« May 2004 | Main | July 2004 »
June 30, 2004
Where Oh Where Did My Customers Go?
IT Managers Journal has a two page article on some of the more recent developments in off-shore outsourcing entitled "Hidden Costs of Off-shoring causing IT Managers to rethink stratagies". The article points out a couple of interesting catches that have helped make offshore outsourcing a lot more expensive to many of the smaller companies taking advantage of the situation.
I would be interested to read more on this with regard to larger corporations rather than just smaller companies that most of these articles seem to focus upon.
Posted by Dan at 05:55 PM | Comments (0)
June 29, 2004
Penny Pinching
This Sunday issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer had an interesting article (stupid registration required) on executive compensation within the Philadelphia region. One choice quote from the article:
As a group, chief executive officers who had run publicly traded companies in the Philadelphia area for at least a year brought home an average of 33 percent more from cash and stock awards last year than in 2002. That is nine times the median worker's raise, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. [EDIT: emphasis mine]
The printed article had a nice chart breakdown the salary, bonuses, stock options, etc that built up each CEOs total income for the previous year. After examining it, I've come to the conclusion that it certainly would be nice to receive a bonus that is equivalent to 50%, let alone 100% or more, of my yearly salary from any company I work for. It amazes me to see that CEOs being remodeled into the corporate "star player", while becoming a major source of excess monetary spending. The interesting point here is that employees within the company are not making much of a raucous about it (read John Case in "When Salaries Aren't Secret" Harvard Business Review, requires purchase at $6 for more information). Is this a case where an organized labor union would provide better living for a company? Or is this just a case of short-sighted employees whose primary interests lay in the realm of their department only? The article mentions that MBNA at one point cut back on their overly zealous gratuity only after shareholders complained. Is there some central area where employees and stock holders of a company can place a complaint in an attempt reign in this kind of spending? It's not as if the Board of Trustees has shown any interest in slowing this spending, and it's very unlikely that they will.
On the other hand, employees are being downsized in a maneuver to create a lower corporate operating cost. Originally the measure was based solely upon the differences in immediate salary between a local employee and a potential outsourced employee. When the cost of living in the US gets factored into any salary comparison, we as Americans are going to lose despite what the actual net salary one makes is. As an engineer, I fail to see how an obvious solution to this scenario isn't a viable solution to problem; cut the C-level execs salaries. I understand the concept of "it takes money to make money", "money attracts talent", and various other slogans to be championed as logical reasoning. I don't dispute them either. I find the pre-pending of the word "excessive" to these statements to be my major point of discomfort.
Posted by Dan at 04:35 PM | Comments (0)
June 24, 2004
All the News that fit to print
One of the biggest promises of the internet has been the ability to mass disseminate information to an audience diverse in locations, cultures, and opinions. Overall, the experiment has been rather successful, and the recent proliferation of blogs has been a positive sign of this features continued existence. There are now numerous alternative news sites, the mainstream news sites, and most importantly an easy means with which to discover many of these tidbits (think google or yahoo searches) providing the internet with a content rich environment not found elsewhere.
Which is why, this article on CNN.com about what actually constitutes news surprises me. CNN has tried to fashion itself as the source for all that is news, by providing an objective view towards it's coverage of various topics. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the opinion or talk show segments which are by nature designed to not be objective but inflammatory. As I see, they've done a pretty good job at keeping the individual segments relatively non-opinionated, but that is where objective nature of the programming ends. CNN has historically been found to invite guest panelists and include and exclude segments that support the channels' unspoken agenda. The point of this posting isn't to debate the agenda of CNN, but if you're interested you can find out more at www.fair.org, or your favorite search engine.
Then what it is the point? Reading the original article, CNN seems to mock the broadcast news networks for running news segments about "the final episode of Friends" (among others). As this has been one of the more recent events, I can remember watching small segments on CNN Headline News about this very topic. Why this mockery of other news sites? More than likely to create an air of elitism, when applied with some revisionist history. Doing some searches on CNN's website, you can't find any mention of the Friends finale now, or maybe they just want me to pay for said content, something I refuse to do.
But they do raise an interesting question; When did pop-culture become headline news? When I was younger, I remember television news being one of the most boring and drab segments on TV. This was partially because the news was less interesting to me at the time, but also due to the manner of presentation (mono-tone voice, etc). This might be the rose tint in my vision, but I also remember shows like Extra or Entertainment Tonight filling the void for pop-culture news (there are now numerous speciality news shows doing this). When did it become acceptable to merge these two show formats? Is this a side-effect of the massive mergers of mass-media? Remember, most of the mass media outlets are now owned by for-profit companies, many of which are in the entertainment industry. By law, these institutions are required to put investor interest above all other considerations. This includes presentation of news, selection of segments, and ordering of segments.
To borrow a quote from George Seldes:
"The most stupid boast in the history of present-day journalism is that of the writer who says, 'I have never been given orders; I am free to do as I like.'"
[EDIT: As proof of this whole do as I say not as I do message, this morning CNN.com has the byline "Rapper DMX arrested in New York" listed as a headline under both Entertainment and Law sections.] 
Posted by Dan at 10:25 PM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2004
Of Spaceships and Rocketships
Since I've been excited about space flight for the past day, small questions to be asked. What are the 10 coolest space vehicles designed by Sci-Fi movies?
Posted by Dan at 10:47 AM | Comments (2)
Ground Control to Major Tom
Yesterday was an exciting day in the world of aviation and space travel. For the first time, we've had a civilian pilot reach the outer limits of space. SpaceShip One, built by Scaled Composites reached the space barrier by 408 ft, while it's pilot received the first ever pair of pilot wings for civilian space travel. I believe that SSO took a mere 20 million USD to build, a very small amount of money by todays standards. Looking at the whole, it's taken almost 50 years, but space travel is finally coming down in cost. Very cool, very exciting. Feels like the pioneer days of aviation. Does this make Mike Melvill the Charles Lindbergh of our day? In any case, the Ansari XPrize is now the project to be watched.
Listening to some commentary on the whole event via NPR (how often do I do that?), I got to hear one man claiming that this was just awful for the airlines, travel, and space flight itself. In a few ways he is correct. The feat accomplished by SpaceShip One is really nothing significant in the overall of space flight. After all, NASA did have the X-Plane series of flights in the mid-1940s accomplishing the same feats. The fact that this project is also steering interest away from manned flights to Mars is also of concern, but not a major downfall of the project. Beyond the Mars rovers, there really hasn't been a lot of interest in the space program here in the US, slowly losing it's hold over the imagination of the American public. For the first time in a long time, there seems to be a genuine interest in space flight from those who can be considered regular everyday people. Beyond that, the PR value of these flights is just amazing, and will hopefully help get more funding through for a manned mission to Mars.
Posted by Dan at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)
June 18, 2004
Rocky Mountain high
For those of you interested, the few pictures from my recent trip to Boulder Colorado are now online for viewing pleasure.
Posted by Dan at 12:42 AM | Comments (0)
June 17, 2004
For those about to rock...
Following some news today it seems that HR107 has actually found some subtantial backing to it. HR107 is probably the best bet at this point to get any portions of the DMCA re-examined, more particularly the fair-use portions. I'd suggest writing your representatives, but following a bit from Wired:
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), already has 19 co-sponsors, including powerful House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas). It's unlikely the bill will become law this year, but its proponents see the backing as a good sign.
Posted by Dan at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)
Pay Me My Money Down!
I've been hesitant to post this message for awhile, as I have been unable to satisfy my own background checking on it. I'm posting it now in hopes that someone else might be able to answer the general thoughts, and so that I may at some point revisit the discussion.
The topic of the tech industry off-shoring jobs has come up more frequently in conversations as of late. Typically they revolve around the previous generation (those getting ready to retire) informing me that I should be more active in keeping the jobs from disappearing, asking how the companies can do this, and really why it's happening. Not necessarily in that order, but I'll assume you can gather the natural progression of the conversation from it.
Not to sit here and rehash many of the points again but the general gist looks like so (if you've been completely out of touch with society):
Why is it happen? Because there is the belief that it is cheaper. While short run statistics provide proof of this, long term has yet to be determined. (Who can buy your $500/$1000 product if that is a 1/10th of their income?)
How can they do it? Well, various rules and regulations passed over the years have allowed the market to open up.
The next point is the one I don't understand. I am rather surprised at the short sighted view about this problem many have. It is not my generation that should be fighting this trend most vocally, as we are still mobile and able to navigate the retirement sea, but rather the previous generation of soon to be retirees. Why? Social security.
What is Social Security?
An idea that the government will help elderly citizens after retirement to have some type of income. In it's original form, the idea was good, but has been unable to sustain itself. As it works now, each generation pays to keep the lasts social security working. This money is automatically taken from every eligible citizen (with a few odd exceptions) at a rate of ~6%. Many of those in my generation are not expecting social security to provide any kind of support, and have begun utilizing IRAs, 401K/403Bs, and various other means to prepare for retirement. Even the SSA expect there to be a 27% drop in pay-outs after 2040, an increase in eligibility age, and hints that this isn't going to work.
What does any of this have to do with off-shoring? Part of the advantage of off-shoring a jobs is the reduced wages due to differences in cost of living. The half part comes from the point that many of these jobs are now moved to consulting positions rather than full time employees. As I understand it, a company is not required to deduct social security taxes from an employee who not a member of the company, thus providing a company a means with which they may avoid contributing as much to the SSA. As such an employee, each new position overseas will no longer be adding any portion of their income to the collective social security pot causing SSA to miss two tax forced donations. My generation is young and mobile enough to compensate for this potentially huge pay-out change, provided it is recognized, but many in the soon to retire bracket will not be fortunate enough or possibly even prepared for such a circumstance. How many will be affected? Thats unknown for sure.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume for a moment though that I am wrong on the above statement. That each employee of an off-shored position is not brought in as a consultant, but rather a full-fledged employee of the company paying American taxes on these dollars earned. Average income reports have suggested the range is anywhere within the 10-20,000USD range, with more leaning towards the 12,000USD range. Taking out six percent from 20,000 plus another 1% paid by the company, is really going to have a non-effect for sustaining the SS pay-outs. The cost of living in the US pretty much prohibits this kind payment.
My hesitation in posting this comes from the fact that I don't know the taxation laws (obviously), nor the intimate details of offshore employment. After having spent numerous hours online looking for information on it, talking with various people about it, even trying to call the SSA I've come to the conclusion that no one really knows for sure which way it works. If anyone can correct me where I am wrong, it would be a good thing. As I see it now though, the soon to retire generation is about to lose without realizing it.
So I ask again, why am I the one that needs to fight so hard?
Posted by Dan at 12:55 AM | Comments (3)
June 15, 2004
Name change
It seems that I have been rather lax on updating the local blog, and this is something I want to change. With this in mind, I've also decided that I'm tired of having Google queries from people looking for a movie better known as G-SUCKS-ease, and so you will now be seeing an updated blog better known as +++ATH0.
For those that don't recognize the reference, it's the Hayes AT command from the old modem days to disconnect. At some point in the early Internet history days, there was a bug in the Windows OS where sending a +++ATH0 over the wire (say in an IRC chat) would cause a windows based modem to disconnect.
Posted by Dan at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)
More tech and privacy bloggins
It seems that Chris Riley has also joined into the blogging arena with suspended conversation. Chris is traditionally a theory weenie (mostly CS) who is starting to move towards the law front of things. I expect if he keeps this commentary up AND moves into speculation of things IP related, we'll find this blog to be much more interesting.
Now to figure out why NetNewsWire doesn't like his Atom feed...
[EDIT: I should probably add that Chris is one of the smarter guys I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. Now to keep him motivated at updating the blog. ]
Posted by Dan at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)
June 01, 2004
Orkut
Looks like I've got myself an Orkut account now. Feel free to add me into your fray. Too bad it isn't very stable at the moment, seems like it could be fun for a little bit. All these timeouts make you feel a little, umm, frustrated.
[EDIT: I apologize to all of you who are now getting requests from me. That's going to a lot of people. :) Now just shush up and add me damnit! ]
[EDIT 2: I'm thinking of renaming Orkut to be Or-couldn't or maybe Or-Not. I've seen more Squid proxy connect errors on Orkut than any other time I've used Squid. Ew. ]
Posted by Dan at 11:31 AM | Comments (0)