Jump to content

ONLINE JOB -- 12000 RUPEES PER WEEK- deepa


deepa

Recommended Posts

Spammer crap deleted by Wazoo. The timing of this "new" spam being posted within hours of JT killing the account and my deletion of that Topic by "another" spammer, and both referencing a bit of India, well ... this account was "touched" .. and some responses here deal with some othr issues ... I'm going to let this Topic sit for a bit and see if the idiot generates yet another account and tries it again. Perhaps in a few days, kill off this post and a coupe more, then re-name the rest to match that overseas outsourcing discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I had to deal with a few of them at Dell and other companies recently...

... frustrating, they botched almost evey job for me... and there is no way to complain about it...you just have to be vigilent, check and double check.

In the end they seem to waste so many resources you have to wonder if those companies are making up the losses from outsourcing to incompetent locations..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My web hosting company tried using "Bobcares.com" for a while (it's a third-party support provider in Bangalore), but I think they finally gave up and went with someone else after all the incompetence.

But worse yet, the Bank of America has outsourced their web portal to India, and I received a worm-infected message at the address that I created to only use with the bank, and the worm came from a connection in India. That meant that some idiot over there wasn't using good anti-virus software, and that the same idiot had the email addresses of Bank of America customers on his PC (I verified this through a relative who is a bank Vice President).

Try sumitting a support request at the Symantec website....guess who's going to answer it (after five working days)? Another idiot in India! The answer I got was addressed "Dear Chad" (my name is David) and the "solution" they provided was for the wrong operating system (even though part of the subission process required me to specify my OS).

Lou Dobbs of CNN just published a book about the outsourcing problem...people should read it and then DO SOMETHING about it...namely, vote "Shrub" and all his Neocons out of office!

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch Lou, and occasionally I do business with a company in the outsourcing market, I really think Lou has a point, though initially I was more enclined to think this would be helpful to those poor bastards in the underdeveloped places...

Perhaps things were done in too much haste in hope of gaining a fast profit... In any event, there is a strong backlash and roll-back on what seemed to be emerging markets, etc.. It is starting to look more like the internet business in the 90s. Trial and error I guess, in the end a lot will be weeded out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any requests for leaving the outsourcing discussion in place - alternative is killing this entire Topic ....  if you skipped it, the actual spam item was over-written ...

16756[/snapback]

...My vote would be to leave it. DavidT's anti-Repub / anti-Bush / anti-Neocon rant just might fire up at least some Bush (and Repub and Neocon) supporters who might otherwise not bother to vote. :D <big g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a rant....the man is responsible for not only 1000 US military personnel deaths, but countless others.

Not to mention the fact that our environment is going to hell, thanks to the administration's appointment of industry lobbyists into the lead positions at the US Departments responsible for protecting the environment.

I haven't even begun to rant! ;-)

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a rant....the man is responsible for not only 1000 US military personnel deaths, but countless others.

Not to mention the fact that our environment is going to hell, thanks to the administration's appointment of industry lobbyists into the lead positions at the US Departments responsible for protecting the environment.

16762[/snapback]

...LOL!

I haven't even begun to rant!  ;-)

DT

16762[/snapback]

...Well, let's get cracking, then! I want other "soft" Bush supporters to see it as soon as possible! You're even bringing me dangerously close to voting for someone other than a Libertarian (where that option is available) for the first time in many years! :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're even bringing me dangerously close to voting for someone other than a Libertarian (where that option is available) for the first time in many years!  :) <g>

Ah...Libertarian....the principal behind that is all well and good, but unfortunately doesn't take into account the evil nature of many people. Here's the deal....left to their own devices (unregulated, IOW), corporations will simply not "do the right thing" when it comes to taking care of the environment. Heck, they won't even take care of their own employees if they're not forced to, either by regulations or by competition (assuming the employees could go work where they're treated better). Therefore, we need regulation to make sure that corporations behave better, and that means we need government.

We need roads, water, and lots of other obvious physical services, but we also need protection from greedy companies and individuals who will rip us off without a second thought. So we need laws and regulations, and we need a well-designed and managed governmental structure to oversee the whole system and to balance what's in everyone's best interests. That simply won't happen if we allow Libertarians to have their way.

I'm not for government waste, but I acknowledge the need for many different governmental functions. My recommendation is to vote for those who truly have the best interests of the people at heart, not the best interests of their corporate cronies who are invited to Washinton to draft legislation and form policies that mostly just increase their profits and monopolistic powers.

No one political ideology is perfect, rather we should pick and choose from what's in the best interest of the people....and allowing Joe Sixpack to go down to the neighborhood Wal-Mart (EVIL!) and buy an assault rifle is most certainly NOT in our best interest. Nor is allowing the polluters to regulate themselves, nor is allowing the rich to have unwarranted tax cuts, nor is allowing pharmaceutical companies to rip us off and to bribe the idiots in Washington so that States can't import cheaper drugs from Canada, etc.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah...Libertarian....the principal behind that is all well and good, but unfortunately doesn't take into account the evil nature of many people. Here's the deal....left to their own devices (unregulated, IOW), corporations will simply not "do the right thing" when it comes to taking care of the environment. Heck, they won't even take care of their own employees if they're not forced to, either by regulations or by competition (assuming the employees could go work where they're treated better). Therefore, we need regulation to make sure that corporations behave better, and that means we need government.

16777[/snapback]

...Quite wrong, IMHO. The reason corporations don't "behave better" with respect to the environment is that no own "owns" the environment. Therefore, no one has standing (except government, which always has standing) to sue those who damage the environment. What government tends to do when it is given regulations to enforce is to empower some to unfairly and unevenly make it more expensive for others to compete in the marketplace and to create a class of people who are reliant on government.

We need roads, water, and lots of other obvious physical services, but we also need protection from greedy companies and individuals who will rip us off without a second thought. So we need laws and regulations, and we need a well-designed and managed governmental structure to oversee the whole system and to balance what's in everyone's best interests. That simply won't happen if we allow Libertarians to have their way.

16777[/snapback]

...And Libertarians are correct, for reasons stated above.

I'm not for government waste, but I acknowledge the need for many different governmental functions. My recommendation is to vote for those who truly have the best interests of the people at heart, not the best interests of their corporate cronies who are invited to Washinton to draft legislation and form policies that mostly just increase their profits and monopolistic powers.

16777[/snapback]

...Ah, so you already do realize why the market is better than government regulation! :) <g>

No one political ideology is perfect, rather we should pick and choose from what's in the best interest of the people....and allowing Joe Sixpack to go down to the neighborhood Wal-Mart (EVIL!) and buy an assault rifle is most certainly NOT in our best interest.

16777[/snapback]

...Why not? Joe might just save my (and/or your) life and liberty one day because some anti-Liberty faction might gain power in government or because some would-be goon decides not to attack me (and/or you) because (s)he knows Joe has that assault rifle!

Nor is allowing the polluters to regulate themselves,

16777[/snapback]

...Which is exactly what tends to happen via government regulation!

nor is allowing the rich to have unwarranted tax cuts,

16777[/snapback]

...Why not? The rich invest in or create businesses that are thereby able to provide the rest of us jobs and goods and services. I love (and would like to become one of) the rich!

nor is allowing pharmaceutical companies to rip us off and to bribe the idiots in Washington so that States can't import cheaper drugs from Canada, etc.

16777[/snapback]

...Another example of how the Libertarians are right -- government regulation ****s us over, again! :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason corporations don't "behave better" with respect to the environment is that no own "owns" the environment.

No...they do it because they don't give a flying f*** for anything but their bottom line. I suppose your take is that if every bit of land was private property, then the landownwers could protect their rights. However, that's ridiculous....nobody should "own" any land at all! Who the heck gave it to them in the first place? The entire Earth belongs to everyone and is to be managed for everyone's good....not just for a bunch of individuals. Socialism is the way to go, but not Socialism as it's been applied to date in defective forms. I'm a "world government" type (and yes, they even give me free rides in the "Black Helicopters"!). :-)

What government tends to do when it is given regulations to enforce is to empower some to unfairly and unevenly make it more expensive for others to compete in the marketplace and to create a class of people who are reliant on government.

Not when government "gets it right"! You're talking about defective policies, not good ones.

...And Libertarians are correct, for reasons stated above.

Nope. The Libertarian view is far too simplistic. They seem to stress "every man for himself" but that's not efficient. We can achieve so much more with less effort and less waste if we pool our resources and work for common goals.

...Ah, so you already do realize why the market is better than government regulation!

Nope.

Joe might just save my (and/or your) life and liberty one day because some anti-Liberty faction might gain power in government or because some would-be goon decides not to attack me (and/or you) because (s)he knows Joe has that assault rifle!

Not bloodly likely. The more likely scenario is that Joe's wacked-out son grabs the rifle and BANG, another Columbine! Go watch "Bowling for Columbine" -- it's a very good movie!

Why not?  The rich invest in or create businesses that are thereby able to provide the rest of us jobs and goods and services.

Oy vay....."trickle down economics" all over again! No, the rich get richer by holding on to as much as they possibly can. They missed the part in Kindergarten about sharing.

Another example of how the Libertarians are right

Bzzzzzzzzzzt....wrong! Thanks for playing. :P

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...nor is allowing pharmaceutical companies to rip us off and to bribe the idiots in Washington so that States can't import cheaper drugs from Canada, etc.

...Another example of how the Libertarians are right -- government regulation ****s us over, again! :) <g>

16779[/snapback]

Just to throw my $0.02 in, I'd like to point out that the only reason said drugs are cheaper in Canada is because of government regulation. If Canada didn't have a more socialzed health care system than the USA, those drugs wouldn't be as cheap as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw my $0.02 in, I'd like to point out that the only reason said drugs are cheaper in Canada is because of government regulation.  If Canada didn't have a more socialzed health care system than the USA, those drugs wouldn't be as cheap as they are.

Exactly. I'm not saying that Canada's health care system is perfect...it's not...but ours is so broken it's not funny, and the idea of just letting the health care companies do what they think is best is so ridiculous, it's absurd. Have you ever dealt with a really uncaring HMO? That's what most of our healthcare would devolve into.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'm not saying that Canada's health care system is perfect...it's not...but ours is so broken it's not funny, and the idea of just letting the health care companies do what they think is best is so ridiculous, it's absurd. Have you ever dealt with a really uncaring HMO? That's what most of our healthcare would devolve into.

16785[/snapback]

And I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just always amused (and somewhat frustrated) when I hear one politician or another say that importing drugs from Canada is such a wonderful idea. Ummm, no. It's not helping the problem, it's ignoring it. We're not really importing their drugs, we're importing their healthcare system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just always amused (and somewhat frustrated) when I hear one politician or another say that importing drugs from Canada is such a wonderful idea.  Ummm, no.

It's better than paying the exhorbitant prices that the US companies demand.

It's not helping the problem, it's ignoring it.  We're not really importing their drugs, we're importing their healthcare system.

I don't think so. We're using a method to reduce the costs of drugs. If congress would have the balls to take on the drug companies, it wouldn't be necessary, but then the congresscritters are mostly in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, so they won't.

Medical care is a human right....not a goldmine for greedy, evil corporations.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was asked not to delete it, so that won't happen by my hand .. not sure how much time to give the spammer to make a third appearance, but eventualy should kill off those starting posts ....

I hate to get involved in discussions such as this, as my background is so different that most. Having lived around the world, and having dealt with so many levels of the U.S. Government and military, and in so many different scenarios, I find it hard to relate to most folks that choose to take a stand, but only poiint to one individual to demonstrate their case / cause.

You go to a political rally, here some candidate jump up and down about how "I am going to ...." .... candidate talks for 3 hours .... later that evening, the local TV news station offers up maybe 20 seconds of sound-bites to explain the candidate's platform .. the local paper takes one or two "points" and goes off on a tangent to "explain" those points.

What's missing is the U.S.Government is comprised of so many more folks than just "this candidate" .... and if it escapes you, these are also other people with their own agendas, knowledge base, education, and background/experiences. And one of the "problems" I see in these political "debates" is that most folks either don't know (or choose to ignore) the structure of the U.S.Government.

The days when a Representative would put the farm implements away and make the raod trip to spend a month or two "in session" to take care of the needs of the country are long gone. Now days, that same Representative lives in the D.C. area, has 100-300 staffers to handle the office and paperwork. This same representative either chairs or is a member of maybe 100+ "committes" on various subjects, gets involved in other situational studies, has to manage those public appearances, and least one forgets, continue to inform the good folks at home so that the re-election process goes well .... Bottom line, seeing that big room filled with all the Representatives so as to even offer the appearance that Congress is in session is a pretty rare event. Much more comon is seeing folks streaming in during a "vote call" .. waiting their "turn" to come up, flip the yes/no switch, then head on out again to hit the next "event" on their schedule.

That yes/no switch flip actually being decided by the input from those staffers, based on who wrote the bill, what the (vocal" constituents back home have input, what the "party" has offered as guidance, what power-plays may be involved (that you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours thing) .... In reality, the Representative him/herself may barely have an actual clue on what all that bill contains. This gets into what most folks just don't seem to grasp. The Representative was the person voted into office, but the resulting decisions and votes are driven by other folks and situations.

Decisions from the White House have the same issues. There was a person voted into office, but .... decision made are based on information made available .. and these people that collect, collate, and provide that data ... where did they come from? As in the current debates, who was steering the flow of what data at any certain point in time? Way back early in the Clinton years, there was a televised tour of the Pentagon for a female that was going to handle laison between the White House and something at the Pentagon .... she asked on live TV what "DoD" stood for, noting that it was plastered all over the place. She was going to be handling data flow from the Pentagon but didn't have a clue as to who or what the Department of Defense was? Repeat, she was not voted into that position.

Rules, regulations, laws passed for all the right reasons but based on flawed logic are legion (heck, look at the CAN-spam act <g>) But again, the blame doesn't always belog the the individual that actually signed the paperwork .. yes, the "power" to authorize was in that signature, but it was the flow of the decision process and what drove that decision that needs to be challeneged (or at least brought to light) A bit of (alternative) demonstration is the mud-slinging bit of pointing that candidate A "voted NO on item 1" .. when in reality, "item 1" was some piece of stuff attached to a bill that actually dealt with something else entirely, and it was the whole package that received the NO vote ... that the "item 1" should not have been associated with the actual voted-upon package to begin with is not mentioned. Again, back to who controls the flow of what data?

ending here, spent more time than I'd planned already ..... too many thoughts going on now about procurement, budgets, etc ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wazoo, well stated, in fact I have never seen it better stated.

Thank you.

Appreciate the thought. I just have this bad tendencey to start rambling .. lordy, if you only had a clue to the memories I was sifting through and deciding not to go into them here <g> .... and those stories that can't be told for various reasons ...

There once was a time where I worked for a guy that had the "get it done" attitude. His immediate supervisor had the opinion that if the regulations didn't specifically say that "this" was allowed, it couldn't be done. That guy's boss had the attitude that if the regualtions did not specifically come right out and say that "this" was prohibited, then what was there to stop things from being done? The experiences and educational opportunities never seemed to stop <g>

Sittin on a mountaintop in the middle of a jungle in a country doing a job that I'd enlisted and trained for based on the words "no one that does this goes there" .. (only later finding out about the words "temporarily re-assigned") .... living in the D.C. area, reading in the local newspaper that the buildings some of my soldiers were living in didn't meet the minimum requirements for "housing the homeless" .. something "discovered" during the base closure proceedings .... justifying to Congress why some systems already under development weren't going to have their software re-written to met the recently ordered requirement that "all" software developed from here on out would be done in ADA ... noting that the first "certified ADA compiler" wasn't to show up for another 4 or 5 years ... a system started in the 70's, deployed for operational testing in the 80's that ran into a small issue .. it seems that trees have a tendency to grow taller and the folks with those engineering degrees plastered all over their walls failed to take that nature thing into a few of the calculations .... the system designed in California, tested in Arizona, that didn't work worth a dang in Korea .. something to do with latitude/longitude numbers not being in the database <g> ... oh yeah, on and on ...

Though not specifically in reference to the above, one of my favorite books is Breaking Cover by Bill Gulley .... Though he had an official title, he called his job as being that of "expediter" .. working for JFK through Carter ... and had Carter not been quite so naive, Gulley might still be working that same position <g> Carter was one of those "I'm going to do things" tales, that although all the best intentions were there ... I found it painful to watch the educational process unfold for him and all the people he brought with him, finding out the hard way that the President didn't actually have and hold the control and power that had been imagined during those campaign years.

Ah but again .... losing too much time reminiscing <g>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but again .... losing too much time reminiscing
But I sure enjoyed reading it.

The real problem with your first post is two fold.

1) It is true.

2) Way too many Americans do not know that it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...