In your view, should there be no limits what so ever on skilled immigrants entering the U.S.? Any limits would be "discriminatory practices", which you oppose.
You managed not to answer any of the questions I asked, which does harm the credibility of your argument. The questions are very relevant.
I suspect your job and career is not threatened - mine very much is and I am scared and anxious about whether I will be able to resume work ever again in this field.
As best I can tell from your non response, you do not care about the actual harm being done to hard working American citizens who working incredibly hard to compete. You simply don't give a damn, do you?
According to Dr. Mike Mandel, citing US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, employment in all computer science fields has fallen by an amazing 8.9% from 2008 to 2009. Please see innovationandgrowth.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scieng-table.png
Less than one third of the computer/information jobs forecast by the BLS in 1998 were actually created. Please see
innovationandgrowth.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/innovative1.png
How can both the data and the claim of a CS shortage be true simultaneously? Careers are short. CS is one of the few career areas where the more experience you have, the dumber you are. This is because of rapid tech change that leaves most workers cut off as their skills are no longer en vogue. Workers are eased out or laid off starting as young as in their 30s.
It is cheaper for employers to hire shiny new college graduates than to invest in their existing staff. I am unique in adding an MBA at age 41 and years later am now working on an MS in s/w engineering. Going back to school is tough - many friends chose careers in fields where experience added value. In computer science, experience subtracts value. I could not recommend a generic computer science degree to anyone.
The previous commenter had a good point - software technology changes rapidly enough that the value of most software patents lasts only briefly. But this also tends to negate his argument that a 17 year time frame harms s/w innovation - when confronted with a software patent, most of the time it just means invent something new and move along.
The pace of change is rapid enough that software patents rarely provide long term lasting value - yes, short term, and ideal for seeking funding. But rarely is the value of software patent long term (yes, there are exceptions but for most, the value is not 17 years).
17 years ago, most people were stilling running DOS and Windows 3.x (the first "real" version and buggy as all get out) had been out for a year. 17 years ago, our -486 PC ran at a whopping 33 Mhz! The Internet was still 2 years away from becoming interesting in 1994. Cellular phones were analog bricks installed in cars - and the external antenna on the car was the "Status symbol of the '90s". Fortunately, technology - including software - progressed very rapidly. My point being that the 17 year time frame did not matter - the real world moved rapidly forward.
The article author does not seem to understand software engineering or software patents. Further, most patents are neither enforced nor particularly valuable so this matters much less than realized. And how to reconcile an algorithm implemented in an FPGA (now its hardware) with a mere "software patent" that does the same thing?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ed.
Re: Re: Re: Seriously... WTF?!
In your view, should there be no limits what so ever on skilled immigrants entering the U.S.? Any limits would be "discriminatory practices", which you oppose.
You managed not to answer any of the questions I asked, which does harm the credibility of your argument. The questions are very relevant.
I suspect your job and career is not threatened - mine very much is and I am scared and anxious about whether I will be able to resume work ever again in this field.
As best I can tell from your non response, you do not care about the actual harm being done to hard working American citizens who working incredibly hard to compete. You simply don't give a damn, do you?
FYI - Apparently your web site needs some good CS work: "Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break tag, all other allowable HTML is intact"
did not actually work when the above comment as entered using Firefox 3.6 on Mac OS X. I'll now insert breaks manually.
According to Dr. Mike Mandel, citing US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, employment in all computer science fields has fallen by an amazing 8.9% from 2008 to 2009. Please see innovationandgrowth.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scieng-table.png Less than one third of the computer/information jobs forecast by the BLS in 1998 were actually created. Please see innovationandgrowth.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/innovative1.png How can both the data and the claim of a CS shortage be true simultaneously? Careers are short. CS is one of the few career areas where the more experience you have, the dumber you are. This is because of rapid tech change that leaves most workers cut off as their skills are no longer en vogue. Workers are eased out or laid off starting as young as in their 30s. It is cheaper for employers to hire shiny new college graduates than to invest in their existing staff. I am unique in adding an MBA at age 41 and years later am now working on an MS in s/w engineering. Going back to school is tough - many friends chose careers in fields where experience added value. In computer science, experience subtracts value. I could not recommend a generic computer science degree to anyone.
The previous commenter had a good point - software technology changes rapidly enough that the value of most software patents lasts only briefly. But this also tends to negate his argument that a 17 year time frame harms s/w innovation - when confronted with a software patent, most of the time it just means invent something new and move along.
The pace of change is rapid enough that software patents rarely provide long term lasting value - yes, short term, and ideal for seeking funding. But rarely is the value of software patent long term (yes, there are exceptions but for most, the value is not 17 years).
17 years ago, most people were stilling running DOS and Windows 3.x (the first "real" version and buggy as all get out) had been out for a year. 17 years ago, our -486 PC ran at a whopping 33 Mhz! The Internet was still 2 years away from becoming interesting in 1994. Cellular phones were analog bricks installed in cars - and the external antenna on the car was the "Status symbol of the '90s". Fortunately, technology - including software - progressed very rapidly. My point being that the 17 year time frame did not matter - the real world moved rapidly forward.
There seems to be confusion as to what is software and what is a patent
The article author does not seem to understand software engineering or software patents. Further, most patents are neither enforced nor particularly valuable so this matters much less than realized. And how to reconcile an algorithm implemented in an FPGA (now its hardware) with a mere "software patent" that does the same thing?