As eXtro listed, there are plenty of jobs that universities prepare people for. It is true that universities have become more focused on professional training in the last 50 years as opposed to liberal arts studies, but that shows growth, not a descent into irrelevance. As for the argument that you don't need a degree to do many jobs that's true, but if an employer says they want one, I'd call that a requirement.
Do you work in tech? I ask that because of your assertion that the existence of libraries = a reasonable adult education infrastructure. As a tech worker, I've seen how many companies equate a book budget with a training budget. Sad. But my latest gig paid for me to attend classes, at a university no less.
But back to the topic, the need for universities to do research. Although many universities do research based on grants from corporations, I don't like the idea of moving that responsibility to corporations as a whole. All research will then be done based on possible ROI as opposed to the curiosity of the researchers or the mission of a nonprofit institution. Too few companies will even engage in basic research. We'd lose that if universities were taken out of the picture.
Enrollment dropping and a degree isn't necessary to get a job? I'm sorry, but both of those are terribly wrong. Just because a bunch of 19 year-olds can get jobs in tech without much education, for anyone else in just about every other field a degree is essential. Unless of course you're talking about all those fast food jobs going unfilled. I don't see the university experience going away anytime soon. We may be seeing changes in how education is acquired (note the growth of places like the private for-profit University of Phoenix, which probably have no interest in research), but the need for education isn't going away anytime soon. If nothing, it's on the increase. One other question, exactly how are all those corporate scientists supposed to get their training, apprenticeships?
Your other point about the expense of research for universities is valid, but what about the desire of private organzations to get into research for the possible patent income? What good can come from that?
No, you'd still have to bitch at Apple. Apple sells to retailers at higher prices than most PC manufacturers and then undercuts them at the Apple Store. The retailers are left trying to sell a product (that they're not allowed to support) on even thinner margins than normal. I've seen stories at macintouch that explain this (although I can't find them through the search feature).
What about Apple? Although it is true that OS X is soon to ship, what enterprise applications have been announced for it? What enterprise app companies have said they will develop for it? Apache is already there, but even that is not enough to make a dent in the armor of the other players. As far as I know, Apple has not announced any plans for large-scale APIs or other dev tools to do the same. What about databases?
Until there are some large scale apps heading for the platform it will remain off the radar, and act only as a file server and a print server. Considering that Linux and *BSD already do that for free, why spend the extra bucks on a fancy case that will just sit in a closet and be adminned over telnet?
As for the modern gui on top of the Unix core, so? I think it looks great and does some cool stuff, but a gui is not what drives the sale of enterprise-wide or bulk quantity unit puchases. It's apps and price per user. Apple lags there and will probably take some time to catch up, if at all. OS X is a 1.0, and as such will be treated like one. How soon does Apple plan to release a follow up?
Not to mention that Apple's history of selling to business clients is abysmal. To hit the market square they'll really have to change their marketing efforts and consistently produce units in quantities and prices that can fill the demands of large customers.
Re:Yeah, what about employee options?
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
You haven't met many full-time Microsoft employees have you? Sure, there are some there just for the money, but most like it for a host of other reasons. After doing a contract there I saw how dedicated many of the blue badges were (it was alternately impressive and frightening). It is like a cult, and it does offer security for those who like the way the place is run.
Stock isn't the only reason to stay. They recently upped their salaries across the board and the other benefits are very good.
I would be surprised to see an exodus just because of stock. Especially since it took a larger hit back in Oct '97 but later rebounded. Besides, so many folks have said that a broken up MS would only benefit stock holders. I don't know about that, but since stocks are based on perception more than anything else, MS can't be discounted for some time.
People have been chanting the MS death march for years without result. This is bad, but anything the judge does will be appealed indefinitely. Just keep making Linux/*BSD/Mac OS/Be OS/Mozilla better, and eventually MS will fade away.
Learning how to use Grafitti does not require technical ability. Comparing that to learning how to set up Linux is a poor comparision. As for the point regarding switching to StarOffice, I agree with you somewhat in that for the average user, learning the basics (which is all most users need) is overstated. I think the issue of converting files would be a biggest pain in the ass of moving to another platform.
My four-person startup is currently going through VC rounds and it's been very educational. If all you have is a prototype but no plan on how to sell it, you aren't ready for VC money. VCs want to know how you are going to sell it, to whom, and for how much. They want a comprehensive business plan with market forecasts, competitive analyses, customer profiles, and spreadsheets on projected development/marketing expenses and eventual revenues/profits, etc. Angels are folks who give you smaller amounts of money (like $100K) to get you started on building a team and planning the future. They tend to get more of your company since they are taking major risks, but in the end you can still do well for yourself. You don't say where you live, but there are angel networks in all of the main tech cities. Do some net searches and see what it takes to apply. There is an astounding amount of money out there and the majority of people involved are honest. Look for folks with demonstrable records and don't hesitate to ask for references. There are law firms out there who specialize representing startup companies. Hire one of them. If you have little or no business experience, be prepared to give up larger pieces of the pie, as folks will expect something in return for their experience and effort. Good luck. We'll look for you on the cover of Wired someday.
don't humans think in 2d (I mean we can understand 3d but we actually interpret images in 3d)?
If you weren't able to think in 3D, you wouldn't be able to walk across your living room. The main problem with 3D desktops was mentioned before, that viewing it on a 2D display only complicates things.
Slashdot Mirror
As eXtro listed, there are plenty of jobs that universities prepare people for. It is true that universities have become more focused on professional training in the last 50 years as opposed to liberal arts studies, but that shows growth, not a descent into irrelevance. As for the argument that you don't need a degree to do many jobs that's true, but if an employer says they want one, I'd call that a requirement.
Do you work in tech? I ask that because of your assertion that the existence of libraries = a reasonable adult education infrastructure. As a tech worker, I've seen how many companies equate a book budget with a training budget. Sad. But my latest gig paid for me to attend classes, at a university no less.
But back to the topic, the need for universities to do research. Although many universities do research based on grants from corporations, I don't like the idea of moving that responsibility to corporations as a whole. All research will then be done based on possible ROI as opposed to the curiosity of the researchers or the mission of a nonprofit institution. Too few companies will even engage in basic research. We'd lose that if universities were taken out of the picture.
Enrollment dropping and a degree isn't necessary to get a job? I'm sorry, but both of those are terribly wrong. Just because a bunch of 19 year-olds can get jobs in tech without much education, for anyone else in just about every other field a degree is essential. Unless of course you're talking about all those fast food jobs going unfilled. I don't see the university experience going away anytime soon. We may be seeing changes in how education is acquired (note the growth of places like the private for-profit University of Phoenix, which probably have no interest in research), but the need for education isn't going away anytime soon. If nothing, it's on the increase. One other question, exactly how are all those corporate scientists supposed to get their training, apprenticeships?
Your other point about the expense of research for universities is valid, but what about the desire of private organzations to get into research for the possible patent income? What good can come from that?
No, you'd still have to bitch at Apple. Apple sells to retailers at higher prices than most PC manufacturers and then undercuts them at the Apple Store. The retailers are left trying to sell a product (that they're not allowed to support) on even thinner margins than normal. I've seen stories at macintouch that explain this (although I can't find them through the search feature).
What about Apple? Although it is true that OS X is soon to ship, what enterprise applications have been announced for it? What enterprise app companies have said they will develop for it? Apache is already there, but even that is not enough to make a dent in the armor of the other players. As far as I know, Apple has not announced any plans for large-scale APIs or other dev tools to do the same. What about databases?
Until there are some large scale apps heading for the platform it will remain off the radar, and act only as a file server and a print server. Considering that Linux and *BSD already do that for free, why spend the extra bucks on a fancy case that will just sit in a closet and be adminned over telnet?
As for the modern gui on top of the Unix core, so? I think it looks great and does some cool stuff, but a gui is not what drives the sale of enterprise-wide or bulk quantity unit puchases. It's apps and price per user. Apple lags there and will probably take some time to catch up, if at all. OS X is a 1.0, and as such will be treated like one. How soon does Apple plan to release a follow up?
Not to mention that Apple's history of selling to business clients is abysmal. To hit the market square they'll really have to change their marketing efforts and consistently produce units in quantities and prices that can fill the demands of large customers.
You haven't met many full-time Microsoft employees have you? Sure, there are some there just for the money, but most like it for a host of other reasons. After doing a contract there I saw how dedicated many of the blue badges were (it was alternately impressive and frightening). It is like a cult, and it does offer security for those who like the way the place is run.
Stock isn't the only reason to stay. They recently upped their salaries across the board and the other benefits are very good.
I would be surprised to see an exodus just because of stock. Especially since it took a larger hit back in Oct '97 but later rebounded. Besides, so many folks have said that a broken up MS would only benefit stock holders. I don't know about that, but since stocks are based on perception more than anything else, MS can't be discounted for some time.
People have been chanting the MS death march for years without result. This is bad, but anything the judge does will be appealed indefinitely. Just keep making Linux/*BSD/Mac OS/Be OS/Mozilla better, and eventually MS will fade away.
IE for Solaris and HP/UX has been out for a while (version 4, I think). Never used it myself. Anyone out there tried it?
I would never underestimate MS and expect them not to have something ready if the tide suddenly turned, either in the marketplace or in the courtroom.
Learning how to use Grafitti does not require technical ability. Comparing that to learning how to set up Linux is a poor comparision. As for the point regarding switching to StarOffice, I agree with you somewhat in that for the average user, learning the basics (which is all most users need) is overstated. I think the issue of converting files would be a biggest pain in the ass of moving to another platform.
My four-person startup is currently going through VC rounds and it's been very educational. If all you have is a prototype but no plan on how to sell it, you aren't ready for VC money. VCs want to know how you are going to sell it, to whom, and for how much. They want a comprehensive business plan with market forecasts, competitive analyses, customer profiles, and spreadsheets on projected development/marketing expenses and eventual revenues/profits, etc.
Angels are folks who give you smaller amounts of money (like $100K) to get you started on building a team and planning the future. They tend to get more of your company since they are taking major risks, but in the end you can still do well for yourself. You don't say where you live, but there are angel networks in all of the main tech cities. Do some net searches and see what it takes to apply. There is an astounding amount of money out there and the majority of people involved are honest. Look for folks with demonstrable records and don't hesitate to ask for references. There are law firms out there who specialize representing startup companies. Hire one of them.
If you have little or no business experience, be prepared to give up larger pieces of the pie, as folks will expect something in return for their experience and effort.
Good luck. We'll look for you on the cover of Wired someday.
Atacom.com sells OC'd celery chips that they've burned in and tested. Haven't bought from them myself, I just saw it on their site.
don't humans think in 2d (I mean we can understand 3d but we actually interpret images in 3d)?
If you weren't able to think in 3D, you wouldn't be able to walk across your living room. The main problem with 3D desktops was mentioned before, that viewing it on a 2D display only complicates things.