Your last paragraph points out something very important. When you leave liberal societies, you are leaving your freedoms. That is the most important thing. Things like standard of living, etc can be adjusted. But freedoms are something else. Most countries, including India, offer few freedoms. India is nothing more than a kleptocracy, with Hindu fundamentalist tendancies. You are talking about a country where kissing on film (movies) is largely banned, all films are censored, etc. Some people have even been thrown in jail (for short periods of time) for releasing "controversial" films. You are also talking about a corrupt government. And so forth.
If you are a conservative, or could care less about criticizing the government, then these governments are fine. But if you say something, watch out.
Same thing with China, except multiply everything I said by 1000x.
If the current lack of demand causes this country to stop producing graduates in those programs then there could never ever be an upswing here in that industry.
There will not be an upswing in the industry (in countries like USA). It is my view that upswings don't occur under capitalism (I don't support capitalism though). For instance, has there been an upswing in manufacturing (which has been declining)? How about say semiconductor manufacturing (which largely went to Taiwan, etc)? I don't think there will be an upswing in the computer field any time soon (at least not within 50 years*).
What I am saying is partially supported capitalists as well. You always hear the capitalists urging people to innovate (i.e. create a new industry). This implies that even the capitalists don't see any future upswings. That's why they are calling for new industries to be created.
The manpower wouldn't exist to even try to compete with China and India.
USA will not be able to compete. This is basic capitalism. Assuming you have free markets, the countries with the absolute or comparative advantage will always "dominate". If someone in China, for example, can produce a computer with lower costs than in USA, USA can't compete under a free market.
* I am ignoring catastrophic events like wars, storms, disease, etc. Clearly if a major disease wipes out a huge chunk of hte population, jobs may be moved.
(this post is directed at the original poster and not the above poster)
I can't believe this guy got modded funny... people on slashdot must have screwed up emotions...Anyway...
This person's advice is VERY GOOD. I have very similar thoughts (I graduated a few years ago in Canada--so it's similar (except schools costs were nowhere near $150k)).
I really don't see the computer field picking up. Unlike some who say there will be an upswing in the future, I doubt it. It is contrary to my understanding of capitalism (admittedly I'm not a capitalist) for an upswing to occur. If an industry is "lost" it will be lost forever. Just look at hardware manufacturing (Taiwan/China/etc), textiles (Latin America, Asia), etc. If there IS an upswing (I don't think so) then it will probably occur in hundreads of years. For instance, if hardware manufacturing (eg. memory, chips, etc) were to be relocated back to USA, I can only see it happening in 50 or 100 years. There is no way it will happen in the next 50 years!
Just like how the poster above would not go into this field if a Genie gave him a choice, I wouldn't either. I love computers but it was a terrible choice for me. If I can re-live my life, I would go into social science. Not because I can get a better job but because I feel that I can do something in that field:)
Having said all this, you should keep something in mind. The computer field is still BETTER than many other fields. There are still WAY MORE jobs in computer engineering than say civil engineering or chemical engineering. You still have a greater probability of getting a job in your field (or any decent unrelated job) than if you are a physics or chemistry graduate. Or look at how many people in arts get jobs. BUT just keep in mind that you are not "guaranteed" to get a job. It isn't like the 70's, 80's, and 90's. The computer field is just like, say, physics is. That is to say, only a small number of the people who graduate from physics get any decent jobs. The vast majority don't. If you don't believe me, check out the graduate hiring rates (it'll be available in your school, or on the internet). Physics graduates do get jobs. But you either have to be REALLY GOOD, or be REALLY LUCKY. If you think you are amazing in the computer field, you should probably stick with it*. IF NOT, you have two choices:
Pick something you like: You can choose to go into a field that you TRULY love. If you really love studying ancient civilizations, maybe anthropology is best. Or if you love thinking, and asking questions about the meaning of life, meaning of love, etc, philsophy is for you. And so forth. With this path, you will make no MONEY. Chances of you getting a "decent" job are slim. However, you will study something that you love and it will stay with you FOREVER.
Attempt to predict trends: With this path, you can try to predict job trends for the future. It's risky but the payoff is high. If you think a particular field is going to have a boom** in the future, you can try going into it. If someone went into the computer field in the early 90's, they were rolling with money by the 2000's. So, some sector will do well in the future. Some people say biomedical/biology/genetics/etc is that but I have no strong opinion on this. You can try to predict the sector and try to get a degree in that field.
So the choice is yours. I hope that gives you some idea. Everything is just my opinion. Do not base your life on others'; but listen to them...
* Although, if you are really good in computers, you should perhaps consider starting your own business. If you have a really great idea, find some like-minded individuals with other skills (say marketing/sales) and see if you can go somewhere. Of course, this depends on if you have unique great idea, and if you can find the right people to complement you, and so on.
** It is my view, similar to Karl Marx, that capitalism is based on booms &
The Internet is the most important invention/discovery/whatever in the last 100+ years. It is more important than landing on the moon (overrated to begin with), invention of transistor, electricity, etc. Prior to the Internet, the most important discovery was the printing press.
Both of these are similar and will end up accomplishing similar things. The Internet will result in massive increase in the spread of knowledge. Most importantly, the Internet will shift power from the authoraties (usually the government) to the individual. It is already happening and this is just the start.
I have this theory that the internet will allow future generations to overthrow the government. I'm not talking about just China--I'm talking about ALL countries. It is THAT powerful! It is more powerful than any military; it is more powerful than having a billion dollars; it is more powerful than the Pope; and so on.
Needless to say, there are several threats emerging on the horizon. Hopefully the threats will be dealt with but it remains to be seen. The threats I have in mind are money/capitalism, and the government. Governments of all stripes have been trying to hard to control the Internet. The naive would say that it is impossible for the governments to control it but one should not be so confident. Already some governments have total control over the Internet. China probably doesn't because of its size. But smaller poorer countries have total control. This is mostly because there are only a few ISPs and the government monitors them. Even in larger countries, the governments are getting ever more smarter. Some countries already have tax laws passed. These laws are not enforced but the govt can do so at any time. There is already censorship against freedom of speech. Countries like China come to mind but there are many more which are worse. Some countries, like USA, already spend billions attempting to sniff through e-mail and websites. Let's also not forget that encryption technology is heavily controlled by governments. Sending encrypted e-mail is sure to land some in jail. It hasn't happened in countries like USA or Canada yet but it won't be very long before USA start jailing people because Al-Qaida or some other dark shadow is using encryption.
The other threat on the horizon is capitalism and its excesses. In particular, the greed and the power that comes with any new technology. The original Internet was largely controlled by the government. Even then, it was a scientific environment. Therefore, it was mostly free (in more than one sense). There is no doubt that capitalist entities, like corporations, helped the Internet, but there are some downsides too. The push towards profits can already be seen. One just needs to mention Verisign, which is attempting to control the most lucrative elements. Other companies are pushing proprietary technologies which will result in monopolies. Companies are also more likely to shut down websites for "offensive content". I suppose one can also count the actions of RIAA and others as a threat. It is within the right of RIAA to crack down on pirates, but some of their methods are highly questionable (eg. forcing ISPs to disclose people). Good thing similar organizations in other countries haven't cracking down. It would be worse in other countries because privacy laws are much weaker in other countries (compared to USA). Who knows what else will emerge from the brains of the corporations?
Having said all that, I am hopeful that the Internet will surivive with my vision. I think it will. The reason is simple. Just like the printing press, the Internet is too simple to be manipulated. Regardless of what the monarchs and the priests did with the printing press, they couldn't control it. I think the same thing will happen with the Internet. It is just too simple and too many people are involved for it to be controlled.
Electronic books won't take off yet. Having printed books is FAR more convenient. I don't know if it's just me but I hate staring at the monitor (it's bad for my eyes and my brain doesn't think well:) ). Studying by reading a printed textbook is the only way to go.
There is nothing like reading while lying on the bed (also a good way to nap) and until you can do that with an electronic device, the electronic books are next to useless IMO.
Even now (out of school and unemployed), I would rather read a real book than read something online. I only read online stuff for articles (only a few pages), news, etc. There is no way I can sit in front of the monitor and read something for 4+ hours (unless I was being paid, as in a job).
Unions are portrayed by the media as "good" and "fighting for the little guy" while their involvement with the Mafia and their outright extortion tactics go ignored by the media.
By contrast, corporate corruption is front-page news whenever it happens. This is becuase corporations are portrayed by the media as "evil" and "exploiting the little guy".
So you are the crusader that defends the corporations and attacks the unions? I guess you are the opposite of Robin Hood;) Look on the bright side: you are one of a kind.;)
Please do not lump me in with right-wingers. I hate their stupid philosophy only slightly less than I hate Leftist philosophy.
Since you like the right wing more than the left (however little), you are on the right. It is my belief that everyone belongs somewhere on the econopolitical spectrum (the only exceptions are apolitical individuals i.e. those that do not care about econopolitics).
Whether or not the site is right-wing or not has nothing to do with whether or not the data on the web page is accurate. I think you'll find that any page which dares say anything negative about a union is "right-wing" simply because one can not survive as a Leftist and not unflinchingly kiss union ass.
There are leftist criticism but nowhere near the right-wing criticism. There is a big difference between the two though. The right wing criticizes unions based on ideological views. I ignore all those criticisms. For instance, a capitalist would argue against unions because they are a collective (as opposed to being individualistic). There is very little for me to gain by going over such ideological arguments. I'm content to argue that on the underlying philsophy but the arguments will be about whether unionization is good at all (and not whether certain union situations are bad).
With respect to the site you listed, I think it is right wing and biased. I wasn't even looking at the union stuff. The other websites (that are part of the network) are heavily biased against the Democratic Party.
The definition of AIDS, as decreed by the High Priests of AIDS, includes HIV. Since I do not believe that HIV causes immune deficiency, you can safely infer that I do not believe in AIDS, either. Immune deficiency has existed long before someone decided to label it "AIDS".
You clearly have a very minority view. What reason do you have not to believe the scientific consensus? You don't have to believe in the general consensus (I don't in some issues eg. time travel). But what's your reasoning? Is there some conspiracy? Are there mistakes being made? The condition is very real, regardless of whta you think causes it. I mean, there are millions dying from something (where they didn't die before). What would explain this high rate of deaths?
By the way, I visited your "I, Leftist" web page. I would *love* to debate the merits of your philosophy with you (we can start with, "Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?"). I have a lot of experience tearing apart the Christian religion, and I need to sharpen my sword against the Leftist religion as well. Please reply!:)
There isn't much on my page yet. I haven't really written any decent articles yet. I've been trying but haven't got around to it:(
There is no leftist religion... but just for this discussion, I'll let you call it a "religion" if you wish:) I mean, what exactly is leftism? Socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Feminism? Egalitarianism? Utilitarianism? There isn't a religion.
Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
Capitalism is actually each according to output--not ability. One can hardly claim that the most able people have the best jobs. If anything, the ones with the most ability are wasting their lives on
Yeah... the "war" on terrorism is as bogus as the "war" on drugs. That is to say, no firm target, no main goals, no legal oversight, no international cooperation, etc.
Since your company went bankrupt, are you willing to disclose the details? What did your business do? Was this during the dot-com era (when getting funding was easy)? What brought your company down (surely the reasons you listed couldn't have)? And most importantly, how did you handle marketing? I started a company with a friend that failed and the problem was marketing. What techniques did you guys use? Did you hire someone else to do it (like a salesperson or something)? Did you have prior contacts/clients?
That is a well established strategy used by corporations to grow and increase profitability. Business courses, the business press, and others will mention it. The strategy is called Mergers & Acquisitions. Companies like Microsoft, Cisco, and others became what they are due to it.
Yes, the classifications are just generalizations. They are not always true. This is especially true when it comes to econopolitics, which is highly complex. For example, a socialist is a leftist but is pro-state while an anarchist is also on the left but is anti-state. Best is to use a two dimentional system such as Political Compass--but no one has heard of this....
As far as countries are concerned, none of this changes if you keep the reference frame the same. For instance, I use the European world view as the reference so what I say is pretty much consistent across countries. The only thing that will change is the degree of conformance. For instance, what passes for center-left in one country may be far-left in another. Or what is a moderate conservative in one country may be a centrist. But the distance between them (i.e. how much they differ) will be similar. So things just get shifted. But a conservative never becomes a liberal or vice versa*.
As far as US political parties are concerned, they don't really hold true to any ideals. Most parties are run by a bunch of liers, who manipulate and deceive the public. In the case of USA, my opinion is that the Democrats and the Republicans are pretty much the same party.
(* There is an exception to this. Over long periods of time, things change. So a liberal automatically becomes a conservative. A liberal who holds present day views will be a conservative in probably 50 years. American Founding Fathers, for example, were liberals in their time (they are called classical liberals) but are conservatives now.)
There is no such thing as the Eastern way. What people are calling East is authoratarianism. It may be popular in the East now (due to things likes dictatorships, kleptocracies, totalitarian communism, etc) but it was not always like this--just like how Europe wasn't always as liberal and free-wheeling as now.
You like authoratarianism. I personally detest it. I think it is a horrible way to do things. Authoratarianism stifles creativity and weakens the human soul. If your goal is for all of us to be automatons that take orders from someone who takes orders from someone above, and so forth, then your vision is good. I, on the other hand, does not want a society like that. Your vision will lead to more efficiency--that's true. But it will also decrease harmony. Living will amount to slavery.
As far as the military is concerned, I think your way of thinking will lose out in the long term. THe military is perhaps the most authoratarian entity in any society. It is like this because it hasn't changed much since its early days. I, however, think it will change. Soldiers will one day be allowed more freedom. When that happens, there will be more ways of doing things--instead of just following the single way that has been handed down.
The problem with any authoratarian system, apart from its lack of freedom, is that there is only ONE way of doing things: the way of the leader. The guy at the top devises the plan and everyone else just follows it blindly. This is very efficient but can lead to massive problems. If someone makes a mistake along the way, everyone falls for it. People along the chain won't have the opportunity to correct it. I'm oversimplifying a bit but that's the essence of it. If your military commander devises some attack and some guy further down the chain seems potential problems, his opinions are limited. You just pass on your commander's order to your subordinate, and your subordinate passes the command to his subordinates, and so forth. There is very little room for corrections. You might call this second-guessing but multiple people thinking is better than one person--under any circumstance (unless time is limited or something).
The most extreme form of authoratarianism is totalitarianism. The so-called Commmunist countries tried it. The whole society in USSR, for example, was organized under an authoratarian framework. Some guy at the top came up with the plans, then everyone below just followed it. There was little room for corrections, questions, or just plain dissent. This led to massive problems, including millions of deaths in China. In one famous case in USSR, the government somehow managed to dry a full lake with its great plan (I forget the details but it's pretty much an empty land with no water right now).
I'm sure the "mistakes" in militaries have been even greater. But since there is no "accountability" in militaries, you just never know. By accountability, I refer to the fact that someone is not going to get fired even if they lose say 100 soldiers instead of 50. I don't know much about military (you are a greater expert than me) but wouldn't things be better if lower level soldiers had greater input into the situation? I think it will eventually happen whether you believe it or not. Once upon a time, workers had very little input when working at corporations. Over time, it has changed. There is still a long way to go but companies actually listen to the workers now. Fifty years ago, a factor worker just did his/her job. Now, the factor worker can suggest things if it will improve productivity. The same thing will happen to the military.
As far as you not hiring non-military candidates is concerned, it is probably discrimination. In any case, you are excluding a huge chunk of potential candidates. You support an authoratarian environment so I don't think it will change. But all I can say is that you will end up with a company full of mindless yes-men. They will nod your head and say 'yes' to everything. This is fine if you just want orders carried out without any change. But what if there are mistakes? What if the people at the top make mistakes? You will end up with all the mistakes being carried through... just like the USSR.
I think most of the differences in people have little to do with location, country, race, or etnicity. Instead, things like the econopolitical system, ideologies, ideals, and such play the biggest role.
In the North vs South case, it probably has to do with the ideologies held by different people. The North is more liberal while the South is more conservative. Liberals think "outside the box" and "break down systems", while conservatives "respect authority" and "maintain the system". This is probably why most artists are liberals, while most military officers are conservative.
When you cite the way families are raised, that is true but I view that as the result. The cause is conservatism vs liberalism. If you were raised in a liberal environment, questioning authority is a given. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't like to question authority (whether it is religion, military, or government).
Furthermore, regions with higher immigration are more liberal. This is true in USA, with the coastal areas being more liberal than the interior. Large cities, which have greater movement of people, are generally more liberal than smaller towns and villages.
In my opinion, everything boils down to ideologies and ideals. Without ideology, you are nothing; with ideology, you are something.
Union corruption exists--don't get me wrong. But why is it right wingers that are always complaining about it? The website you linked is very right wing and I, as well as other union supporters, wouldn't find it credible...
On a different note, so you think AIDS is not caused by HIV? Or that AIDS doesn't occur?
The whole East vs West thing was cooked up by imperialists several hundread years...so that they can rally their sheepish masses to invade the east (particularly India and China). That ended with the collapse of colonialism and all the imperialists that went with it...
Then came a new East vs West thing cooked up by elitists to get the masses to blindly follow them. This time the west was Western Europe and USA, while the East was the USSR. Communism collapsed. Cold War ended. Germany unified. And that was the end of that...
If humans are as dumb as I think they are, and if humans don't learn from their past, I imagine another East vs West thing is going to be cooked up by someone. This time, it looks like the East is USA and West is muslim Middle Eastern nations. The imperialists, who one would have thought died, have re-emerged. You can see them on tv; you can hear their messages; you might even be one. There is massive disinformation being perpetuated by them, pointing out how mulsim societies are anti-Western and incompatible with Western ideals. By West, they mean USA of course. It seems the sheepish masses will fall for this new East vs West.
Since when did USA represent civilization? I know USA is trying as hard as it can on its imperialism but let's face it. US imperialism is a complete failure--and it always will be. Imperialists are a dying breed.
If USA falls, it will bring down capitalism--not civlization! Britain (an imperial/colonial power) failed and nothing happened. Even the British didn't notice it. The benefits of empire accrue to a select few. In the case of Britain, this was the monarchy. The average British received zero benefits (this is why there was no depression when Britain had to give up its colonies, which were earning billions for it). Similarly, US imperialism only benefits a select few: war profiteers (like Richard Perle, KBR aka Halliburton, etc), oil companies (eg. Exonn, etc). The average American benefits very little from US imperialism.
Not to downplay US aid, but the amount US provides to Africa is not much. Also, only a small portion of Africa faces starvation due to drought (horn of Africa). The rest are "ok" except for disease and war. To combat AIDS in Africa, USA and others would be better off letting generic drug manufacturers manufacture drugs than spending billions. Of course, such an action will hit the profitability of the drug companies so it isn't happening...
Overall, I am GUESSING that USA provides more military "aid" to Africa (which often worse the situation) than real life-saving aid.
It's already happen... just the other day, I was reading a story in the Toronto Star about some lobster fisherman in the East struggling. He is holding $1million worth of lobsters in his tanks just because the dollar fell. If the US dollar doesn't rebound, he is looking at a big loss. For a small company like his, it will be devastaing.
Europe IS diverse, although not as diverse as USA. Just because everyone is white doesn't mean they are all the same. There are many different languages there (with some countries having multiple official languages), different foods, diffrent behaviour, etc.
The information on that page seems to be from the CIA "Factbook". I would not trust anything coming out any spy agency, even if it were my own country. First of all, CIA most likely manipulates information to suit its own purposes (eg. claim a country is made up of this many people of a particular group when in fact it isn't (Iraq and the census "controversy" comes to mind)). Second, as you pointed out, the listing is totally useless since it uses inconsistent antiquated, obsolete, and racist categories (eg. mongoloid*). I would not trust anything out of the CIA, whether it claims to be correct or not. Lastly, the listed info is totally useless--even if it were true--because someone (CIA in this case) chose whether to lump people togeter into categories or not (eg. white vs Italian/German/etc vs European).
The best place to get information is from the UN or some NGO. I don't think the UN collects ethnic data (at least not for all countries) so probably nothing there. I don't know of any NGO either (although I'm sure there are some). So the last place to find ethnic info is from census carried out by each country (needless to say, one should ignore everything coming out of totalitarian countries, dictatorships, monarchies, etc**).
Having posted thos links, I have to admit that they are not directly comparable. US census is too simplistic (at least from what I can find). On top of that, it would be preferable to have percentages worked out in a pie-chart, instead of just a bunch of numbers:( Overall, I think Canada is FAR more diverse than USA.
I do think though that if you look at those numbers objectively, the lower numbers of black, and hispanic populations in Canada would swing the pendulum in the US's favor.
Not really. Even though Canada doesn't have the same size of black and hispanics***, it has many more smaller ethnic groups (like chinese, south Asians, Arabs, etc). So Canada is indeed more diverse.
Having said that, some cities in USA are very diverse. A city like New York is diverse (in fact, it is one of the most diverse cities in the world).
But checkboxes on a census form is not the entire answer. Because 'white' could mean many things. We do have a huge Russian population here, where they are maintaining a lot of their Russian culture. So, while they are 'white', their culture is different.
You CAN figure out ethnic groups with a census but the way USA does it is very unscientific and primitive. I imagine it is done that way because of conservative influences. Conservatives attempt to assimilate people (eg. USA) whereas liberals attempt to diverse people (eg. Canada). First of all, you should not use something vague like skin colour. Something like "white" or "black" is totally meaningless. Instead of asking whether people are white, the government should be asking to check off 'German', 'English', and so forth.
(* Mongoloid isn't exactly discriminatory but it is very inaccurate).
(** If you must know why one can't trust ethnic information coming out of an autocratic country, it is because governments use that to carry out their discriminatory activities. For instance, many services provided by government are tied to the size of the population (eg. a library gets a grant based on the size of the population in that area. By manipulating ethnic data, governments can alter their fiscal policies to discriminate against others. This is generally true outside multicultural countries like USA and Canada since ethnic groups are geogra
Some posters below give some ideas. Using a standard like RSS instead of Outlook and so forth. I guess you can also try using Wi-Fi technology or something like that. Your system doesn't seem too hard. I don't think the programming is the hard part. What you are proposing is so simple (from a programming point of view) that it isn't even an issue. I think some of the hardware and interface issues may be more complex (it all depends on what you are trying to do).
There is a push by the large companies for integration between appliances. Companies are trying to develop systems where your tv can talk to the computer, or your microwave, or whatever. I think your idea is kind of like that. Bill Gates has been talking about this for ages but I think the time is now. I believe that Wi-Fi (or wireless networking in general) provides a lot of potential.
I still don't like your idea because I don't think it has the market potential (although one would really need to study/estimate/whatever the market size). I'm not really sure how many people really use Outlook to manage their lives (professionals do but do they care about your product?). In any case, you should worry the least about programming/software and get the other stuff (like product concept, design, market research) done--if you are serious that is. You can always find software developers to partner with (or find contractors or something).
I've been thinking about starting a business (I started one last year (linux business) and it failed:( ). I'm unemployed so I'm open to all options. My problem (this was the problem with the last business) is that I need a marketing/sales person.
Areas that I think have good potential now are Wi-Fi, RFID tags (Walmart forcing suppliers to use them means that it WILL become a standard), and appliance/system integration (as I described above). I also think that there might be a market for security products of all sorts due to the terrorist situation faced by USA (BUT I think these are too complicated and probably require millions of dollars in development costs--not sure). These are just MY OPINION and do not blame me if your business fails because you tried one of these;)
If anyone is reading this lives in Toronto and is thinking of starting a busines (in the tech area), let me know. I would be interested in joining (depending on details). I don't have much capital to put up but I'll work "free".
Slashdot Mirror
Your last paragraph points out something very important. When you leave liberal societies, you are leaving your freedoms. That is the most important thing. Things like standard of living, etc can be adjusted. But freedoms are something else. Most countries, including India, offer few freedoms. India is nothing more than a kleptocracy, with Hindu fundamentalist tendancies. You are talking about a country where kissing on film (movies) is largely banned, all films are censored, etc. Some people have even been thrown in jail (for short periods of time) for releasing "controversial" films. You are also talking about a corrupt government. And so forth.
If you are a conservative, or could care less about criticizing the government, then these governments are fine. But if you say something, watch out.
Same thing with China, except multiply everything I said by 1000x.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If the current lack of demand causes this country to stop producing graduates in those programs then there could never ever be an upswing here in that industry.
There will not be an upswing in the industry (in countries like USA). It is my view that upswings don't occur under capitalism (I don't support capitalism though). For instance, has there been an upswing in manufacturing (which has been declining)? How about say semiconductor manufacturing (which largely went to Taiwan, etc)? I don't think there will be an upswing in the computer field any time soon (at least not within 50 years*).
What I am saying is partially supported capitalists as well. You always hear the capitalists urging people to innovate (i.e. create a new industry). This implies that even the capitalists don't see any future upswings. That's why they are calling for new industries to be created.
The manpower wouldn't exist to even try to compete with China and India.
USA will not be able to compete. This is basic capitalism. Assuming you have free markets, the countries with the absolute or comparative advantage will always "dominate". If someone in China, for example, can produce a computer with lower costs than in USA, USA can't compete under a free market.
* I am ignoring catastrophic events like wars, storms, disease, etc. Clearly if a major disease wipes out a huge chunk of hte population, jobs may be moved.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I can't believe this guy got modded funny... people on slashdot must have screwed up emotions...Anyway...
This person's advice is VERY GOOD. I have very similar thoughts (I graduated a few years ago in Canada--so it's similar (except schools costs were nowhere near $150k)).
I really don't see the computer field picking up. Unlike some who say there will be an upswing in the future, I doubt it. It is contrary to my understanding of capitalism (admittedly I'm not a capitalist) for an upswing to occur. If an industry is "lost" it will be lost forever. Just look at hardware manufacturing (Taiwan/China/etc), textiles (Latin America, Asia), etc. If there IS an upswing (I don't think so) then it will probably occur in hundreads of years. For instance, if hardware manufacturing (eg. memory, chips, etc) were to be relocated back to USA, I can only see it happening in 50 or 100 years. There is no way it will happen in the next 50 years!
Just like how the poster above would not go into this field if a Genie gave him a choice, I wouldn't either. I love computers but it was a terrible choice for me. If I can re-live my life, I would go into social science. Not because I can get a better job but because I feel that I can do something in that field
Having said all this, you should keep something in mind. The computer field is still BETTER than many other fields. There are still WAY MORE jobs in computer engineering than say civil engineering or chemical engineering. You still have a greater probability of getting a job in your field (or any decent unrelated job) than if you are a physics or chemistry graduate. Or look at how many people in arts get jobs. BUT just keep in mind that you are not "guaranteed" to get a job. It isn't like the 70's, 80's, and 90's. The computer field is just like, say, physics is. That is to say, only a small number of the people who graduate from physics get any decent jobs. The vast majority don't. If you don't believe me, check out the graduate hiring rates (it'll be available in your school, or on the internet). Physics graduates do get jobs. But you either have to be REALLY GOOD, or be REALLY LUCKY. If you think you are amazing in the computer field, you should probably stick with it*. IF NOT, you have two choices:
So the choice is yours. I hope that gives you some idea. Everything is just my opinion. Do not base your life on others'; but listen to them...
* Although, if you are really good in computers, you should perhaps consider starting your own business. If you have a really great idea, find some like-minded individuals with other skills (say marketing/sales) and see if you can go somewhere. Of course, this depends on if you have unique great idea, and if you can find the right people to complement you, and so on.
** It is my view, similar to Karl Marx, that capitalism is based on booms &
The Internet is the most important invention/discovery/whatever in the last 100+ years. It is more important than landing on the moon (overrated to begin with), invention of transistor, electricity, etc. Prior to the Internet, the most important discovery was the printing press.
Both of these are similar and will end up accomplishing similar things. The Internet will result in massive increase in the spread of knowledge. Most importantly, the Internet will shift power from the authoraties (usually the government) to the individual. It is already happening and this is just the start.
I have this theory that the internet will allow future generations to overthrow the government. I'm not talking about just China--I'm talking about ALL countries. It is THAT powerful! It is more powerful than any military; it is more powerful than having a billion dollars; it is more powerful than the Pope; and so on.
Needless to say, there are several threats emerging on the horizon. Hopefully the threats will be dealt with but it remains to be seen. The threats I have in mind are money/capitalism, and the government. Governments of all stripes have been trying to hard to control the Internet. The naive would say that it is impossible for the governments to control it but one should not be so confident. Already some governments have total control over the Internet. China probably doesn't because of its size. But smaller poorer countries have total control. This is mostly because there are only a few ISPs and the government monitors them. Even in larger countries, the governments are getting ever more smarter. Some countries already have tax laws passed. These laws are not enforced but the govt can do so at any time. There is already censorship against freedom of speech. Countries like China come to mind but there are many more which are worse. Some countries, like USA, already spend billions attempting to sniff through e-mail and websites. Let's also not forget that encryption technology is heavily controlled by governments. Sending encrypted e-mail is sure to land some in jail. It hasn't happened in countries like USA or Canada yet but it won't be very long before USA start jailing people because Al-Qaida or some other dark shadow is using encryption.
The other threat on the horizon is capitalism and its excesses. In particular, the greed and the power that comes with any new technology. The original Internet was largely controlled by the government. Even then, it was a scientific environment. Therefore, it was mostly free (in more than one sense). There is no doubt that capitalist entities, like corporations, helped the Internet, but there are some downsides too. The push towards profits can already be seen. One just needs to mention Verisign, which is attempting to control the most lucrative elements. Other companies are pushing proprietary technologies which will result in monopolies. Companies are also more likely to shut down websites for "offensive content". I suppose one can also count the actions of RIAA and others as a threat. It is within the right of RIAA to crack down on pirates, but some of their methods are highly questionable (eg. forcing ISPs to disclose people). Good thing similar organizations in other countries haven't cracking down. It would be worse in other countries because privacy laws are much weaker in other countries (compared to USA). Who knows what else will emerge from the brains of the corporations?
Having said all that, I am hopeful that the Internet will surivive with my vision. I think it will. The reason is simple. Just like the printing press, the Internet is too simple to be manipulated. Regardless of what the monarchs and the priests did with the printing press, they couldn't control it. I think the same thing will happen with the Internet. It is just too simple and too many people are involved for it to be controlled.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Electronic books won't take off yet. Having printed books is FAR more convenient. I don't know if it's just me but I hate staring at the monitor (it's bad for my eyes and my brain doesn't think well :) ). Studying by reading a printed textbook is the only way to go.
There is nothing like reading while lying on the bed (also a good way to nap) and until you can do that with an electronic device, the electronic books are next to useless IMO.
Even now (out of school and unemployed), I would rather read a real book than read something online. I only read online stuff for articles (only a few pages), news, etc. There is no way I can sit in front of the monitor and read something for 4+ hours (unless I was being paid, as in a job).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Unions are portrayed by the media as "good" and "fighting for the little guy" while their involvement with the Mafia and their outright extortion tactics go ignored by the media. By contrast, corporate corruption is front-page news whenever it happens. This is becuase corporations are portrayed by the media as "evil" and "exploiting the little guy".
;) Look on the bright side: you are one of a kind. ;)
:)
:(
:) I mean, what exactly is leftism? Socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Feminism? Egalitarianism? Utilitarianism? There isn't a religion.
So you are the crusader that defends the corporations and attacks the unions? I guess you are the opposite of Robin Hood
Please do not lump me in with right-wingers. I hate their stupid philosophy only slightly less than I hate Leftist philosophy.
Since you like the right wing more than the left (however little), you are on the right. It is my belief that everyone belongs somewhere on the econopolitical spectrum (the only exceptions are apolitical individuals i.e. those that do not care about econopolitics).
Whether or not the site is right-wing or not has nothing to do with whether or not the data on the web page is accurate. I think you'll find that any page which dares say anything negative about a union is "right-wing" simply because one can not survive as a Leftist and not unflinchingly kiss union ass.
There are leftist criticism but nowhere near the right-wing criticism. There is a big difference between the two though. The right wing criticizes unions based on ideological views. I ignore all those criticisms. For instance, a capitalist would argue against unions because they are a collective (as opposed to being individualistic). There is very little for me to gain by going over such ideological arguments. I'm content to argue that on the underlying philsophy but the arguments will be about whether unionization is good at all (and not whether certain union situations are bad).
With respect to the site you listed, I think it is right wing and biased. I wasn't even looking at the union stuff. The other websites (that are part of the network) are heavily biased against the Democratic Party.
The definition of AIDS, as decreed by the High Priests of AIDS, includes HIV. Since I do not believe that HIV causes immune deficiency, you can safely infer that I do not believe in AIDS, either. Immune deficiency has existed long before someone decided to label it "AIDS".
You clearly have a very minority view. What reason do you have not to believe the scientific consensus? You don't have to believe in the general consensus (I don't in some issues eg. time travel). But what's your reasoning? Is there some conspiracy? Are there mistakes being made? The condition is very real, regardless of whta you think causes it. I mean, there are millions dying from something (where they didn't die before). What would explain this high rate of deaths?
By the way, I visited your "I, Leftist" web page. I would *love* to debate the merits of your philosophy with you (we can start with, "Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?"). I have a lot of experience tearing apart the Christian religion, and I need to sharpen my sword against the Leftist religion as well. Please reply!
There isn't much on my page yet. I haven't really written any decent articles yet. I've been trying but haven't got around to it
There is no leftist religion... but just for this discussion, I'll let you call it a "religion" if you wish
Do you believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
Capitalism is actually each according to output--not ability. One can hardly claim that the most able people have the best jobs. If anything, the ones with the most ability are wasting their lives on
Yeah... the "war" on terrorism is as bogus as the "war" on drugs. That is to say, no firm target, no main goals, no legal oversight, no international cooperation, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm an INTJ :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since your company went bankrupt, are you willing to disclose the details? What did your business do? Was this during the dot-com era (when getting funding was easy)? What brought your company down (surely the reasons you listed couldn't have)? And most importantly, how did you handle marketing? I started a company with a friend that failed and the problem was marketing. What techniques did you guys use? Did you hire someone else to do it (like a salesperson or something)? Did you have prior contacts/clients?
Thanks!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That is a well established strategy used by corporations to grow and increase profitability. Business courses, the business press, and others will mention it. The strategy is called Mergers & Acquisitions. Companies like Microsoft, Cisco, and others became what they are due to it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, the classifications are just generalizations. They are not always true. This is especially true when it comes to econopolitics, which is highly complex. For example, a socialist is a leftist but is pro-state while an anarchist is also on the left but is anti-state. Best is to use a two dimentional system such as Political Compass--but no one has heard of this....
As far as countries are concerned, none of this changes if you keep the reference frame the same. For instance, I use the European world view as the reference so what I say is pretty much consistent across countries. The only thing that will change is the degree of conformance. For instance, what passes for center-left in one country may be far-left in another. Or what is a moderate conservative in one country may be a centrist. But the distance between them (i.e. how much they differ) will be similar. So things just get shifted. But a conservative never becomes a liberal or vice versa*.
As far as US political parties are concerned, they don't really hold true to any ideals. Most parties are run by a bunch of liers, who manipulate and deceive the public. In the case of USA, my opinion is that the Democrats and the Republicans are pretty much the same party.
(* There is an exception to this. Over long periods of time, things change. So a liberal automatically becomes a conservative. A liberal who holds present day views will be a conservative in probably 50 years. American Founding Fathers, for example, were liberals in their time (they are called classical liberals) but are conservatives now.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as the Eastern way. What people are calling East is authoratarianism. It may be popular in the East now (due to things likes dictatorships, kleptocracies, totalitarian communism, etc) but it was not always like this--just like how Europe wasn't always as liberal and free-wheeling as now.
You like authoratarianism. I personally detest it. I think it is a horrible way to do things. Authoratarianism stifles creativity and weakens the human soul. If your goal is for all of us to be automatons that take orders from someone who takes orders from someone above, and so forth, then your vision is good. I, on the other hand, does not want a society like that. Your vision will lead to more efficiency--that's true. But it will also decrease harmony. Living will amount to slavery.
As far as the military is concerned, I think your way of thinking will lose out in the long term. THe military is perhaps the most authoratarian entity in any society. It is like this because it hasn't changed much since its early days. I, however, think it will change. Soldiers will one day be allowed more freedom. When that happens, there will be more ways of doing things--instead of just following the single way that has been handed down.
The problem with any authoratarian system, apart from its lack of freedom, is that there is only ONE way of doing things: the way of the leader. The guy at the top devises the plan and everyone else just follows it blindly. This is very efficient but can lead to massive problems. If someone makes a mistake along the way, everyone falls for it. People along the chain won't have the opportunity to correct it. I'm oversimplifying a bit but that's the essence of it. If your military commander devises some attack and some guy further down the chain seems potential problems, his opinions are limited. You just pass on your commander's order to your subordinate, and your subordinate passes the command to his subordinates, and so forth. There is very little room for corrections. You might call this second-guessing but multiple people thinking is better than one person--under any circumstance (unless time is limited or something).
The most extreme form of authoratarianism is totalitarianism. The so-called Commmunist countries tried it. The whole society in USSR, for example, was organized under an authoratarian framework. Some guy at the top came up with the plans, then everyone below just followed it. There was little room for corrections, questions, or just plain dissent. This led to massive problems, including millions of deaths in China. In one famous case in USSR, the government somehow managed to dry a full lake with its great plan (I forget the details but it's pretty much an empty land with no water right now).
I'm sure the "mistakes" in militaries have been even greater. But since there is no "accountability" in militaries, you just never know. By accountability, I refer to the fact that someone is not going to get fired even if they lose say 100 soldiers instead of 50. I don't know much about military (you are a greater expert than me) but wouldn't things be better if lower level soldiers had greater input into the situation? I think it will eventually happen whether you believe it or not. Once upon a time, workers had very little input when working at corporations. Over time, it has changed. There is still a long way to go but companies actually listen to the workers now. Fifty years ago, a factor worker just did his/her job. Now, the factor worker can suggest things if it will improve productivity. The same thing will happen to the military.
As far as you not hiring non-military candidates is concerned, it is probably discrimination. In any case, you are excluding a huge chunk of potential candidates. You support an authoratarian environment so I don't think it will change. But all I can say is that you will end up with a company full of mindless yes-men. They will nod your head and say 'yes' to everything. This is fine if you just want orders carried out without any change. But what if there are mistakes? What if the people at the top make mistakes? You will end up with all the mistakes being carried through... just like the USSR.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
heheh lol I agree... funny :) ... I am always impressed by some of the ingenious humourous comments on Slashdot :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think most of the differences in people have little to do with location, country, race, or etnicity. Instead, things like the econopolitical system, ideologies, ideals, and such play the biggest role.
In the North vs South case, it probably has to do with the ideologies held by different people. The North is more liberal while the South is more conservative. Liberals think "outside the box" and "break down systems", while conservatives "respect authority" and "maintain the system". This is probably why most artists are liberals, while most military officers are conservative.
When you cite the way families are raised, that is true but I view that as the result. The cause is conservatism vs liberalism. If you were raised in a liberal environment, questioning authority is a given. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't like to question authority (whether it is religion, military, or government).
Furthermore, regions with higher immigration are more liberal. This is true in USA, with the coastal areas being more liberal than the interior. Large cities, which have greater movement of people, are generally more liberal than smaller towns and villages.
In my opinion, everything boils down to ideologies and ideals. Without ideology, you are nothing; with ideology, you are something.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Union corruption exists--don't get me wrong. But why is it right wingers that are always complaining about it? The website you linked is very right wing and I, as well as other union supporters, wouldn't find it credible...
On a different note, so you think AIDS is not caused by HIV? Or that AIDS doesn't occur?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The whole East vs West thing was cooked up by imperialists several hundread years...so that they can rally their sheepish masses to invade the east (particularly India and China). That ended with the collapse of colonialism and all the imperialists that went with it...
Then came a new East vs West thing cooked up by elitists to get the masses to blindly follow them. This time the west was Western Europe and USA, while the East was the USSR. Communism collapsed. Cold War ended. Germany unified. And that was the end of that...
If humans are as dumb as I think they are, and if humans don't learn from their past, I imagine another East vs West thing is going to be cooked up by someone. This time, it looks like the East is USA and West is muslim Middle Eastern nations. The imperialists, who one would have thought died, have re-emerged. You can see them on tv; you can hear their messages; you might even be one. There is massive disinformation being perpetuated by them, pointing out how mulsim societies are anti-Western and incompatible with Western ideals. By West, they mean USA of course. It seems the sheepish masses will fall for this new East vs West.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But funded by US studios... therefore, LOTR is an American film...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since when did USA represent civilization? I know USA is trying as hard as it can on its imperialism but let's face it. US imperialism is a complete failure--and it always will be. Imperialists are a dying breed.
If USA falls, it will bring down capitalism--not civlization! Britain (an imperial/colonial power) failed and nothing happened. Even the British didn't notice it. The benefits of empire accrue to a select few. In the case of Britain, this was the monarchy. The average British received zero benefits (this is why there was no depression when Britain had to give up its colonies, which were earning billions for it). Similarly, US imperialism only benefits a select few: war profiteers (like Richard Perle, KBR aka Halliburton, etc), oil companies (eg. Exonn, etc). The average American benefits very little from US imperialism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Not to downplay US aid, but the amount US provides to Africa is not much. Also, only a small portion of Africa faces starvation due to drought (horn of Africa). The rest are "ok" except for disease and war. To combat AIDS in Africa, USA and others would be better off letting generic drug manufacturers manufacture drugs than spending billions. Of course, such an action will hit the profitability of the drug companies so it isn't happening...
Overall, I am GUESSING that USA provides more military "aid" to Africa (which often worse the situation) than real life-saving aid.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The weak dollar is sure to hurt Canadian exports.
It's already happen... just the other day, I was reading a story in the Toronto Star about some lobster fisherman in the East struggling. He is holding $1million worth of lobsters in his tanks just because the dollar fell. If the US dollar doesn't rebound, he is looking at a big loss. For a small company like his, it will be devastaing.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Europe IS diverse, although not as diverse as USA. Just because everyone is white doesn't mean they are all the same. There are many different languages there (with some countries having multiple official languages), different foods, diffrent behaviour, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The information on that page seems to be from the CIA "Factbook". I would not trust anything coming out any spy agency, even if it were my own country. First of all, CIA most likely manipulates information to suit its own purposes (eg. claim a country is made up of this many people of a particular group when in fact it isn't (Iraq and the census "controversy" comes to mind)). Second, as you pointed out, the listing is totally useless since it uses inconsistent antiquated, obsolete, and racist categories (eg. mongoloid*). I would not trust anything out of the CIA, whether it claims to be correct or not. Lastly, the listed info is totally useless--even if it were true--because someone (CIA in this case) chose whether to lump people togeter into categories or not (eg. white vs Italian/German/etc vs European).
:( Overall, I think Canada is FAR more diverse than USA.
The best place to get information is from the UN or some NGO. I don't think the UN collects ethnic data (at least not for all countries) so probably nothing there. I don't know of any NGO either (although I'm sure there are some). So the last place to find ethnic info is from census carried out by each country (needless to say, one should ignore everything coming out of totalitarian countries, dictatorships, monarchies, etc**).
Just looked up some info and here are some links:
US Census
Canadian data Canadian data that is detailed (but includes people who are doublecounted)
Having posted thos links, I have to admit that they are not directly comparable. US census is too simplistic (at least from what I can find). On top of that, it would be preferable to have percentages worked out in a pie-chart, instead of just a bunch of numbers
I do think though that if you look at those numbers objectively, the lower numbers of black, and hispanic populations in Canada would swing the pendulum in the US's favor.
Not really. Even though Canada doesn't have the same size of black and hispanics***, it has many more smaller ethnic groups (like chinese, south Asians, Arabs, etc). So Canada is indeed more diverse.
Having said that, some cities in USA are very diverse. A city like New York is diverse (in fact, it is one of the most diverse cities in the world).
But checkboxes on a census form is not the entire answer. Because 'white' could mean many things. We do have a huge Russian population here, where they are maintaining a lot of their Russian culture. So, while they are 'white', their culture is different.
You CAN figure out ethnic groups with a census but the way USA does it is very unscientific and primitive. I imagine it is done that way because of conservative influences. Conservatives attempt to assimilate people (eg. USA) whereas liberals attempt to diverse people (eg. Canada). First of all, you should not use something vague like skin colour. Something like "white" or "black" is totally meaningless. Instead of asking whether people are white, the government should be asking to check off 'German', 'English', and so forth.
(* Mongoloid isn't exactly discriminatory but it is very inaccurate).
(** If you must know why one can't trust ethnic information coming out of an autocratic country, it is because governments use that to carry out their discriminatory activities. For instance, many services provided by government are tied to the size of the population (eg. a library gets a grant based on the size of the population in that area. By manipulating ethnic data, governments can alter their fiscal policies to discriminate against others. This is generally true outside multicultural countries like USA and Canada since ethnic groups are geogra
Last time you guys tried taking over Canada, we all know what happened to Washington don't we? ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Further confirms the fact that geeks are seriously lacking the opposite sex ;)
On a side note, it is interesting how the artist draws characters that look like herself. I haven't seen this before. Interesting...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Some posters below give some ideas. Using a standard like RSS instead of Outlook and so forth. I guess you can also try using Wi-Fi technology or something like that. Your system doesn't seem too hard. I don't think the programming is the hard part. What you are proposing is so simple (from a programming point of view) that it isn't even an issue. I think some of the hardware and interface issues may be more complex (it all depends on what you are trying to do).
:( ). I'm unemployed so I'm open to all options. My problem (this was the problem with the last business) is that I need a marketing/sales person.
;)
There is a push by the large companies for integration between appliances. Companies are trying to develop systems where your tv can talk to the computer, or your microwave, or whatever. I think your idea is kind of like that. Bill Gates has been talking about this for ages but I think the time is now. I believe that Wi-Fi (or wireless networking in general) provides a lot of potential.
I still don't like your idea because I don't think it has the market potential (although one would really need to study/estimate/whatever the market size). I'm not really sure how many people really use Outlook to manage their lives (professionals do but do they care about your product?). In any case, you should worry the least about programming/software and get the other stuff (like product concept, design, market research) done--if you are serious that is. You can always find software developers to partner with (or find contractors or something).
I've been thinking about starting a business (I started one last year (linux business) and it failed
Areas that I think have good potential now are Wi-Fi, RFID tags (Walmart forcing suppliers to use them means that it WILL become a standard), and appliance/system integration (as I described above). I also think that there might be a market for security products of all sorts due to the terrorist situation faced by USA (BUT I think these are too complicated and probably require millions of dollars in development costs--not sure). These are just MY OPINION and do not blame me if your business fails because you tried one of these
If anyone is reading this lives in Toronto and is thinking of starting a busines (in the tech area), let me know. I would be interested in joining (depending on details). I don't have much capital to put up but I'll work "free".
Sivaram Velauthapillai