"Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:4093F7CA.2070507@austin.rr.com...> > > Randy Yates wrote: > > Roy McCammon <rbmccammon@mmm.com> writes: > > > > > >>Randy Yates wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hear, hear. Too much information, too little knowledge. > >> > >>There, there, don't let it get you down. > > > > > > Are you an author? > > I published one article in an IEEE publication > about 20 years ago and an article about guard > rings in a trade mag about 5 years ago.What has this ng got to do with curry? Please stay on-topic. Peter
Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers - Vol 13 No 1
Started by ●April 30, 2004
Reply by ●May 2, 20042004-05-02
Reply by ●May 2, 20042004-05-02
Peter Dickerson wrote:> "Roy McCammon" <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4093F7CA.2070507@austin.rr.com... > >> >>Randy Yates wrote: >> >>>Roy McCammon <rbmccammon@mmm.com> writes: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Randy Yates wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hear, hear. Too much information, too little knowledge. >>>> >>>>There, there, don't let it get you down. >>> >>> >>>Are you an author? >> >>I published one article in an IEEE publication >>about 20 years ago and an article about guard >>rings in a trade mag about 5 years ago. > > > What has this ng got to do with curry? Please stay on-topic.He asked me if I was an author. I don't know enough about curry to comment.
Reply by ●May 3, 20042004-05-03
del cecchi <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote: +--------------- | In the USA there has been a lot of controversy about "out sourcing" or | sending jobs to other countries. +--------------- This is an interesting case of vocabulary drift [or simply drifting further off-topic, whatever]... "Outsourcing" *used* to mean simply *any* change from doing something yourself to having someone else do it, e.g., outsourcing your payroll system to a bank, or outsourcing your company guards to a security firm, or even outsourcing some of your core work to a consulting firm. Chunka Mui & Larry Downes's book "Unleashing the Killer App" points out nicely how the telephone and the Internet have reduced transaction costs (Moore's Law and Metcalfe's Law), and why (Coase's "law" of the Firm) this forces companies increasingly to outsource almost *everything* that is not "core" (and even some of that!). Some outsourcing is to foreign locations, and in that case it was called "off-shoring" to distinguish it from ordinary domestic outsourcing. But recently, at least in the popular media, the distinction between "outsourcing" and "offshoring" seems to have been lost. This is unfortunate, since several economists have noted that the total amount of offshoring (at least, currently, from the U.S.) is actually only a small part of the total outsourcing going on. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Reply by ●May 3, 20042004-05-03
Rob Warnock wrote: (snip)> Some outsourcing is to foreign locations, and in that case it was called > "off-shoring" to distinguish it from ordinary domestic outsourcing. > But recently, at least in the popular media, the distinction between > "outsourcing" and "offshoring" seems to have been lost.> This is unfortunate, since several economists have noted that the total > amount of offshoring (at least, currently, from the U.S.) is actually > only a small part of the total outsourcing going on.Not to mention the balancing onshoring (??), work done by US companies for foreign companies. Look to see where Japanese cars are built these days, for one. I do believe, though, that the tax laws shouldn't encourage offshoring, which it might be that they currently do. -- glen
Reply by ●May 3, 20042004-05-03
In article <RTwlc.22300$Ik.1617944@attbi_s53>, gah@ugcs.caltech.edu says...> Rob Warnock wrote: > > (snip) > > > Some outsourcing is to foreign locations, and in that case it was called > > "off-shoring" to distinguish it from ordinary domestic outsourcing. > > But recently, at least in the popular media, the distinction between > > "outsourcing" and "offshoring" seems to have been lost. > > > This is unfortunate, since several economists have noted that the total > > amount of offshoring (at least, currently, from the U.S.) is actually > > only a small part of the total outsourcing going on. > > Not to mention the balancing onshoring (??), work done by US companies > for foreign companies. Look to see where Japanese cars are built > these days, for one. > > I do believe, though, that the tax laws shouldn't encourage > offshoring, which it might be that they currently do.Agreed. But watch the retaliation for "protections", either real or imagined. Government has shown that it is *really* bad at assessing the "law of unintended consequences". Capitolism does far better at allocating resources. Further, I predict some spectacular disasters from poorly thought-out off-shoring. The companies that can afford to open first-class outfits abroad will do well (nothing new to them), maybe. Those looking for cheap bodies will get exactly what they've contracted for. I've seen more than one dumb idea come and go. This is no exception. You won't see the disasters on the 6:00 news but they'll be there. -- Keith
Reply by ●May 3, 20042004-05-03
In article <MPG.1b00bbacbfb34c759897f6@news1.news.adelphia.net>, krw@att.biz says...> In article <RTwlc.22300$Ik.1617944@attbi_s53>, > gah@ugcs.caltech.edu says... > > Rob Warnock wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > Some outsourcing is to foreign locations, and in that case it was called > > > "off-shoring" to distinguish it from ordinary domestic outsourcing. > > > But recently, at least in the popular media, the distinction between > > > "outsourcing" and "offshoring" seems to have been lost. > > > > > This is unfortunate, since several economists have noted that the total > > > amount of offshoring (at least, currently, from the U.S.) is actually > > > only a small part of the total outsourcing going on. > > > > Not to mention the balancing onshoring (??), work done by US companies > > for foreign companies. Look to see where Japanese cars are built > > these days, for one. > > > > I do believe, though, that the tax laws shouldn't encourage > > offshoring, which it might be that they currently do. > > Agreed. But watch the retaliation for "protections", either real > or imagined. Government has shown that it is *really* bad at > assessing the "law of unintended consequences". Capitolism doesOh damn -----------^ a> far better at allocating resources. > > Further, I predict some spectacular disasters from poorly > thought-out off-shoring. The companies that can afford to open > first-class outfits abroad will do well (nothing new to them), > maybe. Those looking for cheap bodies will get exactly what > they've contracted for. > > I've seen more than one dumb idea come and go. This is no > exception. You won't see the disasters on the 6:00 news but > they'll be there. > >
Reply by ●May 4, 20042004-05-04
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:08:45 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: ...> >What kind of editors do they have, that pass "Less Than Eight" rather >than "Fewer Than Eight"? In a title, no less! For that kind of money, >I would expect at least basic literacy. > >JerryThis is arrogant behavior towards non English natives IMHO. Johannes Don't use my email address.
Reply by ●May 4, 20042004-05-04
On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:14:22 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Harumph! I'd be overjoyed if my German were half as good as your >English.Thanks for the compliment. On the other hand, I am sure that your English is better than my German. ;)>I wrote about an English-language journal that presumably has >English-speaking editors. Of course, foreigners get more slack.If a journal is in English, this doesn't neccessarily mean that the editors are English-speaking. Take for example IEEE Journal. I would say it is international. Sorry for my rude attack, but your answer reminded me of a problem some of my collegues had with IEEE when we were at university. Their papers got rejected several times only because their English was not perfect. It is fine to require the paper in English, but it is unfair to require a perfect English. But this is about 7 years ago and I don't know how it is today.>Which >non-Anglophone native would you have liked me to hold to lower editorial >standards?I am not sure if I understand this sentence, but it would have been fine if you just suggested him to use 'fewer' instead of 'less' in order to raise his editorial standards. Johannes
Reply by ●May 4, 20042004-05-04
Johannes Eble wrote:> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:08:45 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > ... > >>What kind of editors do they have, that pass "Less Than Eight" rather >>than "Fewer Than Eight"? In a title, no less! For that kind of money, >>I would expect at least basic literacy. >> >>Jerry > > > This is arrogant behavior towards non English natives IMHO. > > > Johannes > > > Don't use my email address.Harumph! I'd be overjoyed if my German were half as good as your English. I wrote about an English-language journal that presumably has English-speaking editors. Of course, foreigners get more slack. Which non-Anglophone native would you have liked me to hold to lower editorial standards? Jerry -- Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer. Edsger W. Dijkstra -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●May 4, 20042004-05-04
"Johannes Eble" <skywalkerpackage@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hqdf909e79v1jaupgiaq8qgth0nupboftf@4ax.com...> On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:14:22 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > >I wrote about an English-language journal that presumably has > >English-speaking editors. Of course, foreigners get more slack. > > If a journal is in English, this doesn't neccessarily mean that the > editors are English-speaking. Take for example IEEE Journal. I would > say it is international. > > Sorry for my rude attack, but your answer reminded me of a problem > some of my collegues had with IEEE when we were at university. Their > papers got rejected several times only because their English was not > perfect. It is fine to require the paper in English, but it is unfair > to require a perfect English. But this is about 7 years ago and I > don't know how it is today.If the technical content was deserving, I think the editors should have corrected the grammar and published the paper rather than rejecting it. That's what editors are for, right? On the other hand, if the English was so bad that the editors couldn't understand the technical content well enough to evaluate, that would be grounds for rejection IMO. For your friends, I'd suggest trying to find someone with strong English/writing skills (native speaker preferably) to proof their papers before submitting. I do that, even though I am a native speaker. Of course, that might be easier said than done in a non-English-speaking country!
