents filed after the near end of 2000 are pubished 18 months after they were filed. This is a good thing, as examiners can now search this database of prior art, which is substantially larger than the current USPTO patent database.
I hope you're kidding. Not only is the USPTO generally incompetent, they're generally overworked to the point that they have something like half an hour to research a given application. They most certainly will NOT be spending 18 months researching this.
The number of ridiculous patents being granted is stunning, and given the crack MS legal team, I have no doubt this one will too.
If I had means of collecting bets from/. readers, I'd propose a bet.
No joke! I'm still angry about Henry Ford putting all those carriage makers out of business.
Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
It makes a difference, legally. It remains to be seen whether MS uses its windows monopoly in an anticompetitive manner with regard to antivirus software, but it's something to consider. If they strongarm their OEMs into not bundling McAfee or Norton so as not to compete with their version, then they will likely run afoul of anti-trust laws. If they don't, they will be OK. I think what people on this site are saying is that MS has never passed over a chance to exploit their monopoly, which is why they've been in court so much.
Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.
Likewise, just because you understand economics doesn't mean you understand anti-trust law.
I would like to remind Mr Eminem that under his "work for hire" contract with his publisher he is not the author of the Eight Mile soundtrack and holds no copyright to it.
Considering it's his own label that he published it under, he does.
I'll bet even more money that no one responsible is reading this, and/or would give a crap.
Are you trying to say that the respective CEOs of Intel, AMD, and Microsoft are NOT reading some unknown's post on slashdot RIGHT NOW!?! Are you implying that these same CEOs are not SHOCKED and AWED by the allegations contained in that same post?
I insist you retract your libelous words this instant, sir. The world will be brought to its knees by that post. Things will change. You wait and see.
If BSD were as popular as Linux, then it might be in serious trouble right now because SCO could claim that all their contributions to it, in fact, remained proprietary. In contrast, the fact that Linux is covered by the GPL gives Linux a strong defense against SCO's claims, given that SCO itself has distributed it.
1, if you count Apple as BSD, and it is now, then I expect BSD is that popular. 2, SCO has actually claimed that - they've threatened reopening the 1994 decision, saying there are terms of the sealed agreement that could screw peoeple. No, that argument doesn't make any sense, but they are addressing the whole BSD thing in their spare time. It just so happens that IBM is involved with linux, not BSD.
And the issue over BSD code ownership is not resolved: SCO is still making claims about it. If BSD ever becomes important enough, they may go to court over it.
As above, they just don't have a deep-pocketed plaintiff with whom they have a prior relationship with the BSD angle. But it's definitely high enough in profile.
Maybe I should be clearer: I don't care about your internet access.
There's a lot more people who use the internet - like damn near everyone. Majority rules, FOAD.
"Wide band"? Where? Not until you get up to 2M (4MHz) and 70cm (30MHz), and I don't think those are even going to be affected by BPL. Your cell or cordless phone uses much more bandwidth than any of the above frequencies.
If it doesn't interfere, then you guys can stop being paranoid. If it does, needs of the many over hobbies of the few. As far as wide, the range from 200k to 1.7M seems overly broad for the scant use it gets.
Spectrum's supposed to be for the people, not a few people.
Try to use a telephone (even a cell phone) after a disaster such as a hurricane or tornado. Even the terrorist of 9/11 has shown that phones cannot be relied upon.
Ham radio on the other hand only needs an antenna (A simple piece of wire can do that) and some type of power source such as a running car or generator.
So you can't practice your hobby after a natural disaster. Oh well.
Yes, the telephone works 98% of the time but when it fails for the 2%, it is nice to have something to fall back on.
I'll recommend a string and a couple of tin cans. Ham isn't a good no-power replacement for phones anyway, as not everyone can have one. A much better alternative is the CB I mentioned, which, notably, also run off cars and generators. No, they don't have distance, but if your argument is disasters, well, you can call Fiji later when the phones are back up.
We *HAVE* a hobby, and it's amateur radio. Try to (legally) use a CB to talk to someone half way across the world, it's not happening.
Maybe I should be clearer: none of us care about your hobby. What's not happening is the hobby of a few thousand people standing in the way of technological innovations that will benefit millions. You need to talk around the world, get a phone.
While I'm new to the debate about BPL and its effects on radio frequencies, I don't think the FCC would allow for something like this if it would completely kill other, legitimate uses of radio (such as amateur frequencies and FEMA, as the grandparent post mentioned). And either way, according to ARRL, this is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, meaning "We're thinking about deciding on this issue, so let us know what your feelings are", not necessarily "This is what's going to happen."
They'll figure out a way not to step on FEMA, we need not worry there. But as for a very few people using a fairly wide band for hobby use, well, I couldn't think of a poorer use of spectrum.
Another thing I generally don't buy, is that the university system is any better here than abroad. And I've experience several of them. In fact I find it rather mediocre at best over here. But maybe that's another topic for another day.
I expect it is a subjective topic, but by most usual metrics including the popular rankings, it's stunning. Of the top 50 in the world, I think 45+ are in the US - and the rest are in Britain. Note that 50 or so years ago, this was most certainly not true, as both England and Germany among others had great universities. That said, many Asian nations are on the way up (though I believe Japan is a bit stagnant), but watch out for India, China, and Korea.
But between America's commitment to funding research and the system by which technology is transferred between Universities and private sector, it's amazing.
Now as for more aesthetic considerations, that's a different story. But as support for the industrial and research sectors, the top American universities have no peers in the world. And I don't say that to boast, as I really don't care all that much.
I'm not *just* making this up (no, really!), I've read about significant concern in Europe regarding the deterioration of their University system, in part from underfunding.
Put another way, what the hell *else* is keeping America on top? I think we'll all agree it's not the intellect of the populace on average, and it sure as hell isn't the public school system (ie, high school), as that's a joke. I can't think of anything but America's funding of the sciences, primarily.
But I like your general optimism that about constant innovation. You've got the right attitude. Time will tell if it stays true.
Time will certainly be the determiner there - but unlike most Americans on here, I wouldn't be at all displeased to see other nations enter the first world, as I'm comfortable with my skills and abilities. The more, the merrier, as far as economies go.
When manufacturing jobs went abroad, everybody said - fine, we'll be a service based industry. But service jobs are leaving too. So, please tell me, what else is there? I do hope that someday that "better job" you describe will make itself evident.
Constant innovation. America was an industrial powerhouse in the 50's. However, virtually none of the top jobs from that time are performed currently in the US. That's what makes a dominant economy - constant innovation, with a versatile workforce that can pick up new things faster than the rest of the world. You can't look at things statically - we've continually lost industries to overseas for the last 50-100 years, yet our economy hasn't suffered in the least from it. In fact, we've benefitted, because we do things the rest of the world can't...yet. But we have to keep one step ahead to justify the premiums in terms of salary etc. that American workers command.
There is an arrogant view (just below the surface in your post) that Americans are smarter than foreigner and therefore we'll always be one step ahead in terms of skills and jobs.
I assure you, I believe nothing of the sort. As Americans, we have the benefit of being raised in the world's strongest economy and an amazing university system. That is an incredible advantage, and a competent American should be able to utilize it. If a foreigner without those benefits produces work of higher quality or on par with that from American workers, he deserves the job.
As a foreigner (now living in the US) I don't buy it. There is no reason that every single service job in the US can't be moved to India (or wherever). It just will take a little time to implement.
Quite right, but apply my above analysis - by that time, America will have moved on to something else that we excel at. And if we stop doing that, we don't deserve the high salaries we make. Basically, if America doesn't continue to be a dominant economy, its standard of living will drop. Just as happens everywhere else in the world. It's basic economics, and should come as no surprise. And believe me, I don't subscribe to any nationalist theories. America continues to do one thing truly well, and that is its University system that acts as a "brain drain" for the rest of the world. Heck, you are a foreigner living in the US...and you're reading slashdot, so I assume you're technically trained. We got you didn't we?
Also note, that there may come a time where most of the world has moved on to become developed economies. However, realize that this brings as many (or more, likely) consumers to the table compared to competitors for jobs. So economics isn't a zero-sum game here - it's possible to make things better for everyone. In fact, the more jobs move to India, the better the Indian economy gets, increasing wages, and decreasing the motivation to move more jobs. If anything, we live in a temprorary time during which Indian technical training has risen faster than wages, something that will iron itself out in a few years.
I truly believe that only the poorly skilled have anything to worry about long-term.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're trying to compare sample populations of different sizes then you have to normalize. Otherwise they've reached the brilliant conclusion that the country with the most internet traffic also has the most spam. Shocking, I know, news at 11.
Of course, and that's not what this decision was about. This was about *De*CSS, which means that you can now *remove* the style sheets from your website.
I bet there are a lot of web sites where people tried style sheets once but then realized it was illegal to remove them.
And IBM was aqcuitted. You seem not to be focussing on that part. And with medical evidence, you give me a small enough data set, or enough parameters to fit against, and I'll find a tenuous, statistically-insignificant relationship between *something* and some kind of cancer.
Bottom line, let's stick to reporting news, and letting the nominally intelligent reader base make up its own mind. We don't need preaching, Michael, and you put it in every story.
Those two variables will correlate highly, and it's easier to count emails than servers.
That certainly may be, I'm actually NOT drawing conclusions as you'll notice, and as such have no theory. I'm simply criticizing the statistical method - whatever numbers pop up are fine with me, I've got no ego invested in living in a "spam free," nation as I know that's simply not true anyway.
If you're right and servers track population, then you're conclusions would be correct. They very well may be.
Read the response by the second guy to respond to me. Both legitimate and illegitimate email are going to track with the number of total servers (scaled by how many are unprotected) and number of internet-connected citizens (scaled by how many are internet-connected) among other variables he mentioned.
I mean, actually think about what you're saying. You would congratulate Antarctica for generating 0 spam. If you want to look at this without considering "ham" emails, look at the spam difference - (spam sent = spam received). I would argue that even this difference should be fractioned by how many total emails are sent received which really is a decent measure of internet presence, but even without it, you at least separate net spam "donors" from "recipients"
Honestly, if you don't normalize variables in comparing large sample sets with small, you absolutely cannot compare raw numbers. I could recommend statistical reference texts if you like.
That's an interesting take, and if true it's the only take-home lesson - that over half of US spam is generated from within.
However, to look at this from yet another angle, who's "responsible" for spam - the sender or the asshat who left his server open? And which are they tracking? (I'm presuming servers).
I'd like to see a split of legal and illegal spam, ie cases where a server was or wasn't hijacked. I'd also like to see spam as a total fraction of a nation's mail - sent and/or received.
Without having some idea of what fraction of a country's email traffic is spam, these numbers just tell you which countries have a bigger internet presence, and absolutely nothing more.
1) Patchable by changing Outlook settings.
2) Not an exploit. It is incorrect behavior, which leads to user confusion and trust where it doesn't belong, but it does not directly give an attacker any power over the machine.
Certainly this becomes a semantic point, but ultimately whether they're officially exploits (or what), it is an example of "problems" with Windows that weren't corrected until someone "took advantage" of them. And in the spirit of things, I think this certainly counters the points made in the interview.
Also, while those were the first off my head, it shouldn't be hard for someone to come up with examples of buffer overflows in the wild before they were patched. Anyone?
I'll give 2:
1) The original Melissa email virus (enabled by idiotic default settings in OE)
2) The one recently where remote web sites could hijack your address bar while redirecting you and doing nasty shit - that MS didn't patch for 6 months.
Someone might say those weren't strictly "Windows," but both OE and IE come installed by default, so it counts for me.
Others?
It's "open" in the sense that you can see it. I don't think many of us are interested in a pedantic analysis of terms that mean something specific to one group and something general to another. In other words, not all of us subscribe to the Gospel according to Stallman, Perens, or whoever. You knew what he meant, so did the rest of us, let's move on.
What's more likely is that any 3rd party can distribute their own "Java", but they can't call it "Java". without Sun's permission because Sun owns the trademark.
That would help with confusion, but would still create dilution. I don't blame Sun for not wanting incompatible versions, even if they're not called Java (which obviously they couldn't be without permission that would certainly never be given). Even still, I agree with g'parent, access to view code without distributing it makes more sense.
I'd suggest updating that 300 baud, acoustically-coupled "modem" you have to something modern, like at least a 2400 bps. Seriously, stuff doesn't load *that* slow on a 53k, even.
Are you trying to imply that Michael might have over-reacted again to some perceived rights issue that's not actually a rights issue? Or are you perhaps suggesting he doesn't actually read the submitted articles before posting this paranoid crap?
I believe it's clear that Michael's tinfoil hat has worn out, and it's time to send him another. Perhaps if slashdot gets some more subscribers, they can afford to buy him one on the company tab.
I hope you're kidding. Not only is the USPTO generally incompetent, they're generally overworked to the point that they have something like half an hour to research a given application. They most certainly will NOT be spending 18 months researching this.
The number of ridiculous patents being granted is stunning, and given the crack MS legal team, I have no doubt this one will too.
If I had means of collecting bets from /. readers, I'd propose a bet.
No joke! I'm still angry about Henry Ford putting all those carriage makers out of business.
Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
It makes a difference, legally. It remains to be seen whether MS uses its windows monopoly in an anticompetitive manner with regard to antivirus software, but it's something to consider. If they strongarm their OEMs into not bundling McAfee or Norton so as not to compete with their version, then they will likely run afoul of anti-trust laws. If they don't, they will be OK. I think what people on this site are saying is that MS has never passed over a chance to exploit their monopoly, which is why they've been in court so much.
Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.
Likewise, just because you understand economics doesn't mean you understand anti-trust law.
Considering it's his own label that he published it under, he does.
Are you trying to say that the respective CEOs of Intel, AMD, and Microsoft are NOT reading some unknown's post on slashdot RIGHT NOW!?! Are you implying that these same CEOs are not SHOCKED and AWED by the allegations contained in that same post?
I insist you retract your libelous words this instant, sir. The world will be brought to its knees by that post. Things will change. You wait and see.
1, if you count Apple as BSD, and it is now, then I expect BSD is that popular. 2, SCO has actually claimed that - they've threatened reopening the 1994 decision, saying there are terms of the sealed agreement that could screw peoeple. No, that argument doesn't make any sense, but they are addressing the whole BSD thing in their spare time. It just so happens that IBM is involved with linux, not BSD.
And the issue over BSD code ownership is not resolved: SCO is still making claims about it. If BSD ever becomes important enough, they may go to court over it.
As above, they just don't have a deep-pocketed plaintiff with whom they have a prior relationship with the BSD angle. But it's definitely high enough in profile.
There's a lot more people who use the internet - like damn near everyone. Majority rules, FOAD.
"Wide band"? Where? Not until you get up to 2M (4MHz) and 70cm (30MHz), and I don't think those are even going to be affected by BPL. Your cell or cordless phone uses much more bandwidth than any of the above frequencies.
If it doesn't interfere, then you guys can stop being paranoid. If it does, needs of the many over hobbies of the few. As far as wide, the range from 200k to 1.7M seems overly broad for the scant use it gets.
Spectrum's supposed to be for the people, not a few people.
Ham radio on the other hand only needs an antenna (A simple piece of wire can do that) and some type of power source such as a running car or generator.
So you can't practice your hobby after a natural disaster. Oh well.
Yes, the telephone works 98% of the time but when it fails for the 2%, it is nice to have something to fall back on.
I'll recommend a string and a couple of tin cans. Ham isn't a good no-power replacement for phones anyway, as not everyone can have one. A much better alternative is the CB I mentioned, which, notably, also run off cars and generators. No, they don't have distance, but if your argument is disasters, well, you can call Fiji later when the phones are back up.
Maybe I should be clearer: none of us care about your hobby. What's not happening is the hobby of a few thousand people standing in the way of technological innovations that will benefit millions. You need to talk around the world, get a phone.
While I'm new to the debate about BPL and its effects on radio frequencies, I don't think the FCC would allow for something like this if it would completely kill other, legitimate uses of radio (such as amateur frequencies and FEMA, as the grandparent post mentioned). And either way, according to ARRL, this is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, meaning "We're thinking about deciding on this issue, so let us know what your feelings are", not necessarily "This is what's going to happen."
They'll figure out a way not to step on FEMA, we need not worry there. But as for a very few people using a fairly wide band for hobby use, well, I couldn't think of a poorer use of spectrum.
...an Uninteruptable Redundant Post Generator (URPS). Someone already posted your joke. You fail it.
How many times do we need the same responses from the same HAM operators to basically the same story?
If you need a hobby, get a CB or something, but the rest of us want our internet.
I expect it is a subjective topic, but by most usual metrics including the popular rankings, it's stunning. Of the top 50 in the world, I think 45+ are in the US - and the rest are in Britain. Note that 50 or so years ago, this was most certainly not true, as both England and Germany among others had great universities. That said, many Asian nations are on the way up (though I believe Japan is a bit stagnant), but watch out for India, China, and Korea.
But between America's commitment to funding research and the system by which technology is transferred between Universities and private sector, it's amazing.
Now as for more aesthetic considerations, that's a different story. But as support for the industrial and research sectors, the top American universities have no peers in the world. And I don't say that to boast, as I really don't care all that much.
I'm not *just* making this up (no, really!), I've read about significant concern in Europe regarding the deterioration of their University system, in part from underfunding.
Put another way, what the hell *else* is keeping America on top? I think we'll all agree it's not the intellect of the populace on average, and it sure as hell isn't the public school system (ie, high school), as that's a joke. I can't think of anything but America's funding of the sciences, primarily.
But I like your general optimism that about constant innovation. You've got the right attitude. Time will tell if it stays true.
Time will certainly be the determiner there - but unlike most Americans on here, I wouldn't be at all displeased to see other nations enter the first world, as I'm comfortable with my skills and abilities. The more, the merrier, as far as economies go.
Where you from originally, incidentally?
Constant innovation. America was an industrial powerhouse in the 50's. However, virtually none of the top jobs from that time are performed currently in the US. That's what makes a dominant economy - constant innovation, with a versatile workforce that can pick up new things faster than the rest of the world. You can't look at things statically - we've continually lost industries to overseas for the last 50-100 years, yet our economy hasn't suffered in the least from it. In fact, we've benefitted, because we do things the rest of the world can't...yet. But we have to keep one step ahead to justify the premiums in terms of salary etc. that American workers command.
There is an arrogant view (just below the surface in your post) that Americans are smarter than foreigner and therefore we'll always be one step ahead in terms of skills and jobs.
I assure you, I believe nothing of the sort. As Americans, we have the benefit of being raised in the world's strongest economy and an amazing university system. That is an incredible advantage, and a competent American should be able to utilize it. If a foreigner without those benefits produces work of higher quality or on par with that from American workers, he deserves the job.
As a foreigner (now living in the US) I don't buy it. There is no reason that every single service job in the US can't be moved to India (or wherever). It just will take a little time to implement.
Quite right, but apply my above analysis - by that time, America will have moved on to something else that we excel at. And if we stop doing that, we don't deserve the high salaries we make. Basically, if America doesn't continue to be a dominant economy, its standard of living will drop. Just as happens everywhere else in the world. It's basic economics, and should come as no surprise. And believe me, I don't subscribe to any nationalist theories. America continues to do one thing truly well, and that is its University system that acts as a "brain drain" for the rest of the world. Heck, you are a foreigner living in the US...and you're reading slashdot, so I assume you're technically trained. We got you didn't we?
Also note, that there may come a time where most of the world has moved on to become developed economies. However, realize that this brings as many (or more, likely) consumers to the table compared to competitors for jobs. So economics isn't a zero-sum game here - it's possible to make things better for everyone. In fact, the more jobs move to India, the better the Indian economy gets, increasing wages, and decreasing the motivation to move more jobs. If anything, we live in a temprorary time during which Indian technical training has risen faster than wages, something that will iron itself out in a few years.
I truly believe that only the poorly skilled have anything to worry about long-term.