The salespeople saw money. The business people, who would normally assess risk, got blinded by the prospect of making huge amounts of money. The engineers who could see disaster coming were not consulted or ignored.
Ten years ago I would have said you were a crank. Five years ago I would have ignored the comment. But this country has gone seriously down hill over the past decade and a half.
Nope, this hasn't changed. Read up on the Neidorf E911 case.
People in "dirt poor nations" are just as much "people" as here, and just as deserving of jobs.
Yes, people in dirt poor nations are people. But if its them or me, I choose me every time.
No moral wrong happens when a job moves from here to there - arguably the reverse given the safety net in each nation.
So jobs for them and welfare for me? Except of course there's not actually a safety net for non-elderly people with no children. You're not making this any more attractive.
But anyway, the point is that it's only short-term turbulence: China and India will eventually buy a lot more stuff than the US and EU, and will drive vastly more modern jobs worldwide as a result.
Before the short-term is over, I could be dead.
Making stuff cheaper always creates new job making more stuff, so the first world benefits, and the economies of India, China, and Brazil keeps growing (although China has it's own bubble to work through these days), and the middle class in each nation keeps expanding.
Meanwhile the middle class in the United States contracts, and much of Europe is actually regressing. And there's still plenty of dirt-poor nations (including most of India and China) to drag everyone down.
The economy is not a zero-sum game. This is not a race to the bottom. As low cost-of-living places get more and more jobs, their standard of living rises and costs go up accordingly.
It may not be a race to the bottom, but it sure appears to be a race to somewhere much closer to the Third World mean than the First World one.
Cops in NYC are now just blowing people away just for being in a stairwell. And as for filing complaints against the police, unless one of the steps is "leave town, permanently", you'd be foolish to do so.
The way to definitively solve the problem would have been eliminate all of the little Cities in Michigan that make up Metro Detroit.
And by "eliminate" you mean "merge them into Detroit", thus making Detroit's problem their problem. Which, since many of the residents of those cities moved there to get away from Detroit's problems, isn't going to fly. Detroit needs to solve its own problems, not figure out a way to suck tax money out of the suburbs which it can then waste while still not solving the problems (and eventually destroying the suburbs).
Unless, of course, you'd have the greater city governed from the former suburbs rather than old Detroit... can't see any racial tension there, no sir.
If that was sexist, then CSEdWeek is sexist too -- because it appears that interesting young women in coding by providing a tie in to Disney heroines is exactly their goal.
What's wrong with that? You say it like it's a bad thing. If it's neutral, why bring it up at all?
Pretty sure the word he's going for is "effete".
Where in Satan's holy name is a self-taught American programmer with no degrees supposed to go? Galt's Gulch? Not fuckin' likely.
I understand there's money to be made in black-hattery. Observe the 11th commandment, however.
I remember some old CAD displays in the 80's which were square (1024 x 1024 I think). That's a bit extreme for me; I think the sweet spot was around 16:10.
I worked with a rockstar once. Well, he played in a moderately successful cover band anyway.
The value of an agent to me is the difference between what I can get and what the agent can get, minus the amount the agent skims off the top. The worse I am at negotiating, the larger the difference is... but the greater the amount the agent skims off the top. Most likely outcome: the agent, whose entire compensation is based on separating me from as much cash as possible, manages to take more than that difference and I get screwed while thinking I got a good deal.
Well you see that's kinda begging the question of wether or not video games are art in the first place; I'm a real skeptic on the question, I really don't think most video games rise to that level, and I'm pretty sure that if something isn't art, if its purely a commercial good, it may be regulated. This is basically consistent with US law and custom on the issue -- films in the US, for example, weren't entitled to 1st amendment protections until the 1950s.
Which is to say that this is no longer consistent with US law and custom.
Does Madden NFL 15 really deserve the same benefit of the doubt as Lolita? Does Electronic Arts really have the same moral rights as Ai Wei Wei? I think if a video game is going to be protected by "those who believe in free expression," the people making the video game, at a minimum, should have to cop to the fact that the game is actually trying to express something, but a lot of people on the gamer side of things seem convinced that video games are just "fun" and shouldn't have to "mean" anything.
If they don't express anything, there's nothing to censor. If they DO express something (even something banal) they're protected.