There are MANY ways to remotely manage a Mac. First there's Apple's relatively rich Remote Desktop.
Hey man, you got my attention. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm interested in hearing what you've done with Remote Desktop. I'd like to roll out a Mac lab (there's demand, and I'm interested in the exercise) of ~50 seats in a university setting. We have a few curriculum-related apps the are Mac-only, and I'd also like to support garden-variety general lab activities - browsing, Office, some multi-media editing. The usual suspects. Do you have any comments on image management, OS update and software-update support (hopefully lights-out based activity), hardware support (I see a lot of comments on diffcult/no ease of access when swapping parts).
I'm genuinely interested in hearing actual experiences. A bonus would be comparative comments from someone who supports both MS and Mac environments.
think the best comparison (and the one that historically goes with my point of view on the matter) is to compare ISPs to the telephone companies when the telephone first started out. In the beginning of the 20th Century, after the Edison patent expired and when the telephone network was recognized as the most important part of the system...
Point of clarification - the Edison patent was for the carbon transmitter (which made the telephone a practical device), not for the telephone system itself. Bell's first transmitters were voice-powered water xmitr's.
Wikipedia says:
In 1879, the Bell company acquired Edison's patents for the carbon microphone from Western Union.
YMMV.
They also know they can't compete because communism is a failed ideology.
Well, I'm sitting here in North America (as I'm guessing you are) and like you, my view from here is that communism is indeed a failed ideology.
I'll also guess that the view from Beijing is not quite so clear cut. Communist China (or what passes for Communist China today, which is a dialogue unto itself) is a nascent (or possibly re-emerging) economic and political powerhouse.
I think a lot of the dialogue on/. revolves around acceptance and rejection of the social and political spins that we encounter daily as we browse the www of the western world. If you don't recognise that the web as we see it is chock full of the values of the capitalist/judaeo-christian/whatever culture that we live in, then you're just kidding yourself, IMHO.
I'm not engaging in a dialogue on the relative merits of capitalism vs communism, but I am suggesting that the digital instance of either culture is going to reflect the values of that culture, and I'm also asserting that China's very existence plus its position in the hierarchy of power nations takes a lot of steam out of the 'communism is a failed ideology' assertion.
And no, I'm not a ' commie troll' - whatever that may be - nor am I attempting to categorise or denigrate your reply before you've even articulated it.
I have an acquaintance originally from Beijing who has no problem squaring up the totalitarianism of Tiananmen Square with today's China and its role in the modern world. On the flip side, I know another fellow from Shanghai who is a dyed-in-the-wool free market advocate.
Both of them are competitive as hell - as individuals, as well as economically and ideologically. I recognise that this is just another shitty sample being used on/. to advocate something much larger, but nonetheless my gut tells me that China will compete the hell out of the western world for the remainder (and beyond) of my lifetime.
One of the reasons to make information available via the web is because you don't have control over, and hence don't want to have to worry about/accommodate, the state of the client. This becomes even more true if you're running a server-side app - you *can't* depend on (the state of) the client.
Okay, so you have to do some stuff client side if you're going to go all web two-dot-ought. I guess this is why AJAX exists, and there is a reasonable javascript implementation in most browsers.
As soon as you impose client-side requirements, the morons (as the parent notes)that have done so have hobbled the web, and are just delivering another client app, in a particularly shitty way.
Glad you weren't my teacher, dude, imposing your narrow streets on the dreams and highways of a young creative mind.
Okay, so this is a *little* over the top, but just a little.
As long as you have them do something with it, *everything* has something to do with learning. And cutting kids off from wide swaths of the world 'cause you impose your arbitrary value set on them is worse than censorship.
Long story short, the senator immediately asks to goto the best place for cheap movies and he takes him to various pirated music/dvd shops and the senator loads up on pirated shit, which, of course, won't be touched at customs. I imagine he went to dirty-karaoke afterwards too...
I *gotta* ask, OT karma be damned... what the hell is dirty-karaoke?
Horrific notions of what this might possibly mean are FUCKING HURTING ME, MAN!
You mean this dispute in which the WTO ultimately ruled in favor of the US?
No, I mean *this* dispute in which the U.S. was required to return about 80 per cent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports.
However, in a discussion of enforcement of IP in China...
No,this is actually a discussion - if you read TFA - about a complaint filed by the U.S. with the W.T.O. about enforcement (or lack thereof) of I.P. in China (as well as blocking of business opportunities for foreign companies).
References to the U.S. record WRT observance/compliance with previous W.T.O. decisions is thus relevant, methinks. Sauce for the goose, and all that... a la carte observance of the rule of law is a problem, and definitely on-topic.
You take away the option to get paid, and only the people willing to make music for free will make it.
That's a false dilemma: live shows would still charge admission, for example. Sure, people could tape the performance and spread it over the net (again assuming they didn't sign any contracts when they entered the show), but clearly there would still be a demand for live performances.
L&R, I actually agree with most of the points you're making here. My comment on the quote above is that the indie artists I know would likely say that making a living off live performances only is a pretty tough go if you're not Metallica. The money they make off product sales at shows is a substantial part of their income, and product sales at shows also drives word of mouth inspired purchases by people who didn't come to the show.
Now, I don't know that copyright helps either of these types of sales much - people who enjoy the show tend to *want* to buy product, and a lot of the people they hang out with like to support indie artists too, so maybe lack of copyright wouldn't change their income all that much.
But living off live show door/event payment is a tough proposition for these folks, so it's important that whatever we do, we minimise any damage to their product sales, because they need it.
I think you're right about the underestimation of people's will to create, BTW. The amateur pickup band I'm in exists just because we like to get together and make music and hear the band play the songs we write, which is all about having fun creating music. We all have day jobs, though, so we don't need to make any money out of it. This isn't the case for pros, though, and the reason their music is better than ours is because the spend all their time working on it and hence need to make a living from it.
Or maybe we're just lousy and nobody's told us yet.:)
...removing all copyrights will in the end hurt artists...
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. Not everything that harms someone is (or should be) illegal.
I think you're trolling using absolute assertion here - call it irrelevant and just dismiss it. Some 'harms' are illegal and some harms are not (as implied by your statement) precisely because we consider the nature and extent of the harm in order to determine its relevancy to the issue at hand.
This doesn't mean that you cannot be correct here. But you have to argue it - you just don't get to dismiss it out of hand.
Man, I never thought I'd see a kook who could rival Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium for volume and sheer *density*, and I'm damned if I know how I missed out on timecube/Gene Ray all this time, but I just blew half an afternoon off trying to follow his shtick through, and hey, this is some King Kook Shit, Willis!
My favourite line culled from this afternoon's readings: In the Scientific Proof from Cubic Awareness Online,
From empirical inference, there exists chaos.
Man, I'll say. And I started off intending to argue the 'more entertaining' assertion, but am rendered speechless and definitely consider myself heartily entertained.
Look, I'm just a lay person on this topic. And as such, it really seems impossible to separate signal from noise on the topic - it's so polarized.
But my gut and my brain say 'Proceed With Extreme Caution', at minimum, on the subject of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's no doubt that human sources have increased tremendously in the past two hundred years, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me when someone asserts that this increase will have a negative impact. So, let's not take it to the boundary case to prove a point, okay?
My reaction to Ball, Lindzen, Allen, et al? Copernicus called, boys, and it turns out the you are not at the centre of my solar system. So quit trying to get press by being a contrarian, and spend some time bringing forward solutions for reduction of CO2 emissions. Where were you twenty years ago when climate change advocates were being called kooks?
That's enough to get my Spidey Sense Tingling. Corcoran has been putting down climate change with his own inimitable mealy mouth spiteful style as long as I remember (1992?); fifteen years ago he was calling anyone remotely asserting climate change a kook because they had no science behind them. Now he wants me to believe that the same people are kooks because the other side of the debate don't get a chance to develop their science - boo hoo.
Whatever. The denial dudes were on the winning side of the funding equation for long enough - shut-up and let the other side have a kick at the can for a while.
Hey, shouldn't the magazine size be base 6? If I only have a six-pack, I'm wasting capacity, and if I have a twelve-pack, I've got to get up to reload. Then again, I guess you can reload while you're unloading.
There's gotta be a WKRP reference somewhere in here to be had... the machine gets *faster* at tossing 'em the more Johnny drinks?
In the Accuracy Test, loading of the first beer into the throwing arm takes about five seconds. After that, it fires each subsequent beer in just over a second. Obviously it's not pivoting around and getting each next beer out of the magazine. Presumably someone is manually loading the throwing arm after the first beer.
A Very Cool Device, but I think the accuracy test is a bit of a cheat.
What if the scenario instead was, "Oh, she's an excellent student at Yale, she interviewed well, she's fairly articulate, but when I type her name into Google, the first four hits are:
[... bad shit deleted... ]
Well, I hear you, man, but I still don't get it. I read that forum, and all I can see is a bunch of morons - and that is being charitable. It in no way reflects on the person being discussed.
Maybe I don't understand the world of law firms. If they are such a bunch of tight-asses that they won't hire someone because of these sorts of comments from these sorts of people, then they should go pound sand up their collective ass. Which, I understand, doesn't do anything for the law student standing out in the cold.
I mean, I thought lawyers were *supposed* to make other people say nasty shit about them - doesn't that mean that they're doing a good job?
And you know what? I'm only half tongue-in-cheek when I say that.
If the legal community has a need to issue rape threats, stalk women and ruin their careers, the legal community can go fuck itself.
Bravo! Are these morons actually the crème de la crème of the upcoming American legal community? The troll postings are bad enough, but the challenging of fights in the park are just as ridiculous. They sound like my public school 30+ years ago.
Between the forum's participants and prospective employers who weight this shit into hiring decisions, I'm starting to glean some insight into the future American legal community, and it ain't pretty. Some of these people will end up being judges.
The inference in the article is that the protagonist got minimal call-backs and no offers as a result of what was said in postings (possibly anonymous) about her on the AutoAdmit law school admissions discussion board.
Goggling an applicant and finding pictures of them on their myspace site, smoking blunts and self-copulating is one thing.
If law firms reject otherwise stellar applicants on the basis of anonymous postings on a cheesy discussion forum, then they are stupid beyond words. Can you hear it?: "Oh she's top of her class at UPenn, just *blew* the doors off the interview, goddamn articulate, but I heard an anonymous rumour she cheated on her LSAT".
She best start looking for other employers, 'cause you don't want to work for people that have their heads so far up their ass that they'll pass up on the next Clarence Darrow because of what some anonymous shill said on the fscking Internet.
Skilled programmers that are smart skip college. You'll have 4 years of experience...
I dunno... this is so dependent on the individual. You have to get the job first without the credentials, which can be a trick, but even if that plays out, you can just as easily end up with four years experience in writing shitty code. In our IS shop (which admittedly is building narrow focus ERP code, which gets you a certain type of applicant) I see a *lot* of applicants for junior positions that are clueless about *any* loop optimization transformation. Hand 'em a snippet with an invariant calc inside the loop and they'll hand it right back to you. They 404 you if you mention Big O.
Good coders understand this stuff without going to university, it's internalized, so if that individual is someone who's been coding for fun since they were twelve, you'll be okay. But I don't see those people out there, man; if they haven't been exposed to it in school, it is *nowhere* on their radar, and god knows what sort of dreck they'll crank out.
Father Guido Sarducci's 5 minute university for Economics: "Ya got Supply, ya got Demand, they meet; that's Price!"
I know that this is an exercise in reductionism, but I think it's worthwhile because it illustrates the point that Bill's motivations are suspect here. On the High Moral Ground of Keeping America Great, Bill stands, looking to bring in highly skilled individuals who are probably prepared to work for less and soften the whole market.
Bill's been talking a lot about this lately and so has/.:
Anyone find comparative salary numbers for H-1B workers out there? There's a lot of noise when I Google it and I'm not coming up with anything useful. You find stuff like:
For engineering and IT jobs that remain in the US, fewer are filled by Americans. US firms have learned that they can pay foreigners on H-1B and L-1 work visas lower salaries, force their American employees to train their foreign replacements, and then discharge their American workers.
Can't find any stats to back it up though. As a Canadian, I'd like to have a sense of impact of skilled immigration on salary markets, simply because the American experience will broadly define the North American experience. Is Bill just trying to 'in-source' (bring the cheaper labour to the market instead of shipping the market to the cheaper labour)?
This was pretty quick find in terms of the status in Canada:
- we signed
- it isn't ratified by Parliament yet
- the bureaucrats are working on it
It is noted that a number of laws have to be changed in advance of ratification, so
Complementary or further amendments could be made to other existing laws , such as the Competition Act, in order to modernize them in accord with the Convention, notably in the areas of real-time tracing of traffic data (see section on Specific Production Orders below) and interception of e-mail.
There are a couple of beauties in here; the options being examined for the cost of building a required "interception capability" for ISP's include the ISP's paying for it, the ISP's paying for it when "significant upgrades" to their networks occur but not required to pay for changes to existing networks. This all adds up to the customer paying for the mechanisms that Johnny Law gets to use to bust those same customers. What a schmozzle in the making.
I don't have much of an alternative to contribute here, though. Crime on the Internet is apparently on the rise (I don't know if I believe stories of DOS-extortion, they always seem to be a rumour, not a news story, but maybe I'm naive). Internationally there needs to be a mechanism for a guy in France to charge a guy in Canada (yo MafiaBoy!) for DOS'ing his business, but this is Big Brother shit running wild.
Why aren't existing extradition treaties sufficient, and used in concert with whatever updates occur in the laws of respective countries? If you think someone's guilty, make your case in extradition court. Is the requirement of evidence so much higher for cyber-crime than other crimes?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey man, you got my attention. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm interested in hearing what you've done with Remote Desktop. I'd like to roll out a Mac lab (there's demand, and I'm interested in the exercise) of ~50 seats in a university setting. We have a few curriculum-related apps the are Mac-only, and I'd also like to support garden-variety general lab activities - browsing, Office, some multi-media editing. The usual suspects. Do you have any comments on image management, OS update and software-update support (hopefully lights-out based activity), hardware support (I see a lot of comments on diffcult/no ease of access when swapping parts).
I'm genuinely interested in hearing actual experiences. A bonus would be comparative comments from someone who supports both MS and Mac environments.
Point of clarification - the Edison patent was for the carbon transmitter (which made the telephone a practical device), not for the telephone system itself. Bell's first transmitters were voice-powered water xmitr's.
Wikipedia says:
In 1879, the Bell company acquired Edison's patents for the carbon microphone from Western Union.YMMV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
Well, I'm sitting here in North America (as I'm guessing you are) and like you, my view from here is that communism is indeed a failed ideology.
I'll also guess that the view from Beijing is not quite so clear cut. Communist China (or what passes for Communist China today, which is a dialogue unto itself) is a nascent (or possibly re-emerging) economic and political powerhouse.
I think a lot of the dialogue on /. revolves around acceptance and rejection of the social and political spins that we encounter daily as we browse the www of the western world. If you don't recognise that the web as we see it is chock full of the values of the capitalist/judaeo-christian/whatever culture that we live in, then you're just kidding yourself, IMHO.
I'm not engaging in a dialogue on the relative merits of capitalism vs communism, but I am suggesting that the digital instance of either culture is going to reflect the values of that culture, and I'm also asserting that China's very existence plus its position in the hierarchy of power nations takes a lot of steam out of the 'communism is a failed ideology' assertion.
And no, I'm not a ' commie troll' - whatever that may be - nor am I attempting to categorise or denigrate your reply before you've even articulated it.
I have an acquaintance originally from Beijing who has no problem squaring up the totalitarianism of Tiananmen Square with today's China and its role in the modern world. On the flip side, I know another fellow from Shanghai who is a dyed-in-the-wool free market advocate.
Both of them are competitive as hell - as individuals, as well as economically and ideologically. I recognise that this is just another shitty sample being used on /. to advocate something much larger, but nonetheless my gut tells me that China will compete the hell out of the western world for the remainder (and beyond) of my lifetime.
Points well stated and taken.
One of the reasons to make information available via the web is because you don't have control over, and hence don't want to have to worry about/accommodate, the state of the client. This becomes even more true if you're running a server-side app - you *can't* depend on (the state of) the client.
Okay, so you have to do some stuff client side if you're going to go all web two-dot-ought. I guess this is why AJAX exists, and there is a reasonable javascript implementation in most browsers.
As soon as you impose client-side requirements, the morons (as the parent notes)that have done so have hobbled the web, and are just delivering another client app, in a particularly shitty way.
Glad you weren't my teacher, dude, imposing your narrow streets on the dreams and highways of a young creative mind.
Okay, so this is a *little* over the top, but just a little.
As long as you have them do something with it, *everything* has something to do with learning. And cutting kids off from wide swaths of the world 'cause you impose your arbitrary value set on them is worse than censorship.
SANCTIMONY OFF.
I *gotta* ask, OT karma be damned ... what the hell is dirty-karaoke?
Horrific notions of what this might possibly mean are FUCKING HURTING ME, MAN!
No, I mean *this* dispute in which the U.S. was required to return about 80 per cent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports.
No,this is actually a discussion - if you read TFA - about a complaint filed by the U.S. with the W.T.O. about enforcement (or lack thereof) of I.P. in China (as well as blocking of business opportunities for foreign companies).
References to the U.S. record WRT observance/compliance with previous W.T.O. decisions is thus relevant, methinks. Sauce for the goose, and all that ... a la carte observance of the rule of law is a problem, and definitely on-topic.
Oh man - do you know what happened to the Beatles when John Lennon said that? Particularly right before Easter.
Anyway, they're burning your albums outside my window right now.
That's just *great*. Bad enough having to listen to Son of Sam's dog in my fscking head, now I have to listen %*)()_##!! Berkowitz call' too!
That's a false dilemma: live shows would still charge admission, for example. Sure, people could tape the performance and spread it over the net (again assuming they didn't sign any contracts when they entered the show), but clearly there would still be a demand for live performances.
L&R, I actually agree with most of the points you're making here. My comment on the quote above is that the indie artists I know would likely say that making a living off live performances only is a pretty tough go if you're not Metallica. The money they make off product sales at shows is a substantial part of their income, and product sales at shows also drives word of mouth inspired purchases by people who didn't come to the show.
Now, I don't know that copyright helps either of these types of sales much - people who enjoy the show tend to *want* to buy product, and a lot of the people they hang out with like to support indie artists too, so maybe lack of copyright wouldn't change their income all that much.
But living off live show door/event payment is a tough proposition for these folks, so it's important that whatever we do, we minimise any damage to their product sales, because they need it.
I think you're right about the underestimation of people's will to create, BTW. The amateur pickup band I'm in exists just because we like to get together and make music and hear the band play the songs we write, which is all about having fun creating music. We all have day jobs, though, so we don't need to make any money out of it. This isn't the case for pros, though, and the reason their music is better than ours is because the spend all their time working on it and hence need to make a living from it.
Or maybe we're just lousy and nobody's told us yet. :)
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. Not everything that harms someone is (or should be) illegal.
I think you're trolling using absolute assertion here - call it irrelevant and just dismiss it. Some 'harms' are illegal and some harms are not (as implied by your statement) precisely because we consider the nature and extent of the harm in order to determine its relevancy to the issue at hand.
This doesn't mean that you cannot be correct here. But you have to argue it - you just don't get to dismiss it out of hand.
Absolutely! There is *nothing* scarier than a lawyer acting as a physician, man.
The patient died but the operation was ... profitable?
[/humour]Man, I never thought I'd see a kook who could rival Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium for volume and sheer *density*, and I'm damned if I know how I missed out on timecube/Gene Ray all this time, but I just blew half an afternoon off trying to follow his shtick through, and hey, this is some King Kook Shit, Willis!
My favourite line culled from this afternoon's readings: In the Scientific Proof from Cubic Awareness Online,
From empirical inference, there exists chaos.Man, I'll say. And I started off intending to argue the 'more entertaining' assertion, but am rendered speechless and definitely consider myself heartily entertained.
Uncle!Look, I'm just a lay person on this topic. And as such, it really seems impossible to separate signal from noise on the topic - it's so polarized.
But my gut and my brain say 'Proceed With Extreme Caution', at minimum, on the subject of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's no doubt that human sources have increased tremendously in the past two hundred years, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me when someone asserts that this increase will have a negative impact. So, let's not take it to the boundary case to prove a point, okay?
My reaction to Ball, Lindzen, Allen, et al? Copernicus called, boys, and it turns out the you are not at the centre of my solar system. So quit trying to get press by being a contrarian, and spend some time bringing forward solutions for reduction of CO2 emissions. Where were you twenty years ago when climate change advocates were being called kooks?
Professor Ball has famed Canadian nutter journalist Terence Corcoran arguing for him: http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3d2 d2672-3b1a-47c7-8324-3e35efee1763 .
That's enough to get my Spidey Sense Tingling. Corcoran has been putting down climate change with his own inimitable mealy mouth spiteful style as long as I remember (1992?); fifteen years ago he was calling anyone remotely asserting climate change a kook because they had no science behind them. Now he wants me to believe that the same people are kooks because the other side of the debate don't get a chance to develop their science - boo hoo.
Whatever. The denial dudes were on the winning side of the funding equation for long enough - shut-up and let the other side have a kick at the can for a while.
Jesus, now you had to go bringing 'alternate' vs 'alternative' into it.
We'll never get to close posting on this thread.
[/humour]Both spellings are correct. Sorry.
OED says 'whiney' has only been around since 1920. Are we supposed to be on top of all these brand-new spellings? Huh?
[/humour]Hey, shouldn't the magazine size be base 6? If I only have a six-pack, I'm wasting capacity, and if I have a twelve-pack, I've got to get up to reload. Then again, I guess you can reload while you're unloading.
There's gotta be a WKRP reference somewhere in here to be had ... the machine gets *faster* at tossing 'em the more Johnny drinks?
In the Accuracy Test, loading of the first beer into the throwing arm takes about five seconds. After that, it fires each subsequent beer in just over a second. Obviously it's not pivoting around and getting each next beer out of the magazine. Presumably someone is manually loading the throwing arm after the first beer.
A Very Cool Device, but I think the accuracy test is a bit of a cheat.
[
Well, I hear you, man, but I still don't get it. I read that forum, and all I can see is a bunch of morons - and that is being charitable. It in no way reflects on the person being discussed.
Maybe I don't understand the world of law firms. If they are such a bunch of tight-asses that they won't hire someone because of these sorts of comments from these sorts of people, then they should go pound sand up their collective ass. Which, I understand, doesn't do anything for the law student standing out in the cold.
I mean, I thought lawyers were *supposed* to make other people say nasty shit about them - doesn't that mean that they're doing a good job?
And you know what? I'm only half tongue-in-cheek when I say that.
Bravo! Are these morons actually the crème de la crème of the upcoming American legal community? The troll postings are bad enough, but the challenging of fights in the park are just as ridiculous. They sound like my public school 30+ years ago.
Between the forum's participants and prospective employers who weight this shit into hiring decisions, I'm starting to glean some insight into the future American legal community, and it ain't pretty. Some of these people will end up being judges.
The inference in the article is that the protagonist got minimal call-backs and no offers as a result of what was said in postings (possibly anonymous) about her on the AutoAdmit law school admissions discussion board.
Goggling an applicant and finding pictures of them on their myspace site, smoking blunts and self-copulating is one thing.
If law firms reject otherwise stellar applicants on the basis of anonymous postings on a cheesy discussion forum, then they are stupid beyond words. Can you hear it?: "Oh she's top of her class at UPenn, just *blew* the doors off the interview, goddamn articulate, but I heard an anonymous rumour she cheated on her LSAT".
She best start looking for other employers, 'cause you don't want to work for people that have their heads so far up their ass that they'll pass up on the next Clarence Darrow because of what some anonymous shill said on the fscking Internet.
I dunno ... this is so dependent on the individual. You have to get the job first without the credentials, which can be a trick, but even if that plays out, you can just as easily end up with four years experience in writing shitty code. In our IS shop (which admittedly is building narrow focus ERP code, which gets you a certain type of applicant) I see a *lot* of applicants for junior positions that are clueless about *any* loop optimization transformation. Hand 'em a snippet with an invariant calc inside the loop and they'll hand it right back to you. They 404 you if you mention Big O.
Good coders understand this stuff without going to university, it's internalized, so if that individual is someone who's been coding for fun since they were twelve, you'll be okay. But I don't see those people out there, man; if they haven't been exposed to it in school, it is *nowhere* on their radar, and god knows what sort of dreck they'll crank out.
Father Guido Sarducci's 5 minute university for Economics: "Ya got Supply, ya got Demand, they meet; that's Price!"
I know that this is an exercise in reductionism, but I think it's worthwhile because it illustrates the point that Bill's motivations are suspect here. On the High Moral Ground of Keeping America Great, Bill stands, looking to bring in highly skilled individuals who are probably prepared to work for less and soften the whole market.
Bill's been talking a lot about this lately and so has /.:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/26/15Maybe his numbers don't add up? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224204&cid=18
Anyone find comparative salary numbers for H-1B workers out there? There's a lot of noise when I Google it and I'm not coming up with anything useful. You find stuff like:
For engineering and IT jobs that remain in the US, fewer are filled by Americans. US firms have learned that they can pay foreigners on H-1B and L-1 work visas lower salaries, force their American employees to train their foreign replacements, and then discharge their American workers.Can't find any stats to back it up though. As a Canadian, I'd like to have a sense of impact of skilled immigration on salary markets, simply because the American experience will broadly define the North American experience. Is Bill just trying to 'in-source' (bring the cheaper labour to the market instead of shipping the market to the cheaper labour)?
This was pretty quick find in terms of the status in Canada:
Complementary or further amendments could be made to other existing laws , such as the Competition Act, in order to modernize them in accord with the Convention, notably in the areas of real-time tracing of traffic data (see section on Specific Production Orders below) and interception of e-mail.- we signed
- it isn't ratified by Parliament yet
- the bureaucrats are working on it
It is noted that a number of laws have to be changed in advance of ratification, so
There are a couple of beauties in here; the options being examined for the cost of building a required "interception capability" for ISP's include the ISP's paying for it, the ISP's paying for it when "significant upgrades" to their networks occur but not required to pay for changes to existing networks. This all adds up to the customer paying for the mechanisms that Johnny Law gets to use to bust those same customers. What a schmozzle in the making.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/a.html
I don't have much of an alternative to contribute here, though. Crime on the Internet is apparently on the rise (I don't know if I believe stories of DOS-extortion, they always seem to be a rumour, not a news story, but maybe I'm naive). Internationally there needs to be a mechanism for a guy in France to charge a guy in Canada (yo MafiaBoy!) for DOS'ing his business, but this is Big Brother shit running wild.
Why aren't existing extradition treaties sufficient, and used in concert with whatever updates occur in the laws of respective countries? If you think someone's guilty, make your case in extradition court. Is the requirement of evidence so much higher for cyber-crime than other crimes?