Slashdot Mirror
Status Report On Key Internet Legislation
HardLogic writes: "Business 2.0 is running descriptions and status updates on five key high-tech bills that are currently before Congress, including the 'PNTR for China bill,' 'American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act,' 'Internet Nondiscrimination Act,' two broadband bills, and the 'Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act.'" It's nice to see that legislation doesn't all fall into the grey and hazy zone after the initial public furor, too.
The spam bill needs to be totally revamped. There is no reason why I should have to endure spam. It's a completely avoidable thing.
What the Bill Proposes: This bill attempts to curtail unsolicited email by requiring senders to have a valid reply address and to stop sending email if a recipient requests it. Internet service providers would also be able to enforce their own spam policies under federal law.
What this is saying, is that I have to first be the target of spam, before I can request not to be the target of spam. And I have to make this request of each and every spammer. Why not have a law that says, in order for people to stop slashing your tires and busting your windshields, you have to ask them to stop?.
Obstacles to Passage: Few. Only one member of Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, voted against this bill in the House, and no vocal opponents have emerged in the Senate.
Is he opposed because he knows it's a lame bill and wants to see something stronger? If that's the case, then I say more power to him. What's his reasoning behind this?
Although the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) isn't crazy about this legislation, Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs Jerry Cerasale says that, for the most part, the bill sets standards already adhered to by DMA members, such as clearly identifying the sender and letting recipients get off the mailing lists.
If they have a right to store their files on my computer, I should have the right to charge them for use of my equipment. They should put that into the bill and see how quickly the whole spam issue fades away when hundreds of thousands of people charge them for storage space. Don't forget the processing fee to remove the spam when they so request it.
--
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were among the most productive nations in the history of humanity,
True if you're comparing them to all nations in all of history; false if you're comparing them to the democratic states in the same years. Both the Nazis and the Communists were horribly inefficient at everything except killing civilians.
Steven E. Ehrbar
H1B visas are protectionist. If I quit my job, I don't get thrown out of the country; why should that be the situation for my co-worker? Increase green cards for skilled workers, don't shackle them with H1B visas
Agreed, but not letting them in at all is worse, since it's easier to get permanent resident status while an H1B than when you're overseas. Politics is the art of the possible; if you can get them in at all, it's better than denying them the choice.
Steven E. Ehrbar
---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Yes, I agree [real] deregulation is not the cause of California's woes. However, I didn't wish to get involved in this, because I knew the poster would jump all over it.
If they want to inspire entreprenuership [which they need to if they want to compete], they need to give their citizens certain gaurantees. They can't very easily put a gun to someone's head and tell them to innovate. Likewise, you can't put a gun to the entire countries head to tell them to produce at the level of modern day US; every communist system has learned the hardway that they're woefully unproductive. Merely exporting their products is not going to solve their ills. It requires fundamental changes.
Please do tell.
What have your attentive eyes done for the Chinese thus far? Even if you don't believe trade itself will help, it gives us far more leverage than your "eyes". Even if you believe that leverage to be worthless, I find it hard to believe that it's going to make things worse for the Chinese.
Yes, If it were my choice I'd give them all green cards. However, it's not my choice. Nor is it these corporations' choice. The only thing they're able to push through is a couple H1B visas a year. Unfortunately, there is far too much resistence in this country from labor, various liberal movements, and the like. Unlike the rest of the developed world, it seems the only people we're willing to admit in quantity are so-called political refugees. Irregardless of whether they're able to pull their own weight or not. It's just plain stupid, and does nothing to help us economically.
Frankly, I don't think the US has any business importing more problems when we have enough here in our ghettos and rural America. These highly educated H1B workers, on the other hand, can and do contribute significantly to our economy on the aggregate. We should encourage it, whether through the H1B Visa or Greencards [preferred]. It helps them, and it helps us.
Put it this way, while Nazi Germany had to organize a huge police state and hire and bribe thugs, the United States made use of virtually every able bodied man and women. You simply can't put a gun to someone's head to make them produce more to account for that shortfall, it simply doesn't work [in fact, it's been shown they produced less]. Sick and depressed people don't produce.
Simple mathematics. Even if they were lower paid [which they're not], they're less than 1/10th the workforce. They could only drive down wages for US workers so much. Anyways, the fact is they're not. IT salaries have only been consistently rising relative to inflation and other professional jobs.
You are so full of it. They're paid more than most people in IT. When all it said and done, the vast majority of America would still kill for their jobs.
No, I happen to have been involved in the high tech industry for years. I know many entreprenuers who are hurting for want of qualified technical workers [both IT and engineering].
No, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know the first thing about running a company. No startup can afford the time and the resources to train someone who lacks 4+ years of advanced college education when they need a key project done today. What's more, turnover is a real issue for most of these companies. Employment law is most states is setup such that the employee can walk whenever he or she chooses [or rather, when that employee is offered another job]. So even assuming you could train the employee for 4 years, or whatever, you have absolutely no guarantee you'll reap the rewards. If anything, it is the company that trains the employee that is least capable of matching job offers. They poor half a million dollars per head down the drain, and now they've got to match an offer... Also, I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical if a 25 year old who's spent the last 10 years of his live watching MTV is going to be able to learn the requisite math skills that most college educated foreigners got before they even reached college age.
You know, it's funny, you so-called liberals demonstrate some of the most overt racism. You assume that because these people don't come from the United States, they're comparable to an unskilled/poorly payed Mexican worker. It's just BS. Most of these people are better educated than most of the IT workforce. What's more, they're far more aware of the United States than you give them credit for. I bet you that most of them know more about US politics than you yourself know, not to mention international politics. You think they don't talk to each other? Most of them communicate back home, they know full well the situation when they come here. Also, since H1Bs are in such high demand, there is a little thing called competition...perhaps you've heard of it. H1Bs are highly valuable, and there is lots of salary competition amongst employeers.
Anyways, your whole plug on Mexico indicates to me that this is misguided protectionism, not concern for them.
No, bullshit again. IT is growing overseas. More and more companies are farming IT out, but that's not even what i'm talking about. I'm talking about foreign companies or MNCs simply moving their entire R&D operation oversees. If anything, unlike manufacturing, IT is EASILY moved oversees. The only thing they need to export to the United States is code. Compare this with a manufacturing operation: An expensive manufacturing facility. Roads, wiring, etc have to be built too. Raw materials have to be acquired, which is much harder than you might think. You simply don't have a clue about this.
No, you're don't understand. The savings would not come so much in the form of direct savings in production costs; they already play a very minor role in the costs of a mainstream shrinkwrapped software package. What it will save, however, will be the initial outlay costs that discourage so many startups in this country. That would in turn encourage more competition. Competition could very easily cause prices to fall. The reason MS and company can charge the same prices while their costs remain relatively constant is because they can, they lack competition.
If anything, I fear the day when Europe and Asia get their capital markets in better order and start to remove some of the barriers to trade. That's been their primary inhibitor, not want to skilled and trained minds. Startups there can't find the capital that they need. Most of it is tied up by centralized banks or government. And if they do, they face all kinds of silly regulations.
I'm sorry, do you have a Phd in Economics? No? I didnt think so. There are plenty of highly respected economists who would disagree with you, but that's besides the point. This is not reagonomics in the least, and if you think it is, you don't understand diddly.
amen
Can your IM do this?
Can your IM do this?
Your post set off my bullshit alarm
This is an excellent attempt at American bashing, but unfortunatly it is not true. This bill is a legitimate attempt to bring in more highly skilled IT workers. H-1B visas are designed for highly skilled workers, usually with special education and experience requirements. These workers usually go to the US from first world countries in order to get the jobs with the best pay and benfits.
Being from Canada, I would say the greatest problem with this bill is that with more spots open it will be easier to get into the US. This can lead to or increase the 'brain drain' in countries such as Canada and Austrailia. Whether this is a problem for these countries is yet to be seen, but like doctors, it can not be a good thing to have the top IT grads leaving the country.
...for lifting that submission off my site verbatim without crediting the person who wrote the words (aka me).
Not the world's biggest deal, but it would have been a nice gesture...
--
Well I shouldn't really need to, since there is realms of empirical evidence showing the benefits of deregulation over the past 3 decades. If you studied economics even modestly, you'd be familiar with them. However, here is one link: The Economist on Deregulation They are arguably one of the most reasonable and respected sources on matters of this nature.
Oh really where? Ok they say there are X many companies in markets Y, Y, and Z. But very little discussion about the actual rate hikes. The only market that they bring up hard facts in, is in the worst market, pre-paid phone service. These tend to be the same people that have been proven to be uncredit worthy. Given the extent of previous regulation, it is more than likely that this just more reflective of the actual costs [though I think they're still capped].
No where is there any mention that bills have risen on the aggregate, nor do they deny that they've fallen.
See above.
See above.
Uh no. You obviously lack even the most basic comprehension of what market capitalization is. It does not mean the company has even 1/10 that in assets, never mind cash. Market capitalization is simply the markets current percieved value per share multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. 9/10th of the businesses on NASDAQ today would have to fold if they had to produce even 1/10 that figure, they simply don't have the cash flows.
That being said, I'm sure Qwest can spare a "few thousand", but it's got absolutely nothing to do with their market capitalization [well nothing concrete]. I'm also sure you'd be the first to criticize them if they found out they did such a thing. Hell, you probably assert that this deregulation thing is the direct result of their own lobbying, not the peoples. [Never mind the fact that MOST lobbied against it, because they had a monopoly before. The utilities have long been seen as being cash cows. That is changing today, because they now are facing competition.]
The French have consistently had some of the most socialized and protectionist politics in Europe, and they've had broad support at that. From labor, to high tarrifs, to protectionism, to excessive regulation.... They've been paying for it for a couple decades now. Just look. Now they're starting to make something of a turnaround, but it's no small coincidence that this is coming about in areas where they're converting to a more free market based system.
Erm... any chance you can format your posts a bit better in the future?
Once again, it's time to plug my Web page.
Don't worry about it. As long as it's for a good cause, and your page is not full of banner it's all welcome.
Now, while it's important to write your congressperson when a bad bill is approaching, I think we should also write showing our support of these bills. At worst you might get ignored, but given how much negative push we give the lawmakers, writing lettings that let them know that us, the consumers and users of the internet, are strongly in favor of said bills is very important.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The Businesses Own Everything Act of 2000
The Screw Your Privacy Act of 1999
I Know What You Bought Last Summer Act of 2000
Protection of Children From RealWorld Act of 2001
...
--
The name of this one sent up my bullshit alarm right away.
From the article:
" One of the most pressing problems facing the Internet is the shortage of high-skilled workers. And since those workers can be found abroad, many high-tech companies are desperate to see Congress pass legislation that issues more special permits,or H-1B visas, so they can bring those workers to the United States. "
This a huuuuge load of BS. American companies want cheap labor to bring over indenured servants who spend 14 hours a day in their cubicle pounding it out for the man. Sacraficing their one and only youth in order not to be deported.
There is no IT labor shortage. There's a lack of cheap IT labor.
The bill to that needs to pass is one that creates better comsumer protection from companies trying to use the DMCA to limit consumer choices.
China has a nasty habit of starting up bulldozers and mowing down people who think freely. Why are we, a allegedly democratic part-of-the-free-world country supporting this?
American Competitiveness...- fuck-them-over act? There is no shortage of tech workers. There's a shortage of tech workers who'll work 60 hour workweeks for pisspoor wages. Geeks need to unionize
Oh, you mean the we're-paying-those-bastard-techs-too-much-so-lets
Internet Nondiscrimination Act
Oh, who cares if they don't legislate federal taxes on the 'net this year? The states are already doing it. I guess this *might* be an OK bill, watch for riders to be inserted at the last minute
Broadband something-something act
Steal from both Paul and Peter and deploy high speed internet, then the government "deregulates" and they jack up their prices. So we get a double-whammy - we pay increased taxes (and taxes never go DOWN) to deploy net access in an area not fit to support it and then the people who are in that area, due to having little/no competition have their prices jacked through the roof. Joy!
UCE Act /dev/null, and in a week or two, trash the domain and sell it on the "Network Solutions Auction Block" and go buy another. Yeah! Go congress.
Woo-hoo, let's just make it so people who send UCE have to have a valid e-mail addy. That'll, uhh, do nothing - domain names cost, what, $10 bucks now? Just use one up, direct the flames to
--
Here's a novel idea: why not let people cross borders freely and work wherever they want?
--
Does anyone not see a reason to just attach an admendment to the infamous 'US Code Title 47 Section 227'? ... In case you been in the dark for a long time, this is the measure to stop/prevent fax-spamming.
..Er...Well, put in any type of line (Or lack there of, eg: wireless)...
Let me take an important clip here:
2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
As far as I can figure from reading the act, that's basicly the only section that would need to be changed. I think it would just need to expressly say computers and/or any electronic form of communication. Also kill off that 'regular telephone lines' and
If anyone read this act, what are your opinions in just shaping that to make spam illegal...Now.. Not in 5 years.
Hell, I'd like to sue the sender for 500$ per transmission. The only part I really don't care for, is you need to tell them to stop sending the stuff to you. Faxing, that could be pretty easy, but ususally sending a 'remove' to a spammer magicly gets you on a 100 more lists. I'm pretty sure some bright people (Note, I didn't say politicions. I think they lack that 'bright' edge..=]) could come up with a wording that would make email users happy, and spammers scared.
Then again, in this day in age where everyone sues a company making a product, not the person mis-using it. Maybe we should just sue the people who make mass-mailing programs? =]
>Because there is a rational belief that as China
>moves into the 21st century, the government and
>the people will have to change. Dictatorships
>don't foster productivity, nor does socialism.
Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were among the most productive nations in the history of humanity, and look at their human rights record. Modern China is no different.
A simple way to see whether or not US politicians are listening to humans rights crusaders or to their stockbrokers is whether or not they would treat China exactly the same as they have treated other states with questionable human rights records (Read: ass-reaming their own citizens so their leaders stay in power.). Oh, sorry, I forgot. China has a billion potential consumers of foreign goods. How convenient to claim that selling them more crap is going to bring about democracy. Maybe we should try that out on a smaller nation, such as Cuba, before tackling big China, hmm? What'll it be, folks, human rights or dollars?
Heavens to betsy, there's discrimination on the internet!?!? Hurry up and pass this bill! Oh, this is about internet sales taxes? There should be criminal penalties for the way lawmakers name these p.o.s. bills. Really, they should just give me a guillotine let me have at it every year when the Congressional session ends. Then there'd be some changes, boy I tell you.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Uh, no. By all reliable and empirical measures, the United States was vastly more productive than either of them in their day. In fact, if you knew your history, you would understand that one of the chief reasons why the United States played such a key role in winning WWII was because of our vastly more efficient military/industrial complex. Put simply, we were able to produce and deliver more armor, more ammunition, more planes, and more ships than them when the need arose. Likewise, the USSR did virtually nothing technologically for 50 years. This is the same country that had to beg the United States to send grain, even though they possessed more arrable land. More efficient? How? Do tell.
As for China, I have been looking for some time. Evidently, I'm looking harder than you, for I can see past the occasional crackdown [not saying this is the only issue, but it is the one most frequently raised] on various social groups in China and recognize a broader trend. If anything, I see these reports of oppression being as evidence that things really are changing socially [though not as fast as some would like]--they're growing pains--no matter how inhumane they are. What we are seeing is a growing conflict between liberal/western ideas and an increasingly embattled conservative/socialist wing. Years before China wouldn't have even seen the profileration of groups like Falun Gong. Never mind an active protest against the government. If they hadn't liberalized their own media to some degree and allowed western media increased access to China we certainly would have never heard of these protests.
China's problem is that they can't very well contain social unrest and compete globally. They will need to continue down their path, that of increased liberalization. Despite your assertions, it takes more than slavery to compete against the United States. Sure, they can perform some basic manufacturing and agricultural functions, but modern economics involves a lot more than that.
PS: I don't profit from China's globalization one cent, yet I believe firmly in sensible globalization. In fact, I bet you that within the next 10 to 15 years that China becomes a major economic player, on par with Japan in the 80s, with vastly improved social justice to boot.
Ron Paul is widely known in the House as "Dr. No", because he is often the lone dissenting vote.
He's extremely hardcore about following the Constitution to the letter, and refuses to endorse any federal legislation that isn't authorized by the Constitution, which says that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the individual states and/or the people.
He was the lone No vote on a bill authorizing a gold medal for the Pope... and wrote a letter to the Pope explaining that he didn't vote against it because he didn't think the Pope deserved it, but because it was not an expenditure authorized by the Constitution. The Pope wrote him a nice letter back saying he understood his reasoning and appreciated his letter.
Paul sometimes ticks people off by going against the grain, but I for one am glad to have him in Congress. The rest of our legislators pay almost no attention to the Constitution anymore. It carries very little weight whatsoever these days, and I think it's a damn shame.
His web site is at http://www.house.gov/paul/.
Check out some of his sponsored legislation, speeches and weekly columns and you'll get a better idea of why he votes the way he does. You'll also find that he is a tireless defender of privacy and free speech, and often speaks out against the War on Drugs.
--
For one, we still import significantly more from the rest of Asia than we do from China. Secondly, virtually none of those industries are run under their traditional socialist enterprise system. Quite the contrary, they're the result of foreign investments and/or entreprenerial efforts that the government is trying to foster. Thirdly, Chinese labor is cheaper than it is in the United States. But before you go, "Ah Hah", that is only because the United States passed out of that stage long ago. We are still economically light years ahead of China. It is still in China's ultimate best interest to follow our lead. Thus, they will have to abandon their old ways if they wish to progress--the people will demand it.
Right "slaves", who would rather stay where they are then go back to where they were. Highly paid "slaves" nonetheless. Are you going to tell me that the H1B worker is too stupid to recognize his supposedly worse situation? It's just ridiculous. Claim it has a negative impact on you if you want. Claim it's less ideal that a Green Card. But don't claim your interest is them, it simply doesn't compute.
Hah, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You open it up every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week here on slashdot. I've heard your position on virtually everything on slashdot more than I care to admit.
Yes, bring Hitler into the argument, maybe that'll scare me away. If I persist, maybe you can even compare me with Hitler....Hitler's supporters were generally not his victims, and they certainly were not active supporters at the time of their victimization. Compare this with H1Bs: They can vote with their feet whenever they want, and even get reimbursed for their troubles.
The reason H1B visas are necessary in the first place is because the immigration system is so messed up in this country. We have far and away the most liberal policies overall of any developed nation in the world. Here we tend to admit only the most persecuted and backwards people; this hardly helps business. Business isn't lobbying against citizenship; it's lobbying for qualified employees. Unfortunately, the only way they can get them is with this less than optimal solution.
And your point is? Why don't you try addressing my arguments directly.
Hah, well it aint on most people's. Perhaps you should try moving to France or something, they seem to be much more inline with your politics.
First, thank you for providing a link that requires a subscription to view.
So, when you are having an argument with someone and the other person backs up his view with a URL, it is not acceptable unless subscription is not required.
Any other preferences? Should the Web Server be running Debian GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? Does it *have* to be Apache too?
thank you
Email me if you want to continue this discussion.
Suffice it to say that I disagree with almost everything you said and find the illogical extremes of your faith in progress laughable, and can back it up with an argument on purely logical, nonideological grounds.
Except when you say that corporations often act in the public interest (employing people, lobbying for H1B visas). Yes, corporations do a huge amount of good, and versus the current situation more H1B's is good. Yet their interests (more H1B's) are not identical to the public interest (more green cards). Even when the two lie in the same direction, it's important not to forget that, as your earlier statement that "H1B's are all that corporations can acheive" clearly did.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Economics was hardly revolutionized 30 years ago. In any event, the best part of economics, that of studying cause and effect (or correlation if you will), has been around since day 1. Though you might be able to always argue to some extent that deregulation's apparent benefit is just random chance in every instant, you could also argue that for hundreds of other well established principles. Hell, there is even a lady in San Francisco that claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Well your experience runs contrary to the bulk of the evidence. You could easily be in one of those markets were they were previously operating above cost. I can tell you for sure that both the UK and the state of PA, for instance, have saved billions (individually) in power savings. There is quite a difference between the two statements.
Well besides the fact that even bringing it up indicates a little ignorance, I'd still assert it's just plain stupid to bring up. It'd be like my claiming the Chinese are happy people because I saw a picture some Chinese market the other day and people were smiling. Sure, you can always argue there is a correlation between an instant of someone smiling and the rest of the population being happy, but that doesn't make it a particularly relevent fact.
In any event, partial deregulation != deregulation, so check out your state's laws.
Well financially speaking, I can tell you that most of the deregulated utilities have taken a beating. Before deregulation, when most had a monopoly, most investors could count on a very safe 10% return, no longer....
What is the "that" that you refer to? The consequences? Or the politics? In any event, the French have been flirting with such politics for at least a century now. As for the "consequences", I'd argue that the UK actually took as great of an economic hit, and they're light years ahead of France economically now. Similarly, West Germany was devasted by WWII [probably the worst], and they've totally outperformed the French. Or even the Japanese....When you hear of the extent of French regulation it really is no wonder why they've fallen behind. Simiarly, as some of those barriers have come down, dramatic benefits have been had in those same areas.
Those of you who posted that there really isn't a shortage of high-tech workers are absolutely right. I live in an area with a concentration of high-tech companies (the Silicon Forest) and my roommate, who has several years of tech support experience, has been unable to find a job over the last 18 months.
Why? It's not that she's not qualified. It's that she's 41, black, female, and has some experience. A former coworker of mine is also in her forties, and she also had trouble finding work.. and when she did, it was at an extrememly low salary.
A shortage of high-tech workers??!! Hardly!!! There is a shortage of inexperienced college graduates who they can hire for $20,000 a year and burn out.. to be replaced by another disposable employee.
Now is the time we need to get out there and either show support or opposition to these bills. I don't have major problems with any of them (Well, except for one...), and any qualms I may have are minor.
The bill regarding H1-B visas is likely to be the trickiest to pass, and not only because of the silly additional rider that the Dems seem to want to tack onto it. There is obviously a sore lack of IT professionals in many places in the US (notably in the Washington DC area, of all places) and they need to be filled. We can debate about the merits of training new professionals and focusing high school students on these careers, but that doesn't fix the problem now. this bill won't fix it either, but it does give companies another tool with which to do so.
One of the more interesting asides about these bills regard the moratorium in internet taxes. the story states that states are "losing" money on taxes. This strikes me as funy because that money doesn't belong to the state, and never did. they aren't actually losing anything. I'm a great advocate on lowering our taxes and I think this bill is only good for the internet in general, and consumers and businesses. It's the kind of free and unrestricted trade that's really necessary, not only between the US and other countries, but between states.
The broadband bills may well become interesting, especially if the Tauzin bill becomes the one that will likely pass. As is happening more and more, markets are opening in for varieties of internet service providers, though only a few companies actually control the hardware that gets to consumers (telephone lines, cable lines, etc.). This could get interesting if the owners of these lines (right now, the phone companies) decide to take a stand on having first shot at the market ebcause they own the lines. Other companies are likely to cry foul, much like as happened with long-distance telephone service. This could shape who is available to provide broadband service, and how much it will cost in most areas. The Moynahan bill is unnessecary, IMO, because business really don't ned government incentives to get into the broadband business. there are quite a few chomping at the bit to do so already, and the government really does need to stay out of it as much as possible, again IMO.
My biggest problem is with the bill estending permament MFN status to China. We've had many problems with them, on human rights issues, trade and business issues, and, most lately, their walking away with nuclear secrets issues. It seems strange to me that we'd be willing to throw them this large a bone even though they've basically thumbed their noses at us through each issue we've had with them. I more favor a tough stand against them. The US is capable of backing up its talk, when it wants to, and now should be one of those times.
The upshot of all of this is that it's imperative, whether you support or oppose these measures, that you make your opinions well known to your representatives. Call them, write letters, and make your voice heard. it's the only way to ensure that you matter to them.
[T]here is a rational belief that as China moves into the 21st century, the government and the people will have to change. Dictatorships don't foster productivity, nor does socialism.
I'm going to assume, perhaps unfairly, that you're a standard ESR type of techno-libertarian; that's certainly consistent with your post. If so, you value your right to bear arms. Because you want to shoot jack-booted federal agents? No, because you want them to know you could if they did something bad enough. Same principle with PNTR with China. They have a demonstrated contempt for human rights. A yearly ritual which focuses attention on their record is a concrete protection for their dissidents.
The invisible hand may or may not be good for human rights; as someone who's been a political prisoner right here in the US, I'd rather rely on attentive eyes.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all.
H1B visas are protectionist. If I quit my job, I don't get thrown out of the country; why should that be the situation for my co-worker? Increase green cards for skilled workers, don't shackle them with H1B visas.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
That is your "evidence"? It doesn't even hint that H1B workers can't just leave. What's more, it is a 3rd person account of what doesn't sound to be much more than a couple of anecdotal accounts. You can find a link to say anything you want online, that doesn't mean it is accurate or respectable.
No, it does not disagree with the fact that genuine deregulation has been shown to be a good thing. A couple problems with your drawing conclusions from this article:
a) The source is not exactly an unbiased ones, much of the content in there is conjecture and opinion, not hard statistics and facts.
b) Texas is only one state.
c) The telephone industry is still only partially deregulated. One key area where it is still regulated, is that the federal and state governments effectively force the telecos to provide service to very rural areas at well below their actual incremental costs. Instead, they forced to pass the costs onto consumers who can and will pay. i.e., metropolitan users, businesses, etc.
d) The telecos have long been one of the most protected industries in the country. No matter what your opinion of deregulation, it is not reasonable to expect instant results. Sometimes the ride will be a little bumpy, that is life.
e) One of the key factors these companies look to if they're going to expand their networks and facilities is some basic assurances that the government won't turn around on them in another year or two and pull the carpet out from under them. Unfortunately, the government is rarely ever willing to provide such assurances, and some have even flirted with the idea re-regulation.
f) You're comparing the APPARENT costs before "deregulation" to the nearer-to-actual costs of today. Sure, the actual costs might be tougher on some people, but I frankly don't have much of a problem with that. It is the cost on the aggregate and over the long run that I am primarily concerned about. If someone wants to live in Bumblefuck Alaska, they're more than entitled to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of society should have to bear the cost of their fiber optic internet connection installation.
Or put more accurately, politicians long ago decided that communities should not have to bear the actual costs of their services (i.e., electricity, telephone, and water). Put another way, just because the true costs are coming to light now does not mean that competition is the cause of it.
No, you're not. You're going to sit around slashdot and poh poh everything that you deam "establishment", "corporatist", or what have you. In any event, I'm not telling you to "leave". I frankly don't care what you do. I do, however, think your viewpoint is shared by the French. I dare you to look at what it's cost them.
- Make sure that it still looks good when you delete all <table> and related tags. A left-navigated (like PinEight.com) or right-navigated (like BSI's Everything2) two-column layout works nicely.
- Make sure that it still looks good when you remove the
/images directory (or whatever your site uses for its graphics).
- Make sure it doesn't require ECMAScript (the language formerly known as Java®Script) or Java® applets.
- Most recent text browsers handle client-side imagemaps properly (given good alt= text) but there is a patch to make server-side image maps work on any browser.
- Test your work on as many browsers as you can find, even telnet to port 80
:-)
Now go make your sites accessible.And most importantly:
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is the "200,000 more H-1 visas with the indentured servitude feature" that the less-responsible part of the high-tech industry wants. Terrible idea. Allowing those people in as permanent residents would be better; then they could change jobs. On an H-1 visa, you can't quit and stay in the U.S. Drives wages down.
Well, because of immigration politics, the other choice isn't letting them in permanently, but not letting them in at all. At least somebody who gets in with an H-1B can get permanent status later. Since no developed country is producing sufficient competent IT workers anyway, it makes more sense to get them here.
Steven E. Ehrbar
I have a hard time understanding saying "Well, I'd like to let you in with full rights, but I can't get that passed. So rather than let you go through a few years on an H1B and then apply for permanent residency, I'm going to make you stay where you are now, like it or not."
Let people make their own decisions.
Steven E. Ehrbar
In the House of Representatives, the only "Nay" vote to the Anti-Spam bill was cast by Ron Paul (Republican, 14th District of Texas). I wonder what thorn is up his butt? I mean, Texas is home to a majority of the members of Citizens Against Ugly Street Spam... hmm... methinks Mr. Paul must be working as a spammer at night or something ;-)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Every year, Congress has to decide if China gets "most-favored nation" treatment for trade purposes. Unfortunately, most years China is doing something obnoxious, oppressive, or both, and there's a big fight in Congress over renewal. This bill means the US gives up on nagging China about its lousy human-rights record.
This is the "200,000 more H-1 visas with the indentured servitude feature" that the less-responsible part of the high-tech industry wants. Terrible idea. Allowing those people in as permanent residents would be better; then they could change jobs. On an H-1 visa, you can't quit and stay in the U.S. Drives wages down.
A giveaway for telcos that don't want to deal with competition in local toll calls. The DSL thing is in there just to make it look like there's some public benefit.
A weak anti-spam act. Preempts state laws. No "ADV:" tag required. The DMA approves. Enough said.
Please, what an unfounded pile of crap.
a) We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries.
b) Legally employeers can't pay H1B employees less.
c) Empirically they're earning more, not less.
d) High-tech workers are hardly starving. Their salaries have grown more rapidly than virtually any other industry, despite the presence of this program.
e) There is a shortage of QUALIFIED high tech works. The vast majority of the H1B workers are very much qualified, we're really talking about the upper rung of jobs. And yes, they're willing to work hard, is that so evil? Despite popular slashdot opinion, some products require a few very hardworking employees, you can't merely hire 3 employees for every 1.
f) They're making much more money than most people in their respective countries. They're even making more money than most Americans. So don't act as if your concern is for them.
g) Competition is becoming global whether you like it or not. If we can't get the right kind of employee in the US, high-tech is going to have to move overseas.
h) Proportionately speaking the costs of hiring qualified people is a small part of the costs of the large companies that you like to villify. The companies that it most effects are the startups, that desperately need qualified people. Yes, the salaries are something of a concern, but more from a cash flow perspective. i.e., they can't afford to spend 20 million dollars before they even have a product on the market.....
i) Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not], it could still be highly beneficial to US citizens on the aggregate. If companies only had to pay half as much to develop a product, the barriers to entry would be lowered. More companies would be founded. More companies mean more jobs of all sorts. More companies mean more competition too, which means consumers might enjoy better products.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all. We as a country has steered away from this more than most others, and we've also enjoyed some of the fruits. It'd be a shame if we started cloning the French [who incidentally, have only enjoyed cooresponding improvements as they have turned away]
Why is it wrong for tax differentials to NOT sway a consumer's purchasing decision? Companies should compete on what they can bring to the table, not on what the government doles out to them. Though this is not the intent of the bill, it is obvious what your direction is...
Yeah, and the evidence of all the damage of regulation is where? On the aggregate, deregulation has been a very good thing. With the exception of California, most authorities that have deregulated have enjoyed significant savings. I haven't viewed this particular bill, but it seems to me as if a offhand response to an offhand response is only fitting.
The Bells are fighting to eliminate "reciprocal compensation" fees (amounting up to $12 billion annually) that they owe competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). They are currently trying to muscle legislation (HR-4445 and S-2902) through Congress that would absolve them of having to pay these fees. The result, if the bills pass, is that Americans will see a rise in their Internet access charges, since the CLECs will have to pass on the lost fees to the millions of Americans who rely on AOL, Earthlink, or other ISPs for their Internet access. So much for narrowing the Digital Divide. This is particularly hypocritical of the Bells since they were the first to advocate reciprocal compensation. Consider what Bell Atlantic said back in 1996: "The most blatant example of a plea for a government handout comes from those parties who urge [regulators] to adopt a reciprocal compensation price of zero [This] would violate the [Telecommunications Act of 1996], the Constitution, and sound economic principles." This is exactly what the Bells are now trying to do -- and it could hurt us all. Write your Congressman! Use: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ Why is everyone missing this HUGE issue? Check out http://www.aispa.org/ for more info.