Let's see... This is an American website, run by Americans, for Americans, with a predominant American audience. Hmmm... seems that grousing about Americans and their worldview would be better done in another forum.
Everything you have listed can be learned by:
A) Reading
and
B) Working on personal/OSS projects.
All the knowledge is out there for free.
I'm sorry, but no. Only about half of what you pick up in college you learn about by reading books. The other half you get by attending class and listening to professors. The professors, who have written those books, say that the books only contain a small fraction of the content available in any given subject. They can literally write volumes on their specific topics and never repeat themselves. No, you have to attend class to get all the information that was left out of the books. And you do have to pay for that privilege.
If you skip college and IF you just read the same books that I have read, and that's a big IF, then you have half of my education.
It has not been my experience that those developers who skipped college ended up reading the same books that I have.
Some of the worst programmers I have seen have come out of College, and some of the best taught themselves.
Granted, some college educated developers aren't that great. You can cheat your way through school. You can graduate college with straight C's - our president is a prime example of that. Of course, this is not the norm. The vast majority of the students I dealt with in college are very intelligent, very hard working, and very dedicated to learning the material. I never once saw any indication of cheating throughout my extensive college experience. Our college system really is the best in the world.
Because of the Waltons the world is a better place to live and the cost to society of them having wealth is far offset by the benefit they provided to socity.
The poor, poor Waltons. They have no money to speak of since it's all tied up in stock. And everyone's out to get them because they provide plenty of well-paying jobs to the community while all but giving away high quality goods. They provide great benefits for their employees while taking absolutely nothing from the government. We should all bow before the great Waltons and the sacrifices they make for all of us.
GP: Heard in a meeting this morning: "The reason why companies use EJBs is because some developers wanted to have that to put on their resumes." It took us 1 year to fill 4 positions, and 3 are H1.
Me: Sounds like your management wanted the cheapest candidates, not the most qualified.
You: Cheapest is not necessarily the worst, nor the costliest the best. Don't make sweeping statements like this without knowing the quality of work.
The best and worst are generally priced relative to their quality. Hyundais are priced less than Mercedes because they are worse. Calling that a "sweeping statement" does not make it any less true. Some people would rather pay for 3 Hyundais rather than 3 Mercedes.
Even so, if they're making development decisions based on what would look good on their resume, then it's pretty damn obvious regarding the quality of their work.
I'm sorry, no. Even if you take all the books I've read in all my CS courses and read them in your own time, you will not finish with the same level, depth, and breadth of knowledge that I have.
CS courses are not just reading books. It is doing the practise programs. It is doing the mathematics. It is sweating through the details of a project at 2 in the morning on a Saturday when all the business majors are out drunk and banging some dirty slut. But, most of all, it is attending class and listening to knowledgeable speakers with years of in-depth study in the single area that they teach.
The truth hurts. But, calling a statement arrogant certainly does not make it less true.
Most of the classes you take are just filler stuff, and some simesters I found myself taking only 1 or 2 classes in my major.
If you only spent a year or two in college, then yes, you did get a lot of filler classes. Most of what you learn is in your junior and, especially, senior years. Since it sounds like you didn't actually finish college, then I guess you don't remember this. Colleges structure courses so that you take your major and most relative classes last. That way, you enter the workforce with the knowledge from your major being the most fresh and up-to-date.
All the best people I have worked with are people who are just passionate about what they do but do not have degrees.
As I said before, that depends on the job. If you're doing mindless admin work, then the finest people would be the uneducated who wouldn't find that kind of job boring.
I would add that HR automatically filters out anybody that does NOT have a 4 year degree, thereby immediately disqualifying some of the finest candidates.
That depends on the job. If you're doing mindless admin work, then the finest people would be the uneducated who wouldn't find that kind of job boring.
However, any high-level development or analysis work does require a college degree, specifically in computer science. There are just too many things that computer science teaches that you can not pick up in the workplace.
Heard in a meeting this morning: "The reason why companies use EJBs is because some developers wanted to have that to put on their resumes."
It took us 1 year to fill 4 positions, and 3 are H1.
Sounds like your management wanted the cheapest candidates, not the most qualified.
The P3 700 isn't really that simple though. It uses the same silicon and fabs that are used to produce Intel's higest profit chips... Remember, not only is intel making an old part for Microsoft, but they're doing it with the same materials and equipment that they could be churning out Pentium-Ms on at a high margin.
No, the 733MHz Intel chip does not require the same fabs as the newest chips using a far smaller die. These chips can still be made in Intel's older factories.
The price *isn't* $10, because there isn't some unfortunate retailer in the middle to eat a loss. They have to pay more like $40, which is not much more than it costs intel to actually manufacture the chip.
Excuse me? Like $40? So, you don't actually know. How much else are you guessing here? Maybe you're also guessing as well that those $9.45 chips I found were just leftovers.
Actually, a quick search reveals you can get Intel 733MHz chips for $9.45 retail. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
If you actually did a quick search before typing your "cute" response, you would have seen that Intel 733MHz chips go for $9.45 retail. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
From a quick search, I see that 733 MHz Intels go for anywhere from $9-$30 a chip, depending on which one you want. The xbox actually uses a Intel Pentium III 733 MHz chip which costs retail $9.45. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
No, you specifically wrote, "you would have to compensate teh Indians equally to give them equal buying power to buy your products." That was what I was addressing. That was what I refuted, which you still have not addressed.
As for the siphoning off of money from the US market, yes, I agree with you there. But, that was never the argument.
Let's see... the current xbox uses an Intel 733MHz processor. That may have been top of the line back in 2001 when it came out, but that's hardly cutting edge now. As such, the prices have gone down considerably for those chips. It's the same story with all the rest of the hardware components.
On top of that, I'm sure Microsoft got a sweet deal from Intel, especially considering that Intel has to kiss Microsoft's ass on the desktop side of the business.
What's remarkable is that Microsoft can still get as much as $150 from xbox hardware sales considering how much of a dinosaur the console is.
Riiight... And Microsoft didn't buy in bulk ahead of time when they started seeing the price go up instead of down. And Microsoft didn't get any sweet deals from Intel, especially considering that Intel has to kiss Microsoft's ass on the desktop side of the business... Sure, keep believing that.
You're only considering half of the equation. Yes, there were competitive pressures to lower the machine price. However, the price of the xbox components also went down over the same period, making the price cuts possible.
Microsoft does not keep upgrading the hardware in the xbox with the current hardware. No, the xbox is still using the same components that it originally came out with in 2001. That's a 733 MHz processor in there. Now, 733 MHz was top of the line back in 2001 and Microsoft did lose cash making xbox back then, however 733 MHz processors cost nothing now, especially in the quantities that Microsoft still buys.
This is the same line argument they used with the original xbox. Let's see... the current xbox uses a 733MHz processor. That may have been top of the line at the time, but that's hardly cutting edge now. As such, the prices have gone down considerably for those chips since the time they originally came out. It's the same story with all the rest of the hardware components.
As for the price cuts, that's a load of nonsense. The original xbox still sells at Wal-Mart for $180. Certainly, that's less than the original $299 they went for, but Microsoft is certainly making money on their hardware sales now.
Of course, all the prices they quote are current prices. These prices will go down with time. In fact, it won't take very long until Microsoft does make a profit just selling the hardware.
Of course, all the prices they quote are current prices. These prices will go down with time. In fact, it won't take very long until Microsoft does make a profit just selling the hardware.
You're thinking too much about this. Certainly, people in Texas or Georgia or Missouri are racist. However, people outside the south don't make fun of them for marrying their cousins, etc.
No, Alabama and Arkansas hold a special place. And, it has nothing to do with the bigotry of the people living there. Nor has it anything to do with the supposed "bigots" of the north who are only "bigots" for their hatred of southern racists (or all racists in general, including those outside the south).
Just one thing: It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Any system of belief that looks to remove God from an establishment is agnostic or atheist, which is in fact a set of religion belief. Therefore by removing God from federal establishments you are creating a government religion of Agnosticism or Atheism. Southerners know this...
You're wayyyy offtopic now. Atheism is not a religious belief. In fact, it is by definition the lack of religious belief. Removing god from federal establishments is therefore not creating a state religion of atheism, with is an oxymoron.
Interesting that the cell phone data is not broken down by age. It appears you are using overlapping statistics. Certainly, teenage drivers also use their cell phones.
So, how do we tie this together properly? Let's look at this statistic, previously cited and unrefuted by you: "Fatal teen traffic collisions are more than DOUBLE the rate of all other drivers combined." Yes, combined. So, regardless of any other statistics you cite regarding driver safety, teenagers are far more reckless and dangerous then everyone else combined.
As far as I'm concerned, that's enough to conclusively end this conversation.
You: Well you would have to compensate teh Indians equally to give them equal buying power to buy your products.
Me:... that's bunk. Their cost of living is far lower than the equivalent in America. Indians only need the same amount of disposable income as Americans to give them equal buying power. That comes at a level far lower than equal compensation.
You: I am referring to products business sell.
That does not refute my point. In fact, that doesn't even address my point at all. Do you even understand what "cost of living" means?
Cost of living is all the goods and services that you pay to live. It is the cost of food (far lower in India). It is the cost of shelter (again, far lower in India). It is the cost of electricity (lower, but not that much lower in India). It is the cost of everyday items that no one can live without (definitely far lower in India).
The average person in India makes $3,100 compared to America's $40,100. A US IT person makes anywhere from $40,000-$100,000, up to 2.5 times the national average. An Indian IT person makes anywhere from $5,000-$20,000, up to 6.6 times the national average.
The average Indian, just like the average American, needs most of that money to survive. Any amount more than that is their disposable income. An Indian making $20,000 but spending $3,000 has $17,000 of disposable income. An American making $50,000 but spending $40,000 has $10,000 of disposable income. That's right, the Indian has more free money.
Some Indians are already able to outspend some Americans. Obviously, that doesn't work when you do a direct comparison of the top ends. However, you can also see that my previous point is true: Indians only need the same amount of disposable income as Americans to give them equal buying power. That comes at a level far lower than equal compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see... This is an American website, run by Americans, for Americans, with a predominant American audience. Hmmm... seems that grousing about Americans and their worldview would be better done in another forum.
Everything you have listed can be learned by: A) Reading and B) Working on personal/OSS projects. All the knowledge is out there for free.
I'm sorry, but no. Only about half of what you pick up in college you learn about by reading books. The other half you get by attending class and listening to professors. The professors, who have written those books, say that the books only contain a small fraction of the content available in any given subject. They can literally write volumes on their specific topics and never repeat themselves. No, you have to attend class to get all the information that was left out of the books. And you do have to pay for that privilege.
If you skip college and IF you just read the same books that I have read, and that's a big IF, then you have half of my education.
It has not been my experience that those developers who skipped college ended up reading the same books that I have.
Some of the worst programmers I have seen have come out of College, and some of the best taught themselves.
Granted, some college educated developers aren't that great. You can cheat your way through school. You can graduate college with straight C's - our president is a prime example of that. Of course, this is not the norm. The vast majority of the students I dealt with in college are very intelligent, very hard working, and very dedicated to learning the material. I never once saw any indication of cheating throughout my extensive college experience. Our college system really is the best in the world.
Because of the Waltons the world is a better place to live and the cost to society of them having wealth is far offset by the benefit they provided to socity.
Buwahahaha! LMFAO.... You KILL me man! Really....
The poor, poor Waltons. They have no money to speak of since it's all tied up in stock. And everyone's out to get them because they provide plenty of well-paying jobs to the community while all but giving away high quality goods. They provide great benefits for their employees while taking absolutely nothing from the government. We should all bow before the great Waltons and the sacrifices they make for all of us.
I don't believe that at all considering the labor cost differences between the countries where Mercedes and Hyundais are built.
Even so as I said, which you didn't refute, the best and worst are generally priced relative to their quality.
GP: Heard in a meeting this morning: "The reason why companies use EJBs is because some developers wanted to have that to put on their resumes." It took us 1 year to fill 4 positions, and 3 are H1.
Me: Sounds like your management wanted the cheapest candidates, not the most qualified.
You: Cheapest is not necessarily the worst, nor the costliest the best. Don't make sweeping statements like this without knowing the quality of work.
The best and worst are generally priced relative to their quality. Hyundais are priced less than Mercedes because they are worse. Calling that a "sweeping statement" does not make it any less true. Some people would rather pay for 3 Hyundais rather than 3 Mercedes.
Even so, if they're making development decisions based on what would look good on their resume, then it's pretty damn obvious regarding the quality of their work.
Riiight... and how many people actually work on a system like that? Very few.
I'm sorry, no. Even if you take all the books I've read in all my CS courses and read them in your own time, you will not finish with the same level, depth, and breadth of knowledge that I have.
CS courses are not just reading books. It is doing the practise programs. It is doing the mathematics. It is sweating through the details of a project at 2 in the morning on a Saturday when all the business majors are out drunk and banging some dirty slut. But, most of all, it is attending class and listening to knowledgeable speakers with years of in-depth study in the single area that they teach.
You can not just fake college by reading.
The truth hurts. But, calling a statement arrogant certainly does not make it less true.
Most of the classes you take are just filler stuff, and some simesters I found myself taking only 1 or 2 classes in my major.
If you only spent a year or two in college, then yes, you did get a lot of filler classes. Most of what you learn is in your junior and, especially, senior years. Since it sounds like you didn't actually finish college, then I guess you don't remember this. Colleges structure courses so that you take your major and most relative classes last. That way, you enter the workforce with the knowledge from your major being the most fresh and up-to-date.
All the best people I have worked with are people who are just passionate about what they do but do not have degrees.
As I said before, that depends on the job. If you're doing mindless admin work, then the finest people would be the uneducated who wouldn't find that kind of job boring.
I would add that HR automatically filters out anybody that does NOT have a 4 year degree, thereby immediately disqualifying some of the finest candidates.
That depends on the job. If you're doing mindless admin work, then the finest people would be the uneducated who wouldn't find that kind of job boring.
However, any high-level development or analysis work does require a college degree, specifically in computer science. There are just too many things that computer science teaches that you can not pick up in the workplace.
Heard in a meeting this morning: "The reason why companies use EJBs is because some developers wanted to have that to put on their resumes." It took us 1 year to fill 4 positions, and 3 are H1.
Sounds like your management wanted the cheapest candidates, not the most qualified.
The P3 700 isn't really that simple though. It uses the same silicon and fabs that are used to produce Intel's higest profit chips... Remember, not only is intel making an old part for Microsoft, but they're doing it with the same materials and equipment that they could be churning out Pentium-Ms on at a high margin.
No, the 733MHz Intel chip does not require the same fabs as the newest chips using a far smaller die. These chips can still be made in Intel's older factories.
The price *isn't* $10, because there isn't some unfortunate retailer in the middle to eat a loss. They have to pay more like $40, which is not much more than it costs intel to actually manufacture the chip.
Excuse me? Like $40? So, you don't actually know. How much else are you guessing here? Maybe you're also guessing as well that those $9.45 chips I found were just leftovers.
Actually, a quick search reveals you can get Intel 733MHz chips for $9.45 retail. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
If you actually did a quick search before typing your "cute" response, you would have seen that Intel 733MHz chips go for $9.45 retail. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
From a quick search, I see that 733 MHz Intels go for anywhere from $9-$30 a chip, depending on which one you want. The xbox actually uses a Intel Pentium III 733 MHz chip which costs retail $9.45. Microsoft certainly pays wholesale with the maximum discount, meaning they buy these chips for practically nothing.
And no, price for chips do not increase over time. They continue to decrease. 8080, 8086, and 486 chips are still being made, sold, and purchased to this day. Only in retail do they cost more than a few dollars.
No, you specifically wrote, "you would have to compensate teh Indians equally to give them equal buying power to buy your products." That was what I was addressing. That was what I refuted, which you still have not addressed.
As for the siphoning off of money from the US market, yes, I agree with you there. But, that was never the argument.
Let's see... the current xbox uses an Intel 733MHz processor. That may have been top of the line back in 2001 when it came out, but that's hardly cutting edge now. As such, the prices have gone down considerably for those chips. It's the same story with all the rest of the hardware components.
On top of that, I'm sure Microsoft got a sweet deal from Intel, especially considering that Intel has to kiss Microsoft's ass on the desktop side of the business.
What's remarkable is that Microsoft can still get as much as $150 from xbox hardware sales considering how much of a dinosaur the console is.
Riiight... And Microsoft didn't buy in bulk ahead of time when they started seeing the price go up instead of down. And Microsoft didn't get any sweet deals from Intel, especially considering that Intel has to kiss Microsoft's ass on the desktop side of the business... Sure, keep believing that.
You're only considering half of the equation. Yes, there were competitive pressures to lower the machine price. However, the price of the xbox components also went down over the same period, making the price cuts possible.
Microsoft does not keep upgrading the hardware in the xbox with the current hardware. No, the xbox is still using the same components that it originally came out with in 2001. That's a 733 MHz processor in there. Now, 733 MHz was top of the line back in 2001 and Microsoft did lose cash making xbox back then, however 733 MHz processors cost nothing now, especially in the quantities that Microsoft still buys.
This is the same line argument they used with the original xbox. Let's see... the current xbox uses a 733MHz processor. That may have been top of the line at the time, but that's hardly cutting edge now. As such, the prices have gone down considerably for those chips since the time they originally came out. It's the same story with all the rest of the hardware components.
As for the price cuts, that's a load of nonsense. The original xbox still sells at Wal-Mart for $180. Certainly, that's less than the original $299 they went for, but Microsoft is certainly making money on their hardware sales now.
You know Sony, when they roll out their PS3 will price it so aggressively that Microsoft will have to cut XBox prices.
So what? And then Sony will be bleeding cash as well. That is, of course, unless they use older hardware than Microsoft.
Of course, all the prices they quote are current prices. These prices will go down with time. In fact, it won't take very long until Microsoft does make a profit just selling the hardware.
Of course, all the prices they quote are current prices. These prices will go down with time. In fact, it won't take very long until Microsoft does make a profit just selling the hardware.
You're thinking too much about this. Certainly, people in Texas or Georgia or Missouri are racist. However, people outside the south don't make fun of them for marrying their cousins, etc.
No, Alabama and Arkansas hold a special place. And, it has nothing to do with the bigotry of the people living there. Nor has it anything to do with the supposed "bigots" of the north who are only "bigots" for their hatred of southern racists (or all racists in general, including those outside the south).
Just one thing: It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Any system of belief that looks to remove God from an establishment is agnostic or atheist, which is in fact a set of religion belief. Therefore by removing God from federal establishments you are creating a government religion of Agnosticism or Atheism. Southerners know this...
You're wayyyy offtopic now. Atheism is not a religious belief. In fact, it is by definition the lack of religious belief. Removing god from federal establishments is therefore not creating a state religion of atheism, with is an oxymoron.
Southerners who believe or "know this" are wrong.
Interesting that the cell phone data is not broken down by age. It appears you are using overlapping statistics. Certainly, teenage drivers also use their cell phones.
So, how do we tie this together properly? Let's look at this statistic, previously cited and unrefuted by you: "Fatal teen traffic collisions are more than DOUBLE the rate of all other drivers combined." Yes, combined. So, regardless of any other statistics you cite regarding driver safety, teenagers are far more reckless and dangerous then everyone else combined.
As far as I'm concerned, that's enough to conclusively end this conversation.
You: Well you would have to compensate teh Indians equally to give them equal buying power to buy your products. ... that's bunk. Their cost of living is far lower than the equivalent in America. Indians only need the same amount of disposable income as Americans to give them equal buying power. That comes at a level far lower than equal compensation.
Me:
You: I am referring to products business sell.
That does not refute my point. In fact, that doesn't even address my point at all. Do you even understand what "cost of living" means?
Cost of living is all the goods and services that you pay to live. It is the cost of food (far lower in India). It is the cost of shelter (again, far lower in India). It is the cost of electricity (lower, but not that much lower in India). It is the cost of everyday items that no one can live without (definitely far lower in India).
The average person in India makes $3,100 compared to America's $40,100. A US IT person makes anywhere from $40,000-$100,000, up to 2.5 times the national average. An Indian IT person makes anywhere from $5,000-$20,000, up to 6.6 times the national average.
The average Indian, just like the average American, needs most of that money to survive. Any amount more than that is their disposable income. An Indian making $20,000 but spending $3,000 has $17,000 of disposable income. An American making $50,000 but spending $40,000 has $10,000 of disposable income. That's right, the Indian has more free money.
Some Indians are already able to outspend some Americans. Obviously, that doesn't work when you do a direct comparison of the top ends. However, you can also see that my previous point is true: Indians only need the same amount of disposable income as Americans to give them equal buying power. That comes at a level far lower than equal compensation.