I'd have been happy (and would be now) to work for hosting space and spare parts. The thing is, the grocery store doesn't take hard drives in exchange for food; likewise the dentist; likewise the auto repair people.
Anyway, I don't think the topic is start-ups. It seems to be large corporations.
Last I knew, India had 4-8 times more people than the US (280M in the US compared to 1-2B in India, I forget exactly). So you can replace the US labor with cheap labor pretty much infinitely, but since you're not paying them the same you're not adding customers; they're priced out of your market. Just how much US product do 4 foeign poverty-wage earners and 1 unemployed American buy? Exactly 1 less than an employed American.
The problem is that price corrections are not happening in the prices of the products; any newfound profits are going to a very few COs. Companies keep complaining about profits, but they're not going to help themselves in the long run by firing their market base and hiring cheap labor.
Yeah, and I'm sure they sell them in India at 1/5 the price, to go with his salary that's 1/5 an American's.
I'm glad that a family can have a better life than they normally would, but I don't see how giving a company 80% of an engineers salary helps the American economy when it DOES NOT translate into lower prices or better quality innovative products for the American people.
American jobs are lost, the price stays the same, the extra profits go into the top.1% pockets, products are still made crappy, and control software in most consumer devices is a joke. The only benefit is to a very few people. The model breaks down because everybody is still paying the original 100% price. So, not only are the cost savings not being passed on, but there's 4/5 less cash out there to buy the products (unless you think that all CEOs are going to buy extras and hand them out on the street corner).
In Ohio, they sell your info when you renew your driver's license. You can "opt out" of the US Mail lists, but I don't think you can get off the telemarketing list.
Damn youngsters! Back in my day, we'd be happy to have TWO buttons, and they were always on TOP of the controller. Sure, some people tried to hold it so they could press the buttons with their fingers, but they'd just end up sucking - and looking like a mentally challenged person trying to cast a fireball spell for real, or something.
(ok, ok, so the Intellivision had a keypad, a round pressure pad, and some buttons which were on the side of the controller. But it didn't go anywhere, and it was still like trying to play a game with a TV remote.)
Remember what I 've said in the previous discussion about games ?
Fuck no. Who the hell are you!?!?!?
;)
I agree with your "rehash" sentiment though. But, that doesn't mean that Sheep Wars couldn't have been "interesting". I wouldn't know though, I haven't played it.
Yes. Before building codes, people built buildings that stood and worked properly because if they didn't, they might die. New materials meant innovations meant new ways of building buildings - all without building codes.
Ya, but guess what? There are plenty of people that will happily turn a profit and not give a crap if other people die. I'm sure they make sure their houses are built well.
Look it up - the early internet was controlled by the DoD under the DARPA program, one government agency dictating the standards, protocols, even the people who could connect.
Umm, if it's scorching, you're doing something wrong. Not to insult your intelligence, but make sure that your drill is going in the right direction. Ok, ok, so I've done the same thing. It's funny how much harder it is to drill into wood when the bit is turning the wrong way:)
Spade bits will tend to scorch a little, but if it's much then you need to make sure you're cleaning out the chaff often enough.
1) the "Let it Burn" policies have only recently been *proven* to be a good thing. Like you yourself said, fire suppression (sufficiently advanced for realy fighting forest fires) has only been around ~100 years. How long do you think it takes to see how a sustained forest fire suppression effort affects the forests?
2) As for trees that don't require fire for their cones to release seeds: All non-coniferous trees. Secondly, you're demanding examples, but don't provide any yourself. Third, you telling me that (nearly) all conifers *require* a fire before they'll be able to grow? So if a disease takes out a patch, there will be no new conifers there until the next fire? I'm taking a SWAG here, but I think that a good number of cones drying out over the summer dehydrate enough to make them split open.
[A funny thing about conifers is that their needle droppings turn the soil more acidic than their seeds like, and they need lots of sun to grow, which means that new conifers have a hard time growing when there are old ones around. But, the seedlings grow fast in a hospitable environment. Thus, they tend to quickly fill in cleared areas, such as after major fires or disease. Deciduous, on the other hand, prefer shade when growing and don't mind more acidic soil. So, decidous trees are kind of like a parasite to the conifers, and after a conifer forest starts geting old (~200-300 years), the desiduos start moving in and take over pretty quick. That's why all truly *old* forests are decidous. I guess conifers are kind of like the Forest Phoenix:) ]
3) Trees live to be 400 lots of places (here in the midwest, anyway), if people don't cut them down. There's quite a few in our metroparks in Cleveland. I've seen them in Pennsylvaina and surrounding states, too. Healthy adult trees can survive forest fires; you can see the evidence in the rings. And there a *lot* that are in the 200-300 range that would survive a decent fire. [ ~1ft diameter per 100 years of age is a decent rule of thumb. ]
I saw a special (probably PBS) where a guy found a bunch of wood in Lake Erie of all places. Turns out, it's great for violins and high-priced furniture and it made him rich. The special mentioned the lost art of preparing wood for instruments, but mentioned that the Lake Erie stuff was supposed to be some of the best, so they think the real secret is simply long-term storage under water.
wtf? you apparently didn't take a real CS track. Discrete mathematics including graph and set theories and lots of proofs, numerical methods, finite automata, two fomal algorithms classes that require proving the running time of algorithms, a small bit of electronics. That's the "specialized knowledge" to complete a CS degree. Most classes required doing formal proofs of the theories and equations. There are, of course, the typical classes that most other degrees cover also: Math from Calculus to Linear algebra and Differential Equations, physics from classical mechanics to E&M to relativity and a small bit of quantum; plenty of chem, organic and inorganic, and thermal.
Stop thinking that CompSci is the same thing as learning Java in highschool.
Yeah, but Rudy got old and quit taking drugs. Maybe it turns around toward the end, but Realware is too preachy for me. And what's with the IP rights stuff? If everyone has a magic wand, who gives a shit if people can reproduce what you've made? If he's actually trying to point out that even if people are given the world they will still compete and withold things from others in order to feel special, he's doing a poor job, because it sounds like he's actually concerned with upholding those views. The protaganists seem more concerned with proving to others how cool they are than with enjoying what they do. I suppose I should pick the book back up and finish it.
The problem is that Google is intended for finding CONTENT on the web. The problem is that people are hijacking it in order to promote OPINIONS, and there's no way to put "not opinion" or "leave out friggin opinion, mkay?" in the search. It's corrupting the content.
There is also the (more important) issue of one content provider playing tricks so that they are ranked higher, which you agreed is a problem.
Sure. And the kid's parent can change the channel by twisting his nut off.
You've either been working on your trolls too much or on your analogies too little.
And the line is drawn somewhere. It's ok to curse in public, even if a child accidentally overhears you. It's even ok to keep doing it. It's NOT ok to chase somebody down the street cursing when they're trying to avoid you (harassment). As long as it's everyday language (even lowest common denominator language and topics), then it should be ok to have it on the radio and public tv.
Re:Expensive Electronics Cheap Scams, not taken do
on
eBay Fraud Vigilantes
·
· Score: 1
when was the last time you ate a burger that looked as good as it did in the adverts
Umm, just because you've been getting ripped off forever doesn't make it right. I'm continually pissed about about that crap. The product they are advertising is NOT the product you get. With models, at least you know the modelling agency is selectively picking the top point-oh-one percent of good looking people and putting their clothes on them. I can buy exactly what they sell, it just won't look so good on me. But, it's not like if I just keep looking, I'll someday find a Whopper that looks like it does on TV.
I, too, work for a government contractor (for NASA, specifically) and agree with most of your post.
Except...
I've never heard of somebody actually losing award fees.
I have heard, on the other hand, of: 1) Products being "in the mail" for literally 5 years. 2) Reviews of another contractor by the people dealing with them being promoted from "Major deficiency" to "Minor strength" by the time they get through upper-level management (resulting in 110% award criterea, and bonus pay for some I'm sure). 3) 3 rounds of a commitee submitting their pick for a contract, just to have the center head say, "No, look at it again, and pay attention to this other guy". The contract was awarded to the other guy, and it was way over budget and essentially 0 delivery. That's one of the problems. The contractors get paid, and when it comes delivery time NASA's choice is to pay them (hopefully only a few million) more or start over with someone else. Guess what happens? What I don't understand is how they get away with giving contracts to these people over and over. I guess when there are only a few in the business, and you have your buddy looking out for you on the inside, you can pull that crap. I just wish there were more real accountability.
Oh, concerning "garage project" mentality, it's hard to get people to understand how much is spent just on the paperwork, too. Even pointing out that you're spending millions of dollars to send something to another planet where you can't just hit the reboot switch, they'll give a non-commital grunt and change topics. Doing big projects right is mostly boring, very tedious, and thus, expensive. They're used to products whose purpose is to make somebody rich (rather than do something complicated right every time), and the crappy software and hardware solutions that come out of that.
The Shuttle and ISS don't return much because they aren't doing anything new
I'd argue that the ISS isn't doing much because, now that it's operational, its budget has been cut to hell so that they can only afford to keep it in orbit. (one of the dumbest implementations of waterfall/spiral method I've ever seen; I mean, it's not like there's a question of if it will get done. It's *there*, we just need to *use* it!).
And as far as doing "return" goes: Basic research is not meant to produce "return"s. It produces things like numbers on the periodic table and coefficients in materials science books. It provides the support on which "interesting" things are built. For a simple example: Where would computers be today if we didn't know the basic material properties of silicon? Tons of boring "no return" research needs to be done in order for the sciences to advance. It's not all product development and marketing. Any leader who doesn't understand that will grind our technological advancement to a halt. Patents and proprietary/encumbered protocols already stifle many products we get to use (HDTV in the US, for example). Much of basic research is expensive, and subsidised by the gvmnt precisely because it's too expensive for private corporations to undertake and has no immediate return. But, it's obvious that we're all better for it. I think the only people who should be happy about NASA's forced move to exploration at the cost of basic research are ones who are happy with our current technology level./FLAIMBAIT: Heck, following the lead of the Catholic church, we could start outlawing basic research, like whether or not the sun revolves around the earth. If it's not gonna give us a return, then don't waste the time, right?;)
Slashdot Mirror
No, just pay the normal employees fairly for the time they work.
Oh, I won't!!!! :D
</perv>
I'd have been happy (and would be now) to work for hosting space and spare parts. The thing is, the grocery store doesn't take hard drives in exchange for food; likewise the dentist; likewise the auto repair people.
Anyway, I don't think the topic is start-ups. It seems to be large corporations.
Last I knew, India had 4-8 times more people than the US (280M in the US compared to 1-2B in India, I forget exactly). So you can replace the US labor with cheap labor pretty much infinitely, but since you're not paying them the same you're not adding customers; they're priced out of your market. Just how much US product do 4 foeign poverty-wage earners and 1 unemployed American buy? Exactly 1 less than an employed American.
The problem is that price corrections are not happening in the prices of the products; any newfound profits are going to a very few COs. Companies keep complaining about profits, but they're not going to help themselves in the long run by firing their market base and hiring cheap labor.
Yeah, and I'm sure they sell them in India at 1/5 the price, to go with his salary that's 1/5 an American's.
.1% pockets, products are still made crappy, and control software in most consumer devices is a joke. The only benefit is to a very few people. The model breaks down because everybody is still paying the original 100% price. So, not only are the cost savings not being passed on, but there's 4/5 less cash out there to buy the products (unless you think that all CEOs are going to buy extras and hand them out on the street corner).
I'm glad that a family can have a better life than they normally would, but I don't see how giving a company 80% of an engineers salary helps the American economy when it DOES NOT translate into lower prices or better quality innovative products for the American people.
American jobs are lost, the price stays the same, the extra profits go into the top
Well, at least one who knows who to mail the envelope!
In Ohio, they sell your info when you renew your driver's license. You can "opt out" of the US Mail lists, but I don't think you can get off the telemarketing list.
Damn youngsters! Back in my day, we'd be happy to have TWO buttons, and they were always on TOP of the controller. Sure, some people tried to hold it so they could press the buttons with their fingers, but they'd just end up sucking - and looking like a mentally challenged person trying to cast a fireball spell for real, or something.
(ok, ok, so the Intellivision had a keypad, a round pressure pad, and some buttons which were on the side of the controller. But it didn't go anywhere, and it was still like trying to play a game with a TV remote.)
No, because he was nailing the chicken.
It's the baby that's stapled to one...
Fuck no. Who the hell are you!?!?!?
I agree with your "rehash" sentiment though. But, that doesn't mean that Sheep Wars couldn't have been "interesting". I wouldn't know though, I haven't played it.
Yes. Before building codes, people built buildings that stood and worked properly because if they didn't, they might die. New materials meant innovations meant new ways of building buildings - all without building codes.
Ya, but guess what? There are plenty of people that will happily turn a profit and not give a crap if other people die. I'm sure they make sure their houses are built well.
Look it up - the early internet was controlled by the DoD under the DARPA program, one government agency dictating the standards, protocols, even the people who could connect.
So, do you like standards or not!?
Umm, if it's scorching, you're doing something wrong. Not to insult your intelligence, but make sure that your drill is going in the right direction. Ok, ok, so I've done the same thing. It's funny how much harder it is to drill into wood when the bit is turning the wrong way :)
Spade bits will tend to scorch a little, but if it's much then you need to make sure you're cleaning out the chaff often enough.
Umm, trees absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. So yea, the trees just... don't actively pursue the oxygen.
To say nothing of the photosynthesis trees use to produce energy.
I honestly don't know the point/seriousness of the post, but what I want to know is what fucktard modded this insightful?
A comment about your sig: Oxygen is one of the most corrosive and poisonous substances known ;)
1) the "Let it Burn" policies have only recently been *proven* to be a good thing. Like you yourself said, fire suppression (sufficiently advanced for realy fighting forest fires) has only been around ~100 years. How long do you think it takes to see how a sustained forest fire suppression effort affects the forests?
:) ]
2) As for trees that don't require fire for their cones to release seeds: All non-coniferous trees. Secondly, you're demanding examples, but don't provide any yourself. Third, you telling me that (nearly) all conifers *require* a fire before they'll be able to grow? So if a disease takes out a patch, there will be no new conifers there until the next fire? I'm taking a SWAG here, but I think that a good number of cones drying out over the summer dehydrate enough to make them split open.
[A funny thing about conifers is that their needle droppings turn the soil more acidic than their seeds like, and they need lots of sun to grow, which means that new conifers have a hard time growing when there are old ones around. But, the seedlings grow fast in a hospitable environment. Thus, they tend to quickly fill in cleared areas, such as after major fires or disease. Deciduous, on the other hand, prefer shade when growing and don't mind more acidic soil. So, decidous trees are kind of like a parasite to the conifers, and after a conifer forest starts geting old (~200-300 years), the desiduos start moving in and take over pretty quick. That's why all truly *old* forests are decidous. I guess conifers are kind of like the Forest Phoenix
3) Trees live to be 400 lots of places (here in the midwest, anyway), if people don't cut them down. There's quite a few in our metroparks in Cleveland. I've seen them in Pennsylvaina and surrounding states, too. Healthy adult trees can survive forest fires; you can see the evidence in the rings. And there a *lot* that are in the 200-300 range that would survive a decent fire. [ ~1ft diameter per 100 years of age is a decent rule of thumb. ]
I saw a special (probably PBS) where a guy found a bunch of wood in Lake Erie of all places. Turns out, it's great for violins and high-priced furniture and it made him rich. The special mentioned the lost art of preparing wood for instruments, but mentioned that the Lake Erie stuff was supposed to be some of the best, so they think the real secret is simply long-term storage under water.
Our network is only ~230 miles away.
:)
But it's straight up.
We do have X, and KDE even. All the good it does us...
wtf? you apparently didn't take a real CS track. Discrete mathematics including graph and set theories and lots of proofs, numerical methods, finite automata, two fomal algorithms classes that require proving the running time of algorithms, a small bit of electronics. That's the "specialized knowledge" to complete a CS degree. Most classes required doing formal proofs of the theories and equations. There are, of course, the typical classes that most other degrees cover also: Math from Calculus to Linear algebra and Differential Equations, physics from classical mechanics to E&M to relativity and a small bit of quantum; plenty of chem, organic and inorganic, and thermal.
Stop thinking that CompSci is the same thing as learning Java in highschool.
Yeah, but Rudy got old and quit taking drugs. Maybe it turns around toward the end, but Realware is too preachy for me. And what's with the IP rights stuff? If everyone has a magic wand, who gives a shit if people can reproduce what you've made? If he's actually trying to point out that even if people are given the world they will still compete and withold things from others in order to feel special, he's doing a poor job, because it sounds like he's actually concerned with upholding those views. The protaganists seem more concerned with proving to others how cool they are than with enjoying what they do. I suppose I should pick the book back up and finish it.
The problem is that Google is intended for finding CONTENT on the web. The problem is that people are hijacking it in order to promote OPINIONS, and there's no way to put "not opinion" or "leave out friggin opinion, mkay?" in the search. It's corrupting the content.
There is also the (more important) issue of one content provider playing tricks so that they are ranked higher, which you agreed is a problem.
Sure. And the kid's parent can change the channel by twisting his nut off.
You've either been working on your trolls too much or on your analogies too little.
And the line is drawn somewhere. It's ok to curse in public, even if a child accidentally overhears you. It's even ok to keep doing it. It's NOT ok to chase somebody down the street cursing when they're trying to avoid you (harassment). As long as it's everyday language (even lowest common denominator language and topics), then it should be ok to have it on the radio and public tv.
when was the last time you ate a burger that looked as good as it did in the adverts
Umm, just because you've been getting ripped off forever doesn't make it right. I'm continually pissed about about that crap. The product they are advertising is NOT the product you get. With models, at least you know the modelling agency is selectively picking the top point-oh-one percent of good looking people and putting their clothes on them. I can buy exactly what they sell, it just won't look so good on me. But, it's not like if I just keep looking, I'll someday find a Whopper that looks like it does on TV.
I, too, work for a government contractor (for NASA, specifically) and agree with most of your post.
Except...
I've never heard of somebody actually losing award fees.
I have heard, on the other hand, of: 1) Products being "in the mail" for literally 5 years. 2) Reviews of another contractor by the people dealing with them being promoted from "Major deficiency" to "Minor strength" by the time they get through upper-level management (resulting in 110% award criterea, and bonus pay for some I'm sure). 3) 3 rounds of a commitee submitting their pick for a contract, just to have the center head say, "No, look at it again, and pay attention to this other guy". The contract was awarded to the other guy, and it was way over budget and essentially 0 delivery. That's one of the problems. The contractors get paid, and when it comes delivery time NASA's choice is to pay them (hopefully only a few million) more or start over with someone else. Guess what happens? What I don't understand is how they get away with giving contracts to these people over and over. I guess when there are only a few in the business, and you have your buddy looking out for you on the inside, you can pull that crap. I just wish there were more real accountability.
Oh, concerning "garage project" mentality, it's hard to get people to understand how much is spent just on the paperwork, too. Even pointing out that you're spending millions of dollars to send something to another planet where you can't just hit the reboot switch, they'll give a non-commital grunt and change topics. Doing big projects right is mostly boring, very tedious, and thus, expensive. They're used to products whose purpose is to make somebody rich (rather than do something complicated right every time), and the crappy software and hardware solutions that come out of that.
The Shuttle and ISS don't return much because they aren't doing anything new
/FLAIMBAIT: Heck, following the lead of the Catholic church, we could start outlawing basic research, like whether or not the sun revolves around the earth. If it's not gonna give us a return, then don't waste the time, right? ;)
I'd argue that the ISS isn't doing much because, now that it's operational, its budget has been cut to hell so that they can only afford to keep it in orbit. (one of the dumbest implementations of waterfall/spiral method I've ever seen; I mean, it's not like there's a question of if it will get done. It's *there*, we just need to *use* it!).
And as far as doing "return" goes: Basic research is not meant to produce "return"s. It produces things like numbers on the periodic table and coefficients in materials science books. It provides the support on which "interesting" things are built. For a simple example: Where would computers be today if we didn't know the basic material properties of silicon? Tons of boring "no return" research needs to be done in order for the sciences to advance. It's not all product development and marketing. Any leader who doesn't understand that will grind our technological advancement to a halt. Patents and proprietary/encumbered protocols already stifle many products we get to use (HDTV in the US, for example). Much of basic research is expensive, and subsidised by the gvmnt precisely because it's too expensive for private corporations to undertake and has no immediate return. But, it's obvious that we're all better for it. I think the only people who should be happy about NASA's forced move to exploration at the cost of basic research are ones who are happy with our current technology level.