Mackie Employees to Drop Trou and Resemble Ned Beatty...

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Analogeezer, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F4E4A14.75FD41B9@worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > The HR deprtment wants freshly scrubbed 28 year olds. A 28 year old
    > is marginally at the good end of the journeyman phase of learning
    > software development, assuming a graduation age of 23. And you're
    > back to healthcare and pension liability for the 28 year old
    > figure.
    >
    > There needs to be some age diversity. You can't really replace
    > the old guys as an influence on the younger guys. With all due
    > respect, they don't know much coming out of school.
    >

    Ah, you see, but the model has changed. A 25-28 year old with a piece of
    paper form a school is worthless, you should already have 5-7 years industry
    experience by the time you're 25. I learned BASIC at 11, C at 14, C++ at 16,
    OOP at 17, and got a job at American Airlines at 19 working on the Sabre
    reservations system, which the "experienced" guys had turned into a freakin'
    horror show because of an unwillingness to learn and adapt to new tech. If
    you don't already have a skill when you enter the workforce, you're already
    behind. No time for college, buy a book, learn it on your own, and be ready
    for a trial by fire before you're 20. It can be argued that the
    "experienced" guys know the process and have been through several
    development life cycles, etc, but by my second year at Sabre I had been
    through full cycles on a half dozen apps, knew (and improved) the coding
    standards, and was more flexible than any of the old school programmers they
    had. When they decided they needed to do the new version in Java, I took a 1
    week class and came back ready to rewrite large chunks of the reservation
    system in Java. Of course it didn't happen that way, but then the dead
    weight and wasted budget at companies like Sabre and AA are legendary.
    Unfortunately for me, about 1998 I started getting offers for double or more
    what I was making at Sabre, and Sabre was talking about eliminating flight
    benefits for non AA employees, so I took another job, rode the dot com wave
    up to almost quadruple what I started at Sabre for, until it dropped right
    out from under me. Now I'm an independent contractor trying to get my own
    business going, which really sucks in this economy.

    However, back to the point, I'm 28 now and have 9 years of real world
    experience in software development (mostly lead developer positions) and
    project management in large companies (AA, Sabre, Verizon, etc), as opposed
    to your idea of a 28 year old who is barely a journeyman. The real problem
    is that the offshore programmers this work is being outsourced to *are*
    competent and generally write good code. They are highly educated in all the
    new technologies compared to your average 20-something American programmer.
    And they will work for 1/4 of what American programmers are asking.

    ryanm
  2. Bob Cain

    Bob Cain Guest

    ryanm wrote:
    >
    > The real problem
    > is that the offshore programmers this work is being outsourced to *are*
    > competent and generally write good code. They are highly educated in all the
    > new technologies compared to your average 20-something American programmer.
    > And they will work for 1/4 of what American programmers are asking.
    >


    The man is corrrect. That's why this is such a problem.
    It's not artificial, it's not a case of lousy ethics or
    underhanded dealing or reducing quality. It's good
    economics coupled with global increases in the production of
    of well educated people and nearly a step function increase
    in their interconnectedness. The U.S. technical work force
    is in a seriously difficult adjustment period. Those of us
    who are well over 50 realized this problem when it was still
    on-shore economics that began turning us invisible 10 to 15
    years ago.


    Bob
    --

    "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
    simpler."

    A. Einstein
  3. The wage scale in the US is so skewed that the average person has to do
    (buy) the cheapest thing.
    The gap between the rich and poor is growing.The music business is
    probably the the worst
    offender.While the anointed ones make millions,actual trained musicians
    play for dirt.
    In case you didn't realize it, you just chipped in to pay this dude a
    rdiculous sum:
    http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479361616&p=1012571727088
    JK
  4. Good economics are almost always bad ethics.

    Morons like Miss Fathead (I can't think of her name and don't want to) scream
    about liberal treachery and lack of patriotism.

    What could be more unpatriotic than US businesses sending US jobs overseas?

    We're only a few decades away from one-world government -- by business.


    > It's not artificial, it's not a case of lousy ethics or underhanded
    > dealing or reducing quality. It's good economics coupled with
    > with global increases in the production of well-educated
    > people and nearly a step-function increase in their
    > interconnectedness.
  5. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
    news:vkukn1dh2rdn92@corp.supernews.com

    > Good economics are almost always bad ethics.


    There's a natural tension between economic decisions and ethics, but that is
    hardly unique to economics.

    > What could be more unpatriotic than US businesses sending US jobs
    > overseas?


    Wasting money keeping jobs in the US when they are more efficiently done
    overseas, would be a very unpatriotic, even unethical thing to do. Besides,
    history shows that it just doesn't work in the long run.

    History shows that there are natural laws. They are often very complex. We
    may know them very imperfectly, but they are out there and they control our
    lives and the universe. In the short term it is possible to apparently
    reverse or violate natural laws, but in the long run natural laws come
    around and assert themselves unmistakably and sometimes even
    catastrophically. Ethics is one view of natural law as it applies to human
    behavior. Economics is another view of natural law. We must seek to find a
    natural balance between our activities and the natural laws, or we will
    suffer the unhappy consequences.

    > We're only a few decades away from one-world government -- by business.


    That would be a one world until there was just one business.
  6. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:We2cnWLNzug8xdKiU-KYuQ@comcast.com

    > That would be a one world until there was just one business.


    Correction:

    > That would be one world government if there was just one business.
  7. One of my problems with this is that the Chinese state benefits from
    these deals and they are without question one of the most brutally
    oppresive governments in human history. And how about the US
    politicians that are lining their pockets with Chinese $ while making
    these trade deals?

    "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<wKWdnXR5KsZFbNCiU-KYgw@comcast.com>...
    > "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
    > news:vkqjm2rot4riad@corp.supernews.com
    >
    > > I visited Mackie a few years ago. It was all One Big Happy Family.
    > > Really. Or so it seemed.

    >
    > > Mackie was highly automated. It's hard to believe the cost of labor
    > > was so high a percentage of the final cost that it justified the
    > > change.

    >
    > > I hope their shift to off-shore production will result in lower
    > > prices. I mean, if you're going to screw people out of their jobs, at
    > > least have the common decency to pass the savings along to the
    > > customers.

    >
    > This suggests to me that someone thinks that people are somehow "owed" their
    > jobs. Maybe in a true socialist state this could be true, but it's violently
    > anti-capitalistic thinking.
    >
    > I think that in our heart of hearts most of us would like the world to run
    > in a purely socialistic manner - everybody puts in what they could, and
    > everybody takes what they want. Regrettably human nature isn't compatible
    > with this, as has been proven again and again, since no later than the time
    > of Christ.
    >
    > When I started looking at production consoles at all seriously, I was struck
    > with how uncompetitive Mackie seemed to be in year 2003. Since this was
    > their historic bread-and-butter, I suddenly grasped how dire their
    > circumstance really was unless they made some striking changes.
    >
    > Go into a pro audio store and start turning over boxes and opening boxes
    > looking for something that DOESN'T have heavy content made/assembled in
    > China. Contemplate the meaning of (consumer) electronic brands like Apex
    > that seem to be 100% designed&built you-know-where.
    >
    > The handwriting seems to be on the wall - the only part of the audio that
    > the U.S. still does better-faster-cheaper than everybody else seems to be
    > the basic business of making and producing recorded music.
    >
    > I think the moral of the story is don't get to hung up on where the tools
    > are made, just devote yourself to benefiting from them the best you can.
  8. Andrea

    Andrea Guest

    Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F4E477E.40DCCB4B@worldnet.att.net>...
    > steve wrote:
    > >
    > > At six Indian software engineers to one American (management rule-of-thumb), all
    > > our jobs are going there. Shipping is basically free. Email latency is 24
    > > hours, so my schedule is impacted until the entire group is in India (ie, I can
    > > see me unemployed from a company that *bought* me and my software 4 years ago).
    > > But it's so cheap that I can hear that giant sucking sound; wish I could get
    > > it on tape.
    > >

    >
    > I wish 'em good luck. I've tried to get my employers to think
    > carefully about the cost of software development for 18 years.
    > This always comes down to "let's not do anything unnecessary".
    >
    > Hasn't worked - the funny money thing wins every time. Rather
    > than do things to reduce headcount, which can
    > be shown to speed things up and reduce cost, it always ends up
    > "we need more people".
    >
    > Would you really want product developed by people who *know*
    > you're colonializing them and only doing it on a "they pretend
    > to pay us, we pretend to work" basis?


    We had a local telemarketing facility which employed hundreds of
    telemarketers in Fredericksburg Virginia close up that was in the
    business of pitching credit cards. I thought good now that I've signed
    up for the Federal Do not call list, and they laid off all of those
    telemarketers, that company won't be calling me any more...

    Boy was I wrong, It looks like they killed two birds with one stone,
    I've been getting telemarketing calls for credit cards and insurance
    policies that sound like they are coming from outside the United
    States, and the people calling have indian accents and speak the
    queens english(formal colonial) very good.

    So now the marketers get cheaper telemarketing labor, and get around
    the do not call list by routing thier calls through another country
    like India.

    When the do not call list takes effect in October I have 2 choices, I
    can sue the american companies that use oversees telemarketers to call
    me, since thier business is in the United States and bound by U.S laws
    and regulations...

    or I can make it not very cost effective to use oversees outsourced
    marketing.

    Thank god that the United States is such a cultural melting pot, with
    hundreds of local accents, dialects, and versions of English...

    I could run up the telemarketing firms phone bill by keeping the
    foreign "queens english" marketer on the line and confused, by mixing
    up as many american language styles all at once,speed up or slow down
    parts of words, change thier accents(like the art dealer in Beverly
    Hills Cop 2 Movie) I could mix eubonics with Texan, with New
    England,hill-billy, autioneer speed talk, Engrish, piglatin,baby-talk
    and plain old made up words. I could use a script or improvise, Hey
    the people calling me have a script in front of them, it's fair play.
    Andrea
    http://www.andrearogers.com
  9. Analogeezer

    Analogeezer Guest

    "William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:<vkukn1dh2rdn92@corp.supernews.com>...
    > Good economics are almost always bad ethics.
    >
    > Morons like Miss Fathead (I can't think of her name and don't want to) scream
    > about liberal treachery and lack of patriotism.
    >
    > What could be more unpatriotic than US businesses sending US jobs overseas?
    >
    > We're only a few decades away from one-world government -- by business.
    >
    >
    > > It's not artificial, it's not a case of lousy ethics or underhanded
    > > dealing or reducing quality. It's good economics coupled with
    > > with global increases in the production of well-educated
    > > people and nearly a step-function increase in their
    > > interconnectedness.



    Did you see Rollerball (the original, not the gawduawful remake),
    that's what they had, one corporate government.

    "The Game" (Rollerball) was invented to provide people with a sense of
    nationalism, to keep them from going back to "countries".

    Pretty cool movie IMHO (well the overall concept some of the execution
    was sorta violent) and a lot of it is coming true.

    I like how the people with steady jobs and health insurance always
    seem to think anything to do with capitalism = patriotism.

    Analogeezer
  10. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    ryanm wrote:
    >
    > "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > news:3F4E4A14.75FD41B9@worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > The HR deprtment wants freshly scrubbed 28 year olds. A 28 year old
    > > is marginally at the good end of the journeyman phase of learning
    > > software development, assuming a graduation age of 23. And you're
    > > back to healthcare and pension liability for the 28 year old
    > > figure.
    > >
    > > There needs to be some age diversity. You can't really replace
    > > the old guys as an influence on the younger guys. With all due
    > > respect, they don't know much coming out of school.
    > >

    > Ah, you see, but the model has changed.


    Reality doesn't change a whole lot, and the realities
    of this have never changed, not in fifty years if
    not fifty centuries.

    > A 25-28 year old with a piece of
    > paper form a school is worthless, you should already have 5-7 years industry
    > experience by the time you're 25. I learned BASIC at 11, C at 14, C++ at 16,
    > OOP at 17, and got a job at American Airlines at 19 working on the Sabre
    > reservations system, which the "experienced" guys had turned into a freakin'
    > horror show because of an unwillingness to learn and adapt to new tech.


    New tech means squat. It's all old tech. Knowing
    what you're doing means something. And I mean *knowing*,
    not guessing. And that's no respecter of age.

    No question there's better tools and methodology out
    there, but that does not change the fundamental nature
    of engineering products and projects.

    No doubt you're representative, but this sure explains
    why things are moving offshore. This isn't your fault; it's
    the way things have moved.

    "A piece of paper from a school is worthless"? Perhaps, but
    you cannot operate as a professional without at least
    covering the subject matter thoroughly, and you won't get
    that directly from reading books by yourself. A few
    talented people can teach themselves the deep concepts, but
    not the vast majority. Not even all the top 10%.

    I've seen it firsthand, Ryan, and it's abuse of the process,
    and a generation will be lost to it.

    <snip>
    >
    > However, back to the point, I'm 28 now and have 9 years of real world
    > experience in software development (mostly lead developer positions) and
    > project management in large companies (AA, Sabre, Verizon, etc), as opposed
    > to your idea of a 28 year old who is barely a journeyman.


    It's not my idea. I'm merely repeating it. You skipped a step.

    > The real problem
    > is that the offshore programmers this work is being outsourced to *are*
    > competent and generally write good code.


    Good code is approximately 5% of the total problem-space.

    > They are highly educated in all the
    > new technologies compared to your average 20-something American programmer.
    > And they will work for 1/4 of what American programmers are asking.
    >


    Yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you get what you pay for.
    Hope it works out for 'em. It didn't, last time.

    > ryanm



    --
    Les Cargill
  11. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    ryanm <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:
    >"Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    >news:3F4FBA5F.85071F43@worldnet.att.net...
    >>
    >> New tech means squat. It's all old tech. Knowing
    >> what you're doing means something. And I mean *knowing*,
    >> not guessing. And that's no respecter of age.
    >>

    > I both agree and disagree. I definately agree that the "older" (meaning
    >more experienced rather than older) guys are needed to bring understanding
    >of the process and a better idea of the big picture into it, but there's no
    >reason why the "older" guys can't be 25-35 year olds who simply started
    >earlier. But the tech changes so fast these days, and in ways that directly
    >affect implementation, that the guys with 10 years experience in one
    >particular methodology are actually at a disadvantage. My advantage is that
    >I learn each technology as it comes out, which means I only have to deal
    >with it a little bit at a time.


    If this is such a big deal, why are people constantly reinventing the
    wheel? Microsoft only recently figured out how to do real demand paged
    memory (1965 technology), and a huge number of programmers out there
    don't seem to have a concept of input verification (something Project MAC
    was very aggressive about indicating was critical).

    There is a whole body of research on how interactive systems need to work,
    and so much of it is being reinvented all the time.

    Incidentally, Saabre is an interesting example, because Saabre was in
    many ways the pioneer transaction processing system. A lot of the lessons
    learned in the early implementations appeared in ACM publications and a
    lot of what we know today about how realtime systems need to work come
    from that.

    Today, the constraints that made the weird coding schemes used in the Saabre
    user interface no longer exist, but a lot of the other stuff does. And the
    folks implementing new stuff on top of the old system don't seem to have
    any concept of the original constraints on the system and why many of the
    original decisions were made.

    I remember taking apart pieces of Saabre when I was in college and
    transaction processing technology was a hot field of research. And
    now, a friend of mine helped guide USAir over to the system and has
    horrifying things to say about how a clean and well-designed system
    has turned into a shambling nightmare.

    >Guys going into college with no idea what a
    >ternary conditional might be have to learn 20 years worth of tech in 2
    >credits worth of classes, which just ain't enough.


    There is no time to tech technology in college. In college, you need to
    teach the basic theory, so that it's possible to learn the technology quickly
    and thoroughly in the real world when you get out. If you just teach the
    technology without teaching what is behind it, you get students who are
    worthless three years after graduation.

    Teaching every detail of a particular filesystem is a bad idea.... learning
    every piece of how the ntfs or the Berkeley ffs works is nice, but it's not
    as useful as learning how filesystems work and what constraints go into the
    design of a filesystem.

    > Do you really think a couple college level computer science classes and
    >a C++ class cover the subject matter thoroughlly? I don't think that piece
    >of paper qualifies you as "knowing what you're doing" (we agree on that),
    >but I do think that industry experience in a code-monkey type position
    >qualifies you better than just having gone to school.


    No, but it can cover the background so that it's possible to learn the subject
    material later on. I hope they don't teach any C++ classes in school. They
    can teach a programming class that uses C++, a data structure class that
    uses C++, a file processing class that uses C++ and so forth. Understanding
    algorithms and data structures is essential.

    If you understand the basic underpinnings, you can learn the programming
    languages in an afternoon or two.

    I used to brag about being able to write any assembler language without
    any preparation, just with the code card in front of me. If you learn to
    program and you learn something about computer architecture, you can write
    in any assembler, whether it's a RISC box or a stack machine. Maybe not
    optimally, but enough.

    > A lot of my generation skipped that step. It got to the point that
    >getting a degree would literally never pay for itself, not in a single
    >lifetime, so people stopped getting them and started learning the stuff
    >themselves and then starting out at the bottom of the totem pole and
    >learning that way.


    A lot of those guys JUST know the technology and don't know any of the
    basic underpinnings behind them. There are a whole lot of those guys
    in the audio world too. They can get stuff done, but they aren't very
    versatile and that's a big deal in a world where the technology changes
    so quickly.

    I say this as someone who recently had to explain elementary graph theory
    to a professional programmer recently. He had a vague notion of trees
    but no concept of traversal algorithms.

    >> Yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you get what you pay for.
    >> Hope it works out for 'em. It didn't, last time.
    >>

    > And that is always true, however, I've worked with a lot of
    >middle-eastern and Indian programmers who really know their stuff and are
    >entirely too enthusiastic about work.


    As far as India goes, a lot of this has to do with the college system
    there.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  12. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F4FBA5F.85071F43@worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > New tech means squat. It's all old tech. Knowing
    > what you're doing means something. And I mean *knowing*,
    > not guessing. And that's no respecter of age.
    >

    I both agree and disagree. I definately agree that the "older" (meaning
    more experienced rather than older) guys are needed to bring understanding
    of the process and a better idea of the big picture into it, but there's no
    reason why the "older" guys can't be 25-35 year olds who simply started
    earlier. But the tech changes so fast these days, and in ways that directly
    affect implementation, that the guys with 10 years experience in one
    particular methodology are actually at a disadvantage. My advantage is that
    I learn each technology as it comes out, which means I only have to deal
    with it a little bit at a time. Guys going into college with no idea what a
    ternary conditional might be have to learn 20 years worth of tech in 2
    credits worth of classes, which just ain't enough.

    > "A piece of paper from a school is worthless"? Perhaps, but
    > you cannot operate as a professional without at least
    > covering the subject matter thoroughly, and you won't get
    > that directly from reading books by yourself. A few
    > talented people can teach themselves the deep concepts, but
    > not the vast majority. Not even all the top 10%.
    >

    Do you really think a couple college level computer science classes and
    a C++ class cover the subject matter thoroughlly? I don't think that piece
    of paper qualifies you as "knowing what you're doing" (we agree on that),
    but I do think that industry experience in a code-monkey type position
    qualifies you better than just having gone to school.

    > It's not my idea. I'm merely repeating it. You skipped a step.
    >

    A lot of my generation skipped that step. It got to the point that
    getting a degree would literally never pay for itself, not in a single
    lifetime, so people stopped getting them and started learning the stuff
    themselves and then starting out at the bottom of the totem pole and
    learning that way.

    > Good code is approximately 5% of the total problem-space.
    >

    True, but software not being a physical object that has to be shipped,
    it's just as easy to have phone conferences as it is to have meetings.
    Especially with the advent of tech like NetMeeting, with internet
    whiteboards, slideshows, etc.

    > Yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you get what you pay for.
    > Hope it works out for 'em. It didn't, last time.
    >

    And that is always true, however, I've worked with a lot of
    middle-eastern and Indian programmers who really know their stuff and are
    entirely too enthusiastic about work. I left Verizon because of this. My
    boss was a Moroccan who came here for the job, and the only people in this
    country he knew were his co-workers. He also lived across the street, so he
    worked from 6am-2am every day, walked across the street to sleep for a few
    hours and then came back to work (*not* an exaggeration). And he expected
    his team to do the same. I was on a 180 day contract to permanent, and when
    they offered the permanent position I turned it down because I couldn't keep
    up the hours. The guy got stuff done, but I have kids that would like to see
    my face occasionally, and I just couldn't keep those hours. I made a
    ridiculous amount of money at $45/hour working 100-120 hour weeks (the term
    "weekend" meant nothing to this guy), but it just wasn't worth it. I took a
    job at $35/hour with half the hours just to get away from it. Now, I'm not
    opposed to working long hours to meet a deadline, even a deadline that was
    arbitrarily set by upper management who had no idea what was involved in
    meeting the deadline, but it was every single day for this guy. But when you
    get a group of these kind of workers together, you can get a whole lot done
    in a very short time for a ridiculously low amount of money. Even less money
    when they're outside of the US and have different income standards.

    ryanm
  13. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:bioigk$jdq$1@panix2.panix.com...
    >
    > If this is such a big deal, why are people constantly reinventing the
    > wheel? Microsoft only recently figured out how to do real demand paged
    > memory (1965 technology), and a huge number of programmers out there
    > don't seem to have a concept of input verification (something Project MAC
    > was very aggressive about indicating was critical).
    >

    This ties in with what you're talking about below, with unavoidable
    constraints during development that dissapear later, and then everyone asks
    "Why did they do it that way?"

    > Today, the constraints that made the weird coding schemes used in the

    Saabre
    > user interface no longer exist, but a lot of the other stuff does. And

    the
    > folks implementing new stuff on top of the old system don't seem to have
    > any concept of the original constraints on the system and why many of the
    > original decisions were made.
    >

    I got there after it had already been made into a mess, so maybe I was
    seeing symptoms of the very problem you're describing. Incidentally, I ended
    up working almost entirely on web interfaces for the res system (the first
    com objects to allow sites like Travelocity to work, etc), which seemed like
    a piddling waste of time to me, extending an already hopelessly outdated
    system that was a huge, hacked up mess. Don't get me wrong, Sabre was an
    impressive Brontosaur in it's time, but now it looks more like the bones of
    a Brontosaur with a bunch of cattle duct taped to it to make it look
    "alive". Or it did as of about 1998, when I left, anyway. There are actually
    far better res systems available, but Sabre still owns the market, so they
    win. For the time being.

    > There is no time to tech technology in college. In college, you need to
    > teach the basic theory, so that it's possible to learn the technology

    quickly
    > and thoroughly in the real world when you get out. If you just teach the
    > technology without teaching what is behind it, you get students who are
    > worthless three years after graduation.
    >

    Unfortunatly, that seems to be what we're geting these days. The kids
    want to know what they need to know to start a job when they come out of
    school, which requires teaching the current tech, otherwise they might have
    to actually *contiune learning after school!* (god forbid)

    > A lot of those guys JUST know the technology and don't know any of the
    > basic underpinnings behind them. There are a whole lot of those guys
    > in the audio world too. They can get stuff done, but they aren't very
    > versatile and that's a big deal in a world where the technology changes
    > so quickly.
    >

    That's true as well, but there are a great many of those guys who can
    and do learn the new tech as it comes out, and are able to keep up. Without
    the schooling that was previously thought necessary.

    ryanm
  14. TAPKAE

    TAPKAE Guest

    "Andrea" read this in the National Enquirer :

    > or I can make it not very cost effective to use oversees outsourced
    > marketing.
    >
    > Thank god that the United States is such a cultural melting pot, with
    > hundreds of local accents, dialects, and versions of English...
    >
    > I could run up the telemarketing firms phone bill by keeping the
    > foreign "queens english" marketer on the line and confused, by mixing
    > up as many american language styles all at once,speed up or slow down
    > parts of words, change thier accents(like the art dealer in Beverly
    > Hills Cop 2 Movie) I could mix eubonics with Texan, with New
    > England,hill-billy, autioneer speed talk, Engrish, piglatin,baby-talk
    > and plain old made up words. I could use a script or improvise, Hey
    > the people calling me have a script in front of them, it's fair play.



    I usually get exceedingly rude and sort of make their experience
    uncomfortable then tell them to find a job they can really love.


    --

    TAPKAE
    http://tapkae.com

    "We're the cleanup crew for parties we were too young to attend"
    (Kevin Gilbert)
  15. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <bioigk$jdq$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

    > Today, the constraints that made the weird coding schemes used in the Saabre
    > user interface no longer exist, but a lot of the other stuff does. And the
    > folks implementing new stuff on top of the old system don't seem to have
    > any concept of the original constraints on the system and why many of the
    > original decisions were made.


    "Because we did it that way last time" makes a strong case in some
    instances, right or wrong. I'm in the process of revising a
    specification for the FAA, and I'm getting what I think are good ideas
    vetoed because we asked for something different last time and that's
    the way the manufacturers know how to design it. Many of the
    requirements go back to the days of tubes and mechanical modulators
    and simply don't apply to modern digital waveform synthesis, still we
    specify audio frequency tolerances that are far too wide and with high
    levels of distortion (because that's as good as they could do with the
    hardware available at the time the specs were originally written). If
    you tighten up the tolerances, the mucky-mucks are afraid that the
    manufacturers will question why.

    The latest was that we required a temperature sensor in the shelter
    building with an accuracy of +/-4 degrees because that's what could be
    done the first time we asked for it. I suggested that more useful
    (since equipment no longer generates enough heat to warm up the
    building) would be to put a temperature sensor inside the cabinet,
    with a alarm threshold and tolerance set by the manufacturer to warn
    us of when things were getting too hot. Sure enough, this suggested
    because there's nothing to which the requirement for measuring the
    internal cabinet can be traced.

    > There is no time to tech technology in college. In college, you need to
    > teach the basic theory, so that it's possible to learn the technology quickly
    > and thoroughly in the real world when you get out. If you just teach the
    > technology without teaching what is behind it, you get students who are
    > worthless three years after graduation.


    Isn't this the problem with those "Learn to be a recording engineer in
    six weeks" (or months) programs? And why so many people are attracted
    to those programs? You learn to be a ProTools or SSL console operator
    without ever learning how to set a level, interface two devices, or
    know how to find a musically sensible edit point.



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  16. William Sommerwerck wrote:
    > I visited Mackie a few years ago. It was all One Big Happy Family. Really. Or so
    > it seemed.
    >
    > Mackie was highly automated. It's hard to believe the cost of labor was so high
    > a percentage of the final cost that it justified the change.


    Don't forget benefits (part of the total labor cost) and environmental
    regs (or lack thereof.)
  17. Arny Krueger wrote:
    > "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
    > news:bikupf$a4c$1@bob.news.rcn.net
    >
    >
    >> With all that shipping one wonders if it's the numbers that play with
    >> people's heads.

    >
    >
    > I think you just stumbled over one of the ways how we've arrived where we
    > are today: cheap, fast shipping.


    See the 1940's which brought the advent of refrigeration (for home and
    truck) and the rise of the trucking industry. Voila! Massive growth in
    interstate commerce, tough times for local farmers and breweries.
  18. Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
    >
    >> You ever worked with wood, nuke? I believe, after some 4 years during high
    >> school and summers, that my experience at a custom cabinet shop qualifies me
    >> to say that people working with wood, in old factories with the right jigs
    >> and the right hand tools, could do a 100% better job than any automation.
    >> You want automation, go buy Ikea. You want cheap labor, go buy Pier One.
    >> You want Thomasville, buy from NC antiquated furniture factories (although
    >> they are usually called shops).

    >
    >
    > Right, but that's the issue. People don't want to BUY Thomasville. People
    > want to buy Ikea.


    Some of us want REAL furniture. Today, that means either one-off
    craftsman stuff or (on the inexpensive end) Shaker factories doing
    excellent repro work. When you look at the cost of this stuff, antiques
    start to look like an incredible value...
  19. William Sommerwerck wrote:

    > Good economics are almost always bad ethics.
    >
    > Morons like Miss Fathead (I can't think of her name and don't want to) scream
    > about liberal treachery and lack of patriotism.
    >
    > What could be more unpatriotic than US businesses sending US jobs overseas?
    >
    > We're only a few decades away from one-world government -- by business.


    See Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
  20. Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    >> Guys going into college with no idea what a
    >> ternary conditional might be have to learn 20 years worth of tech in 2
    >> credits worth of classes, which just ain't enough.

    >
    >
    > There is no time to tech technology in college. In college, you need to
    > teach the basic theory, so that it's possible to learn the technology quickly
    > and thoroughly in the real world when you get out. If you just teach the
    > technology without teaching what is behind it, you get students who are
    > worthless three years after graduation.
    >
    > Teaching every detail of a particular filesystem is a bad idea.... learning
    > every piece of how the ntfs or the Berkeley ffs works is nice, but it's not
    > as useful as learning how filesystems work and what constraints go into the
    > design of a filesystem.
    >
    >
    >> Do you really think a couple college level computer science classes and
    >>a C++ class cover the subject matter thoroughlly? I don't think that piece
    >>of paper qualifies you as "knowing what you're doing" (we agree on that),
    >>but I do think that industry experience in a code-monkey type position
    >>qualifies you better than just having gone to school.

    >
    >
    > No, but it can cover the background so that it's possible to learn the subject
    > material later on. I hope they don't teach any C++ classes in school. They
    > can teach a programming class that uses C++, a data structure class that
    > uses C++, a file processing class that uses C++ and so forth. Understanding
    > algorithms and data structures is essential.
    >
    > If you understand the basic underpinnings, you can learn the programming
    > languages in an afternoon or two.
    >
    > I used to brag about being able to write any assembler language without
    > any preparation, just with the code card in front of me. If you learn to
    > program and you learn something about computer architecture, you can write
    > in any assembler, whether it's a RISC box or a stack machine. Maybe not
    > optimally, but enough.



    Very well put, and something many "programmers" I've hired have failed
    to understand.





    >> A lot of my generation skipped that step. It got to the point that
    >>getting a degree would literally never pay for itself, not in a single
    >>lifetime, so people stopped getting them and started learning the stuff
    >>themselves and then starting out at the bottom of the totem pole and
    >>learning that way.

    >
    >
    > A lot of those guys JUST know the technology and don't know any of the
    > basic underpinnings behind them. There are a whole lot of those guys
    > in the audio world too. They can get stuff done, but they aren't very
    > versatile and that's a big deal in a world where the technology changes
    > so quickly.


    Read this twice, aspiring recording school students.




    >> And that is always true, however, I've worked with a lot of
    >>middle-eastern and Indian programmers who really know their stuff and are
    >>entirely too enthusiastic about work.

    >
    >
    > As far as India goes, a lot of this has to do with the college system
    > there.


    See IIT (and be afraid, very afraid.)

Share This Page