Today there is no such thing as loyalty in the business place.
Employers will dump you in a nanosecond if the finance number crunch that way, and they will not in the least be concerned with/your/ welfare after you are gone.
But our cost of living hasn't declined. Look at energy costs which have skyrocketed over the last few years. Housing costs have also risen to the point where the middle class is becoming priced out of the market. Sure, electronics is cheaper, but it's always been the case, even when American companies dominated electronics. The cost of gasoline is not going to decline because demand is up all over the world now. The cost of housing might decline if the housing bubble bursts, however, in some sense it is being propped up by foreign investment ("all your loans are belong to us!").
Overall, no, it probably hasn't - mostly because of gasoline costs. But the cost of consumer goods is declining. Walmart has already been attributed to holding down inflation. Housing costs are rising? Sheesh, I don't know where you live, man, but in Atlanta, it's as cheap to buy as it is to rent. I've had to decrease the rent on my rental property every year I've owned it now because the price of rent is going down because the cost of housing is so cheap and financing is so readily available.
The two big hurdles to all of us taking a pay cut are housing and fuel.
I think fuel is going to take care of itself. When it gets painful enough, we are going to switch to something else, and when that happens it's going to be a landslide in revolutionary technology - I think engergy will be much cheaper in the long run.
"These two drivers in conjunction with a downward adjustment in real income will force a huge swath of the current middle class into poverty, as banks forclose on homes and vehicles they can't make payments on. The fact that goods like milk and eggs, stereos and refrigerators may also decline is irrelevant, the financial structure of most middle class families is such that savings in those areas could not counterbalance the other debt. And with homes unable to sell for what the family paid for them, the banks will forcelose, now the banking indutry is saddled with real property they can't sell for what they're owed, so there is danger of a banking collpase as well.
IMHO the country WILL NOT SURVIVE a simultaneous collapse of the auto industry, the real estate markets, and the banking industry.
I agree entirely. I think the biggest impact for people will be the decline in real estate values. I suspect we are going to see a national mortgage forgiveness coming down the pipes. Every homeowner gets to deflate the value of his mortgage by "X" percentage, for example.
The banks may even go along with it. Because what is the alternative? The banks get to become owners of property that even they can't sell. The very people they evicted will then be back buying their own properties at greatly reduced prices. Might as well take the loss up front.
Politicians may even go along with it. You get millions of people thrown out of their homes and their is going to be a riot at the ballot box.
"In the end, U.S. workers can't compete until the cost of living differences, as well as the differences in currency valuation flatten out. Globalization will innevitably lead to this flattening, but the upheaval in the US, with its relatively high costs and current currency valuations, will be severe, I expect the ranks of the working poor to swell massively, with consequences that, so far, I have yet to hear any politician (or economist) deal with honestly."
What is happening is nothing new. It has been happening forever, it is just now happening at a much faster pace thanks to technology in shipping and communications.
Our cost of living is going to decline. Already household goods are incredibly cheap thanks to overseas labor. So are electronics. The only real obstacles to us all deciding to go back to 1968 wages are the prices of gasoline, cars, and housing. Eventually all of those will collapse, also. The automobile industry is on the brink of it right now. The Big Three auto makers are just about to buckle under their labor costs. As soon as China comes online with mass-produced automobiles it's going to be all over for them.
Eventually there will be little difference between the cost of labor in different parts of the world. Then, taxation policies will be the lure to attract businesses.
""Certified Email prevents and blocks spammers from sending e-mails to online users," said the AOL spokesman. Goodmail's program is 100-percent opt-in; Goodmail strictly disallows those who have not previously secured the expressed consent of consumers from signing up for Goodmail tokens. Given AOL's phenomenal public track record on spam, no one can credibly assert that AOL would sign up for a pay-to-spam program. Get real.""
Well I'm confused then. I mean if mass-emailers (spammers) are not, in fact, going to be able to pay to insure that their targets get their emails, then why are mass-emailers going to pay for this privelege?
I must not understand exactly what is being proposed here. Can someone clue me in? It sounded to me like AOL was going to charge entities for the privelege of being able to spam many accounts with their message. Is this not what it's all about?
I agree - I already fired off a letter to my elected officials.
If you don't know your elected officials, go to www.vote-smart.org . Just plug in your zip code, and you will find out all your elected officials with their contact information.
First a disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of "violent" games. I love first-person shooters like Call of Duty 2, my current time waster.
There is a reason why we use simulations - because they allow us to simulate things that happen in real life so as to experience or predict what would happen in real life without the risks or costs.
If exposure to violence has an effect on us psychologically, then it is logical to expect that the more realistic a violent simulation the more true-to-life the psychological effect should be.
The question therefore becomes, how realistic a simulation of violence are the games under discussion.
"SanDisk's fastest-growing job category has been product development and research, where the company is now hiring "at the master's level and Ph.D. level," says Judy Bruner, SanDisk's chief financial officer. "We can't take just a general engineer.""
Like I said in another thread - there are still jobs in IT. But gone are the days where you could be a dabbler in computers and have the world as your oyster. Today, the mundane and average jobs have been shipped overseas. If you want to work in IT in the United States, you had better be among the best of the best. The bar has been raised. And if your skills don't match where the bar is set, forget it - those jobs are gone.
Just like the big money today goes and registers all variants of their web site name (.com,.net,.org, etc.), folks will just go reserve the proper names on the other network(s), and set up links so that when you hit one you are re-directed to the right place. Eventually, you won't even be able to tell which network you are on.
My home PC is for entertainment. I need to do email, surf the web, and Microsoft Office stuff. All of this I could do on a Linux-based PC, and I'd switch tomorrow, except for one thing - GAMES.
Most PC games are written for the Windows OS. Until that changes, most folks who use their PC's for games will stick with Windows.
I don't want to dual-boot just so I can say I'm running Linux.
I don't want a "gaming console" and can't understand the appeal. I had my Atari 2600, thank you, and was quite glad to move to a gaming machine that I could use for other things, namely a/real/ computer. I'm not interested in another single-purpose toy that I hook up to my TV. Doubling as a DVD player doesn't do anything for me - I already have a DVD player.
My PC has to play mainstream games like Call of Duty 2. When I'm confident I can get my games on Linux, I'll switch.
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
What I meant by "that" being no longer possible is the spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song. And that will be impossible when everyone copies and doesn't buy songs.
Just because you can't make money selling copies doesn't mean you can't make money.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't think you can make nearly as much money.
And just because you can't make a million dollars by selling one copy each to a million fans doesn't mean you can't still make a million dollars - it just means you have to tell your million fans up front, "Give me a dollar if you want me to write another song".
The "rich patron" model is one possibility, but not the only one. We've seen political candidates raise millions of dollars from small individual contributions through their web sites. Now consider that more people vote for American Idol than vote for President! If a political candidate can fund his campaign by getting a lot of people to send in a little money, even when they know that the money will be wasted if their guy loses, just think how much easier it'd be for a popular musician to fund his next album the same way.
That's an interesting possibility I had not considered. I do wonder, though, if it could work. I mean, there's nothing stopping artists from doing that today, and I've never heard of anyone doing it. I imagine it's because if someone, I don't care how famous they are, announced, "Everyone send me a dollar and I'll write a new album!", most people would laugh. Who's going to pay sight unseen for something of unknown value, especially when you could just wait and get it for free anyway?
There are only a very few bands who have made a net profit of millions of dollars. Many of those profits are from concerts. How long do you think it takes to make a million dollars after getting $.50 a CD, AND paying off your RIAA loans? In fact, if you look at most rich artists, they either own their own label or have very, very sweet deals with the RIAA. In general, bands produce their best music for mere pennies while trying to pay off massive loans for overly expensive studio work and advertizing.
Why do you think so many artists stick it out so long "paying their dues" by working for peanuts playing local bars and gigs? I'm sure a lot of them do it for love. I'm sure in the heart of every artist, though, there is some hope that they will "make the big time".
You're right - a whole lot of artists never make the big time. And that won't change. There will still be a lot of "starving artists".
What will change is now there won't BE a big time. Or at least, the big time won't be nearly as big as it was in the era when you could sell copies of your music. There will proably be even fewer rich artists.
What society is witnessing is the proverbial invention of the media printing press, technology that makes producing and distributing massive copies of media works easy and cheap. The monks and scribes who run the RIAA will whine and complain about their reduced status in society, but in the end no one will care and they'll be forgotten. The sooner the better.
I think that's a great analogy. And, like others have said, I think the entertainment industry may come closer to that medieval analogy in that artists will come to rely on rich patrons who can afford to pay for new works. I think those rich patrons will either horde their commissions for themselves, or use the digital artwork as free "bait" to get you to come to a web site or other distribution center where you can be plied with advertisements for physiscal products. In the former case, no one but the patron will get to enjoy the artwork. In the later case, the only artwork comissioned will be that which is deemed commercially suitable to be associated with a product that is trying to be sold. If artists think they have little creative control now wait until that scenario comes into play.
Who *needs* advertizing with iTunes and the web anymore?
I don't know about everyone else, but most of the songs I buy off of iTunes, except for classical music, are songs that I have heard on the radio, so in effect, radio is an advertisement for me. I don't pour through the iTunes library looking for new music. I totally ignore the iTunes "front page" with all the splashes for artists I've never heard of. I think things like iTunes and the Web make advertising even more critical if you want to get noticed. iTunes and the Web are huge equalizers. There are so many to choose from that unless something (like advertising) makes you aware of them so that you specifically seek them out it's easy to miss them.
"Now, the effort that went into producing that string of bits for the first time is what isn't free, and that effort is what no one has an entitlement to. An artist is free to charge whatever he wants for recording a song, writing a book, etc., and to refuse to do any of it until his conditions have been met. But once he has agreed to do it, the fruits of his labor are free for all of humanity to use, just like any other numbers."
(Emphasis mine)
Well that's the crux, isn't it? "his conditions have been met". Today, the conditions are that he make some millions of dollars for his song.
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
If he keeps the same conditions, who will be able to afford to meet them? Answer: rich patrons.
If a rich patron does come along and commission a new song for some millions, do you think the patron is going to share what he bought with all of humanity to use? Or will he keep his expensive commission for his own personal use?
"After that happen, you'd be surprised how much of artists you liked are in fact are indies and has no relation to the RI/MA Ass. of America. What's more they'd be happy to know that you have downloaded their song/movie - and thus learned about their existence. And if you liked them payed visit to concert or show."
This seems to be the ongoing line of thought around here - that after CDs are produced no more because no one can sell them, artists will make their livings through live performances.
I wonder, of all the millions of iPod owners out there, how many have never gone to a live show or concert? I haven't been to one in over 15 years.
Lots of people don't want to go out to hear music. They want music they can take with them and listen to when they want to. If they have that, a lot of them are going to be satisfied with that.
So how am I, as a CS graduate with three years' experience in the software industry (I worked in software in college as well) with a 3.5 GPA and some post-graduate work, supposed to convince a potential employer that they should pay me what I'm really worth, all on the good faith that I'll produce software that will save money three years down the road, rather than hiring the guy who will work for half the salary that I'm asking and produce quick-and-dirty software that meets today's need but falls apart tomorrow? The short answer is that I don't.
I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with what I said or not. It sounds to me like if you want to succeed in the US IT market anymore you need to be even better than what you are, which means things are even worse than I claimed. Now just being "good" coming out of college isn't enough.
I guess you have to be Albert Einstein anymore to make good money in CS.:)
When you go to the restaurant should you pay more for the big steak than the little one?---YES.
Unless I go to a buffet - then I can eat big steaks, little steaks, or any combination of them - as much as I want or as little as I want, all for one flat price. Is it fair that some people can eat more than others?
Today, Internet access is a buffet. I like it that way.
Venturing off topic...concerning my sig, to see where I was going with the whole "digital property" thing, check out this thread:
You are right - Digital Property has monetary value determined by the marketplace. The marketplace has determined that digital property can be copied essentially infinitely and freely, thus resulting in infinite supply, thus resulting in zero monetary value. You can't sell it if everyone can get it for free and the supply is unlimited.
Steve
Slashdot Mirror
What does it mean to "offer guidance" about your stock?
How about, "Please buy it!"
Does that count as guidance?
Steve
n/t.
Today there is no such thing as loyalty in the business place.
/your/ welfare after you are gone.
Employers will dump you in a nanosecond if the finance number crunch that way, and they will not in the least be concerned with
Why should I be concerned about theirs?
I played with VB a several years ago when I was still doing programming.
.NET was, but have not been motivated to go look. Is .NET what they are now calling VB?
I have wondered what
Steve
But our cost of living hasn't declined. Look at energy costs which have skyrocketed over the last few years. Housing costs have also risen to the point where the middle class is becoming priced out of the market. Sure, electronics is cheaper, but it's always been the case, even when American companies dominated electronics. The cost of gasoline is not going to decline because demand is up all over the world now. The cost of housing might decline if the housing bubble bursts, however, in some sense it is being propped up by foreign investment ("all your loans are belong to us!").
Overall, no, it probably hasn't - mostly because of gasoline costs. But the cost of consumer goods is declining. Walmart has already been attributed to holding down inflation. Housing costs are rising? Sheesh, I don't know where you live, man, but in Atlanta, it's as cheap to buy as it is to rent. I've had to decrease the rent on my rental property every year I've owned it now because the price of rent is going down because the cost of housing is so cheap and financing is so readily available.
The two big hurdles to all of us taking a pay cut are housing and fuel.
I think fuel is going to take care of itself. When it gets painful enough, we are going to switch to something else, and when that happens it's going to be a landslide in revolutionary technology - I think engergy will be much cheaper in the long run.
Steve
www.fairtax.org
Steve
"These two drivers in conjunction with a downward adjustment in real income will force a huge swath of the current middle class into poverty, as banks forclose on homes and vehicles they can't make payments on. The fact that goods like milk and eggs, stereos and refrigerators may also decline is irrelevant, the financial structure of most middle class families is such that savings in those areas could not counterbalance the other debt. And with homes unable to sell for what the family paid for them, the banks will forcelose, now the banking indutry is saddled with real property they can't sell for what they're owed, so there is danger of a banking collpase as well.
IMHO the country WILL NOT SURVIVE a simultaneous collapse of the auto industry, the real estate markets, and the banking industry.
I agree entirely. I think the biggest impact for people will be the decline in real estate values. I suspect we are going to see a national mortgage forgiveness coming down the pipes. Every homeowner gets to deflate the value of his mortgage by "X" percentage, for example.
The banks may even go along with it. Because what is the alternative? The banks get to become owners of property that even they can't sell. The very people they evicted will then be back buying their own properties at greatly reduced prices. Might as well take the loss up front.
Politicians may even go along with it. You get millions of people thrown out of their homes and their is going to be a riot at the ballot box.
Steve
"In the end, U.S. workers can't compete until the cost of living differences, as well as the differences in currency valuation flatten out. Globalization will innevitably lead to this flattening, but the upheaval in the US, with its relatively high costs and current currency valuations, will be severe, I expect the ranks of the working poor to swell massively, with consequences that, so far, I have yet to hear any politician (or economist) deal with honestly."
What is happening is nothing new. It has been happening forever, it is just now happening at a much faster pace thanks to technology in shipping and communications.
Our cost of living is going to decline. Already household goods are incredibly cheap thanks to overseas labor. So are electronics. The only real obstacles to us all deciding to go back to 1968 wages are the prices of gasoline, cars, and housing. Eventually all of those will collapse, also. The automobile industry is on the brink of it right now. The Big Three auto makers are just about to buckle under their labor costs. As soon as China comes online with mass-produced automobiles it's going to be all over for them.
Eventually there will be little difference between the cost of labor in different parts of the world. Then, taxation policies will be the lure to attract businesses.
Steve
""Certified Email prevents and blocks spammers from sending e-mails to online users," said the AOL spokesman. Goodmail's program is 100-percent opt-in; Goodmail strictly disallows those who have not previously secured the expressed consent of consumers from signing up for Goodmail tokens. Given AOL's phenomenal public track record on spam, no one can credibly assert that AOL would sign up for a pay-to-spam program. Get real.""
Well I'm confused then. I mean if mass-emailers (spammers) are not, in fact, going to be able to pay to insure that their targets get their emails, then why are mass-emailers going to pay for this privelege?
I must not understand exactly what is being proposed here. Can someone clue me in? It sounded to me like AOL was going to charge entities for the privelege of being able to spam many accounts with their message. Is this not what it's all about?
Steve
I agree - I already fired off a letter to my elected officials.
If you don't know your elected officials, go to www.vote-smart.org . Just plug in your zip code, and you will find out all your elected officials with their contact information.
Steve
First a disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of "violent" games. I love first-person shooters like Call of Duty 2, my current time waster.
There is a reason why we use simulations - because they allow us to simulate things that happen in real life so as to experience or predict what would happen in real life without the risks or costs.
If exposure to violence has an effect on us psychologically, then it is logical to expect that the more realistic a violent simulation the more true-to-life the psychological effect should be.
The question therefore becomes, how realistic a simulation of violence are the games under discussion.
Steve
>Then the printing press comes along and the clergy called it Satan's tool because it was something they couldn't control.
h annesGutenberg.htm
Considering that the Bible was one of the first books to benefit tremendously from the printing press, I find this hard to believe.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blJo
Steve
From TFA:
"To Hauger, the soybean-powered car shows what kids -- any kids -- can do when they get the chance.
"If you give kids that have been stereotyped as not being able to do anything an opportunity to do something great, they'll step up," he says. "
It's not about having an opportunity or being given a chance - it's about being motivated to take advantage of an opportunity.
Just about every kid in America today is given the chance and opportunity to go to school. Sadly, many choose not to take advantage of it.
Steve
From the TFA:
"SanDisk's fastest-growing job category has been product development and research, where the company is now hiring "at the master's level and Ph.D. level," says Judy Bruner, SanDisk's chief financial officer. "We can't take just a general engineer.""
Like I said in another thread - there are still jobs in IT. But gone are the days where you could be a dabbler in computers and have the world as your oyster. Today, the mundane and average jobs have been shipped overseas. If you want to work in IT in the United States, you had better be among the best of the best. The bar has been raised. And if your skills don't match where the bar is set, forget it - those jobs are gone.
Steve
I mean like when you go to http://www.slashdot.com/ and are re-directed to http://www.slashdot.org./
Steve
Just like the big money today goes and registers all variants of their web site name (.com, .net, .org, etc.), folks will just go reserve the proper names on the other network(s), and set up links so that when you hit one you are re-directed to the right place. Eventually, you won't even be able to tell which network you are on.
Steve
My home PC is for entertainment. I need to do email, surf the web, and Microsoft Office stuff. All of this I could do on a Linux-based PC, and I'd switch tomorrow, except for one thing - GAMES.
/real/ computer. I'm not interested in another single-purpose toy that I hook up to my TV. Doubling as a DVD player doesn't do anything for me - I already have a DVD player.
Most PC games are written for the Windows OS. Until that changes, most folks who use their PC's for games will stick with Windows.
I don't want to dual-boot just so I can say I'm running Linux.
I don't want a "gaming console" and can't understand the appeal. I had my Atari 2600, thank you, and was quite glad to move to a gaming machine that I could use for other things, namely a
My PC has to play mainstream games like Call of Duty 2. When I'm confident I can get my games on Linux, I'll switch.
Steve
I have all but quit burning CDs. They are slow to burn, and fragile when finished. This tax will make them just less appealing.
Steve
Who says it'll be impossible?
I think you misunderstood me. What I said was:
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
What I meant by "that" being no longer possible is the spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song. And that will be impossible when everyone copies and doesn't buy songs.
Just because you can't make money selling copies doesn't mean you can't make money.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't think you can make nearly as much money.
And just because you can't make a million dollars by selling one copy each to a million fans doesn't mean you can't still make a million dollars - it just means you have to tell your million fans up front, "Give me a dollar if you want me to write another song".
The "rich patron" model is one possibility, but not the only one. We've seen political candidates raise millions of dollars from small individual contributions through their web sites. Now consider that more people vote for American Idol than vote for President! If a political candidate can fund his campaign by getting a lot of people to send in a little money, even when they know that the money will be wasted if their guy loses, just think how much easier it'd be for a popular musician to fund his next album the same way.
That's an interesting possibility I had not considered. I do wonder, though, if it could work. I mean, there's nothing stopping artists from doing that today, and I've never heard of anyone doing it. I imagine it's because if someone, I don't care how famous they are, announced, "Everyone send me a dollar and I'll write a new album!", most people would laugh. Who's going to pay sight unseen for something of unknown value, especially when you could just wait and get it for free anyway?
Steve
There are only a very few bands who have made a net profit of millions of dollars. Many of those profits are from concerts. How long do you think it takes to make a million dollars after getting $.50 a CD, AND paying off your RIAA loans? In fact, if you look at most rich artists, they either own their own label or have very, very sweet deals with the RIAA. In general, bands produce their best music for mere pennies while trying to pay off massive loans for overly expensive studio work and advertizing.
Why do you think so many artists stick it out so long "paying their dues" by working for peanuts playing local bars and gigs? I'm sure a lot of them do it for love. I'm sure in the heart of every artist, though, there is some hope that they will "make the big time".
You're right - a whole lot of artists never make the big time. And that won't change. There will still be a lot of "starving artists".
What will change is now there won't BE a big time. Or at least, the big time won't be nearly as big as it was in the era when you could sell copies of your music. There will proably be even fewer rich artists.
What society is witnessing is the proverbial invention of the media printing press, technology that makes producing and distributing massive copies of media works easy and cheap. The monks and scribes who run the RIAA will whine and complain about their reduced status in society, but in the end no one will care and they'll be forgotten. The sooner the better.
I think that's a great analogy. And, like others have said, I think the entertainment industry may come closer to that medieval analogy in that artists will come to rely on rich patrons who can afford to pay for new works. I think those rich patrons will either horde their commissions for themselves, or use the digital artwork as free "bait" to get you to come to a web site or other distribution center where you can be plied with advertisements for physiscal products. In the former case, no one but the patron will get to enjoy the artwork. In the later case, the only artwork comissioned will be that which is deemed commercially suitable to be associated with a product that is trying to be sold. If artists think they have little creative control now wait until that scenario comes into play.
Who *needs* advertizing with iTunes and the web anymore? I don't know about everyone else, but most of the songs I buy off of iTunes, except for classical music, are songs that I have heard on the radio, so in effect, radio is an advertisement for me. I don't pour through the iTunes library looking for new music. I totally ignore the iTunes "front page" with all the splashes for artists I've never heard of. I think things like iTunes and the Web make advertising even more critical if you want to get noticed. iTunes and the Web are huge equalizers. There are so many to choose from that unless something (like advertising) makes you aware of them so that you specifically seek them out it's easy to miss them.
Steve
"Now, the effort that went into producing that string of bits for the first time is what isn't free, and that effort is what no one has an entitlement to. An artist is free to charge whatever he wants for recording a song, writing a book, etc., and to refuse to do any of it until his conditions have been met. But once he has agreed to do it, the fruits of his labor are free for all of humanity to use, just like any other numbers."
(Emphasis mine)
Well that's the crux, isn't it? "his conditions have been met". Today, the conditions are that he make some millions of dollars for his song.
Today, he can meet his condition by spreading those millions over a few million copies of his song.
Will he be able to do it tomorrow when that is no longer possible?
If he keeps the same conditions, who will be able to afford to meet them? Answer: rich patrons.
If a rich patron does come along and commission a new song for some millions, do you think the patron is going to share what he bought with all of humanity to use? Or will he keep his expensive commission for his own personal use?
Steve
"After that happen, you'd be surprised how much of artists you liked are in fact are indies and has no relation to the RI/MA Ass. of America. What's more they'd be happy to know that you have downloaded their song/movie - and thus learned about their existence. And if you liked them payed visit to concert or show."
This seems to be the ongoing line of thought around here - that after CDs are produced no more because no one can sell them, artists will make their livings through live performances.
I wonder, of all the millions of iPod owners out there, how many have never gone to a live show or concert? I haven't been to one in over 15 years.
Lots of people don't want to go out to hear music. They want music they can take with them and listen to when they want to. If they have that, a lot of them are going to be satisfied with that.
Steve
So how am I, as a CS graduate with three years' experience in the software industry (I worked in software in college as well) with a 3.5 GPA and some post-graduate work, supposed to convince a potential employer that they should pay me what I'm really worth, all on the good faith that I'll produce software that will save money three years down the road, rather than hiring the guy who will work for half the salary that I'm asking and produce quick-and-dirty software that meets today's need but falls apart tomorrow? The short answer is that I don't.
:)
I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with what I said or not. It sounds to me like if you want to succeed in the US IT market anymore you need to be even better than what you are, which means things are even worse than I claimed. Now just being "good" coming out of college isn't enough.
I guess you have to be Albert Einstein anymore to make good money in CS.
Steve
When you go to the restaurant should you pay more for the big steak than the little one?---YES.
o ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14727546
Unless I go to a buffet - then I can eat big steaks, little steaks, or any combination of them - as much as I want or as little as I want, all for one flat price. Is it fair that some people can eat more than others?
Today, Internet access is a buffet. I like it that way.
Venturing off topic...concerning my sig, to see where I was going with the whole "digital property" thing, check out this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177543&thresh
That is what prompted my new sig.
You are right - Digital Property has monetary value determined by the marketplace. The marketplace has determined that digital property can be copied essentially infinitely and freely, thus resulting in infinite supply, thus resulting in zero monetary value. You can't sell it if everyone can get it for free and the supply is unlimited. Steve
Come on, remember all the pop-ups for "Win a FREE IPOD!", "Win a FREE XBOX!", "Win a FREE DINNER at RED LOBSTER!", etc.
Click on one and you find out that in order to get it you have to buy something or sign up for a credit card or something.
I've come to ignore the "Win a blah blah blah" internet ads.
Steve