The problem is that there are many tax incentives to abuse the visa system.
There is another problem you failed to mention: continuing H-1B status is often used by employers to coerce the visa holders to work for lower-than-normal wages.
That is a big part of the reason the tech industry has for years been lobbying to expand the program.
A number of recent studies have shown that there simply is no shortage of tech-field college and university graduates in the U.S.
Holy crap. Are NONE of you familiar with thorium reactors?
Claimed disadvantages are: less development effort until recently, and less "quick efficiency" as a breeder reactor. But since they would be used to generate electricity, and the reaction products are part of the fuel cycle, not intended to be used externally for bombs or other reactors, that efficiency matters little.
Among the advantages are: more abundant and easily obtained fuel, inherently much safer design (meltdowns are physically impossible), and greatly reduced waste, especially of the long-half-life variety.
I should also add, as a side note: wind and solar have only been "cheap" where they are very highly subsidized. Which means: they aren't. Where subsidies have been removed or reduced, so have much of those industries.
The idea that it's actually 'learned consciously beforehand' is irrelevant.
No, it isn't. It's central to the point I was making, which you seem to have missed.
racism is a similar sort of 'learned reflex', and is similarly non-conscious.
Perhaps. I am not prepared to guess.
And no, the learned reflex does NOT happen 'before we're aware',only before the ELF (executive-level-functioning) subroutine (that which we normally name 'I') hears the news.
You have just contradicted yourself twice. First, this statement contradicts the previous quote. Second, we are not "consciously aware" of our actions until that executive level kicks in.
This is nothing but half-assed, garbage-can philosophy. No doubt it always "feels like something" to be a frog, but that doesn't mean the frog is "conscious" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
But that brings up a question which seldom fails to raise a strong reaction in some people: if a newborn is not "conscious" then to what degree, and by what measure, is it actually a human being?
One of the biggest problems we in the U.S. have with systems like this is that it pushes the burden of proof onto the accused.
That is unacceptable here.
Among other things, they have no possible way to know whether the people they are tracking are under 13 years old, which is a violation of Federal law.
I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)
Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".
With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.
This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.
What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.
It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.
There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."
In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.
A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."
The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."
So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.
This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.
In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.
And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.
If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.
Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.
In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.
Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.
Let's not forget that it's also a thermostat which is "smart" enough to call home (its home, that is) and report on your your thermostat settings and other activities that might be deduced from interaction with the device.
Some people think it's stupid to worry about such things. I think it's a "foot in the door". Remember, Nest was going to be part of a complete home "system".
So why did Clapper commit perjury in front of congress to cover up these programs?
Besides, we have the documents leaked by Snowden, which revealed what they revealed. And as a result we know that we were lied to, and deceived, and criminally abused, over oh so many things...
Good intentions do not make up for that. Professionalism doesn't make up for that. Nothing, in fact, makes up for that.
Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"?
No, but yours appeared to be, from your comment: "I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?"
I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
It's a free country. Assume away. It won't get you anywhere, but I will defend to the... uh... change in my pocket, your right to do so.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
Wait a minute... didn't you just imply that the source doesn't matter? You just got done insulting me for having that very attitude (albeit incorrectly, as I actually stated the opposite). Right up there, a few lines above, in quotes.
You leave me with little choice but to just repeat what I said before: I'm sorry your delicate eyes were offended by all that nasty material you had to be exposed to for the 10 seconds it took to find the link to the actual, unbiased source.
Yours must be a very hard life, with all that offense going on all the time.
Doesn't anybody remember that Cisco did this with their Linsys routers? In order to set up your own router, you had to do it via a webpage on Cicso's servers, and from what I understand, it also called home a lot when it didn't need to.
I doubt I have to say here: that's not what I want in a router.
I never did find out what became of that situation. All I know for sure is that I don't buy Linksys products now.
The idea that Obama has been "reasonable" I find downright laughable.
I don't blame him for the things he tried to do and didn't.
It's what you seem to think are the "little" things, regardless of how his administration brought them about: a huge increase in mass surveillance, foreign policy seemingly designed to aid the enemy, and... how many crimes? That we know of?
Let's see. There was Clapper lying to Congress, Lerner lying to Congress, Holder lying to Congress, McCarthy lying to Congress, Holder in Fast and Furious, oh... and now a Federal judge has caught DOJ attorneys lying about the government letting in 100,000 (!!!) immigrants it never had any lawful authority to let in, and knew it.
That's just off the top of my head. How many other broken laws and Constitutional violations can we find if we really look? ALL of those people lying to Congress were direct employees of Barack Obama. He appointed them, he told them what to do. That's his job.
Let's not forget bombing whole families from drones, in violation of both U.S. and International law.
Maybe you don't think that's doing a lot. I do. And that's only a fraction of it... just SOME OF the things we've caught them at.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't necessarily disagree with this viewpoint, but I would ask: why does the program even exist in the first place?
It's only purpose for being is to fill a "shortage" in the U.S. workforce that does not, in fact, exist.
The problem is that there are many tax incentives to abuse the visa system.
There is another problem you failed to mention: continuing H-1B status is often used by employers to coerce the visa holders to work for lower-than-normal wages.
That is a big part of the reason the tech industry has for years been lobbying to expand the program.
A number of recent studies have shown that there simply is no shortage of tech-field college and university graduates in the U.S.
Holy crap. Are NONE of you familiar with thorium reactors?
Claimed disadvantages are: less development effort until recently, and less "quick efficiency" as a breeder reactor. But since they would be used to generate electricity, and the reaction products are part of the fuel cycle, not intended to be used externally for bombs or other reactors, that efficiency matters little.
Among the advantages are: more abundant and easily obtained fuel, inherently much safer design (meltdowns are physically impossible), and greatly reduced waste, especially of the long-half-life variety.
I should also add, as a side note: wind and solar have only been "cheap" where they are very highly subsidized. Which means: they aren't. Where subsidies have been removed or reduced, so have much of those industries.
The title of this thread incorrectly conflates "strongly typed" with "statically typed".
They are two completely different things.
The idea that it's actually 'learned consciously beforehand' is irrelevant.
No, it isn't. It's central to the point I was making, which you seem to have missed.
racism is a similar sort of 'learned reflex', and is similarly non-conscious.
Perhaps. I am not prepared to guess.
And no, the learned reflex does NOT happen 'before we're aware',only before the ELF (executive-level-functioning) subroutine (that which we normally name 'I') hears the news.
You have just contradicted yourself twice. First, this statement contradicts the previous quote. Second, we are not "consciously aware" of our actions until that executive level kicks in.
This was Sam Harris' logic as well, but there is a hole in it.
You are familiar with learned reflexes, yes? Once practiced, they become "unconscious" and occur before we are aware of them.
As adults, we have made up our minds about many kinds of decisions beforehand: likes, dislikes, morality.
So who is to say these are not "learned reflexes", which occur before we are aware of them, just like other learned reflexes?
That would mean those decisions were made consciously... just in advance. In the same way that learned reflexes are learned consciously, beforehand.
I have seen nothing in the experiments that would disprove this notion.
You beat me to it.
This is nothing but half-assed, garbage-can philosophy. No doubt it always "feels like something" to be a frog, but that doesn't mean the frog is "conscious" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
But that brings up a question which seldom fails to raise a strong reaction in some people: if a newborn is not "conscious" then to what degree, and by what measure, is it actually a human being?
One of the biggest problems we in the U.S. have with systems like this is that it pushes the burden of proof onto the accused. That is unacceptable here.
Among other things, they have no possible way to know whether the people they are tracking are under 13 years old, which is a violation of Federal law.
As it should be.
But I think I see now where you got the idea intent to harm came into play.
In order for a public figure to prevail in a libel suit, they must show actual malice.
But usually they do not. Public figures are the exception. Most defamation suits are by and against just regular people.
I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)
Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".
With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.
This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.
What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.
That is not quite the same thing.
It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.
There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."
In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.
A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."
The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."
So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.
In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.
And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.
If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.
Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.
In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.
Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.
This can't be stressed enough.
EVERYTHING, even the little things, should be documented, with evidence where possible. Because that's the only possible way to defend yourself.
Carry your phone around in a pocket or something at work. Take pictures. Copy documents.
NFC security was broken before it was even common in consumer devices.
Any time you use RF as part of your security, you are hanging your ass out in the wind.
Let's not forget that it's also a thermostat which is "smart" enough to call home (its home, that is) and report on your your thermostat settings and other activities that might be deduced from interaction with the device.
Some people think it's stupid to worry about such things. I think it's a "foot in the door". Remember, Nest was going to be part of a complete home "system".
Yep - I'm sure no one at Google thought about this. You should email them quick!
What, you think Google is magic, or prescient?
Google has had A LOT of bad ideas. And went on to implement them, only later to realize they were bad ideas.
The thing about Google is that it (or Alphabet) is big enough that it can afford such failures... no matter how much it costs the rest of us.
That's the funniest typo I've read in a long time.
So why did Clapper commit perjury in front of congress to cover up these programs?
Besides, we have the documents leaked by Snowden, which revealed what they revealed. And as a result we know that we were lied to, and deceived, and criminally abused, over oh so many things...
Good intentions do not make up for that. Professionalism doesn't make up for that. Nothing, in fact, makes up for that.
The court ruling doesn't give any context.
Yes, in fact it does.
Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"?
No, but yours appeared to be, from your comment: "I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?"
I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
It's a free country. Assume away. It won't get you anywhere, but I will defend to the... uh... change in my pocket, your right to do so.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
Wait a minute... didn't you just imply that the source doesn't matter? You just got done insulting me for having that very attitude (albeit incorrectly, as I actually stated the opposite). Right up there, a few lines above, in quotes.
You leave me with little choice but to just repeat what I said before: I'm sorry your delicate eyes were offended by all that nasty material you had to be exposed to for the 10 seconds it took to find the link to the actual, unbiased source.
Yours must be a very hard life, with all that offense going on all the time.
Doesn't anybody remember that Cisco did this with their Linsys routers? In order to set up your own router, you had to do it via a webpage on Cicso's servers, and from what I understand, it also called home a lot when it didn't need to.
I doubt I have to say here: that's not what I want in a router.
I never did find out what became of that situation. All I know for sure is that I don't buy Linksys products now.
There's a link to the actual court ruling, so what difference does the source make?
What's the matter, your delicate leftist sensibilities were bruised by having to wade through "offensive" material to find the link?
The idea that Obama has been "reasonable" I find downright laughable.
I don't blame him for the things he tried to do and didn't.
It's what you seem to think are the "little" things, regardless of how his administration brought them about: a huge increase in mass surveillance, foreign policy seemingly designed to aid the enemy, and... how many crimes? That we know of?
Let's see. There was Clapper lying to Congress, Lerner lying to Congress, Holder lying to Congress, McCarthy lying to Congress, Holder in Fast and Furious, oh... and now a Federal judge has caught DOJ attorneys lying about the government letting in 100,000 (!!!) immigrants it never had any lawful authority to let in, and knew it.
That's just off the top of my head. How many other broken laws and Constitutional violations can we find if we really look? ALL of those people lying to Congress were direct employees of Barack Obama. He appointed them, he told them what to do. That's his job.
Let's not forget bombing whole families from drones, in violation of both U.S. and International law.
Maybe you don't think that's doing a lot. I do. And that's only a fraction of it... just SOME OF the things we've caught them at.
Sadly, Obama has done lots of things.
And I, for one, am grateful for an "obstructionist" Congress in his case.