I'm so sick and tired of people complaining about outsourcing. "Rich get richer and poor get poorer," is their battle cry.
Yet, in the midst of all of this, what exactly is happening here? According to this Wired article a new middle class of Indian programmers is arising, and they are producing quality work (again according to the same article half of that, of the 70 or so companies in the world that have earned a Level 5 distinction [highest distinction possible], half are from India).
So who is benefitting? A handful of Indian programmers. US corporations with better and cheaper software. And US citizens who use these US corporations because the savings is passed on to the customer (please save me the ignorant response that corporations will pocket the savings because corporations are in a constant battle for clients, and the best way to win more clients is to offer comparable services at a cheaper price).
Who is losing? A handful of American programmers who are unemployed due to outsourcing. But this is only temporary, eventually American programmers will either find a employment, or a new profession. Or perhaps even go into business for themselves as another slashdot article mentioned today.
Stack the benefits against costs and you can clearly see the world gains from globalization and capitalism.
Aside: Yes, it is concievable, that someday the expected wages for a programmer in India becomes unprofitable (in the economic sense of the word, not accountant sense) for US corporations and will take their business to some other nation, say Albania. But the cycle will repeat itself, and now the same benefits that were given to Indian programmers will be given to citizens of other third-world nations. Slowly, but inevitably, raising the overall wealth of all nations that participate in capitalism and free-enterprise.
If they are comparing the $700 AMD 64-FX chip, they should be comparing it to Pentium's $1000 P4 3.2 EE chip, not their sub-$400 P4 3.2.
Also does anyone have an idea how expensive the AMD 3400+ chips are? Because the AMD 3200+ chips are $400 retail. The article quoted a price for a thousand quantities but I was wondering how much it would cost for just one. Because if its pricey enough the P4 3.2 may beat out the 3400+ dollar for dollar.
Though Intel doesn't have to really worry about that title. At $164 the Pentium P4C smokes the pants off any AMD processor in its price range. At least, after overclocking it to 3 GHz, which is very doable even with standard cooling.
Where are the usual pretty Tom's Hardware graphs? What the hell is a 5.25 GHz processor good for, if we can't awe over benchmarks like "time it takes to process a SETI unit" or its score in Sandra 2004?
Re:America's leading export; poisonous culture
on
Japan's Empire of Cool
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You pass off "proof" as an excercise left to the reader, which means your thesis (America exports poisonous culture) lacks many internal warrants. Why should I accept your thesis when you can't substantiate what you are claiming?
I noticed a picture up on BBC of afganistan children being given presents from santa this year, and if you understand the psychology of christmas you'll be frightened from that. Christmas such of a fucked up holiday it isn't even funny, as is easter.
No, I really don't see whats so "fucked up" about Christmas or the "terrible" psychology of giving GIFTS to these improverished children. Could you please elaborate?
Notice the best buy catologe that comes in the mail every year with the star of david on the tree replaced with the star of best buy and the entire tree decorated with consumer electronics? Notice how all the packaging mysteriously has christmas branding on them? How Saint Nick appears in every window and every store front advertising one thing or another?
Uh huh. Two words, SO WHAT?!
In our culture, we eat poisoned food, use poisoned stuff (cosmetics, soaps, playstations, cell phones) and buy crap we don't need fulfill some lifestyle obsession gone wrong that is even more poisonous so that crazy people at the top of the ladder can feel powerful.
Please define "poisonous food". Also, please show that this is unique to the American culture, or at least we consume this food to a greater degree than all other nations. Please do the same for "poisonous stuff". What is wrong with buying "crap" that fulfils some lifestyle obsession? Could you establish a criterion that determines when someone commits this most, in your eyes, "most poisonous act".
Japanese culture is even more poisonous imo, they tend to mimic ours and run with it as far and as fast as possible. Infact, our number 1 export to japan after ww2 was our poisonous culture.
Please explain how our culture is "poisonous" first.
Our number 1 export to the rest of the world is poisonous culture, and to whoever resists that without force enough to fight it off, we'll kill the parents and teach the kids our ways like we're doing in afganistan.
I guess you can't forsee that people might actually want to adopt our culture on their own freewill because they see the advantages of free enterprise and other aspects of the American culture.
Afterall, there's a reason we warehouse our old off into care homes near the ends of their life; so the ones that know what's wrong can't teach their kids and grandkids what's realy wrong.
Non-sequitar.
You discuss in your sig. about educating yourself. I suggest you take a class on persuasive argumentation beause your diatribe was netiher insightful or interesting. Until then, your thesis remains unproven.
Its called the PC users market. Frankly, I'm surprised that an astute entrepenuer hasn't set themselves up with a iTunes account, and resold music to PC users at a slightly marked up price. Since PC users don't have any truly competitive program, this entrepenuer could make a killing.
Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it's cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.
Indeed, the distance from the center of a typical water droplet to its edge--its radius--ranges from a few microns (thousandths of a millimeter) to a few tens of microns (ice crystals are often a bit larger). And the speed with which any object falls is related to its mass and surface area--which is why a feather falls more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. For particles that are roughly spherical, mass is proportional to the radius cubed (r3); the downward-facing surface area of such a particle is proportional to the radius squared (r2). Thus, as a tiny water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important than its shape and the droplet falls faster. Even a large droplet having a radius of 100 microns has a fall velocity of only about 27 centimeters per second (cm/s). And because ice crystals have more irregular shapes, their fall velocities are relatively smaller.
Upward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles.
Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!
So, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky.
If you have ever read takedown (written by the sys admin who single handedly delivered Kevin Mitnick to the FBI) you would know that the FBI is impotent to deal with such crimes. The best way to bring this person down is to not do anything, and to continue to track the person until you get the persons location, then deliver him to the FBI. The FBI is incapable of handling these sort of crimes.
Re:The Conspiracy That There Are No Conspiracies
on
Roswell Declassified
·
· Score: 1
Occam's Razor does not ask us to believe in an explanation because its "easier". Easier is such a vauge word. It asks us to believe in an explanation because its simplier.
Occam's Razor: Simpliest explanation tends to be the right one.
Having said that, Occam's Razor is nessecary for determining truth, but it is not sufficent. Because to build a "simple" explanation, you must have a set of facts (which obviously must be consistent be consistent with the explanation). But if the fact set is not large enough, Occam's Razor wouldn't be very useful.
If I told you, a rock came through the window, what conclusions could you draw with Occam's Razor? More to the point, how many conclusions?
The response that one would make (if he were allowing Occam's Razor to guide him) to the question of the judeo-christian God's existence is, there are not enough facts to make a decision. Whether one is alone to the universe, one could respond with fermi's paradox. And if the government is lying to us, one could look at the number of times that the government has changed its mind as to what happened at roswell, to conclude: probably.
Re:The Conspiracy That There Are No Conspiracies
on
Roswell Declassified
·
· Score: 1
[quote]Why are certain ideas just brushed off as "conspiracy theory" without second thought?[/quote]
If I told you why, I'd have to kill you.
No seriously, if one thinks about it, conspiracy theories have one thing in common, they fly in the face of Occam's Razor. It makes a lot more sense to believe that Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts are reponsible for 9/11 (especially with him confessing to the crime on videotape) than to believe in the theory you posited, which btw has no hard facts to back it up.
But one must consider if UFOs did really crash land at Roswell, do you the government would reveal it (or hint at it) now through declassified documents?
Slashdot Mirror
Roses are red
Violets are blue
All of my base
Are belong to you
Yet, in the midst of all of this, what exactly is happening here? According to this Wired article a new middle class of Indian programmers is arising, and they are producing quality work (again according to the same article half of that, of the 70 or so companies in the world that have earned a Level 5 distinction [highest distinction possible], half are from India).
So who is benefitting? A handful of Indian programmers. US corporations with better and cheaper software. And US citizens who use these US corporations because the savings is passed on to the customer (please save me the ignorant response that corporations will pocket the savings because corporations are in a constant battle for clients, and the best way to win more clients is to offer comparable services at a cheaper price).
Who is losing? A handful of American programmers who are unemployed due to outsourcing. But this is only temporary, eventually American programmers will either find a employment, or a new profession. Or perhaps even go into business for themselves as another slashdot article mentioned today.
Stack the benefits against costs and you can clearly see the world gains from globalization and capitalism.
Aside: Yes, it is concievable, that someday the expected wages for a programmer in India becomes unprofitable (in the economic sense of the word, not accountant sense) for US corporations and will take their business to some other nation, say Albania. But the cycle will repeat itself, and now the same benefits that were given to Indian programmers will be given to citizens of other third-world nations. Slowly, but inevitably, raising the overall wealth of all nations that participate in capitalism and free-enterprise.
Because of the competing force of the law of supply which happens to outpower the law of demand in this case with a saturated market of ISP companies.
More companies = lower prices.
Less companies = higher prices.
No....
More customers = higher prices.
Fewer customers = lower prices.
Also does anyone have an idea how expensive the AMD 3400+ chips are? Because the AMD 3200+ chips are $400 retail. The article quoted a price for a thousand quantities but I was wondering how much it would cost for just one. Because if its pricey enough the P4 3.2 may beat out the 3400+ dollar for dollar.
Though Intel doesn't have to really worry about that title. At $164 the Pentium P4C smokes the pants off any AMD processor in its price range. At least, after overclocking it to 3 GHz, which is very doable even with standard cooling.
Where are the usual pretty Tom's Hardware graphs? What the hell is a 5.25 GHz processor good for, if we can't awe over benchmarks like "time it takes to process a SETI unit" or its score in Sandra 2004?
I noticed a picture up on BBC of afganistan children being given presents from santa this year, and if you understand the psychology of christmas you'll be frightened from that. Christmas such of a fucked up holiday it isn't even funny, as is easter.
No, I really don't see whats so "fucked up" about Christmas or the "terrible" psychology of giving GIFTS to these improverished children. Could you please elaborate?
Notice the best buy catologe that comes in the mail every year with the star of david on the tree replaced with the star of best buy and the entire tree decorated with consumer electronics? Notice how all the packaging mysteriously has christmas branding on them? How Saint Nick appears in every window and every store front advertising one thing or another?
Uh huh. Two words, SO WHAT?!
In our culture, we eat poisoned food, use poisoned stuff (cosmetics, soaps, playstations, cell phones) and buy crap we don't need fulfill some lifestyle obsession gone wrong that is even more poisonous so that crazy people at the top of the ladder can feel powerful.
Please define "poisonous food". Also, please show that this is unique to the American culture, or at least we consume this food to a greater degree than all other nations. Please do the same for "poisonous stuff". What is wrong with buying "crap" that fulfils some lifestyle obsession? Could you establish a criterion that determines when someone commits this most, in your eyes, "most poisonous act".
Japanese culture is even more poisonous imo, they tend to mimic ours and run with it as far and as fast as possible. Infact, our number 1 export to japan after ww2 was our poisonous culture.
Please explain how our culture is "poisonous" first.
Our number 1 export to the rest of the world is poisonous culture, and to whoever resists that without force enough to fight it off, we'll kill the parents and teach the kids our ways like we're doing in afganistan.
I guess you can't forsee that people might actually want to adopt our culture on their own freewill because they see the advantages of free enterprise and other aspects of the American culture.
Afterall, there's a reason we warehouse our old off into care homes near the ends of their life; so the ones that know what's wrong can't teach their kids and grandkids what's realy wrong.
Non-sequitar.
You discuss in your sig. about educating yourself. I suggest you take a class on persuasive argumentation beause your diatribe was netiher insightful or interesting. Until then, your thesis remains unproven.
ForeignPolicy.com has a slightly older article (2001) that discusses this same phenomenon.
Remember, a D is still passing. (:
And why should we trust you to provide tampered-free code?
Its so cool, everyone is imitating it.
The above is off-fcuking-topic!
I, for one, welcome our new Australian law-making overlords. Fr0st p0st.
If its compatiable with USB 2.0 ports, but doesn't have the USB 2.0, its called USB 1.1.
You can also get it from apple trailers
Its called the PC users market. Frankly, I'm surprised that an astute entrepenuer hasn't set themselves up with a iTunes account, and resold music to PC users at a slightly marked up price. Since PC users don't have any truly competitive program, this entrepenuer could make a killing.
Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it's cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air. Indeed, the distance from the center of a typical water droplet to its edge--its radius--ranges from a few microns (thousandths of a millimeter) to a few tens of microns (ice crystals are often a bit larger). And the speed with which any object falls is related to its mass and surface area--which is why a feather falls more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. For particles that are roughly spherical, mass is proportional to the radius cubed (r3); the downward-facing surface area of such a particle is proportional to the radius squared (r2). Thus, as a tiny water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important than its shape and the droplet falls faster. Even a large droplet having a radius of 100 microns has a fall velocity of only about 27 centimeters per second (cm/s). And because ice crystals have more irregular shapes, their fall velocities are relatively smaller. Upward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles. Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid! So, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky.
If you have ever read takedown (written by the sys admin who single handedly delivered Kevin Mitnick to the FBI) you would know that the FBI is impotent to deal with such crimes. The best way to bring this person down is to not do anything, and to continue to track the person until you get the persons location, then deliver him to the FBI. The FBI is incapable of handling these sort of crimes.
Occam's Razor: Simpliest explanation tends to be the right one.
Having said that, Occam's Razor is nessecary for determining truth, but it is not sufficent. Because to build a "simple" explanation, you must have a set of facts (which obviously must be consistent be consistent with the explanation). But if the fact set is not large enough, Occam's Razor wouldn't be very useful.
If I told you, a rock came through the window, what conclusions could you draw with Occam's Razor? More to the point, how many conclusions?
The response that one would make (if he were allowing Occam's Razor to guide him) to the question of the judeo-christian God's existence is, there are not enough facts to make a decision. Whether one is alone to the universe, one could respond with fermi's paradox. And if the government is lying to us, one could look at the number of times that the government has changed its mind as to what happened at roswell, to conclude: probably.
[quote]Why are certain ideas just brushed off as "conspiracy theory" without second thought?[/quote] If I told you why, I'd have to kill you. No seriously, if one thinks about it, conspiracy theories have one thing in common, they fly in the face of Occam's Razor. It makes a lot more sense to believe that Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts are reponsible for 9/11 (especially with him confessing to the crime on videotape) than to believe in the theory you posited, which btw has no hard facts to back it up.
But one must consider if UFOs did really crash land at Roswell, do you the government would reveal it (or hint at it) now through declassified documents?