Not really. Most people think that China will be the "Next India" when it comes to IT/BPO, but there are lots of reasons why they won't be.
1. Language. Indian languages come from Sanskrit, which according to all credible sources is a sister language to Ancient Greek and Latin (Dental in English refers to Teeth. Tooth in french is "Dent". In Hindi, the equivalent is "Dant" which is pronounced almost like the french word. The same applies to counting and numbers. This, coupled with 250 years of British Rule, means that Indians pick up English/Western European languages a lot faster than Chinese (poor accents and grammar aside).
2. Culture. Chinese people as a rule are more homogenous than Indians, and by all anecdotal evidence are much more disciplined. This mindset means that replicating a manufacturing process comes very easy to them. Life in India, however consists of "Jugad". This is a hindi word which can loosely be translated as "Improvisation" or to a person in the CS field it would be called a "Hack". As much as we'd like to pretend that programming and development are simple ordered processes, we all know this is far from the truth. There are many solutions which require some improvisation, and this again means that Indians are better suited to software.
3. Government. India is a democratic republic, following a parliamentary system based on the British system. It has the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) that are familiar to most (Western and) other democracies. China is more of a pseudo-communist/totalitarian-capitalist. This makes it easier for businessmen attempting to outsource, as they can operate in a framework they are familiar with. (In practise, this hasn't worked out, because India has not been going out of its way to attract business like China was doing...it is definitely easier to make fast decisions quickly in a communist country than in a democracy.
Anyway those are my two cents. Thank you for your time
Monopoly vs Monopoly??? Er... if there are two big companies in a market, that market is no longer a monopoly...but an oligpoly.... (mono = One in either greek or latin, dunno which, too lazy to google)...And Sony's no monopoly...it's a HUGE company, but it doesn't have total pricing control over its markets (not like M$ anyway). They may have enjoyed some power with the launch of the walkman, and the trinitron TV, but these days they simply represent the 'expensive' segment in most consumer electronics markets. Also, at least in the videogames market, you cannot consider Microsoft to be a monopolist either. It's basically one of 3 big comapnies fighting it out.
Well I'm not sure you're entirely right there. In order to load up just the TV, you'd probably just need to initialize some embedded system on a chip. Yes, that may be an "OS" but it could very well just be a dedicated chip. I find it hard to think my current TV (which has some of those on-screen display features like most new TVs) is running an 'operating system'.
Well I for one welcome our TV/Laptop bundling overlords.
...for using the term "unices" to refer to different flavours of Unix (I like Chocolate Chip Meself).
On a more serious note, the statement made above just about applies to any operating system i.e.
If the world goes*insert OS name here*, *insert company name here* won't need to spend so much making sure its technology can run securely and reliably on every weird combination of hardware and operating system its customers adopt.
I disagree, but then that's because I'm a democrat, or rather, if I were in America, and allowed to vote, I'd be a democrat. Frankly, the fact that people voted for the 3rd guy basically took away votes from the democrats which brings America (and the World) to its current state.... Effective leadership (note, I'm not saying anything about democracy in that sentence) requires a relatively clear majority...you don't get that with a 3rd alternative... of course, you hope someday the 3rd (or even 4th) alternative will be the 1st Alternative, but in the meantime, you give the country a fractured verdict. Not good. Not good at all.
Ok, so that was a little disinformation on my part. I think what I was hoping is that once they're bored of sitting on their pile of money, they'll repent their evil ways...;-)
I think that it's much easier to fix a malfunctioning pecker than to hold back a life-threatening disease. However, I would assume that Pfizer's plan runs as follows:
1. Identify impotence as a problem
2. ??? (i.e. R &: D, and manufacture Viagra)
3. Profit!!!!
4. Once you're bored of making loads of money off viagra, and you've got loads of competitors and are lying in oodles of money, devote your attention to fixing some of the world's real problems, like AIDS, cancer, and George Bush.
Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research?
Yes. NASA has to jump thru a billion bureaucratic hoops to get funding, not to mention a whole host of other problems plaguing all government projects. The Space Shuttle is actually a very inefficient machine, and these it's not even considered completely safe. Since profit will be the motivation of any private entrepreneur, they will eventually be forced to consider things like safety (what good is your craft if your customers are dead? I'm assuming most customers for a pvt spaceflight would insist on paying after they're safely back on the ground), a very efficient design as a way to save fuel, find a cheap fuel, try and propel the craft as far as possible e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c. The fact is that NASA was founded on lots of other priorities (getting a man into space before the Commies was one of them), but I don't think their aim has ever been to make a profitable business out of human spaceflight. And whether that's good or bad is not my point. But human spaceflight is only going to be furthered if it can be proved that there is money a such an undertaking, and that it can be done by a relatively small non-bureaucratic private entity.
should also have mentioned that Wikipedia has a whole article on Slashdot Subculture where n00bs like me cut our teeth. Plus The Economist mentions Wikipedia as a successful example of Open Source in this already slash-dotted article
The other forms of "Socialism" occur in economies which have the Free Market as their base. After spending a good 150 years being rabdily capitalist, most of those economies can now afford to provide welfare to their citizens. But it still doesn't change the fact that they have a free-market base. Plus welfare, and social security and government regluation are all part of Capitalism too. Adam Smith never spoke against that, nor, as you say, did Milton Friedman. However, the countries advocating pure Socialism would not allow anything from the Free-Market to penetrate their economies. China is more of a Totalitarian-Capitalist state now. Some parts of its economy are now more free than Democratic, yet stupidly-Socialist India. Obviously the majority of economies in the world today are mixed. But you will find that it is the ones which lean towards the free-market which are doing much better than the ones which aren't. The success stories of capitalist countries are numerous. If you like, I'll redefine that to mean Mixed economies, with a significant amount of free-market activity.
Our debate is not about oil in private hands. It's about capitalism vs communism. And Norway is pretty far from Communist or socialist. Link to Norway's Economy
From the link:The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.
Welfare Capitalism does *not* equal either Communism or Socialism. Fact is that no country can actually achieve true communism or socialism, because it is simply a hypothetical (and extremely stupid) idea. But the ones did try and go a purely communist/socialist route got fucked. India, China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Former Iron Curtain countries. Of course, your argument will be that these countries are in poor shape because there is something inherently wrong with their cultures...
First of all, you wrongly attribute a comment to me.
A feature of capitalism is to put things to
the market that you think will do well, regardless of the social uses of the product, its effect upon communal life, personal safety, or human well-being and the natural environment
Absolutely. And that is why there is a need for some government to keep Capitalism's baser instincs in check
Only three companies...
Only three companies produce SUVs??? I bed your pardon? Ok so there's Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen...er... which 3 are you referring to? Is there some new definition os SUV I'm missing?
Actually, that does not appeal to the people who do not drive the SUVs in the first place and are having their air polluted
Umm, I thought we're trying to get people to stop buying them. If these people aren't buying them anyway, they're not the ones the car companies are catering to anyway
those who might be buying an SUV 10 years from now, or those who do not want one at all, do not have any say in how SUVs are developed 10 years from now, as long as the comapnies make some profit
Yes, you are correct, they don't have a say. But what they can do is go back to their dealers in droves and make a request. Or fill out a feedback form. Also, please explain how this situation would be amended if it was a communist country? Would we just appeal to our local KGB agent to give more fuel-efficient SUVs, and would he just bend over backwards to help us out because we are all so 'enlightened'?
Communism does not work or trade in values of money
I see, so we'd all be living in a utopian, Star-Trek like world...
The public good basically means inventions
I see. The SUV is an invention. The Gun is an Invention. Electricity is an Invention.
pick up a book -- and read it. Perhaps one on economics, but also, on political science theory, too.
Ah yes, pick up a book. I'd rather walk outside on the street and take a look around. I've spent a good part of my life living in a socialist country, and a capitlaist country, and the facts are in my face, but clearly not in yours. Communism and Socialism breed poverty, and suppress independent thinking, and more, but I am too tired to type it all out. You are clearly living in your own delusional world, and I wish you the best. It's been fun talking to you, it allows one to see how deluded some people can acutally be, and why the state of the world is the way it is right now.
Maybe someone should cross post into their Christian-racist forums about a need for environmentalism and human understanding.
What would be the point. You think if we told Osama Bin Laden about not murdering innocent lives he would've listened with a sympathetic ear? These people's minds have been made up, and they've been raised in an environment that does not encourage independent thinking. I'll stick to tackling them on Slashdot meself. I've earned me a nice Karma Bonus just crafting out semi-thoughtful replies to their crap.
Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
That's not Capitalism, that's a monopoly market - one of Capitalism's "Market Failures". Further, the SUV market is far from a monopoly. And the reason SUVs are not fuel-efficient is because they have big engines and lots of power. And big powerful engines along big powerful machines are what appeal to Americans in general. So that is why these products are "marketable". You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
people who contribute more to the public good receive more in return
Please pull your head out of the sand, and while you're at it, let's have a definition of "Public Good". What's good for the public? Please do let us know, oh wise one. By your logic, since Stalin was leader of Russia, he must have done a LOT for the public good. Oh, wait - what's that? Stalin wasn't a True communist? I see. Well, until the world can produce a true communist, communism and socialism are truly the work of the Devil. Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy". Or are all communist countries poor becuase of some Capitalist plot to prevent reaching their full potential?
I should change my name to Troll-Biter....
It seems there are two Indias. One India where people like the parent poster have leap frogged so ahead of the rest of the country, they think that the evils of caste have been eradicated simply because they don't see it as much among their peers.
Simply the fact there are quite a few people who can say this proves that the Caste System is a dead issue, definitely in the urban areas.
As to the second part of your reply, that is what the garnd-parent is saying. Which one of our cultures are the best. Each one of us obviously thinks our own culture is the best. DUH!
while were more than familiar with immigrants who come here, take advantage of our opportunity and hospitality and return nothing but contempt (and the truth is that we don't even expect much more), it does bespeak a bit of a lack of grace on your part.
The fact is that these days, America is NOT very welcoming of immigrants, and this what has lead to offshore outsourcing in the first place. You can't get it done in America, so get it done abroad. So these people are not coming to your country. You want to get the job done, you are going to Them. We don't owe you any fucking thank yous. Or rather, we'll say thank you to you, when you Thank India for shipping over many of the founders of Silicon Valley (Sun, Hotmail, others). Do I hear any thank yous forthcoming? Didn't think so.
There is nothing civilized about your argument, as much as you would like to pretend. You make this lovely broad sweeping statement:
Here's what we found: Indians are very boastful of their capabilities and are very eager to prove themselves, but they don't know squat. They have a particular arrogance about them that is not only annoying, but completely unprofessional - even going so far as to telling us we're doing our jobs wrong, but then failing miserably when they try to do things their own way.
So basically you decided to categorise a nation 1 billion people as being idiots. That pretty much ends any civilized conversation there and then. You see 50-100 Indians and think they represent 1 billion people. How friggin' stupid.
Then in your reply to my reply you state:
The differences are culturally based and more global in scope than you are realizing
So which is it - do Indians not know squat or are there just a few cultural issues to be sorted out?
Finally, you mention that these people went thru your company's selection process. I don't know what more needs to be said there. You picked these people, and now you have a problem with them. Further, you are still mistaken about your joint venture with Tata, clearly. Tata is a brand name, and they have many subsidiary companies. One of them happens to be TCS - Tata Consultancy Services. This company deals in software, and only software, and has no link to manufacturing. If your company is involved in manufacturing, and the people you called in are from the manufacturing arm of Tata (These are firms like TISCO and TELCO), I don't know who the bigger moron is.... Clearly you yourself don't seem to know anything about the joint venture you are working for. And if people higher up in your company don't either, then I am not surprised that the whole project is a fiasco. Which brings me back to my original point. You take some dumb anecdote, and use it to try and discredit a whole country, based on mistakes that your company itself made.
Sure people are pissed off about outsourcing but have you stopped to think of the social impacts this has?
You expect me to be bothered about the social impact of outsourcing on you? I'll do that when you wonder about the social impact of subsidizing Rich Western farmers has on Indian Farmers. Or The effect of America supplying Pakistan with F-16s and Stinger missiles.
Indians claim a lot, deliver crap and then pretend to be offended when people bitch about sub-standard results
Replace the term "Indians" with "American Forces in Iraq", and this statement still works. But This will do too
And what gives India the right to play the 'third' world country? Look at the armies (navy, airforce and army) that India maintains - why? Is that the behavior of a third world country?
I'm sorry O Great Powerful First Worlder. We shall try and be more humble in your presence. Should we bend over and open our buttcheeks for you too?
Sure it feels good to be on the winning end but fortune passes everywhere.
And so apperently, India is a very fortunate country....
It might also just talk about general coding population. There are 1 billion Indians, and not so many Germans. So there's likely to be more good and bad Indian coders than any others.
Nice try dude, but your post still lacks any credibility. Here's why:
India's largest manufacturing company. What the heck does this mean? Manufacturing what? Dildos? Anyway, of the many large manufacturing companies in India, I would think Reliance would the biggest, or maybe TISCO. You can check up the websites for these companies, and they don't have any American stakes in them. So whatever the company your company allegedly works with may say, you got gipped. Barring all of that, maybe you should import workers without first vetting them. I work for HCL Technologies, and whenever any of our clients request workers, they put them through a rigourous interview process. Some people pass, some people fail. Those who pass get sent to the client site. If you work for such a big company, surely your company has a decent selection process in place. Or do you just ship over anybody who talks like Apu, and hope he'll give you free squishees on the side?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Most people think that China will be the "Next India" when it comes to IT/BPO, but there are lots of reasons why they won't be.
1. Language. Indian languages come from Sanskrit, which according to all credible sources is a sister language to Ancient Greek and Latin (Dental in English refers to Teeth. Tooth in french is "Dent". In Hindi, the equivalent is "Dant" which is pronounced almost like the french word. The same applies to counting and numbers. This, coupled with 250 years of British Rule, means that Indians pick up English/Western European languages a lot faster than Chinese (poor accents and grammar aside).
2. Culture. Chinese people as a rule are more homogenous than Indians, and by all anecdotal evidence are much more disciplined. This mindset means that replicating a manufacturing process comes very easy to them. Life in India, however consists of "Jugad". This is a hindi word which can loosely be translated as "Improvisation" or to a person in the CS field it would be called a "Hack". As much as we'd like to pretend that programming and development are simple ordered processes, we all know this is far from the truth. There are many solutions which require some improvisation, and this again means that Indians are better suited to software.
3. Government. India is a democratic republic, following a parliamentary system based on the British system. It has the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) that are familiar to most (Western and) other democracies. China is more of a pseudo-communist/totalitarian-capitalist. This makes it easier for businessmen attempting to outsource, as they can operate in a framework they are familiar with. (In practise, this hasn't worked out, because India has not been going out of its way to attract business like China was doing...it is definitely easier to make fast decisions quickly in a communist country than in a democracy.
Anyway those are my two cents. Thank you for your time
It's one of the older memes that are floating around out there (shows the slashdotter belongs to a different era) :-). This might help!
Monopoly vs Monopoly??? Er... if there are two big companies in a market, that market is no longer a monopoly...but an oligpoly.... (mono = One in either greek or latin, dunno which, too lazy to google)...And Sony's no monopoly...it's a HUGE company, but it doesn't have total pricing control over its markets (not like M$ anyway). They may have enjoyed some power with the launch of the walkman, and the trinitron TV, but these days they simply represent the 'expensive' segment in most consumer electronics markets. Also, at least in the videogames market, you cannot consider Microsoft to be a monopolist either. It's basically one of 3 big comapnies fighting it out.
Ok, so that I can take sides in a meaningless debate (and lose some Karma to boot), wtf is a furry?
MICROSOFT: All your gamers are belong to US! Make your time!
SONY: What you say! Somebody set up us the antitrust legislation! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
Well I'm not sure you're entirely right there. In order to load up just the TV, you'd probably just need to initialize some embedded system on a chip. Yes, that may be an "OS" but it could very well just be a dedicated chip. I find it hard to think my current TV (which has some of those on-screen display features like most new TVs) is running an 'operating system'.
Well I for one welcome our TV/Laptop bundling overlords.
...for using the term "unices" to refer to different flavours of Unix (I like Chocolate Chip Meself).
On a more serious note, the statement made above just about applies to any operating system i.e.
If the world goes*insert OS name here*, *insert company name here* won't need to spend so much making sure its technology can run securely and reliably on every weird combination of hardware and operating system its customers adopt.
I disagree, but then that's because I'm a democrat, or rather, if I were in America, and allowed to vote, I'd be a democrat. Frankly, the fact that people voted for the 3rd guy basically took away votes from the democrats which brings America (and the World) to its current state.... Effective leadership (note, I'm not saying anything about democracy in that sentence) requires a relatively clear majority...you don't get that with a 3rd alternative... of course, you hope someday the 3rd (or even 4th) alternative will be the 1st Alternative, but in the meantime, you give the country a fractured verdict. Not good. Not good at all.
!!!yaw taht ti detnaw Reltih. YOU backwards are Russia Soviet In
Oh sure, ask the Americans for help. AGAIN! Go home and choke on a freedom-fry, you cheese-eating monkey. In Soviet Russia, the French invade YOU!
Ok, so that was a little disinformation on my part. I think what I was hoping is that once they're bored of sitting on their pile of money, they'll repent their evil ways...;-)
I think that it's much easier to fix a malfunctioning pecker than to hold back a life-threatening disease. However, I would assume that Pfizer's plan runs as follows:
1. Identify impotence as a problem
2. ??? (i.e. R &: D, and manufacture Viagra)
3. Profit!!!! 4. Once you're bored of making loads of money off viagra, and you've got loads of competitors and are lying in oodles of money, devote your attention to fixing some of the world's real problems, like AIDS, cancer, and George Bush.
Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research?
Yes. NASA has to jump thru a billion bureaucratic hoops to get funding, not to mention a whole host of other problems plaguing all government projects. The Space Shuttle is actually a very inefficient machine, and these it's not even considered completely safe. Since profit will be the motivation of any private entrepreneur, they will eventually be forced to consider things like safety (what good is your craft if your customers are dead? I'm assuming most customers for a pvt spaceflight would insist on paying after they're safely back on the ground), a very efficient design as a way to save fuel, find a cheap fuel, try and propel the craft as far as possible e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c. The fact is that NASA was founded on lots of other priorities (getting a man into space before the Commies was one of them), but I don't think their aim has ever been to make a profitable business out of human spaceflight. And whether that's good or bad is not my point. But human spaceflight is only going to be furthered if it can be proved that there is money a such an undertaking, and that it can be done by a relatively small non-bureaucratic private entity.
should also have mentioned that Wikipedia has a whole article on Slashdot Subculture where n00bs like me cut our teeth. Plus The Economist mentions Wikipedia as a successful example of Open Source in this already slash-dotted article
The other forms of "Socialism" occur in economies which have the Free Market as their base. After spending a good 150 years being rabdily capitalist, most of those economies can now afford to provide welfare to their citizens. But it still doesn't change the fact that they have a free-market base. Plus welfare, and social security and government regluation are all part of Capitalism too. Adam Smith never spoke against that, nor, as you say, did Milton Friedman. However, the countries advocating pure Socialism would not allow anything from the Free-Market to penetrate their economies. China is more of a Totalitarian-Capitalist state now. Some parts of its economy are now more free than Democratic, yet stupidly-Socialist India. Obviously the majority of economies in the world today are mixed. But you will find that it is the ones which lean towards the free-market which are doing much better than the ones which aren't. The success stories of capitalist countries are numerous. If you like, I'll redefine that to mean Mixed economies, with a significant amount of free-market activity.
Our debate is not about oil in private hands. It's about capitalism vs communism. And Norway is pretty far from Communist or socialist. Link to Norway's Economy
From the link:The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.
Welfare Capitalism does *not* equal either Communism or Socialism. Fact is that no country can actually achieve true communism or socialism, because it is simply a hypothetical (and extremely stupid) idea. But the ones did try and go a purely communist/socialist route got fucked. India, China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Former Iron Curtain countries. Of course, your argument will be that these countries are in poor shape because there is something inherently wrong with their cultures...
First of all, you wrongly attribute a comment to me.
A feature of capitalism is to put things to the market that you think will do well, regardless of the social uses of the product, its effect upon communal life, personal safety, or human well-being and the natural environment
Absolutely. And that is why there is a need for some government to keep Capitalism's baser instincs in check
Only three companies... Only three companies produce SUVs??? I bed your pardon? Ok so there's Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen...er... which 3 are you referring to? Is there some new definition os SUV I'm missing?
Actually, that does not appeal to the people who do not drive the SUVs in the first place and are having their air polluted
Umm, I thought we're trying to get people to stop buying them. If these people aren't buying them anyway, they're not the ones the car companies are catering to anyway
those who might be buying an SUV 10 years from now, or those who do not want one at all, do not have any say in how SUVs are developed 10 years from now, as long as the comapnies make some profit
Yes, you are correct, they don't have a say. But what they can do is go back to their dealers in droves and make a request. Or fill out a feedback form. Also, please explain how this situation would be amended if it was a communist country? Would we just appeal to our local KGB agent to give more fuel-efficient SUVs, and would he just bend over backwards to help us out because we are all so 'enlightened'?
Communism does not work or trade in values of money
I see, so we'd all be living in a utopian, Star-Trek like world...
The public good basically means inventions
I see. The SUV is an invention. The Gun is an Invention. Electricity is an Invention.
pick up a book -- and read it. Perhaps one on economics, but also, on political science theory, too.
Ah yes, pick up a book. I'd rather walk outside on the street and take a look around. I've spent a good part of my life living in a socialist country, and a capitlaist country, and the facts are in my face, but clearly not in yours. Communism and Socialism breed poverty, and suppress independent thinking, and more, but I am too tired to type it all out. You are clearly living in your own delusional world, and I wish you the best. It's been fun talking to you, it allows one to see how deluded some people can acutally be, and why the state of the world is the way it is right now.
Maybe someone should cross post into their Christian-racist forums about a need for environmentalism and human understanding.
What would be the point. You think if we told Osama Bin Laden about not murdering innocent lives he would've listened with a sympathetic ear? These people's minds have been made up, and they've been raised in an environment that does not encourage independent thinking. I'll stick to tackling them on Slashdot meself. I've earned me a nice Karma Bonus just crafting out semi-thoughtful replies to their crap.
Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
That's not Capitalism, that's a monopoly market - one of Capitalism's "Market Failures". Further, the SUV market is far from a monopoly. And the reason SUVs are not fuel-efficient is because they have big engines and lots of power. And big powerful engines along big powerful machines are what appeal to Americans in general. So that is why these products are "marketable". You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
people who contribute more to the public good receive more in return
Please pull your head out of the sand, and while you're at it, let's have a definition of "Public Good". What's good for the public? Please do let us know, oh wise one. By your logic, since Stalin was leader of Russia, he must have done a LOT for the public good. Oh, wait - what's that? Stalin wasn't a True communist? I see. Well, until the world can produce a true communist, communism and socialism are truly the work of the Devil. Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy". Or are all communist countries poor becuase of some Capitalist plot to prevent reaching their full potential?
I should change my name to Troll-Biter....
Ah what would have been the point...it's down these days :-(
It seems there are two Indias. One India where people like the parent poster have leap frogged so ahead of the rest of the country, they think that the evils of caste have been eradicated simply because they don't see it as much among their peers.
Simply the fact there are quite a few people who can say this proves that the Caste System is a dead issue, definitely in the urban areas.
As to the second part of your reply, that is what the garnd-parent is saying. Which one of our cultures are the best. Each one of us obviously thinks our own culture is the best. DUH!
while were more than familiar with immigrants who come here, take advantage of our opportunity and hospitality and return nothing but contempt (and the truth is that we don't even expect much more), it does bespeak a bit of a lack of grace on your part.
The fact is that these days, America is NOT very welcoming of immigrants, and this what has lead to offshore outsourcing in the first place. You can't get it done in America, so get it done abroad. So these people are not coming to your country. You want to get the job done, you are going to Them. We don't owe you any fucking thank yous. Or rather, we'll say thank you to you, when you Thank India for shipping over many of the founders of Silicon Valley (Sun, Hotmail, others). Do I hear any thank yous forthcoming? Didn't think so.
There is nothing civilized about your argument, as much as you would like to pretend. You make this lovely broad sweeping statement:
Here's what we found: Indians are very boastful of their capabilities and are very eager to prove themselves, but they don't know squat. They have a particular arrogance about them that is not only annoying, but completely unprofessional - even going so far as to telling us we're doing our jobs wrong, but then failing miserably when they try to do things their own way.
So basically you decided to categorise a nation 1 billion people as being idiots. That pretty much ends any civilized conversation there and then. You see 50-100 Indians and think they represent 1 billion people. How friggin' stupid.
Then in your reply to my reply you state:
The differences are culturally based and more global in scope than you are realizing
So which is it - do Indians not know squat or are there just a few cultural issues to be sorted out?
Finally, you mention that these people went thru your company's selection process. I don't know what more needs to be said there. You picked these people, and now you have a problem with them. Further, you are still mistaken about your joint venture with Tata, clearly. Tata is a brand name, and they have many subsidiary companies. One of them happens to be TCS - Tata Consultancy Services. This company deals in software, and only software, and has no link to manufacturing. If your company is involved in manufacturing, and the people you called in are from the manufacturing arm of Tata (These are firms like TISCO and TELCO), I don't know who the bigger moron is.... Clearly you yourself don't seem to know anything about the joint venture you are working for. And if people higher up in your company don't either, then I am not surprised that the whole project is a fiasco. Which brings me back to my original point. You take some dumb anecdote, and use it to try and discredit a whole country, based on mistakes that your company itself made.
Sure people are pissed off about outsourcing but have you stopped to think of the social impacts this has?
You expect me to be bothered about the social impact of outsourcing on you? I'll do that when you wonder about the social impact of subsidizing Rich Western farmers has on Indian Farmers. Or The effect of America supplying Pakistan with F-16s and Stinger missiles.
Indians claim a lot, deliver crap and then pretend to be offended when people bitch about sub-standard results
Replace the term "Indians" with "American Forces in Iraq", and this statement still works. But This will do too
And what gives India the right to play the 'third' world country? Look at the armies (navy, airforce and army) that India maintains - why? Is that the behavior of a third world country?
I'm sorry O Great Powerful First Worlder. We shall try and be more humble in your presence. Should we bend over and open our buttcheeks for you too?
Sure it feels good to be on the winning end but fortune passes everywhere.
And so apperently, India is a very fortunate country....
It might also just talk about general coding population. There are 1 billion Indians, and not so many Germans. So there's likely to be more good and bad Indian coders than any others.
Nice try dude, but your post still lacks any credibility. Here's why:
India's largest manufacturing company.
What the heck does this mean? Manufacturing what? Dildos? Anyway, of the many large manufacturing companies in India, I would think Reliance would the biggest, or maybe TISCO. You can check up the websites for these companies, and they don't have any American stakes in them. So whatever the company your company allegedly works with may say, you got gipped. Barring all of that, maybe you should import workers without first vetting them. I work for HCL Technologies, and whenever any of our clients request workers, they put them through a rigourous interview process. Some people pass, some people fail. Those who pass get sent to the client site. If you work for such a big company, surely your company has a decent selection process in place. Or do you just ship over anybody who talks like Apu, and hope he'll give you free squishees on the side?