Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:show me the measurement for programmers (Score 1) 371

by danheskett (#48678953) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

And guess what, we issue about 3-5k of them a year, which happens to be exactly what he says he wants.

Of course, O1 requires under penalty real certification of excellence.

What Mr. Graham really wants of course is to find promising young programmers, bring them to the US for next to nothing, pay them a middling wage, and then cut him or her loose as soon that venture goes tits up. Then we have another programmer floating around, willing to work for below market wages.

Comment: Re:Mod parent up. (Score 1) 371

by danheskett (#48678943) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I'll say it: there's not a shortage of programmers, there's a shortage of valid business plans. That's SV's real problem.

Exactly. That is perfect. Silicon Valley culture sucks. The best don't all want to work there, toiling on some stupid app or web project that's going to crash and burn when Series A dry's up and you can't raise Series B.

Comment: Drop Dead (Score 1) 371

by danheskett (#48678939) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I have a few thoughts:

1. Mr. Graham can drop dead. I had to look up who this guy is, Y Combinator has produced such companies as:

Scribd, reddit, Airbnb, Dropbox, Disqus, Stripe

These are not the companies that make the US a "tech superpower". We have a document sharing company, an online community that is 33% porn, 33% cats, and 33% reposts, a house-sharing operation that is constantly on the run from regulators, a company that resells cloud storage to end users, a company that facilitates cat-posts online, and a credit card payment processor. News flash, the world let alone the United States does not revolve around Silicon Valley and your narrow alleged needs. This guy is crazy if he thinks we are going to screw with the iron clad law of supply-and-demand and let in a "few thousand programmers" for no good reason.

2. Mr. Graham knows that he can already get in the very best programmers. We have plenty of avenues for letting in the very best. For one, it means, we have a real shortage. Secondly, it might mean we educate them here. Finally, it may mean you have to really invest in attracting the top talent internationally. That may mean - gasp - setting up foreign operations, and then domesticating the worker after a few years. That's right, Mr. Graham, years. What he really means is "we want to attract the best programmers, for cheap, chain them to a job, and then wash our hands of them when the job dries up or it doesn't work out".

3. This is yet another case of an over-privileged idiot trying to social costs and privatize profits.

4. The reason you can't find as many American top programmers to work for you is because Silicon Valley sucks. The culture sucks, the location (esp. real estate) sucks, the working environment sucks, the stability sucks. It's just another gold rush scenario, this time with Aeron chairs and floor to ceiling whiteboards, and lots of fast talk. And let's be honest. The work sucks. Most of these starts up are doing nothing at all really useful. A huge majority will fail, suddenly, having wasted everyone's time and someone poor suckers money. Spinning this as disruptive, or revolutionary is sad, and a lot of people are jaded against it. The company structure sucks. There are many programmers who have been to three, four, five failed startup operations, going through the same stress, the same pain, the same loss only to end up being told they are now too old for another try at the pie. There are no plans to provide for a long-term company, no hope for a business that is lasting and built upon solving problems that people are willing to pay to have solved.

5. The fact that Mr. Graham and his friends can't attract a few thousand of the best of the best to work for them just means that the costs outweigh the rewards. Instead of fixing their toxic culture, failing mentality, and gold rush dynamic, they want to break the country further. Because they feel entitled to have what they want, without putting in the years, or decades that other industries have to make it to stability. They've already been given a subsidized work force, where they feel entitled to reap the top talent for middling pay, massive cultural influence, outsized political influence, and regulatory preferences. And yet, they've done almost nothing for the country. We are plus 10 new billionaires, but there has been no standard of living bump for most Americans.

TLDR: Drop dead, Mr. Graham. You do something for the country, and the rest of flyover territory will think about doing something for you.

Comment: Linux support (Score 3, Informative) 118

by Lando (#48539481) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Paying For Linux Support vs. Rolling Your Own?

To maintain and support an entire OS takes a lot of work. We aren't talking about just development here, but checking to make sure things run properly and making the changes needed to ensure stuff is supporter. The point I would start looking at rolling your own distribution and supporting it is the day you decide to start selling your distribution.

For internal use, sure you might have to have a team to do internal work to modify certain sections in order to make the OS work for you, but they are relatively minor compared to ensuring an entire distribution works as needed. Let another company do the heavy lifting and just have your company modify it and submit changes back through the system as desired. Feedback works as well.

To run an entire distribution and all the subsystems takes billions, look at IBM donating to Linux as a whole they give value back to the community rather than trying to extend and embrace for their own purposes. Redhat does the same and they do distribution and sales. Other companies are the same. I guess you can make the decision on your own but personally I suppose the time to switch is when you have support fees in excess of what it would cost to maintain an entire distribution. I'd assume someone around a thousand people focused on the project would be about right. A thousand people's salaries would buy a lot of support. A better idea might be to hire developers for the subsections of the OS that you need and have them work with the community.

Comment: Re:Steam Big Picture (Score 1) 720

by Lando (#48489643) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Making a 'Wife Friendly' Gaming PC?

Yes and from what I remember of the steam box that is one of the features. You are supposed to be able to have your massive gaming machine in one part of the house but be able to play on any television throughout the house. The big machine handles the heavy lifting and transmits the data to wherever you want to play at. Since this is the designed function there isn't even an issue of plugging and unplugging wires etc to wherever you are at.

I haven't read the literature in a while, but that was my understanding of how it was supposed to work. Granted that is pre-release information before they got the specs set for the steambox and the functionality may have been removed.

Comment: Re: Seen the e-Golf? (Score 1) 395

by drsmithy (#48483773) Attached to: France Wants To Get Rid of Diesel Fuel
90 miles is frankly pathetic. That's a best case scenario 45 miles there and back; less with frequent starting and stopping. And 45 miles by road is probably not like 35 miles as the crow flies. Imagine a 35 mile radius around your home. You cannot get any further than that without recharging. And that's supposed to be good mileage? I wouldn't hesitate for a second betting a comfortable majority of drivers rarely, if ever, drive more than 90 miles in a day. Heck, I'd be pretty confident that a fairly large proportion (say, between 25% and 50%) rarely exceed 50 miles in a day.
Businesses

LinkedIn Study: US Attracting Fewer Educated, Highly Skilled Migrants 338

Posted by samzenpus
from the best-and-brightest dept.
vinces99 writes The U.S. economy has long been powered in part by the nation's ability to attract the world's most educated and skilled people to its shores. But a new study of the worldwide migration of professionals to the U.S. shows a sharp drop-off in its proportional share of those workers – raising the question of whether the nation will remain competitive in attracting top talent in an increasingly globalized economy. The study, which used a novel method of tracking people through data from the social media site LinkedIn, is believed to be the first to monitor global migrations of professionals to the U.S., said co-author Emilio Zagheni, a University of Washington assistant professor of sociology and fellow of the UW eScience Institute. Among other things, the study, presented recently in Barcelona, Spain, found that just 13 percent of migrating professionals in the sample group chose the U.S. as a destination in 2012, down from 27 percent in 2000.

Comment: Re:Other fugitives (Score 1) 173

by Lando (#48432519) Attached to: US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive

In my opinion we need to start holding politicians accountable for their actions. Currently it seems the legalization of bribes and free speech of corporations while the rest of the country has their right to speak publicly only in free speech zones and the removal of their assets without any proof of wrongdoing just doesn't sit well with me.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...