Absolutely. When my company outsourced, they (a big public Co.) were preparing to dump our devision. Presumably the bottom line looked better that way for the sale. Anyway, the private equity firm that bought us had a 2 year IPO horizon right from the start - and an IPO 'story' that assumes huge systems will be rewritten 'in the cloud' over that 2 year period - of which 1 year has already passed. Breathtaking doesn't even begin to describe it.
I'm doubtful that our finance system does 'work well'. There was a lot of value in it to destroy, and that's making a few people very rich while it lasts. That's about the best you can say for it at this point.
There's one silver lining in all this bitching about needing more H-1 visas. The tech companies that can't find enough cheap labor in the US are still looking for labor in the US. They could find all the cheap labor they want as long as they're willing to outsource the jobs to India - but they've already tried that, and it doesn't work.
As one of the few remaining onshore resources in an outsourced company, I can attest to the horrible inefficiencies that outsourcing brings to a tech project. Sure, it's cheaper. Perhaps even by enough to account for all the extra process to manage the outsourced workers. But what isn't said in there is that nothing actually gets done. Our outsourced systems are gradually falling into unsupportability by a thousand bits of bad code put in by cheap offshore resources that don't have adequate guidance to get up to speed without doing damage - and aren't kept on the project long enough to ever finally do some productive work once they get up to speed.
The big guys either know this intuitively, or have tried outsourcing and know it from painful experience. Either way, asking for H-1 visas amounts to an admission that outsourcing tech jobs doesn't work. Now we just need the political will to tell them that paying crap wages isn't an option either.
KDC seems to regret having ever placed good faith and trust in the criminal justice system as it applies to the united states and international community, and clearly with good reason. His violent raid, the united states illegal seisure of the majority of his income, and his criminal prosecution despite 3 independent lawfirms under his employ having confirmed no such action could or would transpire. KDC regrets not taking the MPAA more seriously, because the MPAA has extremely powerful political connections and can rewrite rules as it sees fit. It can escalate your extradition, exacerbate your arrest, and fleece your civil liberties all under the guise of the free market and "intellectual property" law. The most appropriate response to the MPAA is not litigation, but mobile theatre ballistic missile.
It sounds like high-ups at the Mozilla Foundation are a bunch of usurpers that managed to take 'ownership' of an open source project and turn it into a cash cow for themselves. Not saying they didn't do a good job of popularizing Firefox back in the days when getting the general public to download a replacement browser for IE was a hard job. But it seems like that mission's been accomplished, and they're all too happy to simply coast as long as they can collect their outsize salaries.
Why don't you serious developers fork it then? And then go for your own Google - or Yahoo - or whatever deal.
Is this payment only for search from the default Firefox 'home page'? Or do they get payed for searches from the location bar?
Machines are perfect for this work as they never tire from watching monitors for hours or days on end. They will never sprain an ankle or catch a cold, or show up late. the question is however, does the presence of a machine deter criminals as well as the presence of a human being in an official looking uniform. If theives routinely disregard electronic locks, security cameras, inventory control alarms, burglary and silent hold up alarms, and even warnings of time-delay safes, then its perfectly reasonable to assume these robotic guards will be no more effective than a curiousity. Expect to lose any gains saught from employing a real person when you have to pay for graffiti removal theft. You can also expect them to exist as a vector for network security attacks.
Of course, while you were at work - in your brightly lit office full of computers, elevators, and other power guzzlers, the sun was shining as brightly as ever. You could've even charged your electric car in the parking lot...
And this whole "I got two boys to code it for me" thing reminds me of the Winklevoss brothers in "The Social Network". You don't have to be a girl to be a tech-illiterate tech entreprenuer...
kids dont care but then again they arent allowed on my lawn. Stop using *cloud, *app, *book, *mail. Back in my day we ran our own mail and patronized services like freenode that ensure the security of their users and avoid pavlovian backflips for governments.
You're missing my point. It's not "to share" at all. Yes, they have your data. And if you hate that they use that to send you targeted ads, well, then don't use gmail - or google search - or the rest. But don't go claiming that they're sharing the info they have - they're not. Microsoft wants you to think they are - so they can get you to switch to MS services - where they will collect exactly the same data and do the same things with it.
For the bazillionth time, Google is not "sharing all your data in the world". They are using your data in some very specific ways - and giving you free services in exchange. Those uses are relatively benign, as free internet services go, and they do not include sharing with any third parties.
g. cloud services
For all the paranoia about cloud services eating your privacy, the one place where they're a no-brainer is as paid services targeting corporations. The cloud itself, in this case, could be hosted by the corporation - but in any case, it wouldn't be ad-funded, and there's no reason to think that a hosting organization would snoop on content they're paid not to snoop on.
But in this case step 3 ("is not perceived as useful...") has some entrenched interests helping to muddy the waters. Turns out there's a lot of software that's been written for the traditional desktop. Much of that is tied to a back-end database, and would be much easier to deploy and support if it were rewritten to live in the cloud. But many of these systems are extremely complex, and those rewrites are expensive. Until a viable competitor comes out with a cloud-based alternative, vendors try to justify their client-server wares based on their robust features - playing down their mediocre performance and abysmal supportability. In the face of the new-found popularity of cloud app architecture, some have tried to pass off Citrix server farms as 'the cloud'. Good luck with that...