If you can equate Dr. Cerf and some 20 Nobel prize-winners and some of the nation's top scientists and engineers with the not-so-swift boat veterans for "truth" (funded and coordinated by Karl Rove as early as January of 2003), then you have got to be in complete denial of reality.
In a related story John Chambers (a big backer of Pres. Bush in 2000 and CEO of CISCO Systems) announced that CISCO was developing a 325 million dollar technology center in China because as he put it "in ten years China will be the leading market in technology". Such an alarming development is only a small piece of a larger calamity in US Science and Technology policy that has Dr. Cerf and his fellow scientists so concerned with the Bush administration's record on science and technology.
Of course, we can continue to receive our talking points from Karl Rove and blissfully disregard the warning signs, but don't expect to fare well as the rubber begins to meet the road. Bush has allowed China to eagerly become one of the largest holders of our debt (perhaps you haven't noticed the future of our economy and government budget is in hock because are living on money borrowed in large part from Chinese communists). Once they have technological superiority, now predicted by our own captains of industry to occur within 10 years, they won't need us or our debt. It will then occur to the world financial markets that our currency (the stuff used to pay for all the expensive imports for high end hardware for many of our weapons) will be next to worthless.
Of course, discussion of any of this is off the table until after the November elections so no point bringing up during the debates.
My guess is that Bush will continue to buy off the Chinese in a fashion he has similarly crafted for the Saudis, another large buyer of our debt. For the Saudis he has ruled out any conservation measures that would reduce the cost of oil, thereby allowing the Saudi and the bin-Laden family to reap huge profits in return for their political support. For the Chinese he will more than likely continue to pursue failed trade policies that will send even more high-tech jobs to China. (Don't get me wrong I'm a big holder of CISCO stock and I fully expect Bush to succeed).
But then as P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute."
Seems to me that you appear to have been born yesterday.
I think your comments are completely erroneous. They and much of the subsequent discussion miss a number of larger trends.
OSS remains a very small part of total software sales and costs. Even if what you say was true, it couldn't possibly explain the larger trend since no more than a few percent of IT professionals are focused on OSS.
Rather, I suggest that there are several larger trends that are causing the loss of IT jobs.
1) the overall economy remains mired in mediocrity and the "IT/dot.com crash" is still not completely over. Companies, investors, and consumers, are all still trying to understand and reassess the "value" of software. In the meantime much of those reinvested income tax savings have left for foreign markets, where there is a now better possibility of return on investment.
2) General IT education in the US is declining rather than rising. This is due in part to a recognition that there are fewer jobs available and a decreased emphasis on the critical need technical education by the current US administration (reduction of scholarships/reduction of governmnet PR/shifting resources to emphasize testing, faith-based approaches, etc). It has decided to allocate the bulk of funding into debt-servicing, military and security-oriented employment, and faith-based small business rather than technologies that require many programmers.
Yes, there are more folks using technology, but most of this is little more than a few clever programmers making it "idiot simple" to do what were, at one time, difficult tasks. Consequently, there is no longer the need for increasing numbers of developers to support an ever increasing number of unsophisticated users.
3) M$ largely has legalized and institutionalized its monopoly by securring the acquiessence of the US government. This has reduced the need for multiple developers to develop similar functionality in a variety of competing environments. Oh yes, they exist in pockets here and there, like small island populations, but otherwise extinct on the mainland. But, don't get me wrong, I believe the 'penguins' are like the birds and mammals of the Jurrasic, waiting for a chance for a cosmic event to alter the technical landscape and make the dinosaurs extinct. Its just at this moment, we are still in the technological equivallent of the Jurrasic. The dinosaurs are still basking in the sun and still almost completely dominating the waterholes.
The current governmental philosophy also reflects the trend in the corporate world to concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands so that it can be managed more "wisely, efficiently and securely". Like the influence of this philosophy in other areas of the economy, a few contractors are doing very, very well. Its just that these efforts are not coordinated into any kind of plan to improve the overall technology economy and their number and effect is too small to translate into noticeable trend in the larger population.
4) What software development is occurring is more and more moving offshore (outside of US). Technical education in most countries now greatly exceeds that in the US (which has moved from 25 toward 30 in the overall standings for math and science education over the past few years). More importantly the cost of taking advantage of this better-educated, non-US talent has greatly increased because networks are better and the differential between wages in the US and other countries make it more cost effective to hire 5-10 southasian programmers for the cost of one US one. Admittedly, it is easy to overlook the fact that about 60% of all advanced degrees in technological fields awarded in the US over the past 10 years have gone to foreigners. While many have stayed in the US, eventually much of this expertise finds its way home.
5) I looked into the methodology of the survey and like most of these kinds of surveys, it is abysmal. Very small samples, biased sampling techniques, no effort to account for spatial autocorrelation, a
As reported by the BBC about two weeks ago, the SCO lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler was thrown out of a Michigan court with no damages awarded to SCO.
Although there has been little coverage of this development neither in the general press nor for some strange reason on Slashdot, it would suggest that SCO's other suits are likely headed in the same direction.
So its no surprise that they have stopped running up legal fees adding venues they are not likely to win. SCO is in an odd predicament now of having to realistically assess its business strategy in the absence of any benefit the lawsuits might accrue to them.
I am wondering if there is anyone out there who keeps track of court statistics? If so, how often is it that a company files suit for patent/copyright infringement and then after 1 year asks for a postponement of the trial? And how often do they win as a result?
Why bring it in the first place if you are not ready to do so?
As a scientist, I have followed this trend with interest. I can't say that getting DARPA funding is easier than NSF funding, since I received multiple NSF awards but was unable to convince DARPA of the value of my ideas (perhaps not surprising since I study ichthyology).
Nonetheless, there are several aspects that do account for at least a major part of the trend.
1) cultural emphasis on academic excellence within the family and community is weaker in the US than say in Japan and Singapore.
2) change in science curricula so that for the most part science is not taught in public schools, but rather "science facts/trivia".
3) Public misperception of what science actually is (ie. hypothesis testing and proof by falsification). Consequently, the public doesn't really know what science is and often confuses it with technology. There is actually no money in science per se, only the potential technological and business spin-offs. This has been especially difficult for pure sciences, such as physics, in which advances are decades from potential commercial application.
4) Lack of priority toward funding science in all grades K-postgraduate in a sustained manner. Many science education "projects" tend to be short term, whereas very few actually extend through many years of a young scientists education.
5) Lack of teachers who are trained in science.
6) In some communities there is outright hostility to certain findings of science (ie the fact of greenhouse warming [hardly a controversy any longer among scientists] or evolution [certainly a fact that forms the basis of all biology, yet we see repeated attempts by some to supplant science with pseudo-scientific or religious views]). In others there is a fear of science (ie cloning research) because it is largely misunderstood.
7) Teaching science is not rewarded to the degree, say as compared to salaries of CEO's such as Ken Lay, who pumping up Enron stock before insider selling and bankrupcy at stockholder, bondholder, and taxpayer expense, even though the worst science teacher in the world has proved themselves vastly more valuable to society than Ken Lay type executives ever will be. The consequences of greed factor should not be underestimated. Unfortunately, we are bombarded by commercialism and the perceived value of wealth.
8) Rising levels of mercury and other pollutants and irritants in US communities that effect cognitive and behavioral performance (and the Bush administration wants to raise the allowable level of mercury in the environment).
9) Relative effect of rising standards abroad are changing percentages. It is more difficult for industrialized nations to improve there standing when other less developed nations are growing faster on a percentage (not necessarily absolute) basis. In some countries even small increases can result in a large percentage change (number of scientists produced/papers published etc).
10) TV watching is much higher in US households than abroad. TV is known to produce attention deficit disorders and other cognitive difficulties, especially in young children whose brain circuitry has not fully developed. Even in adults and older children TV watching encourages passive rather than active thinking. Understanding science and doing mathematical proofs requires prefontal lobe activity.
11) Failure to exercise also contributes, since the brain does not exist separate from the body. A healthy body (particularly at the metabolic level), given adequate nutrition is essential to proper brain function. Kids today are exposed to far more sugar laden foods that lead to obesity and cardio-vascular problems early in life and that effect brain development and function.
12) There has been a rise in infant mortality in the US (with a relatively sharp rise in the past 3 years), reflecting a host of illnesses and including malnutrition that afflict children and their cognitive development. Such illness early in life, can often lead to stunted b
Slashdot Mirror
If you can equate Dr. Cerf and some 20 Nobel prize-winners and some of the nation's top scientists and engineers with the not-so-swift boat veterans for "truth" (funded and coordinated by Karl Rove as early as January of 2003), then you have got to be in complete denial of reality. In a related story John Chambers (a big backer of Pres. Bush in 2000 and CEO of CISCO Systems) announced that CISCO was developing a 325 million dollar technology center in China because as he put it "in ten years China will be the leading market in technology". Such an alarming development is only a small piece of a larger calamity in US Science and Technology policy that has Dr. Cerf and his fellow scientists so concerned with the Bush administration's record on science and technology. Of course, we can continue to receive our talking points from Karl Rove and blissfully disregard the warning signs, but don't expect to fare well as the rubber begins to meet the road. Bush has allowed China to eagerly become one of the largest holders of our debt (perhaps you haven't noticed the future of our economy and government budget is in hock because are living on money borrowed in large part from Chinese communists). Once they have technological superiority, now predicted by our own captains of industry to occur within 10 years, they won't need us or our debt. It will then occur to the world financial markets that our currency (the stuff used to pay for all the expensive imports for high end hardware for many of our weapons) will be next to worthless. Of course, discussion of any of this is off the table until after the November elections so no point bringing up during the debates. My guess is that Bush will continue to buy off the Chinese in a fashion he has similarly crafted for the Saudis, another large buyer of our debt. For the Saudis he has ruled out any conservation measures that would reduce the cost of oil, thereby allowing the Saudi and the bin-Laden family to reap huge profits in return for their political support. For the Chinese he will more than likely continue to pursue failed trade policies that will send even more high-tech jobs to China. (Don't get me wrong I'm a big holder of CISCO stock and I fully expect Bush to succeed). But then as P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute." Seems to me that you appear to have been born yesterday.
I think your comments are completely erroneous. They and much of the subsequent discussion miss a number of larger trends.
OSS remains a very small part of total software sales and costs. Even if what you say was true, it couldn't possibly explain the larger trend since no more than a few percent of IT professionals are focused on OSS.
Rather, I suggest that there are several larger trends that are causing the loss of IT jobs.
1) the overall economy remains mired in mediocrity and the "IT/dot.com crash" is still not completely over. Companies, investors, and consumers, are all still trying to understand and reassess the "value" of software. In the meantime much of those reinvested income tax savings have left for foreign markets, where there is a now better possibility of return on investment.
2) General IT education in the US is declining rather than rising. This is due in part to a recognition that there are fewer jobs available and a decreased emphasis on the critical need technical education by the current US administration (reduction of scholarships/reduction of governmnet PR/shifting resources to emphasize testing, faith-based approaches, etc). It has decided to allocate the bulk of funding into debt-servicing, military and security-oriented employment, and faith-based small business rather than technologies that require many programmers.
Yes, there are more folks using technology, but most of this is little more than a few clever programmers making it "idiot simple" to do what were, at one time, difficult tasks. Consequently, there is no longer the need for increasing numbers of developers to support an ever increasing number of unsophisticated users.
3) M$ largely has legalized and institutionalized its monopoly by securring the acquiessence of the US government. This has reduced the need for multiple developers to develop similar functionality in a variety of competing environments. Oh yes, they exist in pockets here and there, like small island populations, but otherwise extinct on the mainland. But, don't get me wrong, I believe the 'penguins' are like the birds and mammals of the Jurrasic, waiting for a chance for a cosmic event to alter the technical landscape and make the dinosaurs extinct. Its just at this moment, we are still in the technological equivallent of the Jurrasic. The dinosaurs are still basking in the sun and still almost completely dominating the waterholes.
The current governmental philosophy also reflects the trend in the corporate world to concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands so that it can be managed more "wisely, efficiently and securely". Like the influence of this philosophy in other areas of the economy, a few contractors are doing very, very well. Its just that these efforts are not coordinated into any kind of plan to improve the overall technology economy and their number and effect is too small to translate into noticeable trend in the larger population.
4) What software development is occurring is more and more moving offshore (outside of US). Technical education in most countries now greatly exceeds that in the US (which has moved from 25 toward 30 in the overall standings for math and science education over the past few years). More importantly the cost of taking advantage of this better-educated, non-US talent has greatly increased because networks are better and the differential between wages in the US and other countries make it more cost effective to hire 5-10 southasian programmers for the cost of one US one. Admittedly, it is easy to overlook the fact that about 60% of all advanced degrees in technological fields awarded in the US over the past 10 years have gone to foreigners. While many have stayed in the US, eventually much of this expertise finds its way home.
5) I looked into the methodology of the survey and like most of these kinds of surveys, it is abysmal. Very small samples, biased sampling techniques, no effort to account for spatial autocorrelation, a
As reported by the BBC about two weeks ago, the SCO lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler was thrown out of a Michigan court with no damages awarded to SCO. Although there has been little coverage of this development neither in the general press nor for some strange reason on Slashdot, it would suggest that SCO's other suits are likely headed in the same direction. So its no surprise that they have stopped running up legal fees adding venues they are not likely to win. SCO is in an odd predicament now of having to realistically assess its business strategy in the absence of any benefit the lawsuits might accrue to them.
I am wondering if there is anyone out there who keeps track of court statistics? If so, how often is it that a company files suit for patent/copyright infringement and then after 1 year asks for a postponement of the trial? And how often do they win as a result? Why bring it in the first place if you are not ready to do so?
As a scientist, I have followed this trend with interest. I can't say that getting DARPA funding is easier than NSF funding, since I received multiple NSF awards but was unable to convince DARPA of the value of my ideas (perhaps not surprising since I study ichthyology).
Nonetheless, there are several aspects that do account for at least a major part of the trend.
1) cultural emphasis on academic excellence within the family and community is weaker in the US than say in Japan and Singapore.
2) change in science curricula so that for the most part science is not taught in public schools, but rather "science facts/trivia".
3) Public misperception of what science actually is (ie. hypothesis testing and proof by falsification). Consequently, the public doesn't really know what science is and often confuses it with technology. There is actually no money in science per se, only the potential technological and business spin-offs. This has been especially difficult for pure sciences, such as physics, in which advances are decades from potential commercial application.
4) Lack of priority toward funding science in all grades K-postgraduate in a sustained manner. Many science education "projects" tend to be short term, whereas very few actually extend through many years of a young scientists education.
5) Lack of teachers who are trained in science.
6) In some communities there is outright hostility to certain findings of science (ie the fact of greenhouse warming [hardly a controversy any longer among scientists] or evolution [certainly a fact that forms the basis of all biology, yet we see repeated attempts by some to supplant science with pseudo-scientific or religious views]). In others there is a fear of science (ie cloning research) because it is largely misunderstood.
7) Teaching science is not rewarded to the degree, say as compared to salaries of CEO's such as Ken Lay, who pumping up Enron stock before insider selling and bankrupcy at stockholder, bondholder, and taxpayer expense, even though the worst science teacher in the world has proved themselves vastly more valuable to society than Ken Lay type executives ever will be. The consequences of greed factor should not be underestimated. Unfortunately, we are bombarded by commercialism and the perceived value of wealth.
8) Rising levels of mercury and other pollutants and irritants in US communities that effect cognitive and behavioral performance (and the Bush administration wants to raise the allowable level of mercury in the environment).
9) Relative effect of rising standards abroad are changing percentages. It is more difficult for industrialized nations to improve there standing when other less developed nations are growing faster on a percentage (not necessarily absolute) basis. In some countries even small increases can result in a large percentage change (number of scientists produced/papers published etc).
10) TV watching is much higher in US households than abroad. TV is known to produce attention deficit disorders and other cognitive difficulties, especially in young children whose brain circuitry has not fully developed. Even in adults and older children TV watching encourages passive rather than active thinking. Understanding science and doing mathematical proofs requires prefontal lobe activity.
11) Failure to exercise also contributes, since the brain does not exist separate from the body. A healthy body (particularly at the metabolic level), given adequate nutrition is essential to proper brain function. Kids today are exposed to far more sugar laden foods that lead to obesity and cardio-vascular problems early in life and that effect brain development and function.
12) There has been a rise in infant mortality in the US (with a relatively sharp rise in the past 3 years), reflecting a host of illnesses and including malnutrition that afflict children and their cognitive development. Such illness early in life, can often lead to stunted b