Slashdot Mirror

I'm calling BS, you're either not an attorney or you have no experience in criminal matters. In many states statutory rape is a strict liability offense. Cite: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=907682

"Nothing to hide" is not an argument at all. Based on your response, you'd probably find this interesting reading:

'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy -- Daniel J. Solove

Cheers

Why should we HAVE to worry about The Authorities overseeing our each and every transaction, as if we're all criminals until proven otherwise??

I would reply at length to this comment... but Daniel J. Solove says it best in his essay:

"'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"

Much more important is the lack of error bars

I'm getting kind of sick of this kind of response on Slashdot. If you RTFA, you'll see that this is a WSJ article that's distilling a scientific paper for the general public. You're essentially constructing a strawman in that you're claiming a lack of scientific rigor in the non-scientific article about a scientific paper.

Essentially, this boils down you not seeking out the source material (granted, WSJ isn't doing you any favors in that department). In case Google failed you, this appears to be the paper in question:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1320799

It'll cost you $5 from that site, which was the only one Google Scholar came up with, but feel free to find another source.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976446 for the legal-speak of why they allow it.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002/04/04/sinrod.htm for a non-legal discussion of a 2002 case where the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld validity of service of legal process by email.

So, yes, there is a legal obligation to check your inbox on a regular basis which is just one more reason why the remedy granted by Judge Ware was seriously out-of-bounds.

Order Google to provide the bank's lawyers with contact information of the account holder -- sure; order Google to terminate the third party's ability to conduct business affairs as well as his/her ability to receive bills, service of process or other legal notifications which require time-constrained response (e.g. terms of service changes, etc) -- "reversable error".

"Every serious study to date has shown that the more computers in the school, the less learning going on. "

Nope, you're wrong. Every serious study to date shows that the more computers in the school, the more oranges kids bring to school in their lunchboxes.

See? I can make up nonsense studies and not source my information either!

Don't be a lazy fuckhead. Look for it, and you'll find it.

Here's one example - from 1994: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=347118

How technology affects learning has been at the centre of recent debates over educational inputs. In 1994, the Israeli State Lottery sponsored the installation of computers in many elementary and middle schools. This programme provides an opportunity to estimate the impact of computerisation on both the instructional use of computers and pupil achievement. Results from a survey of Israeli school-teachers show that the influx of new computers increased teachers' use of computer-aided instruction (CAI). Although many of the estimates are imprecise, CAI (computer-aided instruction - ed) does not appear to have had educational benefits that translated into higher test scores.

Want something more recent - try a couple of months ago: http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Naked-Effort-Strips/47398/

When Computers Leave Classrooms, So Does Boredom

by Jeffrey R. Young

College leaders usually brag about their tech-filled "smart" classrooms, but a dean at Southern Methodist University is proudly removing computers from lecture halls. José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, has challenged his colleagues to "teach naked"--by which he means, sans machines.

More than any thing else, Mr. Bowen wants to discourage professors from using PowerPoint, because they often lean on the slide-display program as a crutch rather using it as a creative tool. Class time should be reserved for discussion, he contends, especially now that students can download lectures online and find libraries of information on the Web. When students reflect on their college years later in life, they're going to remember challenging debates and talks with their professors. Lively interactions are what teaching is all about, he says, but those give-and-takes are discouraged by preset collections of slides.

He's not the only one raising questions about PowerPoint, which on many campuses is the state of the art in classroom teaching. A study published in the April issue of British Educational Research Journal found that 59 percent of students in a new survey reported that at least half of their lectures were boring, and that PowerPoint was one of the dullest methods they saw. The survey consisted of 211 students at a university in England and was conducted by researchers at the University of Central Lancashire.

Students in the survey gave low marks not just to PowerPoint, but also to all kinds of computer-assisted classroom activities, even interactive exercises in computer labs. "The least boring teaching methods were found to be seminars, practical sessions, and group discussions," said the report. In other words, tech-free classrooms were the most engaging.

So, nothing much changed between the first study (1994) and the latest (2009). 15 years, and computers STILL don't belong in the classroom because they're a crutch for teachers who can't teach. Teachers who are boring should be forced to sit through video recordings of them teaching their own classes. In fact, I recommended that back in the late '70s, and that we record the best teachers and make the recordings available to all students. This way, they won't get stuck failing because their teacher is a stiff. Of course, that would make at least 75% of all teachers redundant, but that's a good thing.

Gee, when did I ever say anything remotely like "patents stifle innovation?" You've gone from arguing minutae to making shiat up again.

I think this is an honest error on his part. I made this claim above, and I guess he thought it was you.

Your road analogy is good, but as I made the claim, I will back it up with some links. I cite an historical case study, and a simulation.

I also cite pretty much every software patent lawsuit in history.

They don't give a shit about providing service, they just care about their balance sheet and whatever other company they can swallow.

I was about to say how you shouldn't be surprised, because U.S. public companies are required to seek to maximize profits.

But then I found this article, which seems to contradict that. Interesting.

Did you read your own link?

Regardless of the fact that "Happy Birthday to You" infringed upon Good Morning to All, there is one theory that because the "Happy Birthday to You" variation was not authored by the Hills, and it was published without notice of copyright under the 1909 U. S. copyright act, that the 1935 registration is invalid.

It's not really definitive evidence when the page itself says that it's possible that they don't own it. If you really want to understand the copyright status, you should read Robert Brauneis's article about it. He concludes that it isn't entirely clear that the Hill sisters wrote the Happy Birthday lyrics, that the 1935 publication of the song did not credit them as having written the song, and that no one properly renewed the copyright (as was required by the law at the time). As such, his conclusion is that the lyrics are currently in the public domain.

Go here and here for more info. I'm particularly interested in this survey commissioned by the Fed which shows that software patents showed a clear and strong tendency to substitute for R&D over the last 20 years.

It's actually somewhat of an inverted bell curve as skill goes. Both people very skilled and very unskilled at something tend to have high estimations of their ability.

AT&T has been involved with this dispute in the past. I recently wrote a paper on copyright law and one of the cases I cited was McKee v. AT&T Corp. WL 3932188 (Wash. 2008). The court listed the following terms in the contract as offensive: prohibition of class actions, mandatory arbitration, forced secrecy of arbitration results, no punitive damages, no attorneys fees, shortened statute of limitations, and acceptance of New York law. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had no meaningful choice because everyone should have access to phone service and there is rarely meaningful competition. Sounds familiar right?

(You can see my paper at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310 and jump to footnote 38 to read about the case in context.)

Oh, and IANAL-Y (yet, because I'm waiting to pass the two bar exams I just took)

They'd only get a lie in Case 1 if I had a reason to hide who I am.

"Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers"

"'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy".

It just makes things easier when they do have to verify your identity.

Why should they have to verify your ID? To make it easier to be tracked? If you're just walking alone there is no reason for you to identify yourself, it's only when you're suspected of committing a crime when you should id yourself. Any other tyme there is no reason to while out in public. The only other tyme you should have to ID yourself to a government servant is when you're in a government building or asking for something from the government.

Showing the ID to an officer (even if you don't have to) makes his job easier. Isn't that a good thing?

Why stop there? Why not just require RFID implants? That way they don't have to stop you and ask, they can just scan you. Apparently you are willing to give up liberty to feel safe but not me. Governments are the greatest threats to liberty, nothing beats the government in denying life and liberty.

To be honest, there are indeed downsides: You always have to remember carrying your ID, and if you are caught without it by a commonsenseless cop you'll be in trouble, but it is the same if you are caught driving without a driver's or vehicle document

A driver's license is needed to drive, but an ID is not needed to ride a bike, walk, run, or rollerblade. And I do all 4 without my ID. I only carry ID when I have to, occasionally I even mistakenly leave my license at home when I drive. The one tyme I was pulled over and didn't have my license I gave the officer my name and license number. He was able to use his radio and verify the info, he then let me go, with a warning to make sure I had my license.

Falcon

For anyone interested in reading an analysis of this case that actually sites precedent and contains legal arguments and not internet arguments I recommend reading the paper available at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310 If 40 pages and 150 footnotes is too much for you the cliff notes is available at http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/06/us-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-that-turnitins-fight-against-plagiarism-does-not-violate/ If clicking on links and reading articles is too much for you (and knowing this crowd this might apply to many of you) the bottom line is that the turnitin service is not a fair use (in my opinion). The contract the students signed should be unenforceable, treating students as guilty from the first day of class is wrong, and the potential for massive privacy violations is unavoidable.

Then you might like this other research about the word "fuck". In fact, that's the name of the article.

The claimed copyright is probably valid, but it applies to that printed edition of the work.

The study points out very effectively that copyright applies only to original works. So no, a copyright does not apply to "the printed edition" if what is printed is already in the public domain.

The public domain is a room with a one-way door. Once something's in the public domain, it's, well, public.

Course, that doesn't stop publishers from claiming they have the copyright, and even collecting fees. But legally, they have no right to do so.

And, as the study points out, there really is no legal recourse. Only the government can bring a case of copyright fraud. Private citizens have no standing in this instance.

So, the whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear" defense. What's your credit card number? Do you have curtains or blinds in your house/apartment? Let me check through your computer files, too. Gotta make sure you don't have any child porn on that machine. You don't have anything to hide, right?

Citation needed. Thanks.

Found it with a bit of googling around: The Framing of 'Piracy': Etymology, Lobbying & Policy gave me search terms to find some references. You can find them, too.

Thanks to the AC who said he found access to the paper via Google, I finally managed to read it again. It was available the whole time here but the download button does nothing but flash the abstract. You have to be awake to read the fine print that says "Click Location Below to Start Download". Then I just clicked the first of the 5 buttons and down came the pdf.

There was a brief reference to the Napster case in the paper, a citation in favour of the judge for giving credence to due process concerns about grossly excessive statutory damage awards in copyright cases.

To the AC and principal respondent of my first post who say that the judge is unlikely to be aware of "some obscure paper" to which I referenced, I would suggest that judges would be aware of the latest developments of thought on copyright law as much as we here on Slashdot would be aware of the latest developments in technology. Of course, that is just an assumption on my part, and I have no way of knowing that.

I would also like to point out a very interesting blog from two years ago that I just ran across that has direct bearing on the RealDVD Legal Battle. FAIR USE Act analysis: DMCA reform left on the cutting room floor"

Finally, I just want to say that in my opinion, RealNetworks deserves our support on this issue, as it is defending against an attack on fair use, and the outcome of this trial may end up redefining fair use for better or for worse.

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).

No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)

Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.

See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html

"Hot burglary"? Is that like a "hot cop"??

You link to some guy on a mailing list claiming that guns in the home decrease burglary rates, without any evidence.

But he's completely refuted by the next poster, blogger Tim Lambert, who brings evidence and an actual citation.

The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

It's interesting to read the article linked on Petit's blog, Cost Allocations and Copyright Orphans, which points out that orphan works are considered from the point of view of person wanting to obtain rights to a particular orphan work. Petit appears to believe that this is contrary to the definition of copyright, which primarily defines the rights of authors. I think it merely showcases the absurd distance from the intention of the U.S. constitution that Congress has taken copyright terms. A term of 95 years after the death of an author or an indefinite term in the case of corporate ownership of a copyright makes the legal "progress of science and useful arts" virtually impossible due to the potentially high cost of licensing orphan (or otherwise) works. The removal of the requirement for timely copyright renewal destroyed the only obvious path for users to obtain licenses to orphan works; it is ludicrous to require anyone to search through nearly a century worth of documents in order to track down a rights holder.

I think this case may prove to be a practical fix to the copyright laws; a recognition that the ultimate purpose of copyright is to promote society's progress in science and the arts and not to allow the creation of commercial empires of tangled and impenetrably complex rights at the expense of the general public. If only the legislature would see the light and just fix the problems on their own...

Privacy. It's your right whether you need/want it or not. Don't give yours away, and I'd appreciate you not giving mine away either.

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

And here's Professor Solove's essay on "I've got nothing to hide" and privacy.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Furthermore, what also never gets mentioned is the evolution "endgame". Only the fittest survive, will eventually result in the survival of a single species. We have no idea what type of species that will be, whether it might be us, or some other species. However, in the (very) long run evolution theory is quite clear : there can be only one.

Citation needed. I know evolution says only the most adaptable, fittest, or strongest specimens within a species are supposed to survive but can you point out where evolution says only one species will survive? That theory, that only the fittest survive, also overlooks some things. Such as mutual survival.

Furthermore economics 101 yields the trivial result that economic migration is a net-negative influence for both the country accepting the migrants *AND* the country losing it's people. The best economic migration policy is to outlaw migration alltogether, and only allow for tourism and business travel.

Citation needed again.

Since I asked for citations I'll provide some myself. Studies show Immigration Fuels Entrepreneurship. Immigrants are more likely to start their own businesses thus increasing employment which benefits everyone.

Falcon

I'm no fan of Mormonism, or Catholicism or Islam for that matter, all of which are backwards, right-wing religions, so I agree with most of your post.

But I don't really see what this particular dispute over trademarks has to do with Mormonism. Whether non-owners of a trademark paying for search results under those terms as keywords is, or ought to be, a violation of trademark law has been argued over in a number of states, and I don't see particularly clear religious faultlines in that debate. If supporting that position is somehow related to Mormonism, does that mean that eBay is run by Mormons?

At least in connecticut, this isn't true. See the study:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=704562

The obligatory pointer to an excellent work on this argument: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J. Solove Also discussed here a couple of years ago.

Daniel Solove's has quite the paper on it as well.

since 15th century, dutch speaking countries (low countries) have led the world in modern and visionary concepts, in areas ranging from humanism to trade. erasmus, spinoza and more. and now this ....

Actually, even if it's true that it's a modern way of considering file sharing, they are not the visionary leaders described here.

At least 2 existed :

• Nov 2007, a Canadian Government Commissioned Study
• Dec 2008, a Study led in Brittany (region of France)

both concluded that, the most common idea is that a file shared is a file that could have been bought, free file sharing doesn't impact file purchasing. Or more precisely : it doesn't kill file purchasing, it favours file purchasing.

Congress had no idea why spam was a problem and therefore did not draft legislation designed to address the problem. http://ssrn.com/abstract=487162 Instead, they took a shotgun approach of trying to legislate against a panoply of problems, which meant that the law was not designed to fix any single problem and therefore was not going to succeed even from day 1. Eric.

> Now Bruce is not making the later editions for free anymore.
> Why? I can only surmise that it did not work out. I once asked him and he said, "oh yeah that it was an interesting experiment."

There is another, IMO more valid explanation: Mr Eckel built up considerable fame for his books, despite being just one more reference in a forest of better presented and marketed than his own, because they were freely "pirateble".
Now once Mr Eckel had established his niche in the market and built the following to "sustainable numbers" - he could take his next versions all closed pay per read/traditional model and reap financial benefits - at least over the short term until the momentum of their original free-status popularity declines. Good on him, a viable strategy that may work in some cases, but it is defiantly in no way an indication against the benefits open-free model - which launched his books into the limelight in the first place.

This is not a new concept. One Reference of a few out there:

Competition Over Piratable Goods
July 2004
Abstract:
The effects of (private, small-scale) copying on the pricing behavior of producers of information goods are studied within a unified model of vertical diÂerentiation. Although information goods are assumed to be perfectly horizontally differentiated, demands are interdependent because the copying technology exhibits increasing returns to scale. We characterize the symmetric Nash equilibria of the pricing game played by n producers of information goods. We show thereby how the producersÂ' attitudes towards piracy are interdependent and evolve with the relative attractiveness of copies.

Keywords: Information goods, piracy, copyright, pricing

JEL Classifications: L13, L82, L86, K11, O34
Working Paper Series

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=882804

The tail refers to the increased sales of less popular products. If you have one seller selling the most popular n products, and another that sells all products, then the difference of total sales between the two can be larger than the total sales of the first. The reason it applies here is that Amazon can sell Monty Python (which, sadly to say, is not appreciated by all) while the average seller does not. Basically, Internet sellers can use the long tail effect to their advantage by having larger inventories at minimal cost.

The effect of this is that more products in the tail are available, and therefore more get sold. This paper shows that while traditionally the top 20% of most popular products capture 80% of the market, on the net it captures only 73%.

Those working in the public trust should familiarize themselves with proper responses to people who would willingly surrender their privacy because they think they've got nothing to hide. I found the following paper quite helpful:

"I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, by Daniel Solove.

Psychology studies of the effects of playing video games have found emotional responses and physical reactions associated with reinforced violent and anti-social attitudes. It is not clear, however, whether these markers are associated with increases in one's preferences for anti-social behaviors or whether virtual behaviors act to partially sate one's desire for actual antisocial behaviors. Violent or criminal behaviors in the virtual world and in the physical world could plausibly be either complements or substitutes. A finding of one versus the other would have diametrically opposing policy implications. I study the incidence of criminal activity as related to a proxy for increased gaming, the number of game stores, from a panel of US counties from 1994 to 2004. With fixed county and year effects, I can examine if changes relative increases in gaming in an area are associated with relative increases or decreases in criminal activity. For six of eight categories of crime, more game stores are associated with significant declines in crime rates. Proxies for other leisure activities, sports and movie viewing, do not have a similar effect. For confirmation, I also find that mortality rates, especially mortality rates stemming from injuries, also are negatively related to the number of game stores.

Video Games, Crime and Violence by Michael R. Ward, University of Texas at Arlington - Department of Economics

There is no epidemic of youth violence in America.

The whole concept is a lie manufactured, distributed and perpetuated by the media. Kids are not killing each other more frequently than they used to. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true.

CAUTION: Childen at Play - The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games

Overall results of the study found that although violent video games appear to increase people's aggressive thoughts (which it would not be surprising that people are still thinking about what they were just playing), violent games do not appear to increase aggressive behavior.

This as true for both correlational and experimental studies. Also it was found that studies that employed less standardized measures of aggression produced higher effects than better standardized measures of aggression. In other words, better measures of aggression are associated with lower effects.

Researcher Finds Scant Evidence Linking Violent Games With Aggressive Behavior

"It's a natural behavior and it's surprising that the idea that children and adolescents learn aggression from the media is still relevant," says Richard Tremblay, a professor of pediatrics, psychiatry and psychology at the University of Montreal, who has spent more than two decades tracking 35,000 Canadian children (from age five months through their 20s) in search of the roots of physical aggression. "Clearly youth were violent before television appeared."

Taming Baby Rage: Why Are Some Kids So Angry?

The BBFC has accepted there is no proven link between anti-social behaviour and violent videogames - but said more research is required to conclusively rule any connection out.

No evidence connecting games and violence, says BBFC News

The "World Bank" is neither a 'world' institution, nor is it a Bank.

the World Bank has a corrupting influence over those in the rich world, especially the U.S. government, who have tended to use the Bank as a tool of "diplomacy by other means". Bribery, in short. Oh, nobody calls it that in polite society, but that is most assuredly what it is. It must be extremely expedient for Western governments to punish recalcitrant governments in the developing world by withholding World Bank and IMF "assistance"; and conversely reward compliant ones.

http://www.zambia.co.zm/articles/world_bank.html

The World Bank is a prestigious and large international financial institution. Since its foundation it has widened the scope and the size of its activities. One interpretation of what the World Bank is doing is the provision of public goods. If we take this interpretation seriously the comprehensiveness of the Bank's activity suggests that the Bank is assuming more and more the functions of a world government in the making. An alternative interpretation would look at the World Bank as a huge bureaucratic organization, acting on its own behalf. This interpretation can not be endorsed fully by the available information, but only in the sense of bureau-shaping. The Bank itself is proud of being a knowledge bank. But its actual activity is the popularization of ideas on development and not the application of research outcomes in its day-to-day operations. The most appropriate interpretation of the activity of the World Bank is that its changing scope and size is shaped heavily by pressure from different interest groups.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588648

The "I have nothing to hide" argument has been covered at great length by Daniel Solove (great read, by the way).

How do you know your lawful activities will always be lawful? Every time I see someone react with "I'm not a criminal" fallacy, all I can think of is the question "Are you now, or have you ever been associated with a member of the Muslim faith?" We're not far away from a witch hunt of that flavor.

Even putting aside the threat of zealous elected officials with grocery lists, not all of your private information is fit for public consumption. Taken in the wrong context, almost any information about you can be used against you. Have you paid for a bar tab with a credit card? Through a certain lens, you could be painted as a raging drunk. Sure, there could be hundreds of valid explanations, but chances are you won't be present or able to defend yourself.

I trust the corporations even less. When the only risk that an entity must seriously consider is a possible monetary settlement, then the odds of your best interests being taken seriously are nil. Remember that.

A Finnish court ruling probably doesn't apply in the US.

SCOTUS has in the recent past cited decisions from international courts in their own decisions and dissents (with some controversy). A quick google search turned up this one - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700176. But, as a practical matter, Finnish court rulings don't have much weight in the US.

this paper is worth reading. (Here too.) ("I've Got Nothing To Hide" and other Misunderstandings of Privacy, by Daniel Solove).

This is a great point, and it is a pity it is being modded "funny" rather then insightful.

Even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government, and thus they can collect what they will on you, they will loose that information.

And you don't want scammers, fraudsters, identity miss-users and other people to get hold of that information.

So even if you think you have nothing to hide from the government (the people whom you should trust the least (next to corporations) out of society), you certainly wouldn't be handing over this information to your friendly neighbourhood Mafia.

(Oh, and you certainly do have something to hide from the government. Even if it is the fact that you sometimes speed or jaywalk.
In this comment I made the point about nothing to hide, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=645245&cid=24591399 and linked to this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 paper. Read it.)

But Powell worried about other instances where property owners might be compelled to let others express opinions the owner did not share. "I do not interpret our decision today as a blanket approval for state efforts to transform privately owned commercial property into public forums. Any such state action would raise substantial federal constitutional questions not present in this case."

There is a difference between handing out pamphlets and collecting signatures in a courtyard as opposed to at the entrance of a specific shop.

In addition this paper rips that ruling to shreds. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105604

Myth: H1-Bs are the "best and brightest"

Reality: If that were true then the typical H1-B would a Nobel prize winning scientist. The truth is, the typical H1-B is an average student, hired right out of college with only a four year degree. The typical H1-B is no more qualified than the US graduates who are not getting jobs. The H1-Bs are just cheaper. And because of the lottery nature of the H1-B process, employers do not even know who they are getting. So how do employers know that they are getting the best and brightest?

Also, isn't it funny that almost all of the "best and brightest" come from countries where people earn as little as $1 a day? If it's really about the "best and brightest" then why aren't there more European H1-Bs?

---

Myth: H1-Bs are needed because of the critical shortage of US technology workers

Reality: Serious academic studies clearly indicate that skills shortage is a myth.

> These studies done at Duke aren't alone in their assessment that there is in fact no skills shortage. They're backed up by other studies conducted by RAND Corporation, The Urban Institute and Stanford University, among others, all of which settle upon the same conclusion: There is no shortage of educated IT workers.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081923#PaperDownload

This according to a well researched article at baselinemag.com:

http://tinyurl.com/yoy2rw

---

Myth: H1-Bs do compete unfairly, because H1-Bs are paid the prevailing wage

Reality:

> According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) as the measurement of U.S. wages, and the H-1B LCA disclosure data to measure H-1B wages, 90% of H-1B employers' prevailing wage claims for programmers were below the median U.S. wage for that occupation and location, with 62% of them falling in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages, said Miano [founder of the Programmer's Guild].

> Ron Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology (currently on leave) and a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, pointed to USCIS's most recent report to Congress, which shows that the medium wage in 2005 for new H-1B computing professionals was just $50,000 -- even lower than the entry-level wages that a newly graduated tech worker with a bachelor's degree and no experience would command.

http://tinyurl.com/4bvwyh

According to the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service's (USCIS) annual report to Congress in 2005, the aggregate data for computing professionals lend support to the argument that the practice of paying H-1Bs below-market wages is quite common.

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp187.html

H1-Bs are hired at four different skill levels, "4" being the highest. But most H1-Bs are hired for the lowest "1" level jobs - regardless of what kind of work the H1-Bs actually do.

---

Myth: In the USA enrollment in technical disciplines is declining. Proof the USA needs to hire more foreign workers

Reality: This myth is designed to confuse cause and effect. Employers are not forced to hire offshore because enrollment is down. Rather, enrollment is down because of aggressive offshoring by employers. But even with enrollments down, there are still more than enough US workers.

> Due to both outsourcing and insourcing, many young people are concluding that technology is a bad place to invest their time," said Mark Thoma, a professor of economics at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

http://tinyurl.com/4bvwyh

---

Myth: Critics of the H1-B program are xenophobic

Reality: This "argument" is nothing but name calling. These allegations are offered without any s

So you don't mind me watching you have sex (wait an anonymous coward posting shit on Slashdot, you don't have sex)? Masturbate? Bathe? Shit?

How about we set you up in a glass cage for a week in the middle of (say) Times Square?

Or, how about you read this article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 linked to by another Slashdotter at one time. You have to register to download it, but a fake email address works just as well.

But more to the point, you have got something to hide, everybody does. Who hasn't broken the law at one stage or another? Speeding? Jaywalked? Partaken of some illicit substance? Blasphemed? (You know why Mary was a virgin? She only had anal sex.) You get the idea, everyone is guilty of something, and that means everyone has something to hide from the government.

There was an interesting study recently published on word processor interoperability. Here's a link to the abstact.. A download link for the full paper is there.

They found serious interoperability issues among open source programs, and serious interoperability issues among closed source programs. The best interoperability was between OpenOffice an MS Office, ironically.

This study tested two things. One test was to make a basic ODF word processing document in OpenOffice, and then check how well other programs (free and non-free) could handle that document. The other test was similar, but using an OOXML document generated by Word 2007.

Here is the conclusion from the paper:

This study sought to investigate interoperability for various implementations of ODF and OOXML. After all, to receive the perceived economic and technological benefits, there is a need for multiple independent, interoperable implementations. The results clearly indicate that both ODF and OOXML implementations need to improve interoperability.

This study only tested a small subset, basic word processing features, of what is needed for multiple interoperable implementations. Additionally, this test did not consider the writing performance of implementations, only the read or import function was tested. Nevertheless, the only implementations of ODF that provided good compatibility with OpenOffice were the Microsoft Office plug-ins. Similarly, the only implementation of OOXML that can provide good compatibility with Microsoft Office 2007 was OpenOffice with the Novell plug-in. A number of other implementations of ODF and OOXML such as Wordperfect, Google Docs, and KOffice lacked good compatibility.

It is surprising and ironic that the best implementations of ODF are when using Microsoft Office. Similarly, the best implementation of OOXML is OpenOffice. (Pages provided similar results but lacks the ability to write OOXML, a needed feature for an interoperable implementation.) The domination of Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is especially troubling for users of other operating systems, such as Mac OS and Linux. These users do not have a choice when using ODF or OOXML. The results here show that developers need to work together to improve this situation.

Our results show that while the best implementations may result in formatting problems, the worst implementations actually lose information found in pictures, footnotes, comments, tracking changes, and tables.

Supporters of both ODF and OOXML have suggested improved conformance and interoperability testing, there has been little progress on this front. Governments and other interested organizations need to encourage this testing. Without more pressure and funding for testing, the promise of ODF and OOXML will be lost. Instead, users of these standards will be locked into the dominant implementations of OpenOffice for ODF and Microsoft Office for OOXML.

There is still much research and testing to be done. Each of these implementations is continually being improved and needs to be continually reassessed. Future research needs to expand the tests to spreadsheets and presentations. Research also needs to test both reading and writing documents to determine if features such as styles and tracking comments are working properly. This work serves as a first step in providing empirical data on interoperability for ODF and OOXML. It is hoped that this will serve as a wake-up call to governments and developers to improve the current state of interoperability for document formats.

I like the link on the right: people who read also read:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896790&rec=1&srcabs=998565

This is a brilliant paper that sums it all up. It was posted on ./ a few years back, couldn't find the ./ story but I did find the paper:

I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy

The Washington law professor mentioned in this article, should be familiar to /. users from a previous work of his: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"

5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

It Depends.

If you're being poisoned by air pollution, it's $6.1 million dollars (down from $8 million in 2000) but if a company is dumping poison in your water supply, it's $8.8 million dollars. If you need to know how much more to pay for little rubber caps to make your Pinto not explode, the DoT suggests $5.8 million, but starting this year wants everyone to analyze their work at $3.2 and $8.4 million, just to be sure. $5.8 million is also used by the FAA.

Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.[emphasis mine]

Anyone have a link to the actual study? I've found all sorts of people pontificating on whether it's done right or even the right thing to do, but not the study itself. I'm interested in knowing whether these "various" risky jobs included illegal immigrants in jobs like meatpacking or whether certain very dangerous and well-paying jobs were left out (surely an accidental oversight), similar to how energy and food costs are too "volatile" (read: embarrassing) to consider in inflation.

The Wii has been become the most popoular console in the US (here [slashdot.org]) Based on these facts, of course an US court will rule in favour of a US company as the result will make the country profit from an overseas competitor like Nintendo.

"Of course"? I think that's an unfair accusation of bias, especially considering that US courts routinely rule against domestic corporations in favor of foreign ones. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that foreign parties win more often in US courts than domestic parties. Another researcher found that in patent jury trials specifically domestic parties had an advantage, but even there she never implied that it was inevitable, and the first paper suggests several flaws in her analysis.

The Wii has been become the most popoular console in the US (here [slashdot.org]) Based on these facts, of course an US court will rule in favour of a US company as the result will make the country profit from an overseas competitor like Nintendo.

"Of course"? I think that's an unfair accusation of bias, especially considering that US courts routinely rule against domestic corporations in favor of foreign ones. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that foreign parties win more often in US courts than domestic parties. Another researcher found that in patent jury trials specifically domestic parties had an advantage, but even there she never implied that it was inevitable, and the first paper suggests several flaws in her analysis.

Please note: that bls statistic only refers to the demand side of the equation. To see the whole picture, you also have to consider the supply side. India has 4X the US population, and India alone is cranking out 495,000 BSCS graduates every year.

Furthermore, according the BLS:

"As with other information technology jobs, outsourcing of software development to other countries may temper somewhat employment growth of computer software engineers. Firms may look to cut costs by shifting operations to foreign countries with lower prevailing wages and highly educated workers."

Also, I have to wonder where the BLS gets it's information:

"According to Robert Half Technology, starting salaries for software engineers in software development ranged from $66,500 to $99,750 in 2007. For network engineers, starting salaries ranged from $65,750 to $90,250."

Robert Half! Asking Robert Half if it's a good time to go into IT is like asking Century 21 if it's a good to sell your home.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm

Here are some more numbers:

"H-1B Visa Numbers: No Relationship with Economic Need"

According to a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies: the number of H-1B visas approved in the computers and engineering fields greatly exceeds any reasonable number reflected by economic demand.

http://www.cis.org/node/222

"High Tech Industry Laying Off American Workers While Seeking Huge Increase in Guest Workers"

"Currently, the Department of Labor estimates that there are about 656,000 unemployed IT workers in the U.S. In addition, the slowing economy has led to a loss of jobs across the board including in IT. The Denver-based Rocky Mountain News reports that Colorado -- the state with the third highest concentration of IT workers -- has lost 47,200 technology jobs since 2001."

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_may08nl02

Gains in US high tech employment more than offset by off-shore worker visas

"According to the AeA Cyberstates yearly reports, "High Tech" employment experienced job losses of 945,000 in the 2001 recession. Since this drop in employment, the "High Tech" sector has recovered about 300,000 jobs, but during the period in question, a probable 669,681 H-1B and L-1 computer-related workers were added to the workforce."

http://tinyurl.com/3pj2c3

IT job security plummets five times faster than nationwide average

"Job security for IT professionals plummeted more than 10% from January to February of this year, far surpassing the average job security declines seen nationwide in a rigorous analysis of U.S. employment patterns."

http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/edu/2008/033108ed1.html

Studies Indicate IT Labor Shortage is a Myth

"These studies done at Duke aren't alone in their assessment that there is in fact no skills shortage. They're backed up by other studies conducted by RAND Corporation, The Urban Institute and Stanford University, among others, all of which settle upon the same conclusion: There is no shortage of educated IT workers."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081923#PaperDownload

This according to a well researched article at baselinemag.com:

http://tinyurl.com/yoy2rw