I'm sure that with the EDS acquisition, as well as all the other companies HP went out and bought, there are tons of people hiding out waiting to see which group of employees survives the merger. With the PC and printer divisions merging, that looks to me like a lot of sales guys, account managers and customer liaison people are going to be looking for work as well. HP has 300,000 people or something like that. It's kind of like IBM -- once a company gets too big, people can build themselves a very safe spot without doing too much work simply because it's too hard to keep track of everything.

I've had some limited experience with EDS, and from what I saw, there's LOTS of room to cut there. Outsourcing contracts can only support so many project managers, support staff and liaisons-to-liaisons without affecting the number of actual workers who do work.

The problem is that mass-firings like this, especially ones led by management consultants, tend to gut product engineering and design teams, and leave the overhead in place. Even though Whitman may be sparing HP Labs, which was cut to the bone under Fiorina and Hurd, that doesn't account for the everyday hardware engineers who have to design HP's next products. If HP wants to stay successful long-term, they need to ignore the typical McKinsey speak and keep the people who can build stuff that HP can sell.

I'm working in one of the very few dinosaur-era fields that actually needs to buy good-quality PCs and servers for customer projects. Think stick-in-the-mud customers, low or no network bandwidth and old applications. HP and Lenovo are basically the only choices if you want a decent, well-made business grade PC with a warranty and stable configuration. All the hardware manufacturers need to lay off the cloud kool-aid and realize that there will be a balance between local, private and hosted for quite a while. Not every business is ready for the cloud, the cloud doesn't make sense for some businesses, and even the cloudy people need decent machines to run VMWare, Hyper-V, Xen, etc. on. In HP's case, I'm sure the McKinsey people read the Gartner people's Magic Quadrant stuff, concluded that every business will be in the cloud by 2017, and recommended that HP get out of the traditional PC and services business, and become strictly a cloud provider. Problem is, when the social media/Web 2.0/cloud bubble pops, things are going to swing back to a sane mix of hosted and local, and HP might not have anything good to offer anymore.

The problem is that for all the cool stuff they build and make available, Google is an advertising agency. Their core job is to get advertisers to spend money on ads targeted at you. I'm a little bit older than the current "millenial" crowd who is supposed to be influencing the future of computing, and I find some of the stuff Facebook, Google and other advertisers do very creepy. Not in a tinfoil hat kind of way, but in a "I'm not totally comfortable with an advertising agency knowing everything I search for, every YouTube video I watch, every email I send if I use Gmail, who my acquaintances are and what I like if I use Google+ -- and then using that to build a package to sell to an advertiser."

Facebook and Google have done a very good job eradicating this creepy feeling from the younger set. They're very smart about it too -- Facebook is incredibly easy to use and fun for people to post pictures and share all their personal information. Google is incredibly useful -- I'd be lost without their search engine or mapping features embedded in the iPhone. When you grow up using a certain set of technology, and have been posting everything about yourself on Facebook since you were 7, I can see why a person might pull out the tinfoil hat designation on someone like me. Privacy policy change or not, people aren't going to stop using the service they love until something happens. I think what's going to happen eventually is that some people might realize they're sharing too much, not get a job because of their social media profile, or maybe just get the creepy feeling I was talking about. (Example: I went online to check airfare to a city I need to be in next month, and this morning, up pops a Delta ad offering low low fares to that city. It's not a big deal because I've never clicked on an advertisement or sponsored link in my life, so they don't directly make any money off me. It's just the feeling that another record got added to Google's database about my set of cookies.)

So yeah, it's not so much that they collect your data -- everyone knows that. It's the fact that your profile is readily accessible and way more plugged into your life than was previously possible. Before the current age of zero privacy, constructing a profile on someone meant digging through a lot of different sources of information, most of which were not accessible directly. It's the same argument that prevents national electronic health records from being implemented -- there's always the possibility that someone knowing what's in these can negatively affect you (medical/life insurance companies would love that kind of access, for example.) If Google and the like want to keep this kind of model going, I think they're going to have to be a little less overt about it.

The system in the US is very different from Ontario's health insurance plan. Traditional fee-for-service Medicare is very different from private insurance. Both of these combine to give the results you see.
1. Doctors (usually) graduate with huge student loans and have to pay into malpractice insurance in our system, which means they need to charge a lot of overhead to make a profit that justifies the amount of effort they put in to their education.
2. Doctors in the US also need a huge office staff to keep up with billing insurance companies, fighting claim rejections, processing referrals and all the "stuff" that is needed to deal with the wide variety of insurance companies. A single payer system with flat fees for service and a single (hopefully electronic) way to submit claims reduces those staff requirements significantly.
3. Doctors may bill a large fee for services rendered, but they usually never see that -- they get the "negotiated rate" from an insurance carrier. So, that $250 for simple bloodwork that is billed to an uninsured person gets knocked down to the $10 or whatever the insurer feels it's worth. Go look carefully at those Explanation of Benefits statements you get if you're insured. They detail exactly what your insurer pays and what the doctor or hospital has to write off. (This is also why uninsured people have it much worse; they're paying bills at the full rates to make up for the money they aren't getting from insurance companies.)
4. Because healthcare is very expensive if you're uninsured, and can be expensive even if you are, people wait longer to see the doctor and usually only see them when something serious (read: expensive to treat) is happening.
5. Without sounding too political, Americans generally can't stand the idea of modifying their behavior for the benefit of society. Selfish and individualistic would be two adjectives I'd use to describe most people who live here. Governments who have a little more control over their population (or maybe just a more homogeneous one) have an easier time pushing fitness and smoking cessation programs.
6. On the whole, people with lower incomes and education end up with much worse health problems, meaning they're more expensive to treat than those who can afford to pay.

We can't really fix #5 and #6 (Canada and Europe can't fix #6 completely either.) The big contributor is all that overhead (office staff, paperwork, insurance companies who take their cut, etc.) I've talked to doctors who say that Medicare has its problems, but at least they usually get reimbursed without fighting and it's easier to submit all the billing paperwork.

If I were king, and could wave a magic wand and fix everything, my solution would be this. Extend Medicare coverage to everyone at the current benefit levels, and yes, increase taxes to cover it. Let the private insurers fight over the gaps in coverage (Ontario's plan doesn't cover dental care or prescriptions, that's a huge market right there.) It would put a lot of office staff out of work, but is shuffling paper in 2012 high-value work?

An alternative would be to morph the private insurers into claims processors, and use them to help detect fraud. Usually, we only hear of the really outlandish fraud cases, like doctors recruiting Medicaid patients into signing forms authorizing treatments they never get. Fraudulent claim detection would be an interesting use of Big Data(TM), especially when the data is all in one single payer system.

People like to bash single payer systems because they ration a scarce resource. I just don't see it. Go to Ontario's health insurance plan website, or the NHS website. The wait times aren't unreasonable -- they're longer than what we're used to, but we're used to healthcare being treated as an unlimited resource. In any of those systems, if you're truly dying, you go to the emergency department and you're going to get treated.

The article says the reasons aren't certain, but my experience doing technical interviews for my employer seems to point to a possible cause -- perceived lack of stable career prospects.

My background: I work for a medium to large IT company doing systems integration -- code for "troubleshooter, lab rat, make-stuff-work-in-the-face-of-no-documentation person." For a person with the right temperament and skills, it's a very fun job. However, whenever we go out looking for new team members, we get back lots of less-than-qualified people. I'm not talking about qualities like "experts in 4 different operating platforms, genius-level coding skills, etc." -- I'm talking more along the lines of "communicates well, writes clear documentation, and has logical thinking skills." Everything else is trainable in my mind, but if you don't have the engineer/tinkerer/figure-it-out-without-help mindset, you can't do this job well. And oh yes, the pay is decent, and the job is stable if you're good at it and contributing excellent work.

The only problem is that we're in the NYC area, and so is the finance industry. Anecdotal evidence from my colleagues in finance states that any new college grad who is remotely good at science, math and engineering is going into finance or business. Unfortunately for us, that's probably a rational choice given the current employment climate. When you turn 21 or so and are faced with constant talk of outsourcing/offshoring, companies living with a skeleton crew because they don't want to hire and add to costs on one side, and see in finance/business an easy and very lucrative job market, what would you pick? Go back a couple of years before that...and compare the STEM students working in the lab/studying all the time with the business/psychology/communications majors partying 24/7 and coming out ahead of the game in terms of compensation and ease of work. Then, you really start to see what's wrong.

One other problem is the outsourcing/offshoring of routine IT work. Some of the jobs that us IT veterans got our start in are way less accessible than before. I started in tech support/help desk, and it was the best training for dealing with angry users and calmly troubleshooting a problem without changing 100 things. Now, those help desk jobs are overseas or at one of three or four huge IT service providers. So, strike two -- uncertain future employment/compensation prospects, lack of entry-level positions to learn the business...what else is stacked against us?

Personally, I still see a need for *good, competent* engineering talent. Even though most companies and products now are just marketing, flash and repackaging of old technology, someone has to come up with the next neat thing. (Or in my case, someone has to make the 45 neat new things that all got mashed into our software/systems work together.) The problem is that business hs to either start signaling that they really do want and pay for talent, or we won't have replacements for all the people who are slated to retire soon.

It's funny how those of us who bring up issues of data security and service resiliency are dismissed as just trying to protect our jobs.

Like so many other things, the actual technical underpinnings of "the cloud" are great, and have been standard fare for years. Virtual machines + flexible networking are a godsend for systems guys tasked with getting capacity for a new project up and going yesterday. I love being able to build and rip down entire test environments just to try something out...that used to mean a rack of physical servers, switchgear, etc. tied up while it was being used. That's why everyone's slowly coming around to the "private/hybrid cloud" model, which is really just code for "VMs + network capacity + something to tie it all together + maybe some external hosting".

The problem is that "the cloud" is very badly misunderstood. As sson as a CIO sees "virtual, on-demand capacity without those pesky physical on-site machines and IT staff, for a fixed cost per compute-hour" everything else takes a back seat. Then, it's "why do we need IT staff on-site, everything's being taken care of in the cloud." Public clouds like Amazon or Azure are great for startups who can't really afford their own data centers, or even bigger businesses to offload some of the nonessential stuff. When you start looking at hosting everything though, the marketing hype of the cloud sometimes distracts people from realities that they have to contend with.

Also, I'm not saying that businesses who go the private cloud or traditional hosting/outsourcing route won't have downtime -- they will. However, having onsite staff and infrastructure means you can work those staff until they fix the problem, and you have control over them. Most sane outsourcing contracts have SLAs in them stating that the vendor will expend X amount of effort to fix your problems. Cloud provider agreements, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, are "as is, where is, best effort restoration with no warranty." OK, maybe some providers will give you an SLA, but all that does is buy you free service at a later date if they violate it...it doesn't bring your application back online. You still have no choice but to sit and wait around for the provider to fix whatever's wrong...just ask Amazon EC2 customers about what happened during their last outage...

Companies need to draw sane boundaries around hosted systems, and decide what is critical and what can be offloaded. Do I care about a set of development/test machines that get used once a month? Probably a lot less than the critical database/application servers that run my core business. Comfort level, cost per minute of downtime vs. cost of dedicated resources and other factors need to be carefully considered before jumping into the cloud with both feet.

The problem with a traditional teach-learn-test-forget-teach cycle is that students have to stuff as much of the lecture material into their brains as they can fit, pour it all out on the test and repeat the cycle. In my opinion, having tests that actually check for understanding rather than memorization capability would promote actual understanding of material instead of the repeated stuffing.

I've been out of school for a while, but I have recent anecdotal evidence -- vendor certification exams. Specifically, I took the VMWare exam recently. I passed, but it was quite difficult because I work with the product on an infrequent basis -- that is, I don't have the entire GUI memorized. More than half the questions would be easy to answer if you had the GUI in front of you and could just check the available options; the rest tested your knowledge of product architecture, limits and quite frankly trivia items. I've never done well on exams like these, because I'm just not a memorizer.

When I was in school a million years ago, with the Internet just becoming a viable research tool, some of my upper-division chemistry professors wouldn't give standard exams - we'd get "take home exams" which were actually mini-research projects that you could do pretty well if you were paying attention in class. The questions were just right in most cases...challenging enough to be a major pain to brute-force your way through, but made easier if you knew where to start looking (by knowing the material that was presented.) I'm not sure you can do this with a class of hundreds in freshman chemistry lectures, but when you have 20 or 30 students taking the class, and most are motivated to do well anyway, these are easier to do.

So the question isn't "how do I block Internet access for the test?" but more along the lines of "How do I make a challenging-enough test that can be finished in a finite amount of time, and doesn't just test student's lookup skills?"

Forget all the patent and IP insanity that goes on in the modern world for a minute, and think about what it means for a company to do its own basic research. Companies did R&D because they knew products come and go, and that they would profit handsomely if something their researchers discovered was key to a profitable product. I think that philosophy comes from a time when companies were run for the long term rather than a few quarters into the future. Today, only the big boys can really support their own R&D divisions, such as IBM, Microsoft and GE. HP and Xerox used to have big R&D facilities, and Bell Labs was the biggest of the big, but now the demand to keep shareholders happy outstrips the need to keep the idea pipeline stocked. Today's corporate research is backed by huge piles of money, just as it used to be, simply because you're investing in something that is very capital intensive and doesn't involve a guaranteed payout. Anyone who's taken Corporate Finance 101 knows about the cost-benefit analysis and "which project should we fund given 20 altenatives" exercises the MBAs go through. Add angry shareholders to the mix, most of whom don't care about the company's longevity, and it's no wonder research doesn't get the funds it used to.

One advantage that corporate labs have over university or government labs is their science/engineering focus. It may be basic research, but the reality is that it's mostly in the company's field and ties in neatly with the current or future product lines. I'll use Bell Labs as an example...AT&T used their telephone monopoly, which generated vast sums of money, to fund basic research. That led them to invent the transistor, which (surprise, surprise) was very useful in early telephone switching equipment, and in modern electronics in general. Digital switching dropped the cost of providing phone service, and enabled new technologies that just couldn't exist in the old analog-switched network. Other inventions such as the UNIX operating system and others had wide-ranging implications for technology in general, but at their core they were used to improve the company's products and services.

I think that corporate research is probably going to end up relegated to privately-held firms who make boatloads of predictable income every year, and can afford to fund it. The current stock market just doesn't allow for this to go on...wild gyrations every single day, plus the fact that people and institutions trade in and out of stocks every second, not every 10 years like they used to. That's the thing that's different -- money is still available, but no one wants to plow it into something that doesn't give an immediate payout.

I've managed to carve out a pretty successful IT career graduating from a big state university, in a completely unrelated field (chemistry.) The thing that seemed to help most was the practical experience I got during school (tech support was my student job), and graduating in the late 90s helped. That said, recruiters weren't falling all over themselves to hire me like they might a grad from CMU, UIUC, Stanford, etc. It took work to get my first job, it was a crappy one, but every job thereafter has been won based on skill (and decent interview skills.) I do systems integration work rather than software development, and a good part of my job falls back on critical thinking skills and the ability to creatively solve a problem without infinite money, hardware or compute time. You gain that experience IMO, by doing what I did -- riding out the dotcom boom in a "boring" field where I could learn as much as possible about a wide array of systems and concepts. I wasn't an HTML millionaire, but I managed to get through 2000-2001 with marketable skills that kept me employed.

So, is a big-name school worth it for a CS degree? I think not, and here's why:
- If you believe the IT field is shrinking, and you'll probably have to take a lower wage to do what you want, then you shouldn't blow all your money on an expensive school. Especially if you need loans, you'll be paying for that education for a very long time.
- "Reputation enhancement" that you get from the big name probably isn't the same as what you get in other degrees/fields. If you graduate with an MBA from an Ivy-league school, you are almost guaranteed to make a few high level connections that will get you ahead faster than your peers. Some jobs like investment banking or management consulting are very difficult to get into without big-name school recognition, simply because they're a ticket to instant riches and kind of a closed club. Some "elite" tech companies like Google might place a premium on your educational pedigree, but unless you have your heart set on working there, it's probably not going to matter much.
- Recruitment is easier at big name schools, because large corporations seem to just send people to collect a few new grads based on the fact that they went to that school...at all levels of work. So, the difference might be "hand in your resume and watch the offers pour in" versus "hustle and pound the pavement yourself." If you can handle that for your first job, you don't have to do that for the second if you've managed to gain any marketable skills in the first.

Here's something else to consider -- I didn't do CS, but knew a lot of people who did. Very few people end up working as "computer scientists" doing the low level theoretical stuff. In fact, the secret is that business IT is full of contractors/consultants who make huge amounts of money doing work in some obscure niche. SAP implementations, Oracle DBAs (good ones,) and guru level network guys come to mind here. Think about the places you've worked where they parachuted some consultant in to work on fixing some problem. That guy probably makes $150+ an hour, and works 8 months out of the year.simply because he fills an immediate need for some weird combination of skills. You certainly don't need to be a computer scientist to figure out Oracle's garbage dump of a documentation collection [1], or solve a thorny OS problem. You just need to have a head for problem solving and the ability to travel anywhere at a moment's notice (perfect for a recent grad.)

Also, as noted in many other places, the cost of a college education keeps going up every year. Big name schools can charge more. You have to think of it as an investment, in terms of future payback. Do you pay, let's say, $50K at a state school or $200K at a name brand school? Are you reasonably guaranteed to make back to $150K difference and way more? If not, then don't do it!

[1] Oracle's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. First rule is that you can't properly install or tune an Oracle system without access to the support and patches. I just did a test implementation of RAC in our lab that had several errors in the main manual, and points in the install where it just wouldn't work unless you applied multiple patches to the install media. Second rule is that Oracle has a big network of for-hire consultants, and has no incentive to update the documentation when a problem is found. Doesn't exactly sound like a CS problem, does it? Well, every software/hardware/OS vendor is like this to some degree. Microsoft and Red Hat are actually some of the better ones -- on the other end of the spectrum from Oracle, CA, EMC, Cisco, etc.

At least from anecdotal experience, I'd say there's merit to the claim that different mental exercises cause brain changes. My evidence? I have reasonable command of most math concepts, but I'm a complete drooling idiot when it comes to mental arithmetic. As in, being the embarrassed guy who pulls out a piece of paper or calculator to multiply >2 digit numbers. I've worked over the years to try to get better at it, and have succeeded somewhat. I can now at least keep some figures in my head and work things out, albeit slower than most people -- my problem before was that the problem setup in my brain would disappear as I was trying to work out the interim sums/products; I just couldn't hold on to the running totals. The only way I'd be able to do this is by forcing myself to...if I were still relying on a calculator to figure out a tip in a restaurant, that part of my brain would stay in its atrophied state IMO.

Now, extend this example to the problem domain we have now -- Internet access is almost an auxiliary brain for most people. I know I don't keep as much stuff in my brain as I used to. I do systems work, and there are tons of esoteric facts that help me do my job (knowing the "secret" registry settings in Windows for key server parameters, or the names of the 5 million files in /etc and which I need to change to make something happen in Linux. Back when I started doing this in the dinosaur era of Win 3.1 and OS/2, the only references available were paper manuals, live tech support and "Resource Kits" for products. It made sense to have a million things in your head so you didn't have to go look them up. But just this morning, I needed to find where to change a parameter in Microsoft Deployment Toolkit's set of scripts. I didn't go to a manual, or the collection of facts in my head -- I typed it into the search box of the browser. And I got the answer in about 30 seconds of searching, picking the right search result and reading the online text.

Now, the question is, does this make humans dumber? I think that if you're measuring mental ability by the volume of trivia in your head, then yes. I do think we need to figure out exactly what we really should keep stored away and what we can look up so we're not completely helpless should Google choose to be extra-evil. I also think that humans need to work on their attention spans and be able to stick to a problem more -- the rise of texting/social media/always-on Internet access is to blame for this.

Technology can be used to help us develop other skills to replace a head full of trivia...even simple tasks can improve people's problem solving, critical thinking and reasoning skills. Again, taking an example from my systems admin work -- how many fellow sysadmins do you know who don't logically lay out the solution to a problem and troubleshoot the real root cause? Good ones do this -- bad ones change 90 things all at once and see if the problem goes away, even if a new problem pops up. But if my mental arithmetic example is to be believed, people can get better with practice.