I wonder how Iron Python might use what these folks are doing? I can see that this shell may have some slick features-but I don't see a compelling innovation here. What I see is a lot of investment in doing some basic stuff to make windows work that should have been done long ago. If it it done vaguely correctly I suspect some better tools will take advantage of the groundwork being laid here.
There are _lots_ of IT functions that don't involve lots of security risks-to the company involved or other companies. Also, there are few meaningful ways to really test security _without_ putting someone of proven experience involved in the testing. Now, it might help if the CIO's had a better way of gauging proven experience than someone doing stuff that is illegal/immoral--but that is the CIO's problem.
I don't see that the Sasser guy was any great talent-but then neither are most of the folks managing major US corporations. Maybe they and the sasser guy deserve each other.
Personally, I would like to see the sasser guy in a secure, non-sensitive job someplace-and his testing functions as part of court-mandated community service(with proceeds going to clean up security messes). I hate seeing folks profiting from anti-social acts--and some of the Corporate types seem drawing to the more sociopathic crackers like flies to honey(If you believe the film "The Corporation" maybe it is because they have so much in common).
The supreme court was packed with GOP appointed judges-it was clear as soon as Gore didn't have a victors the odd of Bush's election had improved markedly.
Secondly, the policies a president talks about, _will_ influence markets-any president has to take responsibility for that. In this case, Bush vowed to continue/expand massive corporate welfare and replacement of American workers. Now, I fully expect Gore's election would have mean malaise and problems for investors-but that is different than what Bush did.
The dip in IT employment wasn't as large as the US of H-1b/L-1 visas to replace American workers. H-1b and L-1 are unusual in that _every_ other major guest worker program in a developed country has had greater protection of the citizen workers in that country. The moment an Indian IT worker gets an H-1b visa if they are in the dowry system, they can demand $50-70K more than they would have otherwise. That means their employer is using immigration rights as compensation to their employees free of charge-that is pure corporate welfare. Even Milton Friedman admits this is a subsidy program-claiming that the change in IT salaries is purely a market phenomena is incredibly intellectually bankrupt.
It should be noted that the H-1b quota was reduced in fall of 2003(back to 65,000/year). Now last year congress expanded the L-1 program--but there were clauses in that expansion that made it difficult for companies to take advantage of that program until after the election. L-1 employees need to work for a company for something like a year before the company and use them for work in the US. So this effect-to the extent it is real(i.e. it may just be movement of jobs into high priced areas), may well be temporary.
Bush got elected in November-and took his oath of office in January. As soon as it was clear he was going to be elected, that changed expectations-and plans. Lots of businesses plan on a quarterly basis-so there had been adequate time for Bush's election to mess up the economy by the time the economists noticed it.
Bush never had a plan to create wealth-he only had plan to move assets around. Property owners are better off-in the US and Mexico. The same can't be said of Americans that work for a living-except in a few protected occupations.
The only reason the GNP is rising in the US is that there is _massive_ immigration going on. Disposable income of working families and stuff like labor force participation rates are going down-but nobody wants to talk about that.
Actually it was clear to the money people as soon as George what he was going to do-and they had been responding since much earlier-so I would say more like 5.5 months not 2.
Clinton bears the blame for stuff like H-1b expansion--but Bush kept it going even when it was clear it was a horrible mistake.
It isn't just inflation-you need to look at where the jobs are. We've seen a decline in IT jobs the last few years-and much of that decline is in the places with the lower cost of living--so all these figures mean is that newer grads are getting jobs in places like California with a high cost of living.
Here's the problem: These figures measure gross salaries. If a lot of folks in Utah loose jobs, but the number of folks working in California or New York remains steady, then it is a reasonable expectation that salaries would increase. That doesn't mean that the _disposable income_ of those working has increased-because the cost of living in New York and California is quite a bit higher than Utah.
Disposable income has been declining in the US for 30 years now.
Now, if you want something revolutionary, get the avionics together and deliver a plane that can be used like a car. Now, that isn't ready yet-but when it is, well that _is_ revolutionary.
Panama and Egypt now are simple means to get someplace a little cheaper than alternative routes. Before there were alternative routes, places like Gibralter and Suez were _much_ more strategic. From the time the first space elevator is built, until there is a competitor, whoever controls that space elevator is going to have de facto gate keeper authority over a block of resources that dwarfs those available on the planetary surface. Think about what nations like Spain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands and the UK did during the "age of discovery". The tiny little Netherlands was for a time a world power-based on its maritime strength. When that race started, it wasn't exactly obvious that the UK would become the hegenomonic power. I can easily believe in this case that someplace like Canada or Taiwan winds up playing a role similar to that the UK played--coming up from behind to seriously surprise the world.
If the DoD wanted to do something constructive: they could sponsor some prize awards for some basic pilot projects here.
I've seen some folks claim that there is the potential to make a Roton or something similar work on the level of capital private corporations have-it just may be happen in the US government gets out of the way-or is distracted by other things.
I don't see that Nasa has "helped" space development much-especially the last 25 years. I can easily believe the world would be _further_ into space development without the various destructive government policies the last few decades that have turned the United States from an industrial powerhouse into a major debtor nation. What the DoD ought to be more worried about is making the US into a technologically effective nation again(the US has a trade deficit even in high tech goods now).
Now, whoever creates a space elevator is going to instantly become a major, global power--and the DoD has reason to be concerned about such issues--but there are a lot of other pressing issues the DoD is also ignoring(i.e. the US borders just aren't very secure).
Unless the US government seriously gets its act together, I doubt very much it will have much of a constructive role in space development-this isnt' the government of Franklin and Jefferson any more-and is more like what they warned us against.
The basic problem with Badnirik's immigration position: Much of the wealth in the United States is in public assets. Naturalization grants people a share in those assets. This means that by having open borders, you essentially are allowing those employers that facilitate immigration the ability to use those immigration rights as corporate welfare--those companies compensate their employees using immigration rights as part of the package.
Not to mention the fact that dang few immigrants vote Libertarian-which means that once they get naturalized, the government that admitted them will get booted out.
There are serious attempts to do just that. Now nurses don't earn all _that_ much money-about $29/hour for a large hospital in the Seattle area-and that is for a high stress job that requires 3-4 years of college-but of course is is cheaper to pay nurses with a shot at a green card than use cash.
If you look at Henry George, he suggested that there were two logical objects of taxation: Landed property and property that has a heavy component of monopoly power. Right now, 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth in the United States--and that tendency is increasing. That suggests that portion of the population has been using signficant monopoly power over the years-and in fact that top 1% has been _very_ active in things like buying politicians to get various forms of corporate welfare like H-1b/L-1 expansion and getting granted the use of the public airwaves free of charge.
The folks libertiarians really need to look at strategically are those that have to work for a living. Ralph Nader has specifically suggested elimination of the income tax on incomes under $100K--and raising taxes on wealth above $5 Million and pollution(and consideration of a land tax)--and thus far "Libertians" have been remarkably quiet about a proposal by America's leader liberal that would mean that the bulk of the population could be totaly extricated from the income tax system---without huge disruption of the major government services.
Personally, I would put more emphasis than Nader and Baldrson did on taxing increases in land prices that result from changing the tax system--I suspect those price changes would be substantial. Still, the big thing is that we need the government to quit hurting the most economically vulnerable of the US population. It is people trying hard to get established that can be completely edged out of the job market by the existing system.
The H-1b program alone accounted for more displaced American engineers than the economic downturn _and_ outsourcing combined: "463,000 H-1Bs were employed in the field, as of 2002"
The H-1b quota was reduced in 2003-but the L-1 visa program has even fewer controls-and is now effectively uncapped.
On top of this is the fact that the US dollar is the reserve currency for many banks world wide-which means the US government has a lot more capacity to borrow than any other. The current madness is driven by borrowed money and politicians willing to sell their offices for campaign donations.
The fact that housing increases faster than wages is just what Henry George predicted over 100 years ago. George was an interesesting character that advocated a free market in labor and taxation of landed property and monopolies.
There is _nothing_ free market about the corporate welfare of H-1b/L-1 and huge trade deficits facilitated with a $0.5 Trillion annual governmental deficit financed largely with foreign borrowing.
H-1b/L-1 expansion are a bigger factor in US tech unemployment than outsourcing. Just look at the numbers. These policies mean that any company can offer what amounts to a "sign on" bonus paid for at the expense of the public(and US programmers in particular). If US citizenship could be bought it would _still_ be valuable-despite the best efforts of congress. So if a company can dangle US citizenship in front of a potential employee-at no cost to the company-there is a clear conflict of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how Iron Python might use what these folks are doing? I can see that this shell may have some slick features-but I don't see a compelling innovation here. What I see is a lot of investment in doing some basic stuff to make windows work that should have been done long ago. If it it done vaguely correctly I suspect some better tools will take advantage of the groundwork being laid here.
Mod this parent up--
this was a really good point. But then, few languages really handle relations well.
I know this seems like a joke, but it is congress that is the joke here. 1998 and 200 were the years of the big H-1b expansions.
There are _lots_ of IT functions that don't involve lots of security risks-to the company involved or other companies. Also, there are few meaningful ways to really test security _without_ putting someone of proven experience involved in the testing. Now, it might help if the CIO's had a better way of gauging proven experience than someone doing stuff that is illegal/immoral--but that is the CIO's problem.
I don't see that the Sasser guy was any great talent-but then neither are most of the folks managing major US corporations. Maybe they and the sasser guy deserve each other.
Personally, I would like to see the sasser guy in a secure, non-sensitive job someplace-and his testing functions as part of court-mandated community service(with proceeds going to clean up security messes). I hate seeing folks profiting from anti-social acts--and some of the Corporate types seem drawing to the more sociopathic crackers like flies to honey(If you believe the film "The Corporation" maybe it is because they have so much in common).
The supreme court was packed with GOP appointed judges-it was clear as soon as Gore didn't have a victors the odd of Bush's election had improved markedly.
Secondly, the policies a president talks about, _will_ influence markets-any president has to take responsibility for that. In this case, Bush vowed to continue/expand massive corporate welfare and replacement of American workers. Now, I fully expect Gore's election would have mean malaise and problems for investors-but that is different than what Bush did.
The dip in IT employment wasn't as large as the US of H-1b/L-1 visas to replace American workers. H-1b and L-1 are unusual in that _every_ other major guest worker program in a developed country has had greater protection of the citizen workers in that country. The moment an Indian IT worker gets an H-1b visa if they are in the dowry system, they can demand $50-70K more than they would have otherwise. That means their employer is using immigration rights as compensation to their employees free of charge-that is pure corporate welfare. Even Milton Friedman admits this is a subsidy program-claiming that the change in IT salaries is purely a market phenomena is incredibly intellectually bankrupt.
It should be noted that the H-1b quota was reduced in fall of 2003(back to 65,000/year). Now last year congress expanded the L-1 program--but there were clauses in that expansion that made it difficult for companies to take advantage of that program until after the election. L-1 employees need to work for a company for something like a year before the company and use them for work in the US. So this effect-to the extent it is real(i.e. it may just be movement of jobs into high priced areas), may well be temporary.
Bush got elected in November-and took his oath of office in January. As soon as it was clear he was going to be elected, that changed expectations-and plans. Lots of businesses plan on a quarterly basis-so there had been adequate time for Bush's election to mess up the economy by the time the economists noticed it.
Bush never had a plan to create wealth-he only had plan to move assets around. Property owners are better off-in the US and Mexico. The same can't be said of Americans that work for a living-except in a few protected occupations.
The only reason the GNP is rising in the US is that there is _massive_ immigration going on. Disposable income of working families and stuff like labor force participation rates are going down-but nobody wants to talk about that.
Actually it was clear to the money people as soon as George what he was going to do-and they had been responding since much earlier-so I would say more like 5.5 months not 2.
Clinton bears the blame for stuff like H-1b expansion--but Bush kept it going even when it was clear it was a horrible mistake.
It isn't just inflation-you need to look at where the jobs are. We've seen a decline in IT jobs the last few years-and much of that decline is in the places with the lower cost of living--so all these figures mean is that newer grads are getting jobs in places like California with a high cost of living.
Here's the problem:
These figures measure gross salaries. If a lot of folks in Utah loose jobs, but the number of folks working in California or New York remains steady, then it is a reasonable expectation that salaries would increase. That doesn't mean that the _disposable income_ of those working has increased-because the cost of living in New York and California is quite a bit higher than Utah.
Disposable income has been declining in the US for 30 years now.
Now, if you want something revolutionary, get the avionics together and deliver a plane that can be used like a car.
Now, that isn't ready yet-but when it is, well that _is_ revolutionary.
Panama and Egypt now are simple means to get someplace a little cheaper than alternative routes. Before there were alternative routes, places like Gibralter and Suez were _much_ more strategic. From the time the first space elevator is built, until there is a competitor, whoever controls that space elevator is going to have de facto gate keeper authority over a block of resources that dwarfs those available on the planetary surface. Think about what nations like Spain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands and the UK did during the "age of discovery". The tiny little Netherlands was for a time a world power-based on its maritime strength. When that race started, it wasn't exactly obvious that the UK would become the hegenomonic power. I can easily believe in this case that someplace like Canada or Taiwan winds up playing a role similar to that the UK played--coming up from behind to seriously surprise the world.
If the DoD wanted to do something constructive:
they could sponsor some prize awards for some basic pilot projects here.
I've seen some folks claim that there is the potential to make a Roton or something similar work on the level of capital private corporations have-it just may be happen in the US government gets out of the way-or is distracted by other things.
Those are _VERY_ dangerous words historically.
I don't see that Nasa has "helped" space development much-especially the last 25 years. I can easily believe the world would be _further_ into space development without the various destructive government policies the last few decades that have turned the United States from an industrial powerhouse into a major debtor nation.
What the DoD ought to be more worried about is making the US into a technologically effective nation again(the US has a trade deficit even in high tech goods now).
Now, whoever creates a space elevator is going to instantly become a major, global power--and the DoD has reason to be concerned about such issues--but there are a lot of other pressing issues the DoD is also ignoring(i.e. the US borders just aren't very secure).
Unless the US government seriously gets its act together, I doubt very much it will have much of a constructive role in space development-this isnt' the government of Franklin and Jefferson any more-and is more like what they warned us against.
The basic problem with Badnirik's immigration position:
Much of the wealth in the United States is in public assets. Naturalization grants people a share in those assets. This means that by having open borders, you essentially are allowing those employers that facilitate immigration the ability to use those immigration rights as corporate welfare--those companies compensate their employees using immigration rights as part of the package.
Not to mention the fact that dang few immigrants vote Libertarian-which means that once they get naturalized, the government that admitted them will get booted out.
There are serious attempts to do just that. Now nurses don't earn all _that_ much money-about $29/hour for a large hospital in the Seattle area-and that is for a high stress job that requires 3-4 years of college-but of course is is cheaper to pay nurses with a shot at a green card than use cash.
Run Windows in a virtual machine where it can cause minimal harm.
Landed property and property that has a heavy component of monopoly power. Right now, 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth in the United States--and that tendency is increasing. That suggests that portion of the population has been using signficant monopoly power over the years-and in fact that top 1% has been _very_ active in things like buying politicians to get various forms of corporate welfare like H-1b/L-1 expansion and getting granted the use of the public airwaves free of charge.
The folks libertiarians really need to look at strategically are those that have to work for a living. Ralph Nader has specifically suggested elimination of the income tax on incomes under $100K--and raising taxes on wealth above $5 Million and pollution(and consideration of a land tax)--and thus far "Libertians" have been remarkably quiet about a proposal by America's leader liberal that would mean that the bulk of the population could be totaly extricated from the income tax system---without huge disruption of the major government services.
Personally, I would put more emphasis than Nader and Baldrson did on taxing increases in land prices that result from changing the tax system--I suspect those price changes would be substantial.
Still, the big thing is that we need the government to quit hurting the most economically vulnerable of the US population. It is people trying hard to get established that can be completely edged out of the job market by the existing system.
Jobs _have_ been created under Bush, but not nearly enough to keep up with immigration and population growth.
"463,000 H-1Bs were employed in the field, as of 2002"
The H-1b quota was reduced in 2003-but the L-1 visa program has even fewer controls-and is now effectively uncapped.
On top of this is the fact that the US dollar is the reserve currency for many banks world wide-which means the US government has a lot more capacity to borrow than any other. The current madness is driven by borrowed money and politicians willing to sell their offices for campaign donations.
The fact that housing increases faster than wages is just what Henry George predicted over 100 years ago. George was an interesesting character that advocated a free market in labor and taxation of landed property and monopolies.
There is _nothing_ free market about the corporate welfare of H-1b/L-1 and huge trade deficits facilitated with a $0.5 Trillion annual governmental deficit financed largely with foreign borrowing.
H-1b/L-1 expansion are a bigger factor in US tech unemployment than outsourcing. Just look at the numbers. These policies mean that any company can offer what amounts to a "sign on" bonus paid for at the expense of the public(and US programmers in particular). If US citizenship could be bought it would _still_ be valuable-despite the best efforts of congress. So if a company can dangle US citizenship in front of a potential employee-at no cost to the company-there is a clear conflict of interest.
Stop worshipping the corporate cheats!