Slashdot Mirror

I've noticed that the folks who hate DST don't care bout anything more than how inconvenienced they are with having to reset their clocks. As Iggymanz notes, disrupt the school day, disrupt an entire process - they don't care how much trouble others have, as long as they get their way.

It isn't about inconvenience. It is about health. That much lost sleep causes serious problems for human physiology. We simply aren't built to handle it. If the time change were gradual, at a minute per day or something, it wouldn't be a problem, but as it is, people die because of DST. The time changes causes an increase in:

• Heart attacks
• Car accidents
• Industrial accidents

Additionally, the economic cost is huge. Fatigued workers take more sick days and are more distracted when they actually show up for work, to the tune of almost half a billion dollars every spring.

Mexico could spend their money however the fuck they wanted to. If they said "this is for a wall" then Trump could spend it on a wall. It's not a gift to the general fund and it's not taxpayer funds..

Though the very idea of Mexico sending money to the US specifically to build a wall to keep people from entering the US is laughable - and fully counter to the claim that Trump has made many times about Mexico "sending bad hombres" to the US. If the illegal immigrants are so awful, then it would be in the best interests of Mexico to keep them moving, not to slow down their departure.

If Mexico pays for it, Trump does not need Congressional approval

Trump's latest scheme is that Mexico would somehow pay for the wall by way of tariffs and taxes through NAFTA 2.0. However the money that comes in to there goes into the general fund, so no Trump would not be able to tap into it on his own initiative (sans congress) to spend it on his own pet projects. He would need congressional approval. Now if for some reason Mexico sent a check specifically to build the wall, it might be possible to use that as such - though there is a big problem with that one too, namely that financial gifts to the federal government are required to be unconditional unless congress specifically passes a law allowing them to be used for a specific project.

When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss

I'm curious to know how you figure they did this. Their economic policies didn't change; the democrats are still the party that aims to reduce taxes on the 99% while the republicans still aim to reduce taxes for the top 1%. Their education policies didn't change; they still favor funding public education while the republicans still favor various "market based solutions" and other such tactics that are shown to reduce accessibility to education. What exactly do you think they did that favored "niche groups" over the working class?

Their economic policies most certainly did change. Supply and demand is a basic thing. By increasing how many H1B and other visas you increase supply. By favoring free trade you decrease job demand. You realize that Bill Clinton let China in the WTO and signed NAFTA into law. Thus we have less in real wages than in the 70s. I'll provide links, but despite all the talk about increasing productivity the reality is that most of the gains have gone to the top 1%. To be fair to the Democrats, this trend is consistent across both D and R administrations. Still, they have done exactly *nothing* to try and turn it around other than lip service about training for the new economy. Want to see Democrats that really pushed for the little guy (ie the 99%)? Think Teddy Roosevelt and breaking up trusts, which today would be more like huge corporations. Think FDR who despite his *many* faults was at least trying to do something. Think Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The Democrats were at one time the party of the little guy. No more.

Turns out that hating white males

Where did you see them doing this? What policies or proposals did you see that could be said to be aiming for that to happen?

If I say that preference will be given to women and minorities then what I have really said is that everyone other than white males will be given an advantage. That could be restated as everyone is equal but white males get penalized. Can it be more clear? In case that isn't clear enough they have run job descriptions that specifically asked for no white straight males.

Citations:

https://www.epi.org/productivi... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.spiked-online.com/... https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu...

Bill, there are 27 citations, seven suggested readings, and nine external links. Are you really telling me that Gweihir didn’t “provide one little citation”?

Aasterinian almighty.

Okay, fine. Here’s what I found and how I found it.

Google is your friend.. You need only provide the search query ‘productivity workday hours’ and you’ll find this in the first position on the first page. Granted, filter-bubbling is a real problem, but Inc. isn’t exactly the most slanted liberal rag in the history of the blue team. And I quote:

in 1914, Ford Motor Company astonished everyone by cutting daily hours down to eight while simultaneously doubling wages. The result? Increased productivity.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, the workday is ripe for another disruption. Research suggests that in an eight-hour day, the average worker is only productive for two hours and 53 minutes.

Citation required? Here it is.

Now please don’t continue to argue from a position of ignorance; this should give you ample google juice to ask meaningful questions going forward.

But wait, there’s more! Here on our very platform, we can see just why people engage in those sort of distractions. Short answer? People ain’t machines.

Amazon Is Hiring More Skilled Immigrant H-1B Workers Than Any Other Tech Company. And it's NOT because the locals couldn't get the job done (we all know that).

So who are they trying to fool here?

"In the US, far left is currently mainstream"

bwahaha...

Left: - universal healthcare - environmental protections - marijuana legal - hate speech outlawed - no coal plants

FAR left, is above plus - universal income - 50%-90% corporate tax rate - all drugs legal - proportional representation - nationalized critical industries (energy, water, internet) and some too big to fail businesses or businesses in the national interest - no more nukes, nuke plants or any polluting power plant. renewables only. - cap higher end wages

So I very much doubt that the "mainstream" in the USA is "far left". I think you guys can barely get to the centrist position.

I know its said time and time again, but the USA version of "left" is considered center or center right by other 1st world democracies.

You left out their most extreme positions and you know it. For example:

Left:

- general disdain for white people and favor affirmative action type programs. I think this is unique to the US. - OK to openly fly job ads that specify no white males unless they are gay - general disdain for Christians as a group - general disdain for anyone from "fly over" states, the south, or just not from a city - amnesty for all illegal immigrants is acceptable. Multiple times is fine too. - Abolish ICE so that enforcement of immigration laws is handicapped - force people to use an ever expanding list of new pronouns depending on what they identify as that day - deplatforming / censorship is OK as long as it's hate speech. Note that hate speech is very broadly defined and full of exclusions.

Far Left:

- wants reparations for slavery, always calculated to be in the trillions of USD - segregation in the form of safe spaces where only "people of color" are allowed - abolish borders altogether, anyone can come in any time and stay however long they like

Think I made this garbage up? Here are some citations:

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu... https://www.thecollegefix.com/... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.washingtontimes.co...

The jobs at the HQ2 will not be warehouse jobs. According to https://www.payscale.com/resea... the average job at Amazon pays $100k/year (the median is far lower - $28,446/year according to https://www.inc.com/scott-maut... ).

LinkedIn is a hellhole and this Twitter account proves it

Are You Sick and Tired of These 5 Things On LinkedIn? So Am I

A bit of system engineering discipline, FMEA , might have prevented this. It helps when innovators are trained to manage complexity, capability, and risk.

Or common sense, but such things can be on short supply on large projects run by program managers who have an 'MBA' mentality: https://www.inc.com/nathan-fur...

Has been found by who? Where is your data? Where are these studies? You're making up things out of thin air.

Pretty much all studies done on overtime and productivity. which is a big part of why the overtime rules were allowed to exist in the first place.

No, your claim is that it is "stupid" to work more than 40 hours because your productivity drops. As an employee who gets overtime pay ("time-and-a-half"), my productivity doesn't matter at all to me. And if I'm self-employed, I make more money for every extra hour worked as long as I make a non-zero salary.

True, but damage to your brain and heart, which overtime creates, should matter to you, not even considering that free time should be valuable to you on its own. If you had balls and a boss that wasn't an idiot, tell him to fuck off, pay you 75% more per hour, and let you rest, because that'd be better for everyone.

Buzzfeed's not doing too well and they've got an IPO coming up.

https://www.inc.com/erik-sherm...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/29/...

Maybe he was trying to go for a Funny mod based on a story that ran sometime back about Thiel being a customer of a company that does transfusions for people using blood from young people based on some supposed health benefits of doing so that were observed when doing this in mice.

The story got a lot of traction and got repeated in the tech press and well known blogs, but after some tech journalists looked into it, it turned out to be bogus. However, it's one of those things that seems to have stuck around probably because it's both interesting as well as silly.

http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/

This cancerous shit-smoking beast is adopted by projects that want to die. It's the product of known trans rabble-rouser Coraline Ada Ehmke. If you want to see how this kind of crap plays out, see the Opalgate controversy "issue thread" and the subsequent "Create a Code of Conduct" thread where Coraline tries to put in place this thing that lets Coraline oust people who disagree with her. The various SJW comments in those threads are extremely enlightening as they illustrate very well how laying down subjective "rules" like this opens a project to subjective interpretation based on the feels of any given person that wants to bully others USING THOSE RULES AS THE HAMMER TO BEAT OTHERS DOWN.

Oh, you want more than one single thread? How about this: Drupal ousts Larry Garfield for his sex life. Adria Richards and "Donglegate" and how she got a father of four fired for something that she both interpreted incorrectly and was guilty of doing publicly at the same event herself. Rust is full of SJW/PC nonsense. You can find these examples all over the place. Adopting these codes of conduct is like drawing a mustache on your project's upper lip with feces.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

This is not purely a freedom of speech issue. It is illegal in California to fire employees for their political views.

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/nogoogle-should-not-have-fired-the-anti-diversity-.html

Did anyone hear that Wal-Mart's tech incubator WalMart Labs is one of the worst places to work. Not surprisingly almost all the engineers feel they're underpaid

https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.inc.com/business-i...

They're going to lose this one and while I'm not wild about how Amazon has crushed the competition I won't shed a single tear for wally world.

CEO-bot 9000 says you're fired. Have fun driving for Uber.

Seriously, though, you're not the first to suggest that CEO positions are ripe for automation.

It's what 80% of his time is spent on.

Later on it was backed by at least 6 experts in the fields of biology and psychology, citing scientifically accepted causes for differences beteeen groups of people.

I've seen some articles that backed up his memo, but can you provide those links? I'd like to take a look.

He referenced some studies in his original memo that you're free to read, but here was a response that cites some sources from Inc.com.

The fact is there MAY be some biological differences, we don't know for sure, the jury is still out (in my opinion). Unfortunately it's just an inflammatory topic and people are so upset by it they refuse to discuss it.

apple is right everyone else is wrong.

I don't think so. There is evidence that open offices are bad for productivity. Some people like to work in a bullpen, but even for those people their productivity may go down more than they realize. Other people hate open offices, and refuse to work in them. These are often the best people, who have plenty of other employment options. Open offices are false economy. The cost of providing a real office is negligible compared to a typical tech salary in Cupertino.

My company has some open office space, and I work there sometimes. But I also have an office with real walls where I can sit and focus. It is small, about 8 ft by 10 ft, but that is enough for two chairs, a desk, and a bookshelf.

I will not accept any job that requires me to work in a cubicle or open office, although I did work that way when I was young and desperate.

I think that's being exceedingly generous. It may sound 'sciencey', but certainly he does not have study data to back him up.

Are you about that?

Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers. It was a gender stereotype that called out Google's female employees as somehow being lesser in a particular set of fields. In my organization, he'd have been given his walking papers as well.

Well, really he said women were less likely on average to be engineers, which isn't without merit. The conclusion being that trying to strive for an arbitrary 50/50 ratio of women to men didn't make sense. I've been digging around all over the internet and I can't find anyone who has posted a good rebuttal to his points. If you find something, I'd like to read it if you don't mind sharing.

Nadella:

"Keep pushing, and know that I am with you ... (The) key is to keep learning and improving." -- Inc.

Tay was about as technically sophisticated as Racter, a stand-alone chat-bot released in 1984 by Mindscape. It just remembered everything you typed to it, and randomly brought up things that you had mentioned before. It was basically ELIZA with a phrase-learning function.

That was why Tay was so easily punked by internet pranksters. It was, like, a mere 30 years later, but the Microsoft "AI Team" simply 'phoned it in' (probably at 2400 baud), and Microsoft just shoveled it out the door like all of the other half-assed 'me-too' that it famously does. Actual currency or competitiveness of the product was irrelevant.

Whoever owns the IP of Mindscape should sue Microsoft for copyright infringement for the whole Tay thing.

Obviously, success is ultimately important, but in tech you gotta be willing to fail. Can't be afraid to fail. Technology is a very different endeavor than sports.

Look at the striking difference in Nadella's response to the AI debacle Microsoft had some months ago:

"Just under a year ago, Microsoft launched a Twitter bot by the name of Tay (officially, Tay.ai), in an attempt to advance how artificial intelligence communicates with humans in real time. Things took a vicious turn, though, when hackers and others caused Tay to begin spewing racist and profane comments.

The result? Tay was shut down just 16 hours later, followed by an official apology from Microsoft.

If you worked on the team responsible for Tay, your instinct might have been to try and forget what had happened, as soon as possible.

And that's what makes the follow-up email from Satya Nadella, Microsoft's CEO, so remarkable.

In a profile piece recently published by USA Today, Nadella shared part of the email he sent the Microsoft A.I. team after the Tay debacle. It included the following:

"Keep pushing, and know that I am with you ... (The) key is to keep learning and improving."

-- Inc.

The linked site won't display when you run AdBlock.

Here's a free link: http://www.inc.com/business-in...

wrong, bad for Alphabet. They gave their employees nothing for Christmas. Employees appreciate a company that appreciates them.

Yeah, Google's employees are really abused.

You act as if a ToS is above the law and can't have illegal terms. That would be wrong.

A better source:
http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercov... ...it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea. ...

At least in the case of the MySpace and LinkedIn leaks, the passwords themselves were posted online, so it'd be fairly trivial for Netflix et al. to run the lists through their hashing algorithm and see if it gets any hits against their users.

LinkedIn was employing a fast hashing algorithm with no salt back in 2012 when their database was stolen. Which is about one step better than plaintext, given that an attacker can hit it at full speed and can crack them en masse because of the lack of salt.

MySpace apparently began employing doubled-salted hashes in 2013, but the login credentials that leaked were ones that hadn't been used past that time, so MySpace hadn't been able to update them to be more secure since it sounds like they were employing simple hashing prior to that.

As for Tumblr, they said they employed hash+salt on the database that was leaked, so it should indeed take awhile before anything besides commonly-used passwords start showing up from it.

They have spectacular successes and even bigger Failures

The Hafnium bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Their Cybernetic Menagerie : Weaponized Rats, Bees, and a mechanical elephant http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

One of my favorites, the Connection Machine architechture http://www.inc.com/magazine/19...

I think it is more wishful thinking by the execs: "hey these are our salaries - take it our leave it." Of course the execs negotiate their compensation yearly.

FTA: "For Gascoigne and Buffer COO Leo Widrich, transparency's benefits are clear

From their transparent financials: "Buffer's revenue currently exceeds the company's costs,".

Yeah, to me it isn't altogether clear that the benefits are there. Especially since, from the link above, " Her advice: Buffer should convert more nonpaying users to paid plans, and increase the costs of those plans by a few dollars per month. "The valuation for this kind of company is driven so much by subscriptions--recurring revenue is golden," she says."

Not only do they need to convert non-paying users into paying users (a task so difficult companies like google simply give up and advertise to the non-payers), but they should charge more too! A brilliant plan - what could possibly go wrong?

No, you need to get a clue. If I use it, I am bound by law - not just copyright law but the whole body of law, including contracts. If a court rules that the GPL is a contract of adhesion and that some of the terms are unenforceable, then those parts of the license are simply null and void. It's as if they never existed.

A license is a form of contract in many places. Even your driver's license is a contract.

Eban Moglen doesn't like that the rest of the world isn't the United States. Well, that's just too damned bad for him. Also, there is no proof that abandoning the GPL for an open license like MIT or BSD would harm free software - look at how much code Apple continues to kick back to the FreeBSD project.

Except that short-term profitability has DOUBLED since wages increases commenced (source).

Am I the only person who questions where these numbers come from? The article simply references another article which itself has no information on where the numbers came from. Gravity Payments isn't publicly traded, so these numbers aren't coming from official filings. That means they're probably coming from the CEO himself who seems to be a bit of a self-promoter. The Bloomberg article linked in this submission questions some of the assertions of the CEO about industry retention rates, and if the CEO is trying to paint a rosy picture of retention rates, I would not be surprised if he's doing the same for revenue/profit.

Citation Needed

The evidence I've seen is that a strong safety net increases business startups because people are less afraid of what will happen when they fail, which most of them will do.

Here's a few sources for my view:

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20...

Gravity Payments was founded in 2003, so it has been in business for 12 years now. The owners have earned millions in profit for themselves over that time, growing their business from nothing into $13.1 million in 2013 annual revenue. Their growth rate is 128% over the last three years.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html

THAT is a very good definition of "success".

The Inc. article is very interesting.

Unlike you, I'm going to provide the full quote along with a citation.

The YouTube CEO said her daughter had stated point-blank that she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp. The camp made her daughter dislike tech even more.

Wojcicki reported her daughter came back saying, “Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.”

Can't your arguments stand on their own merits?

Excuse me, Turbo C? Some of use were on BSD, VAXes and KLs quite awhile before there was Turbo C. Source code was available although you had to hop around a bit for it. There were lots of open implementations, go back and look. UNIX was great but it wasn't the only game in town. ADA is still a joke and like I said before it's great if you want career job security but not popular or really worthy on a resume. Maybe I should put KL-10 assembly language, that's an up and coming language or that great language PL-6 which only ran on one operating system, CP6. All dead systems, all dead languages, just like ADA. Even today, ADA isn't even in the top 10, an also-ran. Strangely C is still there, even after nearly forty years after the K&R standard. It seems if you wanted durability, longevity and a wide adoption you picked the wrong horse.

That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.

You seem to have some fantasy that people who own companies are raking in millions at the expense of those who work for them. Real world businesses are rarely that profitable and most employers would be very happy to have a large well paid work force because it means that the business is doing very well. That is NOT what the real world is like however. In the real world business owners live in terror for much of their existence because they are taking enormous risks. Most people who lose their job can usually find another one. It sucks but it's manageable. Entrepreneurs often literally are risking everything they have.

I ran my own construction company and helped run another.

Fair enough. Then you should understand the need to keep costs under control. A business that goes out of business employs nobody. Most small businesses are under-capitalized and don't have deep pockets.

There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families.

You seem to be implying that I don't care about my employees. Most of our full time employees have been with us for many years. We support our employees as well when we have dips in orders. We employ temp workers to meet labor needs when we have a spike in production. But if there is no work then there is no work. In our industry generally when work dips it is because a job has ended. We compete with China on price and we have customers that will move the business for a few pennies per part savings. So should I adjust labor costs to keep the company healthy or should I continue to employ people while the company loses money risking everyone's job, including my own? Employing more people than I have to means that I must pay everyone less. Should I pay some people a better wage or pay more people a worse wage?

Treating a business like a charity helps no one in the long run. Pay your people as well as you can and treat them as well as possible but you HAVE to make sure the business is profitable. A business that isn't profitable will not be a business for long.

During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active.

That's very kind of you but you can only do that if there is a reasonable likelihood of business picking up. Construction is a seasonal business. Manufacturing like what we do is much less so. Our business cycles last years. Getting a new job might take 18 months or longer if it is of any substantial size. We have down periods too but you cannot employ people indefinitely for work you don't have no matter how much you care about them. If we employ too many people or over pay them, we will kill the company faster than you can say "Chapter 11".

I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.

"Slightly fewer millions"? Cute. That is why I was dubious you have ever owned a business because very few businesses are in a real position to make "slightly fewer millions". If you made millions good for you but most manufacturing companies have profit margins in the single digits if they are profitable at all. Our company makes enough money to cover payroll with just a little left over for some small capital improvements. The owners of my company take home less than $100K annually after tax. Millions? Yeah, actually running a real company isn't the 1% fantasy you seem to think it is for most business owners.

Is what a friend of yours says in this article true?

But one of Wu's friends in the gaming industry has suggested that her story may be more complicated than she lets on--that as bad as the situation has been for Wu, she "wasn't dragged" into it. "She taunted Gamergate for weeks," this woman continued, who asked that her name be withheld. "She baited them, and then they finally came after her, which is exactly what she wanted them to do."

Apple and, to be fair, Google & others, want cheaper workers. That's ok. They want to keep costs down. Shareholders agree. They want to artifically control the labor market. That's less ok. They should realize the short-term costs (fines) and longer-term costs (loss of IP). http://www.inc.com/associated-...

Page one of Google search for "Apple Church" throws up The church of Apple. No shit. And a parody Apple news site. I like this one. Plus a couple of serious articles full of worlds like devotion, mecca, evangelical fervor, reverence... you get the idea.

But Obama's social media team was often quicker to respond to things and more creative.

I sure am glad to have a tech-savvy Administration in Washington for once. Finally we have someone, who uses the same devices we do and appreciates their security. Someone, who "gets" of building web-sites, the importance of competition among ISPs, and other deeply technical issues.

So, ultimately, the whole thing is self-defeating in general. Crunch times may be one thing, but on a regular basis, productivity declines even as people look busy.

One example:
http://www.inc.com/jessica-sti...
"The most essential thing to know about the 40-hour work-week is that, while it was the unions that pushed it, business leaders ultimately went along with it because their own data convinced them this was a solid, hard-nosed business decision....
Evan Robinson, a software engineer with a long interest in programmer productivity (full disclosure: our shared last name is not a coincidence) summarized this history in a white paper he wrote for the International Game Developers' Association in 2005. The original paper contains a wealth of links to studies conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military that supported early-20th-century leaders as they embraced the short week. 'Throughout the '30s, '40s and '50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds,' writes Robinson; 'and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.'
What these studies showed, over and over, was that industrial workers have eight good, reliable hours a day in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day."

With software, it is so easy to introduce a bug when you are tired or distracted (one reason team programming often saves money). A bug (especially a conceptual one) might be very expensive to debug down the road, especially if it makes its way to production. How many times have programmers spent days chasing a bug that was a one line fix? So, it may well be the case that longer hours mean *negative* productivity and higher costs for the extra hours worked past 40 per week even when the employee is not paid for the hours.

There is another complicating factor. Big companies in the 1970s such as HP or IBM invested in actually training employees, creating the pool of workers that Silicon Valley drew from initially. Investing in employee training is now rare, due in part due to little loyalty on either side of the employee/employer relationship in many companies. So, given that the tech industry moves so fast, where does the training time come from (including to read Slashdot :-)? Ideally, training should happen during those 40 hours. But in practice, many people working in IT have to keep current on their own time.

Yet training produces many benefits:
http://www.psychologicalscienc...
"A new study from a team of European researchers found that job training may also be a good strategy for companies looking to hire and retain top talent. When workers felt like they had received better job training options, they were also more likely to report a greater sense of commitment to their employer.
For the study, psychological scientists Rita Fontinha, Maria Jose Chambel, and Nele De Cuyper looked at IT outsourcers in Portugal-who must constantly update their skills in order to keep up with the fast pace of new technology. The researchers hypothesized that when people were happy with the training opportunities their employer provided, they would be more motivated to reciprocate with an enhanced sense of loyalty to the company.
This kind of informal balance of expectations between employees and management is known as a "psychological contract." When workers feel that their employer has fulfilled their obligations under the psychological contract, they're more motivated to uphold their

Undercover of helping immigrant agricultural workers who have long needed a break in America, the American technology sector - lead by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg - has seen fit to heavily lobby Congress to increase H1-B and other worker visa permits, vastly increasing H1-B visas at a time when very good research shows that there is no shortage of tech workers in America. Zuckerberg has so far succeeded, in the Senate. What is motivating the claim for more H1-B visas?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

previously

One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem and Two H1-B's walk into a Bar: More on the H1-B visa problem

One of many examples of what goes on behind closed doors: an immigration attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers.

H1-B's are only the tip of the iceberg; there are more than 20 categories of foreign worker visas.

Professor Norman Matloff's extremely well documented studies on the H1-B and foreign worker visa problem. Matloff claims that Hi-B abuse has cost Americans $10Trillion dollars, since 1975. Inc. Magazine weights in Professor Matloff's Webpage

Mother Jones weighs in:How H1-B visa abuse is hurting American tech workers

Marc Zuckerberg and other wealthy tech scions - including large immigration law firms and corporation who profit from importing H1-B's continue to perpetuate this trend

How H1-B malpractice hurts the American economy

Most of the new crop of H1-Bs is coming from one of the most corrupt university systems in the world.

Indian government officials are not happy that the universities that they collude with might have some limitations placed on the abuses that have enabled them to "sell" their product to the American IT sector.

How the new immigration bill could ignite a trade war with India

How to underpay an H1-B worker

Hmm. If there was a way to use slave-like treatment and 'pushing them harder' to take a two-man team and get the output of a full-size development studio, I suspect someone would've figure it out by now, but, well, there's not.

Of course you can pay a non profit for their services. http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14703.html They can even pay their employees, and their CEO. Someone posted something from the IRS website and asked if there is anything about doing paid work, but there isn't anything about NOT doing paid work. For many non profits a lot of their moneys they use for charitable services come from their profits, not from donations.

Our 11 person firm had our policy cancelled due to ACA and we were forced to choose a different one for 30% more per year. Does anyone in Washington know who really creates jobs in this country? HINT: its not companies with more than 50 employees.

Actually, yes it is. For a detailed discussion, see below, but the short version is that small companies don't disproportionately create net new jobs; _new companies_ do.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/bo-burlingham/who-really-creates-the-jobs.html

A real city with real people that's doing cutting edge tech not just a bunch of expensive suburbs like the valley, Fantastic cheap place to be.

No important at all. Not sure where the idea came from, maybe some professions are so easy for anyone to get into that having an online persona is needed for some differentiation? Who knows. If you're a technical person, you're capacity to accomplish tasks and your personality are what's important. Here's a very recent article on what Google looks for, and even they're forced to admit that their infamous brain-teaser questions are pretty worthless. Everyone gets it now. It's your ability that counts. Read this http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/5-surprising-facts-how-google-hires.html .

If anything, companies are starting to get super picky about who they're hiring because no one can afford to hire lazy, shiftless, indifferent, talentless people any more (and these folks outnumber the stars considerably.) In an interview at a smart company, if the interviewer gets any hint from an applicant that they're unreliable, unintelligent, or difficult to work with - they're toast before the interview is done. A quick email from the interviewers to the decision makers during the interview settles everything quickly so that no more time is wasted and they can move on to the next person.

Forget online personas and social networking. Want to be treated right? Bring your A-Game every day to the office and when you're interviewing.

Also, by the way, if you don't have an "online presence", you're lucky. I would start a smoking habit before having an online presence. Don't use your real name online and always behave like your real name is stamped on everything you post.

Who's to say AT&T isn't doing this already in USA?

Verizon is already doing this, and has been for a while, according to
PC World's article about this

Verizon has posted changes to its privacy policy stating that it will now share user location data, Web browsing history and demographic information with marketers.

While Verizon insists that it will not provide third parties with any information identifying users on a personal basis, it will give them a wide array of its users' information, including websites they frequent on their Verizon devices, places where their devices have been, and demographic categories such as gender and age range. Verizon will also share user interests with marketers, such as whether they're a sports fan, own a pet or what sort of restaurants they frequent.

The Department of Justice in the USA already wants carriers to keep user location data for further review by DOJ as needed, warranted or not.

Apple already got slogged for tracking user location data in articles and on South Park's "Human Centipad" episode, if you remember that. And that was followed by Android having to deal with user location tracking issues in May of 2011.

All of this just by searching for [ +"user location data" ] on your favorite search engine! So why aren't people up in arms about this?? Oh yeah, because not only do they accept this voluntarily, they pay the damn phone companies a monthly allotment to take their personal data and sell it! Damn sheep!