🚀 go-pugleaf

yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> 
> Now here's where it gets funky: Ricardo would say that the USA should
> innovate in technology and stop programming, and India should do the
> programming and stop innovating. If we each concentrate on our "most
> best" and then trade, more of both get produced for less ? the very
> essence of increased productivity.
> 


You can't make an "innovation vs. programming" argument.  That's
stupid.  Programmers are not analogous to factory workers assembling a
set of components for an automobile.  When it comes to software,
programmers *are* the innovators.  We work every day to "invent"
computer systems by analysis, design, and implementation.  Seems like
people outside the field of programming think we're just like highly
skilled bricklayers.  We just sit down and "churn out" code like an
assembly line worker, and that Indians should relieve us of this
menial task so we can concentrate on becoming the next Bill Gates(who
himself is a programmer).  The fact of the matter is, we can't
innovate in the computer field unless we continue to maintain a solid
base of experienced, employed programmers.  It's just that simple. 
When we ship programming jobs overseas we are not just losing "jobs",
we are losing "professions".  The outsourcing proponents will preach
about "comparative advantage".  Well, an American programmer whos
personal "comparative advantage" is programming is now being forced to
change occupations to something he or she isn't optimal at, like being
a manager doing powerpoint presentations and sitting in meetings.  And
Indians who otherwise would never even care about being a programmer
are busy writing code because it's the only high-paying career they
have a choice of doing.  Now tell me where the efficiency is?

"Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
> yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
>
> Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)

You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
(besides a few funky programs in high school)?

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:10:10 GMT, "David Fabian"
<david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>"Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
>> yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
>
>You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
>(besides a few funky programs in high school)?
>

BasicA for the 8080 etc.
APL (never released, but he worked on it off and on for years)
IBMbasic and GWBasic for PCDOS/MSDOS

I'm not absolutely sure, but I'm pretty sure he was in the trenches with
the programmers during the PCDOS 1.0 -> MSDOS 2.x transition.

He was still taking a very active role in software management during the
early versions of Windows (1.x, 2.x)...   

David Fabian wrote:

> You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
> (besides a few funky programs in high school)?
> 
> 

What crap. He wrote a ton of the code in the early days of his
company, and contributed actual code all the way through about 1983-84,
his last hands on project being a port for the first HP laptop.

You're thinking of Steve Jobs I bet.

-- 
Reg        email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com (Tom_O) wrote:

>You can't make an "innovation vs. programming" argument.  That's
>stupid.  Programmers are not analogous to factory workers assembling a
>set of components for an automobile.  When it comes to software,
>programmers *are* the innovators.

That's a pretty broad use of the term "programmer." Today, most
programming is no more skilled than word processing; a programmer is
handed a spec sheet and a prototype of the interface, and he (almost
always a he) just sits down and churns out the code like an assembly
line worker.

>We just sit down and "churn out" code like an assembly line worker,

Yes, precisely. I mean, if you're talking system programming under Unix,
that's different, but even a retarded chimpanzee can learn VBNet.

>When we ship programming jobs overseas we are not just losing "jobs",
>we are losing "professions".

Yes, as time goes by, professions change. Once upon a time, there was no
such thing as an IT worker, but shoemaker was a profession handed down
from father to son.

>about "comparative advantage".  Well, an American programmer whos
>personal "comparative advantage" is programming is now being forced to
>change occupations to something he or she isn't optimal at

Nah... comparative advantage is a macroeconomic term. It does not apply
to individuals. In macroeconomics, it's the aggregate that counts.

>Indians who otherwise would never even care about being a programmer
>are busy writing code because it's the only high-paying career they
>have a choice of doing.  Now tell me where the efficiency is?

A great part of the reason why there is a surplus of IT labor is that
thousands of people entered the profession during the 90s, when the
getting was good. The majority of those people were just going for the
money, and had little aptitude much less passion for the profession.
After a couple of community college courses in Java or VB, they called
themselves programmers.

yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote:

>http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-02-03-maney_x.htm
>
>Unpopular argument: Sending tech jobs abroad is good 
>
>Behind closed doors, many U.S. technology executives will say
>something that could get them flayed if repeated in public: Sending
>computer programming jobs to India and China is good for America.
>
>Not just good for business, they believe, but good for everybody �
>part of a process that will raise the standard of living in the USA
>and make us more secure in the world.

In the long term, sure.

But, you know, it's irrelevant whether it's good or bad. It's happening
and it will continue to happen; it's not going to stop.

In article <onh620h893bs1ba6mdvbujo680dgguoihi@news.supernews.com>,
trebor@sirius.com.no.more <user@example.com> wrote:
>tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com (Tom_O) wrote:
>Yes, precisely. I mean, if you're talking system programming under Unix,
>that's different, but even a retarded chimpanzee can learn VBNet.

Primate programming:
http://www.newtechusa.com/ppi/main.asp
-- 
David Arnstein                               arnstein+usenet@pobox.com  
-- 
Spammers:  thank you for training my filters.  You are all doing a
wonderful job.  Keep up the good work!

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:30:04 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
Arnstein) wrote:

>In article <onh620h893bs1ba6mdvbujo680dgguoihi@news.supernews.com>,
>trebor@sirius.com.no.more <user@example.com> wrote:
>>tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com (Tom_O) wrote:
>>Yes, precisely. I mean, if you're talking system programming under Unix,
>>that's different, but even a retarded chimpanzee can learn VBNet.
>
>Primate programming:
>http://www.newtechusa.com/ppi/main.asp


	Thanks. I always wondered what happened to the division of IBM
to which I and about 150 others were outsourced for a couple of years
until the parent company got bought and we were dumped. I'm glad
they're doing well.

yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-02-03-maney_x.htm

There are several problems with banking on innovation being the next
wave of growth jobs for Americans:
1. Innovation, by its nature, is unpredictable.  The invention process
is one of random bursts of insight, followed by a ton of refinement. 
One doesn't know where it will come from at all.  To say this is going
to offer salvation for the American economy and employment is highly
presumptive.  It is even presumptive to assume that there is going to
be some magical new industr appear and fix all the ills.
2. Most people are NOT innovators.  A lot of people don't have this
temperment.  To presume this is the future for America is to condemn
America to a stratification of minimum wage and 7 figure individuals. 
Sure, the innovation, workaholic, and entrepreneurial individuals will
make 7 figures, but what about the solid working person who can hold
down a basic blue color or white color job, and has a family to tend
to?  Well, I guess the United States WON'T need to have solid families
with fathers present.  Let's reduce the birth rate to zero or
negative.  Have fun being a world power with this.
3. You need to have a properly funded education system, with students
who do well in math and science to do this.  Have you checked where
the United States ranks in this area?  It isn't pretty.

Yes, there can be all this magical thinking, with hopes in "Free
Enterprise" bailing everyone out.  But good luck wagering on it.

Come to think of it, how did the United States become a superpower? 
Wasn't it through the use of cheap labor and abundant resources, with
a few entrepreneurs thrown in the mix?  A ton of immigrants gave the
United States a bunch of industrial muscle.  Who knows where people
would of been had it not been for the New Deal and labor unions.

- Richard Hutnik

"David Fabian" <david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<CXAUb.1125$Mz3.650@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> "Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
> > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
> 
> You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
> (besides a few funky programs in high school)?

Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).

Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
- Richard Hutnik

billgbl <gablebll@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40246AB7.1CD7@erols.com>...
> trebor@sirius.com.no.more wrote:
> Anything can be stopped. Once the world believed the German army was
> unstoppable. It had one victory after another. It was unstoppable. Until
> America entered the war and the Russians fought back. What did it take
> to defeat the German army? Resolve and the gathering of forces to oppose
> it. And the willingness to do onto the enemy as it does with others. TO
> KICK ASS. That is all you need to stop the trend. 
> 
> Organize, plan, fight. Find the people who make the decisions in your
> companies to out source your jobs. Find ways of removing them from their
> jobs. Hurt those companies, blacklist them. Create website for the
> companies who remove your jobs, list them, blacklist them. List the
> names of those excutives who made those decisions, provide their names
> to managers who secretly favor American workers but can't voice it in
> their own companies to blacklist or never help hire these people ever
> again. Never promote them if they're working under you. PLay as dirty
> with them as they'll played with your jobs, livihoods, and families. As
> them, give them fake smiles when you shake their hands. 
> 
> As with Germany and Japan we went to war because they started it. Well
> good, the excutives who removed your jobs started it. If you don't fight
> back you'll never win. When its a physical war we know that lesson all
> too well. When its a cultural war we're a lot slower to even relize
> there is a war. But there is.

They already tried this back in the late 1920's in Russia and in the
late 40's all around the world. Unfortunately this project called
Communism was a dismal failure and killed they very people it was
supposed to "save".
The first thing communists did in any country they took over was kill
all the evil "capitalists" and nationalize everything to
"redistribute" the wealth.

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message news:<onh620h893bs1ba6mdvbujo680dgguoihi@news.supernews.com>...
> 
> That's a pretty broad use of the term "programmer." Today, most
> programming is no more skilled than word processing; a programmer is
> handed a spec sheet and a prototype of the interface, and he (almost
> always a he) just sits down and churns out the code like an assembly
> line worker.

I agree that using a wizard a programmer can output a simple piece of
crap they may call an application, but doing programming correctly
involves far more skill than word processing.  Also, many programmers
do not find themselves in an environment where they work purely off
spec sheets (unless perhaps they are developing COM objects),
especially in small and medium sized companies.  Programmers are often
involved in the design meetings.
 
> Nah... comparative advantage is a macroeconomic term. It does not apply
> to individuals. In macroeconomics, it's the aggregate that counts.

I just meant that people need to be able to do what they are best at,
what they have an advantage in.  Some people excel at leading, some
delegate responsibilities, and some like to get their hands dirty and
do the actual building and creating.

> A great part of the reason why there is a surplus of IT labor is that
> thousands of people entered the profession during the 90s, when the
> getting was good. The majority of those people were just going for the
> money, and had little aptitude much less passion for the profession.
> After a couple of community college courses in Java or VB, they called
> themselves programmers.

I do agree with you here.  Everybody from accountants to busboys were
reading "Learn XYZ Language in 24 hours" and calling themselvs
programmers the next day.  India is probably doing this right now. 
Everybody is trying to grab a piece of the pie.

marge <noneofyourbusiness@excape.com> wrote in message news:<4024425E.C40@excape.com>...

>  Your counter argument works. The simple models used by Ricardo proves
> what a weak science economics still is. I've studied economics in
> graduate school and believe me, it is as weak as a science can get. They
> want the respectability of a hard science such as physics but they'll
> never get it by such simple minded half-assed models. 
> 
> Of course, programmers are innovative, but if you're not in the field,
> how can you be? There also is this hidden assumption which seems to
> suggest Indian programmers are not up to par when it comes to being
> innovative. Funny how the experts assume Indians will not be producing
> much of anything new without our help. 
> 
> I think this is all just an excuse to move jobs out. Where will the tax
> base come from in many cities and states if professionals aren't making
> decent salaries. How long before the upper classes are taxed to death to
> make up for the loss tax revenue? Then will they react? 
> 
> How many jobs were lost in our dead TV industry? In our dead VCR
> industry? Who said Japan is better in building TVs? We could have kept
> the industry but our brain damaged excutives lost the industry. We made
> up for the loss because the best and brightest we able to create new
> industries to make up for the mistake in losing our TV production. Not
> because we were better off giving Japan TV production so we could do
> better in some other field. That is so lame. 
> 
> If we keep losing and giving away one industry after another eventually
> we'll lose it. How can we remain innovative as we were even two decades
> ago? Are our children as well educated? Test scores have been dropping
> for the last 20 years. There is a flood of people into this country who
> barely score above 300 on their math SATs. Kids flooding into this
> country who can't even handle fractions in high school. 
> 
> The gene pool is changing in America and its not becoming smarter.
> Thirty years ago you had many bright kids going out into the job market,
> talented and eager to do something new. Even the music has gotten worse
> over the last 30 years. Rap is retarded music for brain dead kids. Kids
> who hate reading, who don't understand science.
> 
> Sure there are many smart children remaining, but they are becoming a
> smaller percentage of the population everyday. This magical idea we can
> always innovative better than anyone else forever is too naive for my
> taste. We've become like England of old, when they thought the sun would
> never set on the British Empire, or when France was the most important
> nation in the world, or when Germany thought it was the most powerful,
> they all couldn't imagine themselves losing their greatness. Just as we
> can't see ourselves losing it, in spite of all the signs we are.
> 
> 
> They'll say someday, it wasn't an army which finally defeated the USA.
> It was their business people from within, not unlike Rome's fall. We all
> sense it in America even though we won't see it. How many of us believe
> that America will be the most powerful nation on the eath in a 100
> years? Not many. We sense it will be China. And doesn't that scare many
> of us? We somehow sense that will not be a good thing for many peoples.
> They are not a kind people or warm people. 
> 
> It might be karma working on the US. It took the country by almost
> killing the native Indians. Maybe that is what is in store for its
> whites. To be wiped out as it wiped out to have the nation.

The intelligent people in the US are investing in emerging markets.
The US is going to remain the #1 country for a long time because MOST
of these very same companies you are outsourcing from are owned and
funded by Americans. All the Indians are doing there is working and
collecting thier sweat equity.
Intel,Microsoft, you name it and they're setting up WHOLLY owned
subsidaries in India. Which means all those Fancy profits go right
back to the US and your government gets the taxes on those profits.

The TV Industry is a perfect example of how the US lost out. The big
US companies didn't outsource fast enough to other markets and lost
out badly to Japanese brands because they were technologically
superior and BETTER and cheaper too.

HP and Intel are companies which didn't waste time and setup thier
manufacturing plants in Asia. Now they're able to beat the Asian
competition because they are producing better printers and CPU's at
the same cost.
The same thing is happening in software. US Companies are beating the
competition because they are setting up research bases in India where
they can get good quality at a very good prize.

Don't forget that the US Market isn't the main market for most Big
Corporations anymore. They sell FAR MORE in Asia and Europe than
locally , but the profits still come back to the US, because you have
the lowest taxes.

In article <37bc9e37.0402061218.3f84e20@posting.google.com>,
 richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) wrote:

> 1. Innovation, by its nature, is unpredictable.  The invention process
> is one of random bursts of insight, followed by a ton of refinement. 
> One doesn't know where it will come from at all.  To say this is going
> to offer salvation for the American economy and employment is highly
> presumptive.  It is even presumptive to assume that there is going to
> be some magical new industr appear and fix all the ills.

We do have a magical new industry.  It's called retail.

About 30-40 years ago, the number 1 employer was GM, which offered good 
jobs with which the breadwinners could support his family, including 
buying a home and educating his kids.

Now the number one employer is Walmart.  Can you buy a home on a Walmart 
pay?

According to the jobs report today, 112,000 new jobs were created in 
January.  Out of those, 76,000 were retail jobs.  Meanwhile, 
manufacturing lost 24,000 jobs for the month.

Tom_O wrote:
> 
> yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Now here's where it gets funky: Ricardo would say that the USA should
> > innovate in technology and stop programming, and India should do the
> > programming and stop innovating. If we each concentrate on our "most
> > best" and then trade, more of both get produced for less ? the very
> > essence of increased productivity.
> >
> 
> You can't make an "innovation vs. programming" argument.  That's
> stupid.  Programmers are not analogous to factory workers assembling a
> set of components for an automobile.  When it comes to software,
> programmers *are* the innovators.  We work every day to "invent"
> computer systems by analysis, design, and implementation.  Seems like
> people outside the field of programming think we're just like highly
> skilled bricklayers.  We just sit down and "churn out" code like an
> assembly line worker, and that Indians should relieve us of this
> menial task so we can concentrate on becoming the next Bill Gates(who
> himself is a programmer).  The fact of the matter is, we can't
> innovate in the computer field unless we continue to maintain a solid
> base of experienced, employed programmers.  It's just that simple.
> When we ship programming jobs overseas we are not just losing "jobs",
> we are losing "professions".  The outsourcing proponents will preach
> about "comparative advantage".  Well, an American programmer whos
> personal "comparative advantage" is programming is now being forced to
> change occupations to something he or she isn't optimal at, like being
> a manager doing powerpoint presentations and sitting in meetings.  And
> Indians who otherwise would never even care about being a programmer
> are busy writing code because it's the only high-paying career they
> have a choice of doing.  Now tell me where the efficiency is?


 Your counter argument works. The simple models used by Ricardo proves
what a weak science economics still is. I've studied economics in
graduate school and believe me, it is as weak as a science can get. They
want the respectability of a hard science such as physics but they'll
never get it by such simple minded half-assed models. 

Of course, programmers are innovative, but if you're not in the field,
how can you be? There also is this hidden assumption which seems to
suggest Indian programmers are not up to par when it comes to being
innovative. Funny how the experts assume Indians will not be producing
much of anything new without our help. 

I think this is all just an excuse to move jobs out. Where will the tax
base come from in many cities and states if professionals aren't making
decent salaries. How long before the upper classes are taxed to death to
make up for the loss tax revenue? Then will they react? 

How many jobs were lost in our dead TV industry? In our dead VCR
industry? Who said Japan is better in building TVs? We could have kept
the industry but our brain damaged excutives lost the industry. We made
up for the loss because the best and brightest we able to create new
industries to make up for the mistake in losing our TV production. Not
because we were better off giving Japan TV production so we could do
better in some other field. That is so lame. 

If we keep losing and giving away one industry after another eventually
we'll lose it. How can we remain innovative as we were even two decades
ago? Are our children as well educated? Test scores have been dropping
for the last 20 years. There is a flood of people into this country who
barely score above 300 on their math SATs. Kids flooding into this
country who can't even handle fractions in high school. 

The gene pool is changing in America and its not becoming smarter.
Thirty years ago you had many bright kids going out into the job market,
talented and eager to do something new. Even the music has gotten worse
over the last 30 years. Rap is retarded music for brain dead kids. Kids
who hate reading, who don't understand science.

Sure there are many smart children remaining, but they are becoming a
smaller percentage of the population everyday. This magical idea we can
always innovative better than anyone else forever is too naive for my
taste. We've become like England of old, when they thought the sun would
never set on the British Empire, or when France was the most important
nation in the world, or when Germany thought it was the most powerful,
they all couldn't imagine themselves losing their greatness. Just as we
can't see ourselves losing it, in spite of all the signs we are.


They'll say someday, it wasn't an army which finally defeated the USA.
It was their business people from within, not unlike Rome's fall. We all
sense it in America even though we won't see it. How many of us believe
that America will be the most powerful nation on the eath in a 100
years? Not many. We sense it will be China. And doesn't that scare many
of us? We somehow sense that will not be a good thing for many peoples.
They are not a kind people or warm people. 

It might be karma working on the US. It took the country by almost
killing the native Indians. Maybe that is what is in store for its
whites. To be wiped out as it wiped out to have the nation.

poldy  <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:

> richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) wrote:

>> 1. Innovation, by its nature, is unpredictable.  The invention
>> process is one of random bursts of insight, followed by a ton of
>> refinement.  One doesn't know where it will come from at all.  To
>>  say this is going to offer salvation for the American economy and
>> employment is highly presumptive.  It is even presumptive to
>> assume that there is going to be some magical new industr appear
>> and fix all the ills.

> We do have a magical new industry.  It's called retail.

> About 30-40 years ago, the number 1 employer was GM, which
> offered good jobs with which the breadwinners could support his
> family, including buying a home and educating his kids.

> Now the number one employer is Walmart.  Can you buy a home on a 
> Walmart pay?

Sure.  A trailer up on Clear Lake.

Hmm.. no, maybe that's still out of reach.

Steve

Wal-Mart's cleaning contractor was busted for
using illegal immigrants.
They are also in violation of building codes
for locking ALL exits will there are people
on the premises.


poldy wrote:

> In article <37bc9e37.0402061218.3f84e20@posting.google.com>,
>  richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) wrote:
> 
> 
>>1. Innovation, by its nature, is unpredictable.  The invention process
>>is one of random bursts of insight, followed by a ton of refinement. 
>>One doesn't know where it will come from at all.  To say this is going
>>to offer salvation for the American economy and employment is highly
>>presumptive.  It is even presumptive to assume that there is going to
>>be some magical new industr appear and fix all the ills.
>>
> 
> We do have a magical new industry.  It's called retail.
> 
> About 30-40 years ago, the number 1 employer was GM, which offered good 
> jobs with which the breadwinners could support his family, including 
> buying a home and educating his kids.
> 
> Now the number one employer is Walmart.  Can you buy a home on a Walmart 
> pay?
> 
> According to the jobs report today, 112,000 new jobs were created in 
> January.  Out of those, 76,000 were retail jobs.  Meanwhile, 
> manufacturing lost 24,000 jobs for the month.
> 

trebor@sirius.com.no.more wrote:
> 
> yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote:
> 
> >http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-02-03-maney_x.htm
> >
> >Unpopular argument: Sending tech jobs abroad is good
> >
> >Behind closed doors, many U.S. technology executives will say
> >something that could get them flayed if repeated in public: Sending
> >computer programming jobs to India and China is good for America.
> >
> >Not just good for business, they believe, but good for everybody �
> >part of a process that will raise the standard of living in the USA
> >and make us more secure in the world.
> 
> In the long term, sure.
> 
> But, you know, it's irrelevant whether it's good or bad. It's happening
> and it will continue to happen; it's not going to stop.


Anything can be stopped. Once the world believed the German army was
unstoppable. It had one victory after another. It was unstoppable. Until
America entered the war and the Russians fought back. What did it take
to defeat the German army? Resolve and the gathering of forces to oppose
it. And the willingness to do onto the enemy as it does with others. TO
KICK ASS. That is all you need to stop the trend. 

Organize, plan, fight. Find the people who make the decisions in your
companies to out source your jobs. Find ways of removing them from their
jobs. Hurt those companies, blacklist them. Create website for the
companies who remove your jobs, list them, blacklist them. List the
names of those excutives who made those decisions, provide their names
to managers who secretly favor American workers but can't voice it in
their own companies to blacklist or never help hire these people ever
again. Never promote them if they're working under you. PLay as dirty
with them as they'll played with your jobs, livihoods, and families. As
them, give them fake smiles when you shake their hands. 

As with Germany and Japan we went to war because they started it. Well
good, the excutives who removed your jobs started it. If you don't fight
back you'll never win. When its a physical war we know that lesson all
too well. When its a cultural war we're a lot slower to even relize
there is a war. But there is.

But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
Didn't CREATE C.
Didn't CREATE C++.
Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc

Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.

In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
their way to the top.

They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
product.

That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.

Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.


"Richard Hutnik" <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.0402061220.208dbd9e@posting.google.com...
> "David Fabian" <david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<CXAUb.1125$Mz3.650@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
> > > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message
news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
> >
> > You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
> > (besides a few funky programs in high school)?
>
> Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
> programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
> changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).
>
> Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
> - Richard Hutnik

In ba.internet q@q.com <q@q.com> wrote:
: Wal-Mart's cleaning contractor was busted for
: using illegal immigrants.
: They are also in violation of building codes
: for locking ALL exits will there are people
: on the premises.

This has little to do with Bay Area Internet - please check your newsgroups
line!

-- 
Dane Jasper				Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:dane@sonic.net			http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint =  A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9  CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 

> The intelligent people in the US are investing in emerging markets.

No.
The people with investible *funds* are investing in emerging markets
through shares in global blue chips.
The majority of the population do not have this option. They depend on
their income from their jobs e.g. computer programming.

> The US is going to remain the #1 country for a long time because MOST
> of these very same companies you are outsourcing from are owned and
> funded by Americans. All the Indians are doing there is working and
> collecting thier sweat equity.

sweat equity :) interesting expression...

Sadly for the Indians, the same compelling business logic that has
made Indian software development attractive will very soon apply to
China and a number of other chep labour economies. In the usual manner
of these developments each cycle of supply and demand becomes shorter.
As software (and indeed everything else in modern life ) has become
commoditised, so it will inevitably find the place it can be produced
more cheaply than India in the same way it has found the place it can
be poroduced more cheaply than the  USA.

This is what free trade does.

> Intel,Microsoft, you name it and they're setting up WHOLLY owned
> subsidaries in India. Which means all those Fancy profits go right
> back to the US and your government gets the taxes on those profits.
> 
> The TV Industry is a perfect example of how the US lost out. The big
> US companies didn't outsource fast enough to other markets and lost
> out badly to Japanese brands because they were technologically
> superior and BETTER and cheaper too.

At the time that Japan was leading the world in innovation it was
doing so in such a way that it had destabilised its economy, hence the
eastern financial crash of the late 1990's. In addition Japan was
operating a set of implicitly tolerated type approval regulations that
protected their economy while allowing them access to western markets.
This situation is unlikely to be repeated as we are now in a unipolar
world and there is no longer any politival reason to subsidise nations
like Japan and Korea.

> HP and Intel are companies which didn't waste time and setup thier
> manufacturing plants in Asia. Now they're able to beat the Asian
> competition because they are producing better printers and CPU's at
> the same cost.
> The same thing is happening in software. US Companies are beating the
> competition because they are setting up research bases in India where
> they can get good quality at a very good prize.

Correct

> Don't forget that the US Market isn't the main market for most Big
> Corporations anymore. They sell FAR MORE in Asia and Europe than
> locally , but the profits still come back to the US, because you have
> the lowest taxes.

Wrong.
The revenue from foreign investments made by American TNC's stay with
the TNC. As much new investment is abroad and tax revenues are falling
*there is no benefit to the USA* from the growth of its large
international corporations.
Money made from Indian software development will probably either be
re-invested in India or go to opening similar operations in countries
with lower labour costs.

Corporate tax revenues have been falling in the US for some time and
continue to fall independently of growth.

http://www.themediamatrix.org/taxmobility.htm

"Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
> Didn't CREATE C.
> Didn't CREATE C++.
> Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
> 
> Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
> 
> In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> their way to the top.
> 
> They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
> product.
> 
> That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.
> 
> Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.

Oh please.  Next you will tell me that software DEVELOPERS don't
develop anything at all.  Gates developed the Microsoft version of
Basic.  This is a fact.  Did I ever say anything different.

Gates has technical talent.  But anyone who makes it in the business
world like Gates makes it on business, not technical savy.  I am sure
techies hate hearing this, but it is reality.  It is why Woz is
retired and Jobs is still going on.

- Richard Hutnik

"Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
> Didn't CREATE C.
> Didn't CREATE C++.
> Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
No they did not but Ang Ducci did create all those sw.
> 
> Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
> 
> In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> their way to the top.
What did they steal?
They have copied features but every company eventualy does?
All car companies have automatic transmissions, steering wheel etc

> 
> They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
> product.
Like other corps did not. International is a common word Business is a common
word, Machine is a common word.
Java is an island. Miramba is an instrument. What is the point?
> 
> That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.
> 
> Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.
> 
> 
> "Richard Hutnik" <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37bc9e37.0402061220.208dbd9e@posting.google.com...
> > "David Fabian" <david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>  news:<CXAUb.1125$Mz3.650@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > "Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>  news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
> > > > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message
>  news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
> > >
> > > You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
> > > (besides a few funky programs in high school)?
> >
> > Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
> > programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
> > changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).
> >
> > Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
> > - Richard Hutnik

michaeldouglas123@hotmail.com (michael douglas) writes:

>"Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
>> Didn't CREATE C.
>> Didn't CREATE C++.
>> Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
>No they did not but Ang Ducci did create all those sw.
>> 
>> Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
>> 
>> In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
>> their way to the top.
>What did they steal?
>They have copied features but every company eventualy does?

They stole the compression code used in dos 6.something; they did not just
copy the features.

-- 
John P. Serafin  |  This message not checked for viruses, etc. If your
jps at pobox com |  system can't handle plain text, that's your problem.

"michael douglas" <michaeldouglas123@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e0a6a7af.0402071931.19497ce0@posting.google.com...
> "Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
> > Didn't CREATE C.
> > Didn't CREATE C++.
> > Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
> No they did not but Ang Ducci did create all those sw.
> >
> > Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
> >
> > In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> > their way to the top.
> What did they steal?

LMAO!!!  You must be new to IT.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 04:07:42 GMT, John Serafin <jps@velo.boxmail.com>
wrote:

>They stole the compression code used in dos 6.something; they did not just
>copy the features.

they had some kind of a contract with the compression software company who
then decided they didn't like the terms, and it landed in court. I forget
all the details but it wasn't quite as clear cut as this.      It caused
the rapid revisioning of 6.20, 6.21, 6.22 (where I think 6.20 had STACKER
based compression, then 6.21 had no compression, then they found another
company willing to license a different compression that was put in 6.22...
but it was all a joke, disk compression was really rather pathetic on
FAT16, most of what was being compressed was the cluster slack 

Let's see...
They infringed on Stac Electronics' compress algorithms which
Microsoft incorporated in MS-DOS 6. The courts found Microsoft guilty
of patent infringement. Microsoft eventually bought Stack Electronics.

michael douglas wrote:

> "Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> 
>>But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
>>Didn't CREATE C.
>>Didn't CREATE C++.
>>Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
>>
> No they did not but Ang Ducci did create all those sw.
> 
>>Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
>>
>>In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
>>their way to the top.
>>
> What did they steal?
> They have copied features but every company eventualy does?
> All car companies have automatic transmissions, steering wheel etc
> 
> 
>>They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
>>product.
>>
> Like other corps did not. International is a common word Business is a common
> word, Machine is a common word.
> Java is an island. Miramba is an instrument. What is the point?
> 
>>That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.
>>
>>Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.
>>
>>
>>"Richard Hutnik" <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:37bc9e37.0402061220.208dbd9e@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>"David Fabian" <david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>
>> news:<CXAUb.1125$Mz3.650@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>>>>"Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>> news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>>>yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message
>>>>>
>> news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>>>Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
>>>>>
>>>>You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
>>>>(besides a few funky programs in high school)?
>>>>
>>>Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
>>>programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
>>>changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).
>>>
>>>Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
>>>- Richard Hutnik
>>>

q@q.com <q@q.com> wrote:

>Let's see...
>They infringed on Stac Electronics' compress algorithms which
>Microsoft incorporated in MS-DOS 6. The courts found Microsoft guilty
>of patent infringement. Microsoft eventually bought Stack Electronics.

Yes, sorta.  The patent infringment was probably there but
not really provable.  What made Microsoft fold was violating
an NDA.

That's how I remember it, anyway...

Steve

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:46:50 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
<spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:

>q@q.com <q@q.com> wrote:
>
>>Let's see...
>>They infringed on Stac Electronics' compress algorithms which
>>Microsoft incorporated in MS-DOS 6. The courts found Microsoft guilty
>>of patent infringement. Microsoft eventually bought Stack Electronics.
>
>Yes, sorta.  The patent infringment was probably there but
>not really provable.  What made Microsoft fold was violating
>an NDA.

yeah, somethign like that... was a mess.  MS had a deal with STAC, then
they tried to raise the ante, so MS backed out.  meanwhile, 6.20 was
shipping with STAC code in it per the deal.  I don't believe MS bought
STAC, I think they bought another garage firm that had a
similar-but-different comprssion product.  

 From the court papers:
16. In late 1991, as a result of Mr. Gates' interest, Mr. Brad Chase -- 
who was then Microsoft's Group Product Manager and who today is 
Microsoft's General Manager for MS-DOS -- and Mr. Clow began discussing 
the possibility of Microsoft licensing Stac's proprietary data 
compression technology for inclusion in future versions of the MS-DOS 
operating system.

17. During the ensuing months of negotiations, Microsoft proposed that 
Stac grant to Microsoft a world-wide license to incorporate STACKER data 
compression technology and know-how into future versions of its MS-DOS 
operating system software. Microsoft steadfastly refused, however, to 
offer to pay Stac any royalty for Stac's patented data compression 
technology.

18. Mr. Chase made it clear during the negotiations that Microsoft was 
considering including data compression capability in future versions of 
the MS-DOS operating system, and that if it were unable to reach an 
agreement with Stac, it would obtain this capability elsewhere, even 
though Microsoft believed -- as it told Stac on numerous occasions -- 
that STACKER was the best data compression product for the DOS market. 
When the subject of incorporating data compression technology other than 
Stac's arose, Mr. Clow reminded Mr. Chase and others that Stac owned 
patent rights to its data compression technology and would enforce its 
patents against any infringers. At least one draft agreement was 
provided to Microsoft that included a specific reference to Stac's '009 
patent.

.
.
22. Shortly thereafter, it became well known to the industry that a new 
version of its DOS operating system, MS-DOS version 6.0 (``MS-DOS 6.0"), 
would be released in the first six months of 1993 and that MS-DOS 6.0 
would include a data compression utility, which Microsoft was to later 
call ``DoubleSpace.''



 From InformationWeek December 1, 1997:
Of course, if it chooses to proceed to court, Microsoft could lose. 
Would that humble Microsoft? You tell me.Was Microsoft any more humble 
after it lost the patent infringement suit filed against it by Stac 
Electronics for disk compression in DOS 6.0 in 1994? If you don't recall 
or weren't watching that case, instead of showing humility, Microsoft 
quickly changed the compression algorithm it uses in DOS and then 
Microsoft bought 15% of the company and everybody made nice.



 From AP:
Associated Press, February 23, 1994.
Microsoft Loses Patent Suit
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. was found guilty of patent 
infringement and ordered to pay $120 million in damages to a tiny 
California firm in a rare setback for the giant computer software company.

However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation was 
not willful and awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on a counterclaim 
against Stac Electronics, which makes a data-compression program called 
Stacker.

Stac executives hailed the verdict as a victory for small companies 
trying to compete against Microsoft, the world's largest seller of 
personal computer software. ``We've been vindicated in that we were a 
small innovative company that invented a new technology that was very 
important to the computer industry'' said Gary Clow, Stac's president 
and chief executive officer. He said Stac would immediately request a 
permanent injunction forbidding further sales of Microsoft products that 
include Stac's program, but did not rule out a future agreement with 
Microsoft. ``We've had a third party that's impartial put a value on the 
technology. To the extent that might help us come to an agreement, I'd 
be willing to talk to them,'' he said.

Microsoft said it would seek to overturn the judgment, which it said 
would otherwise cut earnings for its fiscal third quarter, ending March 
31, by 26 cents per share. ``While we are disappointed with the jury's 
patent verdict, we believe the evidence and the law are on our side,'' 
the company said. Officials said Microsoft hadn't determined whether it 
will develop its own data compression program. Like Clow, they didn't 
rule out a future deal with their adversary. ``We're reasonable and 
open-minded about getting good technology and getting it to market,'' 
said William Neukom, Microsoft vice president for law and corporate 
affairs.

Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft had revenues of $2.75 billion in the year 
ended June 30, 1993. Stac's sales for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 
totaled $37 million.

Stac filed suit in January 1993, saying its program was unlawfully 
included in Microsoft's MS-DOS 6.0, a 1993 update of the operating 
system used in most personal computers. Operating systems run such basic 
computer functions as opening files.

By the end of this week Microsoft will begin shipping a new version of 
MS-DOS without data compression capability. Mike Brown, Microsoft's vice 
president for finance, said copies already on retailer's shelves won't 
be recalled.

Jurors, who did not give their names, said they calculated the damages 
based on about $5.50 per unit of MS-DOS 6.0. Clow said the award would 
cover monetary losses suffered by Stac, but couldn't fully compensate 
for damage to the Carlsbad, Calif.-based company. The loss of revenue 
when Microsoft included the program in its software forced the company 
to lay off about 20 percent of its workforce and prompted a lawsuit by 
disgruntled shareholders, Clow said. ``The company lost its momentum. 
I'm not sure money alone can restore that,'' he said.

Stacker sales account for about 85 percent of Stac's business, Clow 
said. The company produces three versions, for the MS-DOS, IBM Corp. 
OS-2 and Apple Computer Inc. Macintosh operating systems. The latest 
version, Stacker 4.0, retails for $100 to $150. Stac also produces 
semiconductors used in data compression, a process used to increase the 
storage capacity of a PC. For instance, the version of Stacker used by 
Microsoft can nearly double the capacity of a computer's hard drive, 
Clow said.

The jury agreed with Microsoft's counterclaim that its technology was 
stolen by Stac and used to develop the MS-DOS Stacker.


John R Pierce wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:46:50 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
> <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>q@q.com <q@q.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let's see...
>>>They infringed on Stac Electronics' compress algorithms which
>>>Microsoft incorporated in MS-DOS 6. The courts found Microsoft guilty
>>>of patent infringement. Microsoft eventually bought Stack Electronics.
>>>
>>Yes, sorta.  The patent infringment was probably there but
>>not really provable.  What made Microsoft fold was violating
>>an NDA.
>>
> 
> yeah, somethign like that... was a mess.  MS had a deal with STAC, then
> they tried to raise the ante, so MS backed out.  meanwhile, 6.20 was
> shipping with STAC code in it per the deal.  I don't believe MS bought
> STAC, I think they bought another garage firm that had a
> similar-but-different comprssion product.  
> 
> 
> 

"Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
> Didn't CREATE C.
> Didn't CREATE C++.
> Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
> 
> Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
> 
> In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> their way to the top.
> 
> They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
> product.
> 
> That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.
> 
> Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.
> 

Yes - it shows that Mr. Gates is great businessman. Instead spending
money on development he borrows good ideas from idiots that spend
money on R&D.
Recently, instead of spending money fixing security of broken WinXP he
offered price to find hackers that utilized security fixes. Very sound
business decision.

Zalek

 
> 
> "Richard Hutnik" <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote 
> >
> > Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
> > programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
> > changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).
> >
> > Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
> > - Richard Hutnik

marge <noneofyourbusiness@excape.com> wrote in message news:<4024425E.C40@excape.com>...
> Tom_O wrote:
> > 
> > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
 
> 
> They'll say someday, it wasn't an army which finally defeated the USA.
> It was their business people from within, not unlike Rome's fall. 

They are a disgrace to the very country that bore them. The thinking 
is different, they are not american their loyalty is only to wealth
not a nation. The US is just a stepping stone. It is a slap in the face
to the ones that have died defending the nation and the shipping lanes.

>> They'll say someday, it wasn't an army which finally defeated the USA.
>> It was their business people from within, not unlike Rome's fall. 
>
>They are a disgrace to the very country that bore them. The thinking 
>is different, they are not american their loyalty is only to wealth
>not a nation. The US is just a stepping stone. It is a slap in the face
>to the ones that have died defending the nation and the shipping lanes.

In his later years, Thomas Jefferson became firmly convinced that the rise
of the "new monied aristocracy" in the form of bankers etc would be quite
harmful to the grand experiment known as democracy that he helped usher
in.

michaeldouglas123@hotmail.com (michael douglas) wrote in message news:<e0a6a7af.0402071931.19497ce0@posting.google.com>...
> "Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<Ct_Ub.1548$WY4.980952@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
> > Didn't CREATE C.
> > Didn't CREATE C++.
> > Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
>  No they did not but Ang Ducci did create all those sw.
> > 
> > Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
> > 
> > In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> > their way to the top.
> What did they steal?
> They have copied features but every company eventualy does?
> All car companies have automatic transmissions, steering wheel etc
> 

The patent laws have not been designed to prevent
"embracing-and-extending" other people's ideas without paying them
royalty. Think of the (patent) law as an ass -and bill gates as the
beneficiary of it kicking in the wrong direction.
 MSFT has been found guilty of:-
1. stealing stac corp's code
2. infringing on a patent for digital rights management
3. engaging in anti-competitive practices by forcing OEMs to include
microsoft browser amd exclude netscape navigator. ref. that line "we
will cut off netscape's air supply".
 Besides this, he has also been accused of entering into an MoU with
small s/w firms and then stealing their code and not paying them
anything. Every s/w firm with an iota of brainpower is a threat to the
corp that has none. Not paying them does not affect their bottom line
-not driving them out of s/w business can, and hence their actions.

regards
-kamal

> > 
> > They even had the balls to take the common word NET and make it into a
> > product.
> Like other corps did not. International is a common word Business is a common
> word, Machine is a common word.
> Java is an island. Miramba is an instrument. What is the point?
> > 
> > That alone should tell everyone what MS is about.
> > 
> > Gates was a geek who made it on he business sense not programming.
> > 
> > 
> > "Richard Hutnik" <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:37bc9e37.0402061220.208dbd9e@posting.google.com...
> > > "David Fabian" <david.m.fabian@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>  news:<CXAUb.1125$Mz3.650@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > "Tom_O" <tom_overton_1968@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>  news:b4d9ceca.0402051522.6bf0936c@posting.google.com...
> > > > > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message
>  news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Gates(who himself is a programmer)
> > > >
> > > > You are too kind ... what programming did Bill Gates ever do
> > > > (besides a few funky programs in high school)?
> > >
> > > Gates developed Microsoft Basic, and his team developed other
> > > programming languages also.  He is the reason why "Ready" in basic got
> > > changed to "Ok" (it saved a few bytes).
> > >
> > > Gates is a techie geek, but also he has business sense.
> > > - Richard Hutnik

> > In fact, what has MS ever  CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
> > their way to the top.
> > 
> 
> Yes - it shows that Mr. Gates is great businessman. Instead spending
> money on development he borrows good ideas from idiots that spend
> money on R&D.
> Recently, instead of spending money fixing security of broken WinXP he
> offered price to find hackers that utilized security fixes. Very sound
> business decision.
> 
> Zalek

Sure, Microsoft has borrowed, copied, and even stolen.  But to
Microsoft's credit, think about it, what inventions are not actually
improvements or continued development of a previous idea or product? 
Thomas Edison didn't "invent" the light buld, he just improved on
existing German technology.

It's not resonable to try to "invent the wheel".  Instead, it's best
to invent a better wheel or improve on the existing one.  Bill Gates
in an expert at this.

"Ang" <adduci@optonline.net> wrote:

>But he/they didn't CREATE BASIC....just their version of it.
>Didn't CREATE C.
>Didn't CREATE C++.
>Didn't CREATE SQL...HTML....XML..BROWSERS...Windowing....etc
>
>Took features of Java and C++ and "made" C#.
>
>In fact, what has MS ever CREATED. They bought, stole, renamed and copied
>their way to the top.

All new technology builds on existing technology. 

smart post, Marge ...


"marge" <noneofyourbusiness@excape.com> wrote in message
news:4024425E.C40@excape.com...
> Tom_O wrote:
> >
> > yf@ziplip.com (Your Friend) wrote in message
news:<be064478.0402050829.5fce17bf@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Now here's where it gets funky: Ricardo would say that the USA should
> > > innovate in technology and stop programming, and India should do the
> > > programming and stop innovating. If we each concentrate on our "most
> > > best" and then trade, more of both get produced for less ? the very
> > > essence of increased productivity.
> > >
> >
> > You can't make an "innovation vs. programming" argument.  That's
> > stupid.  Programmers are not analogous to factory workers assembling a
> > set of components for an automobile.  When it comes to software,
> > programmers *are* the innovators.  We work every day to "invent"
> > computer systems by analysis, design, and implementation.  Seems like
> > people outside the field of programming think we're just like highly
> > skilled bricklayers.  We just sit down and "churn out" code like an
> > assembly line worker, and that Indians should relieve us of this
> > menial task so we can concentrate on becoming the next Bill Gates(who
> > himself is a programmer).  The fact of the matter is, we can't
> > innovate in the computer field unless we continue to maintain a solid
> > base of experienced, employed programmers.  It's just that simple.
> > When we ship programming jobs overseas we are not just losing "jobs",
> > we are losing "professions".  The outsourcing proponents will preach
> > about "comparative advantage".  Well, an American programmer whos
> > personal "comparative advantage" is programming is now being forced to
> > change occupations to something he or she isn't optimal at, like being
> > a manager doing powerpoint presentations and sitting in meetings.  And
> > Indians who otherwise would never even care about being a programmer
> > are busy writing code because it's the only high-paying career they
> > have a choice of doing.  Now tell me where the efficiency is?
>
>
>  Your counter argument works. The simple models used by Ricardo proves
> what a weak science economics still is. I've studied economics in
> graduate school and believe me, it is as weak as a science can get. They
> want the respectability of a hard science such as physics but they'll
> never get it by such simple minded half-assed models.
>
> Of course, programmers are innovative, but if you're not in the field,
> how can you be? There also is this hidden assumption which seems to
> suggest Indian programmers are not up to par when it comes to being
> innovative. Funny how the experts assume Indians will not be producing
> much of anything new without our help.
>
> I think this is all just an excuse to move jobs out. Where will the tax
> base come from in many cities and states if professionals aren't making
> decent salaries. How long before the upper classes are taxed to death to
> make up for the loss tax revenue? Then will they react?
>
> How many jobs were lost in our dead TV industry? In our dead VCR
> industry? Who said Japan is better in building TVs? We could have kept
> the industry but our brain damaged excutives lost the industry. We made
> up for the loss because the best and brightest we able to create new
> industries to make up for the mistake in losing our TV production. Not
> because we were better off giving Japan TV production so we could do
> better in some other field. That is so lame.
>
> If we keep losing and giving away one industry after another eventually
> we'll lose it. How can we remain innovative as we were even two decades
> ago? Are our children as well educated? Test scores have been dropping
> for the last 20 years. There is a flood of people into this country who
> barely score above 300 on their math SATs. Kids flooding into this
> country who can't even handle fractions in high school.
>
> The gene pool is changing in America and its not becoming smarter.
> Thirty years ago you had many bright kids going out into the job market,
> talented and eager to do something new. Even the music has gotten worse
> over the last 30 years. Rap is retarded music for brain dead kids. Kids
> who hate reading, who don't understand science.
>
> Sure there are many smart children remaining, but they are becoming a
> smaller percentage of the population everyday. This magical idea we can
> always innovative better than anyone else forever is too naive for my
> taste. We've become like England of old, when they thought the sun would
> never set on the British Empire, or when France was the most important
> nation in the world, or when Germany thought it was the most powerful,
> they all couldn't imagine themselves losing their greatness. Just as we
> can't see ourselves losing it, in spite of all the signs we are.
>
>
> They'll say someday, it wasn't an army which finally defeated the USA.
> It was their business people from within, not unlike Rome's fall. We all
> sense it in America even though we won't see it. How many of us believe
> that America will be the most powerful nation on the eath in a 100
> years? Not many. We sense it will be China. And doesn't that scare many
> of us? We somehow sense that will not be a good thing for many peoples.
> They are not a kind people or warm people.
>
> It might be karma working on the US. It took the country by almost
> killing the native Indians. Maybe that is what is in store for its
> whites. To be wiped out as it wiped out to have the nation.

>Sure there are many smart children remaining, but they are becoming a
>smaller percentage of the population everyday.

But far worse are the rising and more comprehensive decentives to
being smart, especially those who are multigenerationally refined to
be and do so.  We're losing a lot of our hardest best carefully built
which was built on those very foundations, and thus losing those
foundations as well.  The Powells are a symbol of who is taking over
USA, but there are symbols all over the place, many apt and
depressing.

Of course, pressures in this direction have always existed, but they
have been winning for a long time recently, and not the least because
of World War II, but that's mostly history.  What do we do now?
That's where I look now.

The poorness of my writing here is an example; I can't flourish in
this environment, and thus I attrify.


>This magical idea we can always innovative better than anyone else
>forever is too naive for my taste.

That too.

But the question is:  if a cave man hits you in the head with a stick,
then while you're getting brain damage or dead, he innovates better
than you while you're having brain damage or dead, are you better?
No.  They probably even aren't any better than you would have been.


The primary problem is allowing low class to flourish.  Sure, we need
to take care of the Earth with all its people on it, but that doesn't
extend to supporting the least planning and hurting the most planning.
It's time we start to look at birth as a serious matter that is not
owned by those who chose (or even don't chose) to wage war by frequent
pregnancy.

There is room in the universe for a great many things, and not all of
them are great.  We should take what we have and do the best we can
with it, not spoil it by polluting the world with more low class
people.  We are to raise the class of the population as a whole, not
lower it!  Being compassionate to those who steal from us is not
raising it; it is lowering it.

The non-zero-sum comparative advantage of having everyone, indeed
here, in India, China, and Japan, & everywhere else, plan resources
and people better, is a much nicer world with fewer people on it.
That doesn't mean we can't have a world that is much less nice with a
lot more people on it.  We can even discuss careful engineering to
achieve other values of those variables, such as few people and a
horrible world, or a lot of people and a really nice world, but
pressures naturally work against those for real reasons.  We have to
understand the pressures out there and be mature, civilized,
intelligent people to create and nuture good society, or we could
never hope to do anything but lots of people in a horrible world.
"Free economics" itself doesn't make the world (and now finally the
Universe), as we experience it, nice.

When designing welfare, look not at the color of a person's skin or
genes, but to the true outcome of what they will be as a whole person
as their true effect on the world as a whole, compared to anyone else,
e.g., yourself, your family, your friends, and everyone else.  You'll
realize a lot of silly false stereotypes and feelings, e.g., equality,
karma, revenge, guilt (false guilt), will fall to the ground like
waste.

Kshatriya <kshatriya_bharat@yahoo.com> wrote:
>They already tried this back in the late 1920's
>in Russia and in the late 40's all around the
>world.  Unfortunately this project called
>Communism was a dismal failure and killed they
>very people it was supposed to "save".  The first
>thing communists did in any country they took
>over was kill all the evil "capitalists" and
>nationalize everything to "redistribute" the
>wealth.

Communism isn't necessarily the only option.
Actually, I rather don't like it, but for a rather
immature reason:

it reminds me of communicable diseases, and that
scares me.

However, an entrenched history of failure is hard
to ignore.  But, one of the basic tenants of a lot
(not all) of communist thinking is planning; while
I do not trust communism, we must embrace
planning.

Another tenant of communism is redistribution of
wealth.  That one is wrong; it is not the right
approach.  Resource planning doesn't have to mean
stealing; it just means slowing down certain types
of resource use.  You could still use them, but in
a better way.  For instance, if you want to
procreate, you may if you do so less, and more
appropriately, such as after careful consideration
of both resources and gene quality.  Updating some
religions to enhance our family structures to
accept these types of planning will help, too.


BTW, the tone of your message had some terror; I
tried to ignore that and approach the rest of the
message.  While I don't want to be communist, I am
acutely against any aspect of anyone who wishes to
use terror rather than reason.  USA President Bush
and I agree regarding this point, and not because
I like him, but because we're right.  (Other
divergencies between us should show how important
the nondivergent core of this anti-terrorist point
is.)

The mob aspect of communism is part of the terror
you referred to.  It's also one of the defining
meanings of democracy in its ugliest ways.  It
could also be employed by monarchy, dictatorship,
anarchy, and a bunch of other governmental
methods, as well as socialism, capitalism, rough
trade, religion, etc.  Perhaps your perspective of
USA looks via the Middle East and Hollywood too
much; not all of us are religious freaks ready and
willing to bow to the command of your terrorist
bellowing empowered by your wielding of my dollar
via the hands of partially corporal beings.  We
don't have to slaughter whole classes of people in
order to simply refuse to become a part of your
selection process.  Just say no.

dane  <dane@sonic.net> wrote:
>In ba.internet q@q.com <q@q.com> wrote:
>: Wal-Mart's cleaning contractor was busted for using illegal
>: immigrants.  They are also in violation of building codes for
>: locking ALL exits will there are people on the premises.
>
>This has little to do with Bay Area Internet - please check your
>newsgroups line!

Dane,

With your posh position of having done many right things and
succeeding at it and it being very relevent to this USENET group
(ba.internet), I can see how you can be one of the people who thinks
this.

Internet connectivity is one of the many measures some of us use in
order to guage how healthy an area and society is.  USA is way behind
in this area, and in education, jobs, etc.  Also, a lot of ba.internet
users have been having to deal with these issues lately as a result of
dealing with Internet issues.  While the path to that discussion is
often long and meandering, it is there, and often not as long.

However, there may be *more* appropriate USENET groups; I don't mind
people suggesting the topic list be refined somewhat.  One of USENET's
failings has always been its rigid categories.  Of course, new posts
have the best opportunity to be correct, and therefore SPAM is not
allowed, however, the natural path of discussions can *never* stay
exactly within the bounds of the original USENET group.  We could more
aggressively edit the newsgroups lines.  Yes, it says british up
there, but at the same time, when I leave my house, I see illegal
immigrants.  Does that suddenly make them legal, since they shouldn't
be here?  No, it doesn't; they are here, and that is not a fact I can
ignore.  Likewise, this discussion is relevent, even if distantly, to
ba.internet.  Yes, we need to consider removing it from the group
line.  But it was originally brought up in this group because we were
discussing the cost of services, economics of delivering that service,
getting service, and other items like that.  How can you possibly say
that just because Sonic doesn't outsource to India, Sonic tries to
deliver decent costs, and Sonic doesn't fire everyone in California
and replace them with Texans and Indians (that I know of), that no one
else has to deal with that experience?  For instance, even Sonic
customers have to deal with the prospect that economics not in the Bay
Area are affecting their Internet (Inter-network) service.

Tomorrow I'm going to have to borrow money just to pay for a
loss-leader promotion you are offering to me.  While I intend to find
work, and eventually get enuogh resources to start my own business
(while still supporting myself with a main job), and of course pay
back that loan, how can I possibly ignore the relevance of that to
this group?  I don't want to hear that I shouldn't try to upgrade to
3mbit/s in, either; it will still be cost competitive, even though my
budget is really depressing.  Spending according to current assets is
the same sort of idea that says let thieves steal my money, and then
because I don't currently have what they stole, I shouldn't bother to
try to eat, and therefore just die, and that's what I'm supposed to
do.  No, it isn't.  I'm not Ethiopian, so I don't have to suffer the
consequences of their bad planning, and I most certainly shouldn't eat
all the food on my plate (which would just make me less healthy if I
overeat or eat something bad!).

Sure, I could be technically ba.internet and say "hey, I just set up a
really neat ISP that is really ba.internet relevant", but in order to
do that, I'd have to have millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, I have to
fend in here looking for what is available while I haven't yet chosen
to become one of your competitors.  In that process, some of the above
issues are raised.

When I look at that newsgroups line, nowhere in there do I see
"soc.design"; which newsgroups should I subscribe to in order to discuss this further?  

alt.computer.consultants:  I'm not one.
soc.culture.indian:  not one.
alt.politics.economics:  Perhaps, but this is a
   very large topic.
ba.internet:  yes
soc.culture.british:  not one.

Ahh, ok, so I'm supposed to subscribe to alt.politics.economics.

Ok.  So, I'll remove ba.internet from followups, and try to read
alt.politics.economics, even though I think this discussion transcends
politics.  But, still, it makes sense to me that it was in ba.internet.

If Britain and all other countries, including the USA, wish
to preserve,as I do, "free enterprise" and "competition"
with the associated individual freedoms and democratic
republican forms of government, they must understand the
very trenchant criticisms made by Karl Marx in his book,
"The Communist Manifesto", in which which clearly denounced
"free trade" in the very strongest terms.By understanding
these communist criticisms of "free trade" and "monopoly
capitalism", the faults in the same which communist theory
presents can be eliminated such that the benefits of
capitalism, competition, and free enterprise without the
faults of "monopoly  capitalism" and "free trade" which
Marxist theory holds are very oppressive and which will lead
to authoritarian forms of government.
The appropriate quote from the "Communist Manifesto" is
delineated below.
I am an American citizen, a Libertarian, and a member of the
new "Veterans Party."
 LIBRARY OF THE FUTURE (R) 4th Edition  Ver. 5.0
Communist Manifesto                     Marx, Karl/Engels,
Fri 
Scr    8:  64 
---------------------------------------------------------
-                                                                           
                                                          
  The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in
history.          
  The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has
put an           
end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly        
torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his
"natural          
superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man
than             
naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has
drowned the        
most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of
chivalrous                 
enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water
of               
egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth
into                
exchange value, and in place of the numberless
indefeasible                 
chartered freedoms has set up that single, unconscionable
freedom-          
Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by
religious and          
political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct,           
brutal
exploitation.                                                        
  The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation
hitherto        
honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has
converted the           
physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science,            
into its paid wage
labourers.                                               
  The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its
sentimental             
veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money
relation.         
  The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the
brutal         
display of vigour in the Middle Ages which reactionaries so
much            
admire found its fitting complement in the most slothful
indolence. It      
has been the first to show what man's activity can bring
about. It has      
accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids,
Roman                
aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted
expeditions that         
put in the shade all former migrations of nations and
crusades.             
  The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly
revolutionizing           
the instruments of production, and thereby the relations
of                 
production, and with them the whole relations of society.
Conservation      
of the old modes of production in unaltered form was, on the
contrary,      
the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial
classes.        
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of        
all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and
agitation                
distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All
fixed,           
fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and
venerable             
prejudices and opinions are swept away; all new-formed ones
become          
antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts
in air, all      
that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to
face with         
sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations
with his         
kind.                                                                       
  The need of a constantly expanding market for its products
chases         
the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must
nestle         
everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections
everywhere.            
  The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world
market          
given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption
in             
every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries it has
drawn from      
under the feet of industry the national ground on which it
stood.           
All old-established national industries have been destroyed
or are          
daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries
whose           
introduction becomes a life and death question for all
civilized            
nations; by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw
material,      
but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries
whose            
products are consumed, not only at home, but in every
quarter of the        
globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the
production of the        
country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction
the            
products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old
local and         
national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse
in every        
direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as
in                 
material, so also in intellectual production. The
intellectual              
creations of individual nations become common property.
National            
one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible,        
and from the numerous national and local literatures there
arises a         
world
literature.                                                           
  The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all
instruments of           
production, by the immensely facilitated means of
communication, draws      
all nations, even the most barbarian, into civilization. The
cheap          
prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which
it             
batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the
barbarians'        
intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It
compels all      
nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode
of              
production; it compels them to introduce what it calls
civilization         
into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In a
word,          
it creates a world after its own
image.                                     
  The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of
the              
towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased
the urban      
population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued
a               
considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural
life.          
Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so
it has made      
barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the
civilized           
ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East
on the          
West.                                                                       
  More and more the bourgeoisie keeps doing away with the
scattered         
state of the population, of the means of production, and
of                 
property. It has agglomerated population, centralized means
of              
production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.
The               
necessary consequence of this was political
centralization.                 
Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with
separate              
interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became
lumped         
together into one nation, with one government, one code of
laws, one        
national class interest, one frontier and one customs
tariff.               
  The bourgeoisie during its rule of scarce one hundred
years has           
created more massive and more colossal productive forces
than have all      
preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's
forces to            
man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry
and                    
agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric
telegraphs, clearing      
of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers,
whole          
populations conjured out of the ground- what earlier century
had            
even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in
the lap        
of social
labour?                                                           
  We see, then, that the means of production and of exchange
which          
served as the foundation for the growth of the bourgeoisie
were             
generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the
development          
of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions
under          
which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal
organization        
of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in a word, the
feudal            
relations of property became no longer compatible with the
already          
developed productive forces; they became so many fetters.
They had          
to be burst asunder; they were burst
asunder.                               
  Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by
a social        
and political constitution adapted to it, and by the
economic and           
political sway of the bourgeois
class.                                      
  A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern
bourgeois      
society with its relations of production, of exchange and of
property,      
a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of
production and        
of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to
control the      
powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his
spells. For         
many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is
but the          
history of the revolt of modern productive forces against
modern            
conditions of production, against the property relations
that are           
the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of
its rule.        
It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their
periodical      
return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on
trial,          
each time more threateningly. In these crises a great part
not only of      
the existing products, but also of the previously created
productive        
forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there
breaks out        
an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed
an               
absurdity- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly
finds          
itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it
appears as          
if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the
supply          
of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to
be             
destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization,
too much        
means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.
The             
productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend
to further      
the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on
the             
contrary, they have become too powerful for these
conditions, by which      
they are fettered, and no sooner do they overcome these
fetters than        
they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society,
endanger           
the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of
bourgeois            
society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by
them. And how      
does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand
by              
enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the
other,          
by the conquest of new markets and by the more thorough
exploitation        
of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for
more                 
extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing
the means         
whereby crises are
prevented.                                               
  The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to
the            
ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie
itself.                       
  But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that
bring death      
to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are
to             
wield those weapons- the modern working class, the
proletarians.            
  In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is
developed, in         
the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working
class,           
developed- a class of labourers, who live only so long as
they find         
work, and who find work only so long as their labour
increases              
capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves
piecemeal, are a         
commodity like every other article of commerce, and are
consequently        
exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all
the                  
fluctuations of the
market.                                                 
  Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of
labour,        
the work of the proletarians has lost all individual
character, and,        
consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an
appendage of         
the machine, and it is only the most simple, most
monotonous, and most      
easily acquired knack that is required of him. Hence, the
cost of           
production of a workman is restricted almost entirely to the
means          
of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for
the             
propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and
therefore        
also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In
proportion,          
therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the
wage             
decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery
and              
division of labour increases, in the same proportion the
burden of          
toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working
hours,          
by increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by
increased speed      
of the machinery,
etc.                                                      
  Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the
patriarchal      
master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist.
Masses          
of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organized like
soldiers.        
As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the
command        
of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only
are they         
slaves of the bourgeois class and of the bourgeois state;
they are          
daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overseer,
and,             
above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.
The            
more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and
aim, the        
more petty, the more hateful, and the more embittering it
is.               
  The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in
manual             
labour- in other words, the more modern industry develops-
the more is      
the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences
of age           
and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for
the working      
class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive
to use,        
according to their age and
sex.                                             
  No sooner has the labourer received his wages in cash, for
the            
moment escaping exploitation by the manufacturer, than he is
set            
upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie- the landlord,
the            
shopkeeper, the pawnbroker,
etc.                                            
  The lower strata of the middle class- the small
tradespeople,             
shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the
handicraftsmen and        
peasants- all these sink gradually into the proletariat,
partly             
because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the
scale on          
which modern industry is carried on and is swamped in
the                   
competition with the large capitalists, partly because
their                
specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods
of                   
production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all
classes of           
the
population.                                                             
  The proletariat goes through various stages of
development. With its      
birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the
contest        
is carried on by individual labourers, then by the
workpeople of a          
factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one
locality, against      
the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They
direct their      
attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production,
but             
against the instruments of production themselves; they
destroy              
imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash
machinery to      
pieces, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by
force the        
vanished status of the workman of the Middle
Ages.                          
  At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent
mass                 
scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their
mutual             
competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact
bodies,            
this is not yet the consequence of their own active union,
but of           
the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to
attain its           
own political ends, is compelled to set the whole
proletariat in            
motion, and is, moreover, still able to do so for a time. At
this           
stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their
enemies, but the      
enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy,
the            
landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty
bourgeoisie.            
Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the
hands of the      
bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for
the                 
bourgeoisie.                                                                
  But with the development of industry the proletariat not
only             
increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater
masses, its         
strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The
various                
interests, and conditions of life within the ranks of
the                   
proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as
machinery         
obliterates all distinctions of labour and nearly everywhere
reduces        
wages to the same low level. ------------------
Electronically Enhanced Text (c) Copyright World Library
Inc. 1991-1999


J