It seems like the only way you can truly make yourself unoffshoreable is to acquire your own local customers by running your own business.
I agree. If you aren't your own boss, then you are vulnerable to offshoring.
And if you are your own boss, you risk being fired by your customers when your products/services cost more because you use local workers. Offshoring destroys jobs now matter how you work.
Indeed. I've been running my own business for nearly two decades as a consultant for local home users and small businesses. Bigger businesses ALWAYS employ their own IT staff, but there aren't many bigger businesses in my local area.
10 years ago I was making substantial income - $250k one year! Today the business turnover is pathetic. I used to supply hardware, but gave up that business because there was no point competing with large retailers who obtain much better prices than I do. Decades ago, people paid thousands of dollars for computer systems. Now a thousand bucks can buy them two! There is also a decline in computer users in favor of smartphones, which are even more disposable. A common thing I hear is "should I fix this or just buy a new one?"
So, I've gotten a job at a supermarket and actually make more money than I was recently in the business. I'm really enjoying that job too because its quite physical and has lots of interaction with other people! I'm also now at university to eventually join the police force (possibly in computer crime). Both are jobs that cannot be offshored.
To conclude: my advice is, find an employer who won't offshore due to their security requirements (law enforcement, government, banks), or find a different career path.
Is a POS vendor used by most Australian newsagents. Their contract not only mandates the lack of a firewall, but a writeable share of the C: drive on the Windows machine acting as a server - with no authentication.
While this is incredibly negligent, the support contract makes the vendor completely liable for any security breach that occurs while honouring their contract requirements.
As an Australian who's never visited the Americas, there'd be little purpose for me to ever purchase anything from AT&T. However for years I've received statements and invoices for an American. I tried to e-mail AT&T to ask them to stop but never received any reply. I called AT&T a handful of times and told them about this issue, and received replies like "why does it bother you anyway? Shouldn't you just ignore or delete those e-mails [every 3-7 days for the past 4 years]".
I did eventually solve the issue... I did a forgot password on the account and received the e-mail for it, allowing me to login. On their web portal the only thing I couldn't change was the e-mail address. So I ordered the customer every additional extra I could, including a new iPhone, without being prompted for any credit card information. Haven't received an e-mail from AT&T since.
My experience makes me conclude AT&T are a terrible teleco who feel they're exempt from unsolicited e-mail legislation in both my country and the USA, and have absolutely no interest in helping anyone. But I do hope the customer was allowed to keep the iPhone at no cost
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children; this is generally children under 11-12 years of age
You cite the medical definition from Wikipedia and not the legal definition that varies by state. In my state of New South Wales for example, this would not be "paedophilia" as described in the headline but would be an offence of child pornography, which is the possession of imagery of a child under the age of 18 that is engaged in sexual activity or has a sexual context. That definition as gurps_npc points out, makes criminals of many persons who are also under 18.
... as they all defend the position that Google should publish everything forever, which is completely naive and immature.
You need to appreciate that criminals do have rights, as much as that may disgust some of you. You cannot expect a criminal to rehabilitate when society never forgets their mistakes, but the rehabilitation process is designed to help them move forward in life?
Consider this exert from the Sydney Morning Herald about the matter:
The distinction between the newspaper and the search engine puzzled some US legal experts, but it seemed appropriate to Kelly Caine, a Clemson University psychologist who studies how people interact with technology. Traditionally, the stories published by newspapers were forgotten over time. But search engines, by making such information from newspapers or other sources permanently accessible, have become something akin to a collective consciousness for humankind.
"That is a huge shift. That's not something we've had before the last 20 years. And we don't know what the cost of that will be," Caine said. Without the ability to escape personal histories, "there's no rebirth. There's no starting over."
My thoughts are also shaped by the concept of convicted by society and not the courts. Recently a local newspaper published an article naming a business as drug dealers, and even showed photos of the business, as the charges made by Police against the business owner of supply of narcotics also apply for the knowing participation in drug supply from another person. The Police convicted a staff member was selling illicit narcotics, and alleged the business owner knew about this and did nothing. The case against the business owner was thrown out, he was not found guilty of any crime. Yet today this business is continually judged for a crime the courts found the owner did not commit. Guess what the first result in Google says about this business? That isn't a fair world, and seems more like defamation. Unfortunately its not defamation under the laws as it represents the facts that he was taken to court with charges, and there is no information about those charges failing conviction. I'll be encouraging him to pressure Google to remove the articles, or to take them to court. This also isn't the only example from my local newspaper.
Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.
Actually thats a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Unless I am mistaken, siberian tigers aren't a marine animal poached for food supply south to south-east of the Australian coast.
... tuna is actually more endangered than the minke whales Japan catch. Australia is a large producer of tuna.
"Whale doesn't even taste good" is a common anti-whaling statement, yet neither does tuna.
But Japan like tuna, so they won't protest it.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like the only way you can truly make yourself unoffshoreable is to acquire your own local customers by running your own business.
I agree. If you aren't your own boss, then you are vulnerable to offshoring.
And if you are your own boss, you risk being fired by your customers when your products/services cost more because you use local workers. Offshoring destroys jobs now matter how you work.
Indeed. I've been running my own business for nearly two decades as a consultant for local home users and small businesses. Bigger businesses ALWAYS employ their own IT staff, but there aren't many bigger businesses in my local area.
10 years ago I was making substantial income - $250k one year! Today the business turnover is pathetic. I used to supply hardware, but gave up that business because there was no point competing with large retailers who obtain much better prices than I do. Decades ago, people paid thousands of dollars for computer systems. Now a thousand bucks can buy them two! There is also a decline in computer users in favor of smartphones, which are even more disposable. A common thing I hear is "should I fix this or just buy a new one?"
So, I've gotten a job at a supermarket and actually make more money than I was recently in the business. I'm really enjoying that job too because its quite physical and has lots of interaction with other people! I'm also now at university to eventually join the police force (possibly in computer crime). Both are jobs that cannot be offshored.
To conclude: my advice is, find an employer who won't offshore due to their security requirements (law enforcement, government, banks), or find a different career path.
Actually the pre internet equivalent is - the photo developer prints two copies.
Is a POS vendor used by most Australian newsagents. Their contract not only mandates the lack of a firewall, but a writeable share of the C: drive on the Windows machine acting as a server - with no authentication.
While this is incredibly negligent, the support contract makes the vendor completely liable for any security breach that occurs while honouring their contract requirements.
One is CAT6, the other is a POTS wire.
One uses two pairs (4 wires), the other uses a pair (2 wires)
As an Australian who's never visited the Americas, there'd be little purpose for me to ever purchase anything from AT&T. However for years I've received statements and invoices for an American. I tried to e-mail AT&T to ask them to stop but never received any reply. I called AT&T a handful of times and told them about this issue, and received replies like "why does it bother you anyway? Shouldn't you just ignore or delete those e-mails [every 3-7 days for the past 4 years]".
I did eventually solve the issue... I did a forgot password on the account and received the e-mail for it, allowing me to login. On their web portal the only thing I couldn't change was the e-mail address. So I ordered the customer every additional extra I could, including a new iPhone, without being prompted for any credit card information. Haven't received an e-mail from AT&T since.
My experience makes me conclude AT&T are a terrible teleco who feel they're exempt from unsolicited e-mail legislation in both my country and the USA, and have absolutely no interest in helping anyone. But I do hope the customer was allowed to keep the iPhone at no cost
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children; this is generally children under 11-12 years of age
You cite the medical definition from Wikipedia and not the legal definition that varies by state. In my state of New South Wales for example, this would not be "paedophilia" as described in the headline but would be an offence of child pornography, which is the possession of imagery of a child under the age of 18 that is engaged in sexual activity or has a sexual context. That definition as gurps_npc points out, makes criminals of many persons who are also under 18.
... as they all defend the position that Google should publish everything forever, which is completely naive and immature.
You need to appreciate that criminals do have rights, as much as that may disgust some of you. You cannot expect a criminal to rehabilitate when society never forgets their mistakes, but the rehabilitation process is designed to help them move forward in life?
Consider this exert from the Sydney Morning Herald about the matter:
The distinction between the newspaper and the search engine puzzled some US legal experts, but it seemed appropriate to Kelly Caine, a Clemson University psychologist who studies how people interact with technology. Traditionally, the stories published by newspapers were forgotten over time. But search engines, by making such information from newspapers or other sources permanently accessible, have become something akin to a collective consciousness for humankind. "That is a huge shift. That's not something we've had before the last 20 years. And we don't know what the cost of that will be," Caine said. Without the ability to escape personal histories, "there's no rebirth. There's no starting over."
My thoughts are also shaped by the concept of convicted by society and not the courts. Recently a local newspaper published an article naming a business as drug dealers, and even showed photos of the business, as the charges made by Police against the business owner of supply of narcotics also apply for the knowing participation in drug supply from another person. The Police convicted a staff member was selling illicit narcotics, and alleged the business owner knew about this and did nothing. The case against the business owner was thrown out, he was not found guilty of any crime. Yet today this business is continually judged for a crime the courts found the owner did not commit. Guess what the first result in Google says about this business? That isn't a fair world, and seems more like defamation. Unfortunately its not defamation under the laws as it represents the facts that he was taken to court with charges, and there is no information about those charges failing conviction. I'll be encouraging him to pressure Google to remove the articles, or to take them to court. This also isn't the only example from my local newspaper.
No, its just the historical culture of Japan that doesn't matter.
Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.
Actually thats a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Unless I am mistaken, siberian tigers aren't a marine animal poached for food supply south to south-east of the Australian coast.
Or Sea Shepherd?
... tuna is actually more endangered than the minke whales Japan catch. Australia is a large producer of tuna. "Whale doesn't even taste good" is a common anti-whaling statement, yet neither does tuna. But Japan like tuna, so they won't protest it.
Already been done. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/l...
There is a petition against WGA at http://www.petitiononline.com/nowga/petition.html Would be interesting to see how many signatories it gets