Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Tech Plan Reads Like Silicon Valley Wish List (usatoday.com)
theodp writes from a report via USA Today: "If there was any lingering doubt as to tech's favored presidential candidate," writes USA Today's Jon Swartz, "Hillary Clinton put an end to that Tuesday with a tech plan that reads like a Silicon Valley wish list. It calls for connecting every U.S. household to high-speed internet by 2020, reducing regulatory barriers and supporting Net neutrality rules, [which ban internet providers from blocking or slowing content.] It proposes investments in computer science and engineering education ("engage the private sector and nonprofits to train up to 50,000 computer science teachers in the next decade"), expansion of 5G mobile data, making inexpensive Wi-Fi available at more airports and train stations, and attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees." dcblogs shares with us a report from Computerworld that specifically discusses Clinton's support of green cards for foreign students who earn STEM degrees: As president, Hillary Clinton will support automatic green cards, or permanent residency, for foreign students who earn advanced STEM degrees. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, wants the U.S. to "staple" green cards on the diplomas of STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) masters and PhD graduates "from accredited institutions." Clinton outlined her plan in a broader tech policy agenda released today. Clinton's "staple" idea isn't new. It's what Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential candidate in 2012, supported. It has had bipartisan support in Congress. But the staple idea is controversial. Critics will say this provision will be hard to control, will foster age discrimination, and put pressure on IT wages.
Potentially more abuse prone than the H1B visa. Diploma mills are already a reality in many parts of the world, adding a green card as an incentive and the potential for abuse is immense.
Hillary and the various silicon valley billionaires are tight. They get her elected and she will try to implement their agenda. And make no mistake, their agenda involves more money for them, less privacy for you and more control over you.
The green card idea is interesting, and I would enthusiastically support such a plan if it also included a dramatic reduction in the H1-B program.
... for all the basis in reality the plan will have once she gets elected in.
Wouldn't it be nice if politicians were legally oblidged to give realistic manifestos and if they failed to deliver on at least a given percentage of them then there would be a fine or reduction in tenure time or some other punative measure?
Well, we certainly wouldn't want to start fostering any age discrimination, that's for sure!
Because you can always believe what the Clinton's tell you right? I think we learned our lesson in the 90's with Bill. and i think Hillary is 100x worse about it. She is above the law(in her head anyways).
Nope. The office of the president doesn't have that sort of power, at all.
Might as well make a fine for each provably untrue thing said in a public speech.
Jail them for fraud
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
We get it Theodp: you are middle aged and worried that young educated people are going to take your jerb. Give it a rest. Young people need a future too
The funny thing about many young people is they think they will never get old.
Considering that Silicon Valley almost certainly came up with it to begin with. She always stay on script. Sigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...especially prior to elections! The promise mountains of gold... until the elections are over.
Potentially more abuse prone than the H1B visa. Diploma mills are already a reality in many parts of the world, adding a green card as an incentive and the potential for abuse is immense.
So you limit it to select accredited universities. Problem solved. If someone can graduate from MIT with an engineering degree and wants to stay in the USA, we're idiots to not help them do that. It only becomes a problem if we don't pay any attention to how it's done.
First Obamacare and now this? Hillary, you might be a nice person and all, but you're a republican.
I think anything which a politician says is considered puffery.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Politicians will say anything to get your vote. This is nothing new. They will say it in words so they are not actually lying. ...
Recently we have seen this with the UK politicians who were shocked themselves they won Brexit and have no idea how to get out of the shit. We have seen it with the 'closing' of Gunatanamo bay. We have seen it with any and all politicians. And I mean all of them. Right, left, communist,
As long as they are not accountable for their lies, nothing will change and to do that a serious reform would be needed. How to get to that reform? Vote for me, I will do it. I guarantee that these lies will stop.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's dumb as hell. All we have to do is stop reelecting them. Is that so difficult?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
She is amazingly quick to tailor promises based on who she is talking to. The tech community should be aware of this.
Some big examples would be gay marriage, TPA, patriot act, Iraq War, etc.
Yes, I know all politicians lie. I am just annoyed that people believe things that Hillary say means something.
On a tech site, we are cheering someone's tech platform whose tech level is so low that her defenders say we should not expect Hillary to be able to manage two separate email accounts.
How can you propose a system to hold politicians accountable for failure to deliver on platform goals unless they have complete dictatorial control over implementation? "Well, then, they shouldn't promise anything .. " I hear you say. Well, sure, under such a system, politicians would be foolish to propose improving or changing anything. Would that make you happier? Life is a lot more complicated than you wish it was. In general, if *you* know that proposed plans are just plans, and *I* know proposed plans are just plans, then we can both make personal judgement on the feasibility and likelihood of a candidate being able (or willing) to deliver on them and vote accordingly. I think it's reasonable to assume that most people understand that a campaign promise isn't a legally binding blood pact.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The first amendment exists to protect the people from the government. Elected officials are acting as the government, not the people.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I suspect that she is listing all this stuff to enable her to INCREASE the number of h1b . For somebody that speaks of supporting the middle class, she is looking to gut the jobs by offspring and increasing immigration.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maybe the paycheck came in and she felt she should show much she can be the corporate whore that's wanted.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That late 90s economy couldn't have existed as it did separate from it's aftermath.
Yeah, we got to hear the President play the sax on TV and benefit from the "bubble expanding" half of the boom/bust cycle (and also collect on the dividend of the end of all that Cold War spending, but I digress) but the hype fest couldn't go on indefinitely. VA Linux and the dot.bomb hype outfits needed to eventually produce something that could realize a profit (*ahem*)
Slashdot doesn't post stories, users submit them.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Look, I don't like Hilary. I don't think this plan is anything more than an attempt to get votes. But your particular complaint about what would happen if the plan were carried out strikes me as misguided.
Foreign students who are here to get a degree ALREADY get to stay as long as they are working on a degree. The crunch comes when they graduate. They need to have a job lined up to stay in the country, and so companies have a lot of leverage in hiring and then how they treat them afterwards under the H1B program. The degree is already the argument the companies use to get them the H1B.
This whole dynamic is a large part of why they can be used to undercut salaries for permanent residents and citizens. It also creates unnecessary bad feelings toward the US by folks we should actually prefer to stay here rather than going back to somewhere else and help offshoring efforts. The plan seems to me a good solution to breaking this dynamic and reducing H1B abuse.
The only drawback I see, which does need a careful selection of institutions to minimize, is that some folks are justifiably unemployable despite somehow managing to obtain an advanced degree. We wind up with them as permanent residents and that costs something in public services. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs for uneducated illegal immigrants, but it is something. On the whole, I'd consider the tradeoff a good one.
So far Hillary's greatest seat in government has been as a selected official, not an elected official.
Sure, she put in a few years as an ineffective freshman senator, but that's about it. Everything else she has gotten by hanging around the right people.
A free e-mail server in every basement!
Now there's a platform I can support.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabled the biggest telecom theft of public dollars in history:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...
Essentially, we gave $200 Billion to the telecoms in exchange for fiber connectivity to every residence and business in America. The telecoms took the $200 Billion and gave us - nothing.
Guess who signed the Telecommunications Act? Yep, Hillary's husband - Bill Clinton.
Why should we believe that Clinton 45 will be any better at tech policy than Clinton 42?
It's definitely true that some of the Clinton policies did directly contribute to the crash of 2008, chief among these being the tax incentives for executive pay that drove unprecedented income inequality, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, etc. The response from the GOP hasn't exactly been a reversal of these policies. If anything, they were extended and pushed forward. Policies favoring large companies resulted in consolidation and profit/expense min-maxing, not investment or job growth.
Since she's for more guest worker fraud, she's against her own country.
Then again, she's one of the globalists.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This actually doesn't look so bad to me, it's surprisingly sane, actually. The US is pretty reliant on only a few major industries for exporting, mainly entertainment and food. They're farther ahead then any other country when it comes to the size of their tech industry, so I think we should be focusing on ensuring that the country doesn't needlessly fall behind, especially with people becoming seriously concerned about the state of our privacy laws. Investing and growing it is a smart move, and I don't oppose the green card idea if we require foreigners to graduate with a degree from an American university (or other accredited source). If they did all the work an American would do and passed the same classes, and they stuck around long enough to complete it (which is usually around 4 years for a college degree), I absolutely don't see why we don't give them a green card. She recognizes how important tech is, and although I don't agree with all her policies, she's definitely got the right idea here.
The major concern with her internet policy is that she implicitly supports the bulk data collection. She is leagues and leagues ahead of Donald Trump, who has advocated for cutting America's internet off from the rest of the world and would almost certainly outlaw encryption of any kind, but she's far inferior to Bernie Sanders who favors privacy much more. Factoring this into account, I can live with her policys, but it's frustrating for us all that very few politicians seem to grasp what this means or that is actually weakens security, because now we have to automate sorting through it all on account of how big the data is and machines are so laughably bad compared to people at spotting this sort of thing.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Make it absolutely clear in the manifesto what is a promise - ie we WILL do it (short of a nuclear war or similar disaster) - and what we a hope to do if finances/time/law permits.
I think that would be fine. As long as you can show that you made a bona fide effort to do the things that your campaign promised, or that circumstances changed significantly such that a change of mind might be understandable, then you should get off. If, on the other hand, from day 1 you start doing the opposite of what you promised then that should be grounds for a prosecution for fraud (and would catch a lot of politicians).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Drudge Report was all over the Istanbul bombing almost as soon as it happened. CNN reported too. As did Fox News...
Today — the next day — New York Times had their article. And Washington Post.
Are you taking your talking points from these dimwits, perhaps?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Clinton doesn't actually have a "tech plan". She was given one by her wealthy Silicon Valley donors. This is a woman who doesn't know how to use a fax machine, the idea that she even remotely understands net neutrality is a joke.
Do you have ESP?
Seriously.
Every politician on the hunt for a job has a slick, sexy "action plan" designed to grab a given constituency by the short and curlies and make them want to vote for that person.
The problem is, after the election is over and the candidate is firmly ensconced within their comfy office, said action plan and the promises contained within are forgotten faster than the name of a partner at a drunken one night stand...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Net neutrality — whether you like it or not — can only be achieved by a regulatory barrier. The government is telling owners of cables, routers and switches, what they can and can not do with their own equipment and data passing through it.
Clearly, some regulation is more equal than others and Hillary Clinton is, once again, talking from multiple sides of her very experienced mouth.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
An H-1B isn't a green card - far from it. A green card lacks the restrictions and limitations of an H-1B. Now, you might think "doesn't that make it worse, then?" - but you would be incorrect. If I'm working in the US on an H-1B Visa, I'm largely tied to my current job, and thereby my employer. If I'm fired, I have 30 days to find a new job or I get kicked out of the country. If I want to quit, it's possible to get the Visa transferred to a new employer, but it makes things an order of magnitude more difficult to switch jobs than it would be if I wasn't an H-1B.
This means that when my boss starts pressing me to work extra hours without reporting it, to come in on Saturday, or to ignore the illegal shit they're doing, or things like that, they've got a lot more leverage over me than they would over a regular employee.
By contrast, someone with a green card competes on a normal even playing field with everyone else, and is free to accept or reject job offers, get poached for a better salary, or to give the finger and quit, just like everyone else.
A Green Card isn't a guest worker, though.
It's a permanent resident status, meaning there's nothing "Guest" about it. If you think that immigration is bad, then that's a bad thing, but if your concern is about temporary status workers being taken advantage of, to the detriment of normal workers (as well as themselves), then, giving permanent (no strings) status instead is a vast improvement.
I suspect the who's-in-STEM-or-not issue will be a non-issue very shortly, as education planning, execution and employment cycles go. LDNLS systems will be doing serious design and software generation fairly soon. I think it's entirely possible that people currently in the educational system who are on, or plan to follow, STEM paths will find themselves coming out of school with the employability-equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturing skills.
That's without actual intelligence emerging. With it... same thing, but with social chaos as an added attraction.
Honestly, right now, the elephant in the room is the social safety net. We need to prepare something like basic income. If we don't get that set up and ready to go, socially speaking, I'm just about certain the sky is going to fall on us. Sure, it'll be fast-food workers and various pro drivers who become unemployed first, but there's no reason for it to stop there. Software generation is an extremely likely area for LDNLS to step into in a huge way. Chip design too. System design not too much longer after that, and that's going to put a very serious dent in the STEM job market.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
She's lied about everything else... who the fuck would trust her on this? It's just a dangling carrot that, and she'll probably end up eating it herself if she gets in.
Presidents have very little control over our economy.
Indeed, I don't know why people keep perpetuating the lie that presidents have such huge economic influence. It's probably because the candidates campaign on these empty promises, "Vote for me, I'll make all your economic dreams come true!" Truly the most power they have is veto, and they are heavily pressured to not delay a budget which has made it through both houses of Congress.
Congress has much more influence over the economy. Go look up which party was in control of Congress during each recession. I've already done it for the 13 recessions since the Great Depression: Democrats controlled both houses 11 times, Republicans 2 times.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
"All we have to do is stop reelecting them. Is that so difficult?"
With the choices we're given, apparently it is.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Our universities put lots of women through STEM majors. But when they graduate they go back to China, where they can build big things.
People would rather watch The Donald Show than The Hillary Show. That's what it's come down to.
Submission process: see on reddit, copy, paste, submit
We make the choices. We don't have to take what is "given".
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Or, it's because it's offtopic, and offtopic is a -1 mod.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
How naive.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Best way to not be replaced by a young person with a fresher skill set? Don't let yours get stale.
If the skill set is equal, experience wins every time in fair hiring practices.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
To be fair, the State of New York voted for her to be a Senator twice. Once as a carpet bagger in 2000, and again in 2006.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What, is somebody putting a gun to your head, telling you who to vote for? Sounds to me like you're just to lazy to make the effort and just want to blame everybody else for your own bad choices.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Clinton... wants the U.S. to "staple" green cards on the diplomas of STEM... masters and PhD graduates
Good. We need to balance out the culture of ignorance that is developing in this country. The people who mock learning and expertise aren't moving the country forward now, and they never will.
Plus, if these people have real green cards, they cannot be abused and underpaid the same way H1Bs are. That should stabilize the labor market a bit, especially if the program ultimately leads to a reduction in H1B issuance.
If American citizens have no interest in education, go ahead and allow *real* immigration. As long as the immigrants integrate culturally, the country will come out stronger like it always has.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Seriously.
As there isn't any accountability for campaign promises, why would anyone ( who has lived through more than one election ) give any candidates promises any credibility at all ?
I put her promises in the same category as Trump.
( or any candidate for that matter )
Lots of fluffy talk tailored to whatever group they're trying to snuggle up to, never any follow-through and no consequences.
Our universities put lots of women through STEM majors. But when they graduate they go back to China, where they can build big things.
Or they don't give us many employment options outside of 'mad scientist,' 'evil overlord,' and 'teacher.' I'm currently teaching but I'm starting to think finding a project whose goal is to cause world peace (by killing everybody) may be more moral.
I think that's perfectly legit though - they brought up the things they said they would in the "Contract" in the first 100 (or so) days of that Congress. If the votes weren't there, the votes weren't there - anyone promising to pass legislation in a campaign is lying to you.
There are so many things that can derail a piece of legislation that it's amazing anything ever passes. People that hold a grudge hang poison pill amendments on it. The opposition party will try to amend it to nullify key points of it. Spending bills are like Christmas trees where everyone wants to hang their favorite ornament on it, ballooning the total to the point where the deficit hawks vote against it. And then there's just the regular partisan rancor, and the generally uneasy relationship between House and Senate where things get completely twisted in the other chamber, and have to get sorted out in a conference committee, and usually come out with the same name on the bill, but completely different substance.
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' then Congress is the opposite of Progress.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
As it turns out, yes, that is difficult. When it comes to the Congress, everyone seems to think it is all the other Congressmen and Senators that are the problem - my representative / senator is awesome! It's the other 434 representatives / 98 senators that need to be shown the door!
Plus, when someone has been sent to Congress from a district / state two or three times in a row, it's hard to find anyone with a pulse to run against them, so you get weak shit candidates that can't hold a coherent message through the campaign, or some retread hack that already lost his position at the government trough and wants to try again against a seasoned sitting politician that tears them to pieces.
Thus the massively overwhelming statistics on incumbent re-election.
Example: Senate seat re-election in Ohio, where you have a sitting senator (Rob Portman-R) running against a guy who roundly lost his bid on re-elect as Governor to John Kasich (Ted Strickland). There's been practically zero campaining done by the sitting Senator, and Strickland has nothing to do BUT campaign, and every poll still has him down by one point, where he was up by as much as 9 in the spring. At the rate of this slide, he'll lose this thing 70/30 in November.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
We already discourage students from pursuing STEM degrees by allowing companies like Facebook and Microsoft to import cheap labor in the form of H1-B visas
You do realize that there is a LOT more to STEM fields than working for large IT firms right? I have an engineering degree and I work in manufacturing. (and manufacturing in the US is alive and well in spite of claims to the contrary) Most scientists, engineers and mathematicians don't work in Silicon Valley or Seattle. H1B visas are simply Not A Thing among engineers in my industry. They just aren't. I'm not saying they aren't a problem (they are) but they aren't as wide spread or severe a problem as is sometimes claimed. Frankly H1B visas are kind of small potatoes in the challenges presented by global competition.
are we now to add a further disincentive by saying that anybody who can slither under the wire to get accepted to a U.S. university (and graduate) is now your permanent competition inside the United States?
If they work here in the US under a Green Card they aren't going to be paid H1B wages. The company can't deport them and the worker has basically the same rights as a US citizen. Furthermore they are your competition whether or not they are here in the US. Plenty of software and technology is developed outside the US and they don't stop being smart, talented people just because they don't work inside the US. It's actually to your benefit to have as much talent here in the US doing useful things as possible. If they go elsewhere much of their economic benefit goes with them. If there are a lot of smart talented people here then the pool of jobs here grows. If they go elsewhere then they don't create value here and there ends up being fewer jobs. America is a country of immigrants. We only hurt ourselves when we forget that fact.
Policies like this are why the idiots in Britain voted to shoot their country (and themselves, directly) in the foot with a "Brexit" vote--because of the perception that their government serves "outsiders" ahead of them.
Spare me. Many British voters voted for Brexit in large part because of racism and xenophobia. And frankly given Britian's colonial past them complaining about outsiders is hugely ironic. It wasn't that long ago that Britain was a large empire based on screwing over foreigners in places like India.
I often vote for minor party candidates, and less often "write in." But in the real word, with all the built-in bias toward the two party system and which you're naively unfamiliar with, there's no chance of them winning.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Or this is her way of locking that lead up.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Actually I support Clinton's green card program because I'm worried other countries will "catch up" to the U.S. and become the major centers of innovation in the global economy, which would cause the aggregate standard of living in the U.S. to decrease. The U.S. currently benefits from "reverse brain drain". That is, more smart/productive people immigrate to the U.S. than emigrate from the U.S. If that trend ever reverses then the U.S. is well and truly screwed.
Accreditation has already been heavily compromised in order to suck up student loan money.
Is this only true of national accrediting agencies, such as the infamous ACICS (which the Department of Education will likely shut down), or also true of the regional accrediting agencies that oversee traditional universities?
Assuming Hilary shares views with Bill, she will likely continue the trend of extending copyrights to infinity, which will adversely affect innovation.
Clinton 42, Signed the following into law:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (1998)
Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (1994)
There is no bogeyman. The two party system is the voters choice. They are the "built in bias", and only they can fix it. It is strictly personal.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I have talked to Hillary supporters who have said without any embarrassment: "Of course, she can't keep those promises and she has to lie. But it's vitally important that she get elected and she has to say things because American voters are stupid and she wouldn't get elected otherwise. Once she has been elected, she will just do what's good for the country."
Great, so she was elected by the people who brought us 9/11. Twice.
She didn't support it, until it turned out that a lot of voters supported it, so in 2013 she changed her position and supported it. It speaks to principles. Hers are "say what's popular."
In government by the people and for the people, since when is listening to the constituents that you represent a bad idea in general?
How about attaching a JOB to diplomas of US CITIZENS who obtain STEM degrees?
The President is the effective head of the bureaucracy, which has the power to abuse its enemies. Prominent examples include the IRS refusal to grant tax exempt status to tea party groups while fast-tracking leftist activist groups, and Obama's promise to destroy the coal industry.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
No, the two party system is ingrained in the US legal and media systems. It was created by the parties to keep other parties from entering. It's deliberately set up as a Catch-22. To be on the ballot, you must have gotten X votes on the previous ballot. Not a single "third party" is qualified to be on the ballot in all states. The Libertarian Party is the largest, and only has ballot access in 33 states. (I'm talking about overall party qualification, not individual contest qualification - the Libertarians will likely be on the presidential ballot in all 50 states). Along with that is an intentional absence of media coverage. The last third party candidate in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. That's not the "voter's choice," it's a rigged system.
And the single vote system enforces that. A ranked voting system would help to level the field for minor party candidates, so the major parties will never allow it to happen. They like to tell people a vote for a minor candidate is a vote thrown away.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Bush 43 did a bad job economically, but the 2008 crash was entirely the fault of a Democratic Congress, which rejected all attempts to end frivolous lending. Do some reading about that human turd, Barney Frank.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
That all sounds well and good as long as the h1b visa program is cut and this "It proposes investments in computer science and engineering education" provides no public funds via any method including tax breaks for this "attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees."
We don't have any real shortages in this country of STEM talent so we shouldn't be paying for the advanced education of immigrants especially since we don't even pay for the education of people born here. But if a student pays for a taught 100% in English by a unilingual US citizen teacher (important for establishing fluency in English and reading comprehension) education here or is worthwhile enough to convince penny pinching US companies to pay to educate them with after tax funds I see no reason we wouldn't want to put them on the fast track for a green card (assuming they pass background checks and such).
Stuffing our melting pot with intelligent people is a good thing. The key is to get the gems, anyone who has ever worked with international IT crowds knows that they are larger and stuffed with even more morons than you find in the field here and a degree/marks in school have very little relation to being able to apply information in new and novel ways. Teaching material tends to give hints that guide you toward the right answers for the testing and challenges that will be presented later that the real world doesn't. I've yet to find a consistent metric that picks out that guy who consistently finds novel and creative solutions like using the liquid foam system in shipping to craft lumbar support for his chair when management is too cheap to buy new ones. That's the guy you want more of no matter where he comes from.
... For A Second, I Believe Exactly What You Believe:
http://www.theonion.com/blogpo...
That's quite the conspiracy theory you have there.
Not a single "third party" is qualified to be on the ballot in all states.
Only because not enough people petition to put them on. Simple math. This year they are too distracted by the Trump charade. Best gimmick I've seen in a long time.
Sorry, all the "rigging" is done by the voters themselves, through complacency, apathy, antipathy, whatever. As much as you all want to, you can blame nobody else.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"the number of slots in universities and the number of high paying jobs is not fixed"
Oh....wow.........
Both are fixed by a certain demand. Supply and demand. Adding supply reduces demand. 1+1=2. Get it?
"America is actually a country of immigrants"
"the smartest, most ambitious, most talented, most hard working people"
"They worked hard, created value and the size of the economic pie grew"
Wow you parrotting drone, do you think? What exactly did I say that convinced you that I forgot these gigantic fundamental underlying fact? Of course nothing, you just can't wait for a chance to spew the propaganda that's been burned into your brain-mush.
"First off" x2
"you are wrong that they are taking a slot away from an American"
Foreigner has the job. American does not have the job. American cannot have the job because the foreigner has the job. What am I missing here? A lifetime of brainwashing that retardifies me into selectively applying a "1+1=2" level of logic?
Okay now that we've addressed all the mental diarrhea you've expressed, can you answer the question?
Here it is again:
Can you explain to me exactly how it benefits you that foreign students should come and take up a slot in one of our universities and then take up a slot in one of our high-paying jobs?
(HOW DOES IT BENEFIT YOU?)
(WHY ARE YOU ADVOCATING?)
It's in the interest of the common people for the country to invest in educating its own people to meet the demand for all of the jobs in the country.
It's in the interest of the jetsetting international business owners to scour the globe to import whatever talent can get their tasks done immediately.
"Only because not enough people petition to put them on."
We're done until you understand the rules, instead of making them up.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You evidently don't know the process. Anyone is allowed to petition to be on the ballot. With enough signatures it will happen. No biggie if you don't want to learn. But you made it perfectly clear why we are in the predicament that we are. You built your own prison.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Then again, Clinton did raise the top marginal tax rate - which helped the boom produce that surplus. Bush took the surplus as a talking point to justivy the tax rate being lowered - and the capital gains and dividend rates lowered even more drastically. From Gore's rhetoric in 2000, it was pretty clear that he at least understood that the surplus was caused by an unsustainable boom (the infamous 'lockbox', etc). Bush (and Greenspan as his enabler) used the bogus surplus to rationalize their agendas - and pretty much guaranteed deficits from then on, boom or bust. Obama undid some, but not enough, of that damage, but Trump wants to double down on the tax cutting agenda.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Being on the other side of the world makes it harder to sell papers here, but I think you do have a point here.
:(
Similarly there's a lot of violence in Chicago that doesn't make the news until it is one ethnicity attacks another ethnicity.
There are a lot of terrible, scandalous things that happen commonly
"We NEED those smart people over here if we want to remain competitive and relevant."
A lot of the people who set off bombs and go on mass shootings are diploma smart. Many of them hold advanced engineering degrees.
And remember most acts of terror are perpetrated by people who are either from overseas or travel there or have many contacts there.
On one hand, I admire a leader who listens to their constituents and adjusts their position according to the majority's view. That's democracy. On the other hand, something tells me that Hillary's definition of "constituents" and "majority" includes large sums of money donated to her campaign, and "unless it is against her self-interests". I know, I know, every politician is like that, you'll tell me. Bernie isn't though. And that's the sad part.
Then why would any American in their right mind (presuming such a thing exists) do STEM at an American university?
Foreigner + degree (often got for free, see Germany) gets STEM job (academia or industry) = Americans once more screwed.
It's like H1b but on steroids.
Is Hillary really that stupid, or that evil?
It doesn't even matter if they had a pathway for CS teachers.
The Universities do not want prospective CS majors or minors to have done CS at high school. They REQUIRE, Calculus (and to a much lesser extent Statistics), and Physics (and oddly enough Chemistry helps). That you have done AP or IB CS is irrelevant to them; you might get a semester credit at most, but that's not the same as being an entry requirement, or even recommendation.
It hasn't been about work for the citizens since at least as long ago as the 80's
It is all about globalisation, and in it's purest form Walmart-isation; where humans are widgets (unless they are in the 1%), disposable and replaceable more quickly than a Happy Meal.
Given the economies of scale of the World (circa 7 billion) vs USA, (circa 400 million) then there is zero reason for Americans to pursue STEM at all if this "amazing plan" comes to fruition. This is already being seen with the massive and systemic corruption of the H1b type of visa.
This ups the ante by giving foreigners an even more massive advantage over the locals.
Rick Roll for President! Hell, given the current state of this election, a Rick Roll President sounds like a good idea.
US gets "Rick Rolled" in the election and they loved it so much they won't even complain about his birth certificate from Hawaii.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Yeah, because guns had nothing to do with it.
Under George W Bush they didn't extend them. They just used them and the spineless Democrats did nothing to stop them, the same under Clinton.
The economic down turn started with Clinton. Bush didn't have time to cause the recession in 2001. His biggest flub was the Iraq War and supplemental spending bills.
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
There is the link you need, now go post it if it is so important to you.
Slashdot is fed by user submissions, not your bitching.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You might be on to something here.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
LMOL yeah in fantasy land. Pray tell how many jobs are being created when Disney hired H1B Visa holders after firing a couple hundred employees. When Microsoft fired 27,000?
You seem to suggest that there aren't smart people here or that Americans can't be trained or that there's a shortage of skilled workers (hint: there isn't a shortage).
Troll.
Presidents don't raise or lower taxes.
Sounds to me like you're just to lazy to make the effort
Like for example to spell this sentence correctly...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I thought Clinton said she didn't know how to use a computer to read email - reason for her personal server. Why would people be listening to her for tech policy....
Um, the Glass-Steagall act was repealed under Clinton, not in 2008.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Nobody petitions for the R-team and D-team to get on the ballot. Due to the way the rules work, they're automatically included.
So what? The petitioning process is good enough to get on the ballot. You are not limited to voting for republicans and democrats. That is one you place on yourself. Nobody is doing it to you. The world is as "just" as you want it to be. You make the choice, you live with it. Nobody is going to save you.
And your reaction is very revealing, very typical of an *authoritarian sack of shit* that gets angry when confronted with facts that conflict with their beliefs... Thank you for confirming.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Still I see no outside force compelling people to vote for the incumbent, only a lack of initiative in the search for alternatives. They wake up once every two years to mark a ballot that took very little part in forming, and then complain about the choices, and go back to sleep for two more years. Sorry, no sympathy from me. This prison is of their own construction. Only they can tear it down.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Despite the media's overwhelming call to get more people in STEM, there are already too many workers with STEM degrees to employ. We are over-supplied not under-supplied. Wages are stagnant and there is little to no growth to speak of. Why do we need more people in STEM? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Wife files for divorce, gets a restraining order instead of a handgun. Wife and perp enter into a permanent divorce settlement. Tragic, but nothing more than a bad case of the domestics.
Nothing evolves faster than the word of god in the minds of men who think themselves divinely inspired.
While I hope Trump doesn't win, I do hope he gives Mrs. C hell on visa and trade issues, which have been dictated by corporate elites for faaaar too long.
Make her squirm doing what you do best, Mr. Trump. Make it a close election to send a message.
Table-ized A.I.
wow.
First off, Do yourself a favor and look at Unemployement Rate and GDP for America. This shows that the great recession started in 2007. It was declared official once the GDP by ALL economists, not just most, when GPD was negative and not just in freefall. However, the fact that unemployment started rising in 2007, says it all.
Secondly, causes of it is many. You like to list just a few minor ones while ignoring what REAL ECONOMISTS have to say. I am guessing that you have a political science or even just tech background and have not really had any economics and refuse to even accept what the professionals have to say, unless it agrees with you.
Regardless, I am a registered Libertarian and am on the sidelines of the fucking mess that you and the dems make. However, it is easy for me to look at your mess and honestly point out the fuck-ups that your 2 political parties have been.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Increase green cards for stem students? Good to know hitlery wants to continue ruining the it industry. Why is having a worse education from a almost 3rd world country make it easier to find a job. Maybe i should change my name to habeeb..
There are 2 different downturns.
The normal recession that occurred in 2001, which was the internet bubble bursting. W, GOP, Dems, CLinton, etc had NOTHING to do with that. It was simply happening because the market had overdone the internet companies. Then you have the mini recession that occurred after 9/11. Technically, you can blame W for it, but, I would not. I would say that the economy was still weak and it was simply prolonged by 9/11.
The great recession of 2007 has MANY causes, of which a lot was the policies that W/GOP pushed. Some of it WAS from CLinton since he signed in bills from both GOP and Dems that allowed their friends to have carte blanche with banking. Of course, I find it interesting that the GOP is opposed to re-installing even some of those that was put in place from the 30s due to the great depression.
And W's biggest screw-up would be difficult to figure out. He allowed AQ/Talibahn to continue controlling Afghanistan and left it a REAL mess.
Iraq was certainly a huge one.
His allowing corporations to take earnings out of the nation and not be taxed is equally BS.
His inability to get OBL spoke volume about his ineptness.
His lies about Iraq to allow invasion.
His screw up with NASA and Constellation.
It goes on and on and on. And it explains why he is in the bottom 10 for presidencies.
Of course, he DID do one thing smart, which was heavily subsidizing oil/nat gas drilling to get it going. Now, we just need to roll those back, OR roll them over to geo-thermal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Technically, it's off topic, but still a point of concern. You noticed that when the Orlando shooting happened, the talking heads were on it immediately.
Probably because it was the worst mass shooting in United States history. That attracts a lot of US-based talking head attention.
Huh? The news programs I watch all preempted their planned stories and covered Turkey non-stop for the whole show. Don't automatically assume the world actually behaves to match your cynicism, check first.
Someone had to do it.
Not high enough of a body count. Social media jumped on a situation in progress in Texas and then promptly dropped it as soon as it was resolved with no carnage.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Indeed, I don't know why people keep perpetuating the lie that presidents have such huge economic influence. It's probably because the candidates campaign on these empty promises, "Vote for me, I'll make all your economic dreams come true!" Truly the most power they have is veto, and they are heavily pressured to not delay a budget which has made it through both houses of Congress.
For the most part, the President's power over the economy is overrated. But they can have extremely wide-ranging effects. If we had almost any other president than GWB, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq and that was an ENORMOUS expense. Couple that with the money pumped into Afghanistan that had to be spent because of the Iraq distraction, and you have a huge bundle of cash sucked out of the US economy.
You can also make the argument that an entire-half-assed approach to Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. In the long run, how much will that cost?
It's definitely true that some of the Clinton policies did directly contribute to the crash of 2008
I'm pretty sure the GP is referring to the dot-com bubble, and the subsequent burst in late 2000, early 2001. The argument is that a big part of the "successful Clinton economy" during the 90s was due to riding the formation of the bubble. George Bush, for all his many (many) faults, did get left holding the bag when it finally burst while Clinton is remembered for the honeymoon.
But of course you're also right about Clinton's role in 2008.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
You know that in other countries there is an equal value on every persons vote right? That everyone can vote on all the presidential candidates available, no matter where they are on the country, and their vote will count to the total vote count (instead of being discarded because of the neighborhood).
I think there is nothing wrong in expecting that all parties follow the same rules, instead of certain parties having privileges. Decent/honest people should expect that (same rules), specially because it favors smaller parties, even if they dislike their views.
While I do agree with you that it is the Americans fault that you have this rigged system, you shouldn't act like it is "good enough", and that people complaining about it are wrong to complain. Systems change because people complain. Also, that is not the choice he made (as you claim it is), it is the choice his shitty neighbors made. Yes, they will not save him, as they are happy to suppress his vote, his candidates, and even his complains.
They could argue that they only promised (like I already said) to submit the bills for debate on the floor, rather than implement them, or that any number of things changed to make it different.
That's fine. I don't expect to elect a dictator. If they submitted a bill that looks like their promise and they voted for it, then that's about as much as they can do. If anyone who promised something similar voted against it then their constituents should be able to sue for fraud, but if my constituency elects a candidate that wants to do something that 60% of the country doesn't want to do then nothing that they can do will make it pass.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
you shouldn't act like it is "good enough", and that people complaining about it are wrong to complain.
It's "good enough" to prove my point that anybody can get on the ballot. Which is all I'm saying. I didn't say anything about it being easy, though it can be if people want. And people are perfectly welcome to complain all they wish, but unless it is followed up by their vote, it all means nothing, and makes them look dumb. Only they can change the rules. They either have to participate fully, or take what's coming to them. What I will never accept is this crap about the "system", as if it is separate from us. It is nothing but an attempt to evade responsibility for their own choices. We are the ones making the rules, either passively or actively, consciously or subconsciously. People just have to be more friendly with their neighbors and work together. The antipathy they share towards each other and the rest of the world is a big part of the problem.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Practically speaking, she was appointed as senator more than elected. However, selected officials are still acting as government, not private citizens.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Actually, no. The post I replied to lamented the talking heads not talking about it — and made no mention of Slashdot whatsoever. What color is the sky in your reality?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The H-1B program is being abused badly there. If any US worker has to train an H-1B replacement before being involuntarily separated, the program is being abused.
If one program is abused, with bad results, it doesn't mean a vaguely similar program will not have good results.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The system wasn't deliberately set up to mandate two major powers, but it was set up that way nonetheless.
The first step towards viable third parties would be ranked-choice voting, so people could vote first for the party they like and then the major party that they don't dislike as much as the other. If, in 2000 Florida, Nader voters had been able to vote "I want Nader, and I don't want Bush", it would probably have given the election to Gore, so lots of people are dissuaded from voting third party lest someone they really dislike get in.
The next would be to change the selection of President to be plurality of popular vote, rather than majority of electoral votes. If there's three relatively equal parties, the Presidential election will doubtless be thrown into the House, and since the House will likely not agree with a majority the Vice President will become President. The current rules work reasonably well with a two-party system, but a third party would trash it.
A more major change could be allocating Representatives by party. Right now, if your party has a steady 20% support all through your state, you get no representation in Congress. If we had at-large elections of party slates, third parties would have a better chance of getting into Congress.
The "rigged system" is not the fault of the voters. It's a result of decisions made in the late 1700s.
By following the current rules, we wind up with two major parties. The rules are the same for all parties, but the major ones are qualitatively different due to emergent properties of the system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is at least something that can be changed without a Constitutional amendment. It's largely based on the House and Senate rules. Basically, lawmakers get more power with greater seniority (as well as more skill and connections), so throwing out a three-term Senator means a significant loss in effective Senate representation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The stapled green cards will increase the supply of STEM employees and lower wages. But those employees will have a full right to stay in the US that is not contingent on employment and therefore be able to negotiate wages and benefits from a normal position. In contrast, H1B holders are at the mercy of their employers and have no leverage; they can't leave their job or take a new one because they will lose their right to stay in the US. So it's a net improvement.