The H1B program grants employers the power to terminate an immigrant's stay and can be abused. The government is the propper decider if anyone is. The only propper criteria for entry should be a well founded belief in the wording and principles of the US constitution.
I know some people with H1B visas. They never expressed this concern to me. And, while a belief in the US Constitution is necessray, I in no way believe it is sufficent. The demonstrated abiity to perform a useful job seems just as vital. Smart companies simply don't abuse it.
If that were true, Russia and parts of Africa would be very rich and powerful. Wealth and power come when citizens lawfully protect each other's freedom.
Russia has been wealthy and is returning to great wealth. Egypt and South Africa are pretty wealthy and powerful. Areas of Africa in civil war are still fighting over their wealth, I'll grant. But that has more to do with stability than freedom. China is rich. Repressive Arab regimes are rich.
So, there needs to be mineral rights and stability. Most rich and powerful countries were kingdoms in the past. Freedom is a (worthwhile) drain on an economy.
Anyway, if we gave NASA the kind of money we give the military, I am certain we would have the same toys we have now. The only difference is those toys would not have started out as weapon systems.
NASA also started off by drawing from the DOD. As did microwaves, vulcanization, and the list goes on.
Any organization with the money that the military has would produce exactly the same useful civilian items the military has produced. First, the inventions that make into civilian hands make it there because they are immensely useful to civilians, so you can pretty much be assured that someone in the civilian sector would think it up. Second, when you have an organization throwing around money like the military, the civilians that thought up the idea will get money and: viola, you have radio navigation/LORAN/GPS.
I disagree. The military has goals to accomplish, and to which it is primarilly price insenstive. As more and more orders to the military for X are met, the technology becomes cheaper. A civilian organization, on the other hand, would primarilly have an incentive to make more noticable changes. That is, more immediate changes, noticed more quickly, less riskly and leading to great stuff. Becuase there would be a huge incentive to release every 2/4 years.
Even look at NASA and the DOD. NASA uses COTS parts, whereas the DOD sees nothing wrong with demanding some widget be special made.
I think this can be true for most Microsoft products. You just have to wade through the menus at intstall time. Their defaults are designed for "most people". I don't install Clippy (or the eight alternativies), and it's smaller and better because of that. I'm just curious how many people have set up a Linux box and then spent the same time (a day or two) configuring a Windows install. Because, I'm willing to bet that Windows becomes more lean and secure etc. with that much setup time.
The people from MS aren't dumb. And most of their features are for an enterprise OS. I wonder what happens when you pare it down.
What's wrong with the H1B situation. It's temporary, and in keeping with very long American tradition.
"Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership
Since this benefits me more than international markets not bound by US Patent and Copyright, yay!
corporate bail outs and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Yeah, the example you linked to does seem bad. I'll agree with you on this.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around
Historically false, both in the US and everywhere. The US got vast mineral rights by taking them from Mexico and buying them (luckily) from Russia. Other properties involved taking advantage of Napolean's financial crunch. The native people were pushed off their land in general, and the Cherokee were specifically moved off their reservation (after the Supreme Court ruled otherwise) because of the gold present.
Usually, a country's wealth influence and power come from fortunate mineral rights. Sometimes it comes from flora and fauna. Recently, the idea has become a powerful commodity, but not recently enough for it to have shapped history. To say that freedom and justice are anything but a drain (a worthwhile one) on a country's wealth is laughable pabulum pushed on schoolchildren.
Doesn't sound quite as bad as Independence Day, though. I mean, a PowerBook from 1997 connecting to the Internet on the move?
What's wrong with that? IIRC, I had a cellphone with a special port for use to connnect to a serial(?) port in 1997. You could use it as a modem to call an ISP. It wasn't EDGE technology that allowed it to be on the internet, but it was around.
I don't remember when that happened however.
Of more concern was how easy it was to connect the Mac to the alien computers. But I suppose that it is possible a converter was created.
Deep Impact - a progress meter saying "TRANSFERRING TO FLOPPY DISK"?
Well, was it transfering to a floppy? What's wrong here?
The amount of science and computing howlers in modern films (and TV shows) irritates me beyond belief.
If those examples are what annoys you, what is wrong with you? I have no desire to watch someone use a command line interface to read e-mail. I also want the guns to have infinite magazines (except when running out of ammo is an interesting part of the story.) You can talk about the annoyance of bad science, and there are good examples (which slip my mind). But, just like I have no desire to see someone actaully fix a car's engine (yes, car analog, for the win) in a movie as opposed to play with a wrench for 10 seconds, I have no desire to watch someone go through the tedium of configuring a computer, or programming, or using PINE.
why can't we go back to the days when film-makers would have an enormous penchant for factual accuracy?... It may not be particularly noticeable to the average viewer, but to me it's intensely off-putting.
This combination is called "answering your own question."
I think the only thing worse as far as "hacking" or tech movies would be the one released recently whose plot revolved around getting killed by a text message or something equally ridiculous.
That was a horror movie, ala The Ring. It was meant to add the supernatural to the commonplace to be scary.
The main problem here is "continuation filings". Using these, you can take longer and longer to amend your patent. Of course, that means that you can amend your patent to cover things that are already in the market. So file in '97 and file enough continuations until 2000 or so and you've just retroactively patented 3 years worth of progress.
You can only amend your patent to include new claims based on your description (from '97). So, while it may be that if you weren't sure about this internet thingy in '97, and you were running low on claims (only so many are allowed), you might have opted to include a claim only for BBSes and later switched it to the Internet, you cannot invent things out of whole cloth.
Grammar 101: Independent clauses need verbs. This fact is not even law, just way the English language is structured. It may extend to other languages beyond English.
As it was originally written by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was however ratified to its current version because it was feared that the ability to decide who could and could not be eligible for the militia was deemed too much power in the hands of the federal government. Also "free country" was amended to "state" to allow for more state independence.
First, that formulation still has a dependent clause explaining the militia aspect. It then says if you never owned a weapon for religious reasons, you cannot be drafted. I'm guessing that was added for Pennsylvania's benefit. But, if anything, that formulation even more strongly ties weapon ownership with militias and armies.
The well regulated militia clause is an independent clause.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not an independent clause. It's dependent. This is easily observable by the lack of a verb.
The meaning of the amendment would not be changed by its removal. The clause is a preamble, explaining the reasoning behind the amendment, not restricting it.
IANAL, but I believe that the intention of allowing searches incident to arrest is to prevent the suspect from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence. Since you cannot store a mac-10 in your iphone, this should be ruled out. So, the only logical time when an iphone or similar device can be searched is if the arrest is for a crime that can be linked to some sort of electronic device; child pornography, harassment, voyeurism, etc. If I am being arrested for starting a fight in a bar, there is no reason to go through my digital property, right?
Nope
[I]t was argued to the court that a search of the person of the defendant arrested for a traffic offense, which discovered heroin in a crumpled cigarette package, was impermissible, inasmuch as there could have been no destructible evidence relating to the offense for which he was arrested and no weapon could have been concealed in the cigarette package. The Court rejected this argument...
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973)
Really? The Free Software Foundation doesn't have so much trouble supporting multiple kernels. You just take the source and re-compile it...
Sorry, API's to the kernel. And that was in need of unification.
And you know, the phone system in the United States only got better after the Ma Bell breakup... long-distance rates went down, and all of a sudden you could buy all sorts of inexpensive third-party equipment (e.g. answering machines).
AFAIK, there was (and is) still one phone company doing all the lifting. But they were required to lease their lines at predetermined rates to various companies. These then were able to compete. However, I was refering to the early days when there were 8 phone companies in some cities, and you could only call people with the same company, so some homes had 2 or 3 phone lines.
Well, can the police read, say, my notebook, kept in my backpack in the car? Can they look at my wallet full of business cards and contacts?
If they think they "may contain evidence that you can destroy" and they have arrested you, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled yes.
What if these papers and information are protected by attorney or medical privilege?
I imagine you would inform them of that when you discover they intend to read/confiscate it. And then it is completely inadmissable in court. And they could not look.
(As a corallary, I bet it is illegal to lie about that to an officer in this context.)
What if these are my (HIPAA-protected) health records?
I'd imagine those would be treated the same as medical privlidged papers.
IANAL, but I did read the article linked to in the summary on searches incident to arrest.
So the noun iPhone is now being used to refer to any cellphone, pda or other hybrid mobile device?
Apple is in a world of hurt if iPhone refers to any cellphone. Because, once it becomes a noun, it can no longer be a trademark and anyone can make an iPhone. Xerox and Johnson & Johnson (with Band-aid) were both facing similar issues. I believe Xerox won the fight for the generic noun to be something else and Johnson & Johnson failed, although I may have flipped the two.
3) He built a market for third parties. Microsoft is and remains as powerful as they are because people can make money on it. How about Apple? How big is the third party market there? Apple has (in the early days you actually had to get a token) kept very tight control on who can develop on the Apple box. And third parties have to be "blessed" and pay homage to the alter of Steve Jobs.
That's a strange way to phrase it. Microsoft is good because it was monolithic. Code written once worked on 95% of the computers. Would a better OS be superior? Yes. However, kernels, like phone companies, work best if there is only one.
So what you are saying is the only way to correctly implement the standard is to provide compatibility layers for all versions of all browsers.
No. What I am saying is that upgrading from IE6 to IE8 should not change any site that renders properly in IE6. If you want to create a new site that only works on IE8, or other standards compliant browsers, great. However, new content that follows that rule sould look different. Like, be written in XHTML 2.0
Businesses are going to switch over to more standards compliance as soon as humanly possible, it just doesn't make any business expense to pay more to develop for IE if there's the possibility of coding things in a standards compliant way which reaches similar numbers.
New businesses, perhaps. But maintaining old code, and developing new code in the old way, is vital. It costs a lot of money to replace everything with new and shiny stuff.
You forgot about the TPS Reports.. You MUST put a cover on your TPS Reports, didn't you get the memo. Well from now on make sure that you put covers on your TPS Reports. Did I say TPS Reports enough times?
If you want to be a manager, don't think that the parent is funny. TPS reports, or other productivity tracking methods, are one thing a manager will have to deal with a lot. Being a manager means dealing with more b'cracy. Most people on/. bitch about the BS managers make them do. This is because it is a small amount of the paperwork that can get shoved off onto them. The truth is, when you are an IT manager, and being compared to other (non-IT) managers, all your work will get turned into cost/benefit analysis. It will not matter how nifty the languages are that run the servers. It will not matter (directly) how clean the code is. It will not really matter (directly) how happy your employees are.
You will be expected to demonstrate that you are delivering a good ROI. This can mean the code is clean, but it is phrased in terms of capital investments to shorten future development. This can mean treating your employees like people, but it is phrased in terms of increasing productivity via low-cost non-monetary inducements.
But, above all, you have to understand that an IT manager deals with business people. He gets requests for capability, and delivers black-boxes. If you want to become an IT manager because you can create cool stuff, you're looking for the wrong reasons.
A static DOCTYPE cannot work but making pages permanently dependent on bugs in specific versions of browsers can?
Correct. New executables should not break old content. No matter what XHTML 1.0 was supposed to mean, it did mean that it supports IE 6. Hence, when we try the next iteration of content, even though it is aiming for the same standard as XHTML 1.0, it is a new version.
Well, the DOCTYPE was supposed to mean "yes, I really do mean it,"
So long as any major browser has one deviation from the standard, a static doctype cannot work. Therefore, a major release of Safari/Firefox/IE/Opera should make the XHTML standard one release version higher. In other words, seperate content that may use an old hack from those that don't.
For everyone's bitching, there is no other way out of this problem. There was an error before rendering. Many webpages specified a doctype, however were rendered incorrectly. To maintain backwards compatibility (critical*) and to maintain the spirt of the standards (desirable) the standard has to include something new that means "yes, I really do mean it." My solution would be to create XHTML 2.0 that is XHTML 1.0, without MS specific hacks.
*For those who don't believe this, how many of you made fun of MS for breaking backwards compatibility with "all apps need admin privledges" and created a "Cancel or Allow" dialog?
Heck, no, if I specify XHTML strict, it should render strict. The doctype does say enough. Those who want to adhere to standards just say "strict" and that's it....
IE's rendering behavior was not updated for five years, leading many developers to assume its rendering was both accurate and unlikely to change.
There you have it... It wasn't rendering accurately... Who's at fault, eh?
A bunch of web developers specified XHTML strict when it used IE6 specific hacks. Since IE6 had bugs, it rendered correctly thinking it was strict. So, MS doesn't want all those sites to break. So it says that XHTML strict means IE6 hackery. Because that doesn't conflict with people who trusted them, only those who didn't.
Each part seems reasonable (if you assume that web developers only test on one browser.) People tested it. It worked. They thought it was strict and called it so. MS doesn't break things for developers, which is why so many developers use MS products. Cause they don't break. They said, we need a new type outside the standard because the standard got warped.
Every business I've been in operates the same way. Deal with malformed input as best you can. If a lot of the data relies on a misinterpertation, you keep that going. The next version is not allowed to fix the misinterpertation. Instead, you create a new syntax that uses the data format you initially wanted, and only use a different tag (in XML), so that only new data gets new processing.
How else would it work? "Screw the world, adhere to standards or get fucked?" No other field works like that. It's time for XHTML 2.0 strict, which is really XHTML 1.0 strict, sans IE 6.0 crap. Is it fair? No. But it's realistic.
I don't understand how anyone can object to the previous law. If you build a method of transfering information, you are not liable for what people send over it. Should gun makers be liable for what people do with their products?
Characterizing both Kucinich and Paul as "loopy" does nothing to establish the author's credibility.
Dopey? Naive to the point of embarassment? Thank goodness unelectable? Wrong about their signature issue? An inferior choice to a monkey? What phrase would you like?
Slashdot Mirror
I know some people with H1B visas. They never expressed this concern to me. And, while a belief in the US Constitution is necessray, I in no way believe it is sufficent. The demonstrated abiity to perform a useful job seems just as vital. Smart companies simply don't abuse it.
Russia has been wealthy and is returning to great wealth. Egypt and South Africa are pretty wealthy and powerful. Areas of Africa in civil war are still fighting over their wealth, I'll grant. But that has more to do with stability than freedom. China is rich. Repressive Arab regimes are rich.
So, there needs to be mineral rights and stability. Most rich and powerful countries were kingdoms in the past. Freedom is a (worthwhile) drain on an economy.
NASA also started off by drawing from the DOD. As did microwaves, vulcanization, and the list goes on.
I disagree. The military has goals to accomplish, and to which it is primarilly price insenstive. As more and more orders to the military for X are met, the technology becomes cheaper. A civilian organization, on the other hand, would primarilly have an incentive to make more noticable changes. That is, more immediate changes, noticed more quickly, less riskly and leading to great stuff. Becuase there would be a huge incentive to release every 2/4 years.
Even look at NASA and the DOD. NASA uses COTS parts, whereas the DOD sees nothing wrong with demanding some widget be special made.
I think this can be true for most Microsoft products. You just have to wade through the menus at intstall time. Their defaults are designed for "most people". I don't install Clippy (or the eight alternativies), and it's smaller and better because of that. I'm just curious how many people have set up a Linux box and then spent the same time (a day or two) configuring a Windows install. Because, I'm willing to bet that Windows becomes more lean and secure etc. with that much setup time.
The people from MS aren't dumb. And most of their features are for an enterprise OS. I wonder what happens when you pare it down.
What's wrong with the H1B situation. It's temporary, and in keeping with very long American tradition.
Since this benefits me more than international markets not bound by US Patent and Copyright, yay!
Yeah, the example you linked to does seem bad. I'll agree with you on this.
Historically false, both in the US and everywhere. The US got vast mineral rights by taking them from Mexico and buying them (luckily) from Russia. Other properties involved taking advantage of Napolean's financial crunch. The native people were pushed off their land in general, and the Cherokee were specifically moved off their reservation (after the Supreme Court ruled otherwise) because of the gold present.
Usually, a country's wealth influence and power come from fortunate mineral rights. Sometimes it comes from flora and fauna. Recently, the idea has become a powerful commodity, but not recently enough for it to have shapped history. To say that freedom and justice are anything but a drain (a worthwhile one) on a country's wealth is laughable pabulum pushed on schoolchildren.
What's wrong with that? IIRC, I had a cellphone with a special port for use to connnect to a serial(?) port in 1997. You could use it as a modem to call an ISP. It wasn't EDGE technology that allowed it to be on the internet, but it was around.
I don't remember when that happened however.
Of more concern was how easy it was to connect the Mac to the alien computers. But I suppose that it is possible a converter was created.
Well, was it transfering to a floppy? What's wrong here?
If those examples are what annoys you, what is wrong with you? I have no desire to watch someone use a command line interface to read e-mail. I also want the guns to have infinite magazines (except when running out of ammo is an interesting part of the story.) You can talk about the annoyance of bad science, and there are good examples (which slip my mind). But, just like I have no desire to see someone actaully fix a car's engine (yes, car analog, for the win) in a movie as opposed to play with a wrench for 10 seconds, I have no desire to watch someone go through the tedium of configuring a computer, or programming, or using PINE.
This combination is called "answering your own question."
That was a horror movie, ala The Ring. It was meant to add the supernatural to the commonplace to be scary.
You can only amend your patent to include new claims based on your description (from '97). So, while it may be that if you weren't sure about this internet thingy in '97, and you were running low on claims (only so many are allowed), you might have opted to include a claim only for BBSes and later switched it to the Internet, you cannot invent things out of whole cloth.
Grammar 101: Independent clauses need verbs. This fact is not even law, just way the English language is structured. It may extend to other languages beyond English.
First, that formulation still has a dependent clause explaining the militia aspect. It then says if you never owned a weapon for religious reasons, you cannot be drafted. I'm guessing that was added for Pennsylvania's benefit. But, if anything, that formulation even more strongly ties weapon ownership with militias and armies.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not an independent clause. It's dependent. This is easily observable by the lack of a verb.
Err... that requires more than an assertion.
Sorry, API's to the kernel. And that was in need of unification.
AFAIK, there was (and is) still one phone company doing all the lifting. But they were required to lease their lines at predetermined rates to various companies. These then were able to compete. However, I was refering to the early days when there were 8 phone companies in some cities, and you could only call people with the same company, so some homes had 2 or 3 phone lines.
If they think they "may contain evidence that you can destroy" and they have arrested you, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled yes.
I imagine you would inform them of that when you discover they intend to read/confiscate it. And then it is completely inadmissable in court. And they could not look.
(As a corallary, I bet it is illegal to lie about that to an officer in this context.)
I'd imagine those would be treated the same as medical privlidged papers.
IANAL, but I did read the article linked to in the summary on searches incident to arrest.
And then sue them under the DMCA for breaking the DRM-encryption on your copyrighted, poor-quality-recording rants about government intrusion!
Apple is in a world of hurt if iPhone refers to any cellphone. Because, once it becomes a noun, it can no longer be a trademark and anyone can make an iPhone. Xerox and Johnson & Johnson (with Band-aid) were both facing similar issues. I believe Xerox won the fight for the generic noun to be something else and Johnson & Johnson failed, although I may have flipped the two.
That's a strange way to phrase it. Microsoft is good because it was monolithic. Code written once worked on 95% of the computers. Would a better OS be superior? Yes. However, kernels, like phone companies, work best if there is only one.
No. What I am saying is that upgrading from IE6 to IE8 should not change any site that renders properly in IE6. If you want to create a new site that only works on IE8, or other standards compliant browsers, great. However, new content that follows that rule sould look different. Like, be written in XHTML 2.0
New businesses, perhaps. But maintaining old code, and developing new code in the old way, is vital. It costs a lot of money to replace everything with new and shiny stuff.
If you want to be a manager, don't think that the parent is funny. TPS reports, or other productivity tracking methods, are one thing a manager will have to deal with a lot. Being a manager means dealing with more b'cracy. Most people on /. bitch about the BS managers make them do. This is because it is a small amount of the paperwork that can get shoved off onto them. The truth is, when you are an IT manager, and being compared to other (non-IT) managers, all your work will get turned into cost/benefit analysis. It will not matter how nifty the languages are that run the servers. It will not matter (directly) how clean the code is. It will not really matter (directly) how happy your employees are.
You will be expected to demonstrate that you are delivering a good ROI. This can mean the code is clean, but it is phrased in terms of capital investments to shorten future development. This can mean treating your employees like people, but it is phrased in terms of increasing productivity via low-cost non-monetary inducements.
But, above all, you have to understand that an IT manager deals with business people. He gets requests for capability, and delivers black-boxes. If you want to become an IT manager because you can create cool stuff, you're looking for the wrong reasons.
Correct. New executables should not break old content. No matter what XHTML 1.0 was supposed to mean, it did mean that it supports IE 6. Hence, when we try the next iteration of content, even though it is aiming for the same standard as XHTML 1.0, it is a new version.
So long as any major browser has one deviation from the standard, a static doctype cannot work. Therefore, a major release of Safari/Firefox/IE/Opera should make the XHTML standard one release version higher. In other words, seperate content that may use an old hack from those that don't.
For everyone's bitching, there is no other way out of this problem. There was an error before rendering. Many webpages specified a doctype, however were rendered incorrectly. To maintain backwards compatibility (critical*) and to maintain the spirt of the standards (desirable) the standard has to include something new that means "yes, I really do mean it." My solution would be to create XHTML 2.0 that is XHTML 1.0, without MS specific hacks.
*For those who don't believe this, how many of you made fun of MS for breaking backwards compatibility with "all apps need admin privledges" and created a "Cancel or Allow" dialog?
A bunch of web developers specified XHTML strict when it used IE6 specific hacks. Since IE6 had bugs, it rendered correctly thinking it was strict. So, MS doesn't want all those sites to break. So it says that XHTML strict means IE6 hackery. Because that doesn't conflict with people who trusted them, only those who didn't.
Each part seems reasonable (if you assume that web developers only test on one browser.) People tested it. It worked. They thought it was strict and called it so. MS doesn't break things for developers, which is why so many developers use MS products. Cause they don't break. They said, we need a new type outside the standard because the standard got warped.
Every business I've been in operates the same way. Deal with malformed input as best you can. If a lot of the data relies on a misinterpertation, you keep that going. The next version is not allowed to fix the misinterpertation. Instead, you create a new syntax that uses the data format you initially wanted, and only use a different tag (in XML), so that only new data gets new processing.
How else would it work? "Screw the world, adhere to standards or get fucked?" No other field works like that. It's time for XHTML 2.0 strict, which is really XHTML 1.0 strict, sans IE 6.0 crap. Is it fair? No. But it's realistic.
I don't understand how anyone can object to the previous law. If you build a method of transfering information, you are not liable for what people send over it. Should gun makers be liable for what people do with their products?
And you really don't want them eating up your minutes.
Dopey? Naive to the point of embarassment? Thank goodness unelectable? Wrong about their signature issue? An inferior choice to a monkey? What phrase would you like?
Mrs. Kucinich is hot though.