"Until the rest of world catches up to the US in wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change"
You see... it works both ways. Pray it doesn't end up being "until US catches down to the outsourced countries' wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change". There's only one US of A, but there's a lot of third world countries waiting to be the next India or Malaysia once their wages significantly grow over the starvation level.
"Capitalists would realize that experienced people are very valuable and worth a high price."
No. Those wouldn't be capitalists; those would be entrepreneurs or businessmen, but not capitalists.
Capitalists are about, who would say, capital. So who will offer me the bests profits *today* is what matters. I'll wait till tomorrow to see who offers me the best profits tomorrow. Think about it and you'll see that's the best strategy to maximize profits, both in the short and the long run, and that's what capitalism is about.
And since we live on a capitalist society you can see how it is evolving to optimize that kind of strategy by globalizing (so I can move my capital all around the world to match it against the most profitting investment without penalites) and by taking away any circumstance that would introduce drag for moving capitals around -like employees' rigths, or any kind of future responsiblity for my investment (so I can move capitals not only anywhere around the world but do it fast and without penalizing).
"What IBM does is short-term greed, which long-term kills the company"
So what? See above: capitalism is not about this or that company succeeding, or even surviving, but about profits. So what if IBM folds tomorrow, as long as I extracted the highest profit for my money today? I will take my money tomorrow to the highest profit payer anyway!
"IBM, like Oracle, has its loyal followers. [...] I guess there are just enough masochists out there in positions to make the decisions which hardware to buy and which consultants to hire."
Masochists? Say sadists better.
IT (no only hardware provision, but all of it) suffers dearly from the fact that the one making the decisions is not directly suffering the results. That's why everything-corporate, from hardware, to operating systems, to ERPs to, well, everything, looks the way they look.
"If you understood what he was saying, it WAS related to science. Also, of course, to magic. The two were usually quite tightly intertwined at that period."
If you were talking about Newton, you'd have a point.
I happen to hold a minor on Catholic Theology (well, that would be more or less the equivalent on USA's education system) so my knowledge on these issues and History around them is surely quite above Slashdot's level and probably also above yours.
So, it is Giordano Bruno the one we are talking here: he was charged on dogmatic disputes: God can be a Holy Trinity just as much as a Single Entity; Jesus Christ can be God Himself as much as a Receptacle of Divinity; souls can either transmigrate or not... and Bruno happened to vocally and persuasively support the wrong choices in a time when this had harsh consequences.
It's true that Bruno can be considered a "modern mind" akin to, say, Galileo and thus, it is of justice for modern scientists to praise their pioneers but it is absolutely wrong to say that Giordano Bruno ended burned at the stake because of nothing science-related but because of purely theological issues (and, most probably, too a big ego).
"Much of the climate change denialism that isn't based on economics is based on theology...usually of a particularly unthoughtful kind."
I think you should rethink your definitions: while religiosity can arguably be considered ideology, not all ideologies are of religious nature.
"We found out that strawberry jelly got into our spectrometer halfway through our measurements. Instead of going back and re-measuring everything, we just adjusted that half of our results for the strawberry jelly! Now please notice the trends that we see...."
You are aware that *any* measure instrument is also "strawberry jelly" in the way of the reality to be measured and the scientist that collects the data, right?
So, what's the problem to accept the jellied spectrometer measures *as long as* we know how they relate to the unjellied ones? Even more: as a matter of gedanskeperiment, how do you know that the case is not that all spectrometers come jellied from the shop?
"They did coerce Galileo into silence, but Bruno is the one they burned"
Yes, but they didn't burn him because anything related to astronomy but because of theological disputes so, what's point about anything science-related, again?
"It's just the ultra Capitalist mantras speaking. A blast from the past, a Cold War era relic that was created to counter Communism. In a few decades people who don't want to live in a civilized society will be mostly gone and we'll hopefully have basic stuff like universal healthcare and close to zero percent of the population living homeless."
That's a hope I share but, still, just a hope.
If only by looking at past history, it may well end up that in the History books from two centuries in the future, they'll talk about the time going more or less from 1900 to Reagan's mandate as a rare epoch when it seemed that society would be able to organize itself around a bouyant and wide middle-class bourgeoisie, just to return to the standard of 0,01% amassing all power and fortune and a 99,99% just at the starving level or slightly above.
I was there, it was more or less as you told, except the final JS statement. It was like this:
As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo. Except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up your wages' level as a negative is... I collect your fucking head. Just like this fucker here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the fucking time! [...] Gentlemen, this meeting is adjourned.
"Why would you ever release the 4.3 branch of GNU/Linux if you have no intention of supporting it for more than a couple of months?"
For people that need to stay on top of current Linux kernel development to test, fix and develop against so the next LTS stable branch is as stable as it can be.
"The GNU/Linux kernel is going the way of Firefox and this is bad for users [...]"...blah, blah, blah... Anonymous Coward's unfocused, idiotic trolling follows.
"This is why many banks still have important code written in cobol running on `70s minicomputers. It isn't because they can't afford the upgrades, or don't like upgrading equipment"
Sorry, but it is exactly because they can't afford the upgrades and don't like upgrading equipment... coupled with not-so-brilliant software development practices of yore plus not-so-brillaint software development practives of today, which is what makes the upgrade just so expensive not even banks can afford it.
"Distros should just follow the stable upstream kernels."
They should.
And you can bet they will as soon as the upstream provider takes the word "stable" to really mean "stable", that is "no change in behaviour". Since that's not the case, distros are forced to the insanity of having to support their own kernel lines.
"there's absolutely no reason to stick with an old kernel that the distro may have patched"
You have not been using Linux for too long, do you? It is not a rare event that a supposedly stable kernel brings new features but also bugs on their old features.
"The upstream kernel maintainers already put a huge amount of effort into making the kernel releases stable and compatible."
No, they don't or else you wouldn't hear about "new features" in the stable line, just security and non-changing-behaviour bugs.
The alternative is that they failed miserably showing utter incompetence against what seems not much more than a bunch of script kiddies with some internal knowledge.
"Are you aware that not everywhere in the world is the USA?"
I do, as I'm not even American.
But then, are you aware in turn that the parent poster, the one I was answering to, was specifically relating this story to the USA case? Are you aware that I explicitly stated "...if that would be the case in USA"?
Are you aware there's a thing called "reading comprehension", you, Mr Anonymous Coward?
"It's impossible to build an unhackable IT system. Especially so for any even remotely sane budget"
Maybe that's right, but that's tad far from "so, why even try?"
In this case, how many of these computers need to offer services to the network? I bet barely no one. But then, how is it that they are afraid to turn off their computers -even if they are -gasp! older versions of Microsoft products that any sane mind would have banned in that environment to start with? Because incompetence.
Oh, but the doctors! IT staff have no saying on which kind of scalpel the surgeon uses, doctors have no saying on which IT infrastructure gets to be deployed.
Oh, but then you would be promptly fired because of the doctors! There's a thing called professionalism. Tell the surgeon what scalpel he's going to use and see how fast he's looking for another hospital. That's because he's proud of his profession, the training it took,and his efforts to achieve his competence level. You do the same or accept your problem is incompetence and lack of professionalism.
"When you need to replace a $Million machine because the system you have only works with XP"
Yes, that's what happens: incompetence accumulates over time.
"You really need a system designed from the ground up around security rather than Medicare billing codes."
But that's not true either: systems need to be designed around their required function. It's only that their security levels are also part of their required function, not an afterthought.
But, as one of the first posters already said, why should you take proper care of your systems when you can always blame the hackers for their inscrutable sophistication?
"The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about the right to bear (fire)arms, not lasers."
Uhhh, nope, no it isn't. I challenge you to find any mention to *fire* arms in any rendition of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and I'm sure the pushers of that amendment were quite inclined not to limit themselves to firearms to the exclusion of swords, spears, bayonets or others.
That's exactly the point: these people want for laser pointers to be considered arms but once they are considered arms, the second amendment would trigger if that would be the case in USA.
"Why is it that the victims of an attack take all the blame for an attack such as this one?"
In two words: Due Diligence
"You have absolutely no proof that the IT budget or the IT department in general were the cause of this problem."
Yes, I do: "Management has forbidden staff to turn on their computers, fearing the attack might spread"
No ability to segregate their networks by security/functional realms, no ability to bootstrap their systems in case of catastrophic or widespread failure, no clear disaster recovery plan == incompetence, be it for lack of founding, mismanagement or whatever. We are not talking here about a pop'n mom shop but an important medical center with duties towards their community. Which points us back to above: Due Diligence.
"These guys are super assholes for putting patient lives in danger for a few bucks."
In fact yes.
How that hospital's management dared to have their IT forgotten, without proper budget, training, auditing and support for their staff, putting that way patient lives in danger just to save a few bucks?
"You're not very good at picking up the main points, are you?"
Your bet.
"The point here was that a reactor that requires [blah, blah] is not a very safe thing at all"
It seems I got the point and it's probably *you* the one that didn't, since you just substituted one petty detail with another. Just like the parent poster (maybe the same).
The point and *my* point is that unless you are quite good at safe design you'll end up taking out an unsafe design for another unsafe design. Just like you: *any* design that needs to be told, one way or another, to unplug, is unsafe by design. Everything else, are details.
Some examples: 1) The most straightforward (thus, the one in my example): The machine requires to be told to run to stay running. Stop comes as soon as the machine is not told to stay running, aka dead man's switch. 2) Anything that stands gravity load needs to turn off when moving towards gradient (i.e.: never let control rods to work upwards) 3) Anything that uses fluid pressure needs to stop if pressure drops. 4) Always check for out-of-boundary conditions, not in-boundary conditions. Whenever an out-of-boundary condition is reached a release-condition switch must enter into action, passively, if at all possible (i.e.: a fuse, or a mechanical release valve). 5) Any relase-anything (i.e. pressure-relieve valve or fuse) action should break the "stay running" cycle. 6) Never ever let possitive-feedback loops to increase power output. etc.
"So you know the outcome of the next presidential election?"
No need to know. The obvious fact is that chances of having an elected Republican president *after* the next elections is higher than the 0% current one.
"I for one wish we (where 'we' is everyone, really) would stop using these old need-power-to-shut-'er-down designs and move to something that a) stops instantly when we pull the plug"
You are not very good at safe design, are you?
No: you want a design that stop instantly the moment you stop pressing the plug, not the other way around (in other words: a dead-man's switch).
"You really, really, shouldn't have written a long post trying to explain Embrace, Extend, Extinguish without trying to understand the post you were replying to."
So please tell me what I didn't understood. I'll translate my understanding on my own words.
"Well, this issue about Picasa is Google trying its version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, which ended up being Embrace, Un-extend, Extinguish... or was it just plain incompetence?"
Then my answer: It certainly was not a failed attempt at Embrace, Extend, Extinguish because Google surely knew the situation was not a case for it. No comment about why they bought it.
"There are digital cameras that will keep time accurately over several months with a completely flat battery, so I'd expect something similar from a phone."
But digital cameras usually don't hide a phone within them so they can't have the advantage of sync'ing the time from the network as soon as they boot up.
Slashdot Mirror
"Until the rest of world catches up to the US in wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change"
You see... it works both ways. Pray it doesn't end up being "until US catches down to the outsourced countries' wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change". There's only one US of A, but there's a lot of third world countries waiting to be the next India or Malaysia once their wages significantly grow over the starvation level.
"This is not capitalism."
Yes, it is.
"Capitalists would realize that experienced people are very valuable and worth a high price."
No. Those wouldn't be capitalists; those would be entrepreneurs or businessmen, but not capitalists.
Capitalists are about, who would say, capital. So who will offer me the bests profits *today* is what matters. I'll wait till tomorrow to see who offers me the best profits tomorrow. Think about it and you'll see that's the best strategy to maximize profits, both in the short and the long run, and that's what capitalism is about.
And since we live on a capitalist society you can see how it is evolving to optimize that kind of strategy by globalizing (so I can move my capital all around the world to match it against the most profitting investment without penalites) and by taking away any circumstance that would introduce drag for moving capitals around -like employees' rigths, or any kind of future responsiblity for my investment (so I can move capitals not only anywhere around the world but do it fast and without penalizing).
"What IBM does is short-term greed, which long-term kills the company"
So what? See above: capitalism is not about this or that company succeeding, or even surviving, but about profits. So what if IBM folds tomorrow, as long as I extracted the highest profit for my money today? I will take my money tomorrow to the highest profit payer anyway!
"IBM, like Oracle, has its loyal followers. [...] I guess there are just enough masochists out there in positions to make the decisions which hardware to buy and which consultants to hire."
Masochists? Say sadists better.
IT (no only hardware provision, but all of it) suffers dearly from the fact that the one making the decisions is not directly suffering the results. That's why everything-corporate, from hardware, to operating systems, to ERPs to, well, everything, looks the way they look.
"If you understood what he was saying, it WAS related to science. Also, of course, to magic. The two were usually quite tightly intertwined at that period."
If you were talking about Newton, you'd have a point.
I happen to hold a minor on Catholic Theology (well, that would be more or less the equivalent on USA's education system) so my knowledge on these issues and History around them is surely quite above Slashdot's level and probably also above yours.
So, it is Giordano Bruno the one we are talking here: he was charged on dogmatic disputes: God can be a Holy Trinity just as much as a Single Entity; Jesus Christ can be God Himself as much as a Receptacle of Divinity; souls can either transmigrate or not... and Bruno happened to vocally and persuasively support the wrong choices in a time when this had harsh consequences.
It's true that Bruno can be considered a "modern mind" akin to, say, Galileo and thus, it is of justice for modern scientists to praise their pioneers but it is absolutely wrong to say that Giordano Bruno ended burned at the stake because of nothing science-related but because of purely theological issues (and, most probably, too a big ego).
"Much of the climate change denialism that isn't based on economics is based on theology...usually of a particularly unthoughtful kind."
I think you should rethink your definitions: while religiosity can arguably be considered ideology, not all ideologies are of religious nature.
"We found out that strawberry jelly got into our spectrometer halfway through our measurements. Instead of going back and re-measuring everything, we just adjusted that half of our results for the strawberry jelly! Now please notice the trends that we see...."
You are aware that *any* measure instrument is also "strawberry jelly" in the way of the reality to be measured and the scientist that collects the data, right?
So, what's the problem to accept the jellied spectrometer measures *as long as* we know how they relate to the unjellied ones? Even more: as a matter of gedanskeperiment, how do you know that the case is not that all spectrometers come jellied from the shop?
"They did coerce Galileo into silence, but Bruno is the one they burned"
Yes, but they didn't burn him because anything related to astronomy but because of theological disputes so, what's point about anything science-related, again?
"It's just the ultra Capitalist mantras speaking. A blast from the past, a Cold War era relic that was created to counter Communism. In a few decades people who don't want to live in a civilized society will be mostly gone and we'll hopefully have basic stuff like universal healthcare and close to zero percent of the population living homeless."
That's a hope I share but, still, just a hope.
If only by looking at past history, it may well end up that in the History books from two centuries in the future, they'll talk about the time going more or less from 1900 to Reagan's mandate as a rare epoch when it seemed that society would be able to organize itself around a bouyant and wide middle-class bourgeoisie, just to return to the standard of 0,01% amassing all power and fortune and a 99,99% just at the starving level or slightly above.
I was there, it was more or less as you told, except the final JS statement. It was like this:
As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo. Except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up your wages' level as a negative is... I collect your fucking head. Just like this fucker here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the fucking time!
[...]
Gentlemen, this meeting is adjourned.
"Right, if you just presume that the banks can't afford computers,"
Computers is not what refrain banks from migrating out from mainframe/cobol.
"or don't have large budgets for that"
They *do* have large budgets, only not large enough (what do you think me saying "not even banks can afford it" really meant?)
"or don't upgrade equipment"
Of course yes. I bet they have the last mainframe model IBM or Fujitsu throw at them. What they don't upgrade is their Cobol.
"and don't know about the subject."
Or maybe I know better than you and that's why you don't grasp what I'm saying.
"And yet, you opened your keyboard anyways."
Premonitory words, ain't them?
"Why would you ever release the 4.3 branch of GNU/Linux if you have no intention of supporting it for more than a couple of months?"
For people that need to stay on top of current Linux kernel development to test, fix and develop against so the next LTS stable branch is as stable as it can be.
"The GNU/Linux kernel is going the way of Firefox and this is bad for users [...]" ...blah, blah, blah... Anonymous Coward's unfocused, idiotic trolling follows.
"This is why many banks still have important code written in cobol running on `70s minicomputers. It isn't because they can't afford the upgrades, or don't like upgrading equipment"
Sorry, but it is exactly because they can't afford the upgrades and don't like upgrading equipment... coupled with not-so-brilliant software development practices of yore plus not-so-brillaint software development practives of today, which is what makes the upgrade just so expensive not even banks can afford it.
"Which is insane."
It is.
"Distros should just follow the stable upstream kernels."
They should.
And you can bet they will as soon as the upstream provider takes the word "stable" to really mean "stable", that is "no change in behaviour". Since that's not the case, distros are forced to the insanity of having to support their own kernel lines.
"there's absolutely no reason to stick with an old kernel that the distro may have patched"
You have not been using Linux for too long, do you? It is not a rare event that a supposedly stable kernel brings new features but also bugs on their old features.
"The upstream kernel maintainers already put a huge amount of effort into making the kernel releases stable and compatible."
No, they don't or else you wouldn't hear about "new features" in the stable line, just security and non-changing-behaviour bugs.
" this media in TFA may be high density... but it really needs a standard filesystem, so that years to centuries from now, the data can be recovered."
Bidimensional centimetric storage.
The kind you can find in papyruses, babylonian tables or the Rosetta Stone. Anything else is not guaranteed to be recovered.
"Why do you assume they don't even try?"
Because I'm a nice guy.
The alternative is that they failed miserably showing utter incompetence against what seems not much more than a bunch of script kiddies with some internal knowledge.
"Are you aware that not everywhere in the world is the USA?"
I do, as I'm not even American.
But then, are you aware in turn that the parent poster, the one I was answering to, was specifically relating this story to the USA case? Are you aware that I explicitly stated "...if that would be the case in USA"?
Are you aware there's a thing called "reading comprehension", you, Mr Anonymous Coward?
"It's impossible to build an unhackable IT system.
Especially so for any even remotely sane budget"
Maybe that's right, but that's tad far from "so, why even try?"
In this case, how many of these computers need to offer services to the network? I bet barely no one. But then, how is it that they are afraid to turn off their computers -even if they are -gasp! older versions of Microsoft products that any sane mind would have banned in that environment to start with? Because incompetence.
Oh, but the doctors! IT staff have no saying on which kind of scalpel the surgeon uses, doctors have no saying on which IT infrastructure gets to be deployed.
Oh, but then you would be promptly fired because of the doctors! There's a thing called professionalism. Tell the surgeon what scalpel he's going to use and see how fast he's looking for another hospital. That's because he's proud of his profession, the training it took ,and his efforts to achieve his competence level. You do the same or accept your problem is incompetence and lack of professionalism.
"When you need to replace a $Million machine because the system you have only works with XP"
Yes, that's what happens: incompetence accumulates over time.
"You really need a system designed from the ground up around security rather than Medicare billing codes."
But that's not true either: systems need to be designed around their required function. It's only that their security levels are also part of their required function, not an afterthought.
But, as one of the first posters already said, why should you take proper care of your systems when you can always blame the hackers for their inscrutable sophistication?
"The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about the right to bear (fire)arms, not lasers."
Uhhh, nope, no it isn't. I challenge you to find any mention to *fire* arms in any rendition of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and I'm sure the pushers of that amendment were quite inclined not to limit themselves to firearms to the exclusion of swords, spears, bayonets or others.
That's exactly the point: these people want for laser pointers to be considered arms but once they are considered arms, the second amendment would trigger if that would be the case in USA.
"Why is it that the victims of an attack take all the blame for an attack such as this one?"
In two words: Due Diligence
"You have absolutely no proof that the IT budget or the IT department in general were the cause of this problem."
Yes, I do: "Management has forbidden staff to turn on their computers, fearing the attack might spread"
No ability to segregate their networks by security/functional realms, no ability to bootstrap their systems in case of catastrophic or widespread failure, no clear disaster recovery plan == incompetence, be it for lack of founding, mismanagement or whatever. We are not talking here about a pop'n mom shop but an important medical center with duties towards their community. Which points us back to above: Due Diligence.
"These guys are super assholes for putting patient lives in danger for a few bucks."
In fact yes.
How that hospital's management dared to have their IT forgotten, without proper budget, training, auditing and support for their staff, putting that way patient lives in danger just to save a few bucks?
"You're not very good at picking up the main points, are you?"
Your bet.
"The point here was that a reactor that requires [blah, blah] is not a very safe thing at all"
It seems I got the point and it's probably *you* the one that didn't, since you just substituted one petty detail with another. Just like the parent poster (maybe the same).
The point and *my* point is that unless you are quite good at safe design you'll end up taking out an unsafe design for another unsafe design. Just like you: *any* design that needs to be told, one way or another, to unplug, is unsafe by design. Everything else, are details.
Some examples:
1) The most straightforward (thus, the one in my example): The machine requires to be told to run to stay running. Stop comes as soon as the machine is not told to stay running, aka dead man's switch.
2) Anything that stands gravity load needs to turn off when moving towards gradient (i.e.: never let control rods to work upwards)
3) Anything that uses fluid pressure needs to stop if pressure drops.
4) Always check for out-of-boundary conditions, not in-boundary conditions. Whenever an out-of-boundary condition is reached a release-condition switch must enter into action, passively, if at all possible (i.e.: a fuse, or a mechanical release valve).
5) Any relase-anything (i.e. pressure-relieve valve or fuse) action should break the "stay running" cycle.
6) Never ever let possitive-feedback loops to increase power output.
etc.
"So you know the outcome of the next presidential election?"
No need to know. The obvious fact is that chances of having an elected Republican president *after* the next elections is higher than the 0% current one.
"I for one wish we (where 'we' is everyone, really) would stop using these old need-power-to-shut-'er-down designs and move to something that a) stops instantly when we pull the plug"
You are not very good at safe design, are you?
No: you want a design that stop instantly the moment you stop pressing the plug, not the other way around (in other words: a dead-man's switch).
"You really, really, shouldn't have written a long post trying to explain Embrace, Extend, Extinguish without trying to understand the post you were replying to."
So please tell me what I didn't understood. I'll translate my understanding on my own words.
"Well, this issue about Picasa is Google trying its version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, which ended up being Embrace, Un-extend, Extinguish... or was it just plain incompetence?"
Then my answer: It certainly was not a failed attempt at Embrace, Extend, Extinguish because Google surely knew the situation was not a case for it. No comment about why they bought it.
"There are digital cameras that will keep time accurately over several months with a completely flat battery, so I'd expect something similar from a phone."
But digital cameras usually don't hide a phone within them so they can't have the advantage of sync'ing the time from the network as soon as they boot up.