Well, on my iBook, I'm using Mail.app to filter out Junk mail, and when I get a large collection, I select it all and use the "Bounce" command to bounce each and every message back to the sender. Now largely most of these will return Undeliverable, but since I'm pretending I don't exist, I just bounce -that- message. End result is that for all intents and purposes, I look like I don't exist to spammers, but my friends think I'm here.
It doesn't work.
Most mail list maintainers don't give a damn if mail gets bounced. And the sysadmins who receive these messages don't seem to do anything either. So maybe, mail by mail, these will end up filling the server's hard drive? In about three million years, maybe.
So basically there needs to be another solution, and I think this Tarpit idea has merit.
"Shut up and buy a real computer. Fuck you could get 15 PCs that are more than able to run MOO3 for the price of a new Mac since MOO3's requirements are low."
Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your voice? Methinks the troll protesteth too much...
Sometimes, just becomes someone HAS an economic interest in something, and IS interested in seeing something fail/succeed, does not automatically invalidate the point he/she makes. Linus didn't just put forth an unsubstantiated rumor or point of view; he backed his points up with facts and reasoning. If he is biased, show facts and reasoning to counter the bias, or else you are no better than the FUD-mongers when you write him off.
I cannot support any voting system that's closed source. I want to know what the voting system is doing with my vote, and the only reliable way to do that and to maintain a free society is to be able to see the source. That doesn't mean everyone should be a contributor, but we should see what we're dealing with.
The problem with forming a Union is that it makes an antagonistic attitude between workers and management and essentially makes it permanent. If you have problems with how you're being paid, the first person you should talk to is your employer. Not your lawyer, not your co-workers. Talk to the person who can make something happen.
If that fails, then contact a lawyer.
Forming a union is an absolute last step -- something to do only when problems become epidemic among all employers.
I haven't seen that happen -- in fact, nothing even close to it -- here in the USA. With the exception of my current job, everywhere I've worked has bent over backwards to be fair and treat us well.
If I have a problem with how I'm paid and treated here, I'll deal with it in a friendly and professional manner with my employer. I will only start calling the lawyers later on, when an honest effort to make things work has failed.
And I won't consider Unionizing until I see these problems everywhere I go. And in four companies I've worked for, only one of them has had problems, so I don't think we're anywhere near that point.
Let's say you sign up to do this, and you swap votes with someone. He agrees to vote for Candidate X.
Let's say that he instead votes for Candidate Y.
How do you know? You cannot prosecute him, because you cannot force a man, under any circumstances, to tell you who he voted for in the United States. It's his right. End of discussion.
So it strikes me that a site like this is WAY open to abuse. And there is NOTHING that can be done about the abuse. In fact, it seems to me that not only is this not a way for voters to take back elections -- it is a way that candidates' campaigns can easily and legally abuse your rights, and get away with it.
Which is why I think this sort of thing should be illegal... because, quite simply, you have no way of ensuring that the other guy on the other side votes for who he said he'd vote for. And you can't -make- it that way without impinging on your own right to vote for a candidate anonymously.
"24-track digital multi-track recorder($3,500) ; 40-channel mixer/sound board($6,000) ; studio musicians ($???/hour) ; booth construction (ca. $10,000) ; sundries such as cables, media, beer, etc. ($1,000)"
Thank you, 1985. Let's meet 2003:
High-quality studio microphone: $500. Computer: $1000. Pro-quality digital audio board: $250. Software: $250. Internet connection and web site: $50/mo.
For $2000 down, $50/month, and a bit of dedication, anyone can expand their fan base, make high-quality albums, advertise, get gigs, and make money as a musician.
And here, I thought I was the only person in the world who would be interested in pursuing such a thing!:) I'm glad to hear someone else is interested in this too.
What you say sounds reasonable. I've had similar thoughts as well. It seems that once a race condition gets into a program, the results are typically impossible to debug once the program starts, so some form of analysis -- possibly by the compiler -- seems to be the most likely route to success.
I think the problem with thin features is not a bug, but a feature.
A lot of the people who buy into the OSS concept also buy into the small tools philosophy -- where it is more powerful to have a lot of small tools that each do one little thing well than to have a handful of large tools that duplicate each other's functionalities to varying degrees.
Take digital audio editing, for example. I use SONAR for writing music now, which has some high-end features to make editing digital audio for music simple, along with support for plugins. I can also attach it to my favorite.WAV file editor, Sound Forge, so that Sound Forge launches with that wave file if I double-click it.
But neither Sound Forge nor SONAR have the ability to do some of the audio processing things that CoolEdit can do. And of course, CoolEdit lacks features the other two have. So for me to use all of these features, I have to repeatedly open and reopen the wave file between the various editors until the file sounds the way I want it to.
The idea behind small tools would be to make each audio effect its own self-contained unit. Then you'd have another unit, the GUI for finding and merging all of these together. The music software (the SONAR equivalent) would then use the GUI for editing individual digital audio tracks, and then there's a whole separate batch of programs for dealing with MIDI, SMPTE, and other functions.
There can be several GUIs that all use these different functions. There can be several music software packages. And they all essentially work together.
This is how UNIX basically works. It's part of why getting anything done in Linux is a research project, and part of why we generally love Linux so.
Take CVS for a good example of the small-tools approach. It does one thing well: Merging multiple versions of files that many developers are working on around the world. That's really its only feature. But you can then use script files that it calls to enhance its functionality so that it sends you mail, updates a web page, works with BugZilla. You can integrate CVS into your IDE, and there are dozens of graphical front ends for it that can give you better views of changes. You can switch out what programs CVS calls, you can switch out the front ends, you can integrate it into your Emacs or your ProjectBuilder.
CVS thus becomes a version control software that can do everything even though it is a small tool that really just does one thing plus respecting the small tools approach -- although it needs a bit of configuration to work the way you want it to at first.
Linux itself is such a beast as well: It has invaded many markets simply because it is so configurable that it can be a server OS, a palmtop OS, a desktop OS, or even part of a mainframe system.
So I don't think feature-thinness is a problem; I think it is a philosophy that when applied correctly (as CVS and Linux do) that results in software that can do more than the most feature-rich bloated closed-source software out there.
The hardest thing I've ever had to chase down were race conditions.
Race conditions don't act the way you'd think they would. If two threads both try to read a variable, you wouldn't necessarily think there'd be a problem, much less a problem that causes your program to suddenly decide to corrupt your hard drive and crash your program. And there's no really effective way to find out where the crash happened, because it happens at random, when you don't expect it.
Even printf()'s fail you here.
The only way to find a race condition is to hand-inspect code, and make sure every shared variable is protected by mutual exclusion.
If I ever got back into grad school, I could probably dedicate an entire career to solving just this one problem.
I think the real problem, though, is not that there's a lack of good debugging tools, but rather that the really good debugging tools are rare, and the more common ones may have power but are difficult to use. And digging even deeper than that, the real problem is that people tend not to use languages that will enforce programmer discipline and help to prevent programmer errors from getting into the software in the first place.
Take a stormtrooper, or Luke. Put kid on exercise bike with large rubber wheel. Get wheel going very fast. Put head of figurine on wheel. Watch plastic head slowly burn off.
That was great fun. I'd rather have done that than gain a few measly bucks off of another stormtrooper, anyhow...:)
Yes, and I understand the need for H1B reform. What bothers me is not that it needs fixing, but how AFL-CIO suggests we fix it.
"Other developed countries are protecting workers, while the US seems to be intent on discouraging it's own workers."
Those other countries are not having the long-term economic success and innovation that our country has, so that suggests to me that we're doing the right thing.
You are absolutely right that it's unfair, IF THE PROGRAM BENEFITS FOREIGNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICANS.
The facts are that these foreigners typically use H1B's as a way to get to the USA permanently, and do not go back home. Their expertise and hard work helps the overall economy, making more jobs here for everyone. Which means that this program benefits Americans more than it hurts us.
Now I've glossed over a lot of the supporting evidence for these facts because I'm busy, but if you do some research and keep an open mind, you'll discover that the evidence supports this conclusion overwhelmingly.
What's happening is that a large number of people really ARE xenophobic or racist (although not you obviously) and because of this they're unwilling to accept the evidence, or outside of facts, they will always choose to believe that immigration poses a threat rather than a benefit.
The AFL-CIO represents this point of view: The goal of the proposed "reforms" is not to reform, but rather to impose tighter restrictions on immigration. The problems with H1B visas are just an excuse to pursue the AFL-CIO's continued xenophobic agenda.
Actually, what makes the USA special is that immigrants DO want to come, regardless of whether or not someone will hire them, simply because of the American Dream. An attack on America is an attack on the rest of the world, because we -are- the rest of the world -- there are no "native Americans" except for the true native Americans, who themselves just happened to be the first immigrants.
The USA represents people of every nation in the world. And as the face of the world changes, the demographics of the USA change.
We citizens of the USA are responsible, in my opinion, for jealously guarding that dream as much as possible, to ensure that it is available to others. When I discuss politics with anyone about anything, this is my goal: To defend the liberties and freedoms that give people opportunities here at home, and to support actions abroad that will encourage the same to occur elsewhere. These liberties are those that we put in the Bill of Rights, keeping markets competitive so that there are new opportunities, and most importantly, allowing as many people who want to immigrate to this country to immigrate as is possible.
Right now, we're too quick to give up freedoms for illusory security, too quick to restructure regulation in ways that preserve the status quo, and dishonest with ourselves about our purely racist intentions when we restrict immigration even further.
In other words, we the citizens on the whole are far too interested in jealously defending our short-term gains at the expense of long-term benefits. Yeah, supporting that dictator might help us now, but what happens when he starts using the weapons we gave him to attack us? Yeah, you might save your job today, but you're going to hurt the economy in the long run, and then when you get laid off five years later, and your kids graduating college can't get jobs, and everything gets more expensive while wages go down, you realize you'd only delayed the inevitable, and in fact made the future worse.
In theory, rdean400, what you say is dead on. In practice, however, most of the H1B's I know are looking to use it as a stepping-stone to permanent citizenship -- 6 years is plenty of time to find a spouse, for example.
For most immigrants, the hardest part about getting to the United States is just simply getting to the United States. The lottery is packed -- it takes DECADES for people to get over here on a regular immigrant visa. The H1B is a fast way to get your feet on American soil, and once here, hopefully get established enough to be able to stay through other means.
H1B's do not WANT to go back, see. If they did, they wouldn't come here in the first place.
So you're right about the theory of H1B visas, but the reality is different. The reality is that the H1B is a "gateway visa" to finding permanent resident -- or better, citizenship -- status.
I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not an h1b holder, I'm an American citizen.
The USA has tons of talent. But none of it is developed, and you have too many people in the tech industry (still) who are there not because they like tech, or work hard, but because they think it's easy money. On the radio, you hear the ads: "Come to the Crapola Institute, and graduate with a degree that will get you a high-paying job in the exciting tech industry!"
I'm glad to see that most of the posters here on Slashdot seem to be agreeing with the point of view that this proposal fails to identify real solutions and real problems, and is really just xenophobia disguised as economic reform. At least Americans appear not to be culturally ignorant... maybe all that "multiculturalism" stuff they forced down our throats in the early 90's actually had some value?
"Instead of wasting billions making it hard to steal cable, they should rather go for enforcement. Just like they did here in Denmark when it came to bars showing pay-per-view sports events without paying the special fee per guest. They simply checked to see which bars had registered to pay and visited those that didn't. If the game was on, a hefty fine was issued (and their general subscription closed). Simple and effective."
That's all well and good for Denmark, but here in the USA, you can't come knocking on the door of my home or business unless you have a warrant to do so. In other words, they have to have a good reason to believe you're already stealing it. Otherwise, they are in violation of the US Constitution, and the charges will not hold -- the bar will pay no penalty, and the prosecuting attorney's name will be mud.
It's all in the name of "protecting you from your government." Which is what Your Rights Online is really all about.
I hate the whole issue of H1B reform, because rather than being framed in terms of fair treatment for H1B workers, it is framed in terms of "protecting American jobs." And any time that phrase comes up, it is a red flag for me.
Why does Patrick Buchanan want to build a wall around the USA? "Protecting American jobs." Yeah, I'm sure there are tons of Americans trying to get those high-paying home construction, hotel maid, and grape-picking jobs.
So when I see the AFL-CIO making noise about revising the H1B visa program in the name of "Protecting American jobs," I'm already suspicious.
This list is playing with people's emotions in a down economy to put forth a "keep all those brown-skinned people out!" agenda.
The real problem with the H1B visa program is that it essentially makes indentured servitude legitimate. It provides no way for laid-off immigrants holding H1B's to stay in the country. People here on H1B's (the list DOES mention this, but it's buried among all of the hate-mongering) are paid less than most workers.
What it does do, on the other hand, is ensures that the best and brightest people of the world become Americans, which makes America stronger. People on H1B's don't come here for brief periods -- they come here to stay. And that's a GOOD THING. Everyone in the USA benefits when immigrants come to this country, although they may not benefit in the short term or see the benefits immediately. Yes, that person with an H1B visa may have denied you that job, but that person is now producing for the USA and not for some other country, that person is keeping our culture lively by bringing hers in to mix with ours, and will start her family here, raising her children as Americans. She will work hard because it will be the first time she will be in a place where she will be valued for her hard work, and not for what caste she was born into.
And that hard work directly translates into a healthy economy, which means more jobs for people like you and me.
So ironically, immigration -creates- jobs.
If you're going to fix H1B, fix it properly. Make sure H1B visa holders have wages that are as high as those for citizens. But don't use the H1B problem as a front for racism and xenophobia the way the AFL-CIO does here.
It depends on how they "discovered" it. If they took a Coke can and were able to discover it through chemical analysis and deduction, no. If they worked for a law firm that represented Coca-Cola and then published a confidential document on a website where Pepsi execs could see it, yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, on my iBook, I'm using Mail.app to filter out Junk mail, and when I get a large collection, I select it all and use the "Bounce" command to bounce each and every message back to the sender. Now largely most of these will return Undeliverable, but since I'm pretending I don't exist, I just bounce -that- message. End result is that for all intents and purposes, I look like I don't exist to spammers, but my friends think I'm here.
It doesn't work.
Most mail list maintainers don't give a damn if mail gets bounced. And the sysadmins who receive these messages don't seem to do anything either. So maybe, mail by mail, these will end up filling the server's hard drive? In about three million years, maybe.
So basically there needs to be another solution, and I think this Tarpit idea has merit.
To heck with dual. The 970 was built with scaling in mind... so why not quadruple or even octuple?
"Shut up and buy a real computer. Fuck you could get 15 PCs that are more than able to run MOO3 for the price of a new Mac since MOO3's requirements are low."
:) :) :)
Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your voice? Methinks the troll protesteth too much...
You KNOW you want a Powerbook...
Sometimes, just becomes someone HAS an economic interest in something, and IS interested in seeing something fail/succeed, does not automatically invalidate the point he/she makes. Linus didn't just put forth an unsubstantiated rumor or point of view; he backed his points up with facts and reasoning. If he is biased, show facts and reasoning to counter the bias, or else you are no better than the FUD-mongers when you write him off.
I cannot support any voting system that's closed source. I want to know what the voting system is doing with my vote, and the only reliable way to do that and to maintain a free society is to be able to see the source. That doesn't mean everyone should be a contributor, but we should see what we're dealing with.
I wonder if this would hold up in court...
The problem with forming a Union is that it makes an antagonistic attitude between workers and management and essentially makes it permanent. If you have problems with how you're being paid, the first person you should talk to is your employer. Not your lawyer, not your co-workers. Talk to the person who can make something happen.
If that fails, then contact a lawyer.
Forming a union is an absolute last step -- something to do only when problems become epidemic among all employers.
I haven't seen that happen -- in fact, nothing even close to it -- here in the USA. With the exception of my current job, everywhere I've worked has bent over backwards to be fair and treat us well.
If I have a problem with how I'm paid and treated here, I'll deal with it in a friendly and professional manner with my employer. I will only start calling the lawyers later on, when an honest effort to make things work has failed.
And I won't consider Unionizing until I see these problems everywhere I go. And in four companies I've worked for, only one of them has had problems, so I don't think we're anywhere near that point.
Let's say you sign up to do this, and you swap votes with someone. He agrees to vote for Candidate X.
Let's say that he instead votes for Candidate Y.
How do you know? You cannot prosecute him, because you cannot force a man, under any circumstances, to tell you who he voted for in the United States. It's his right. End of discussion.
So it strikes me that a site like this is WAY open to abuse. And there is NOTHING that can be done about the abuse. In fact, it seems to me that not only is this not a way for voters to take back elections -- it is a way that candidates' campaigns can easily and legally abuse your rights, and get away with it.
Which is why I think this sort of thing should be illegal... because, quite simply, you have no way of ensuring that the other guy on the other side votes for who he said he'd vote for. And you can't -make- it that way without impinging on your own right to vote for a candidate anonymously.
The fact that Andrew likes to work on computers in his spare time is the entire basis for your opposition?
OK, then take B.T. as an alternative example.
Thank you, 1985. Let's meet 2003:
High-quality studio microphone: $500. Computer: $1000. Pro-quality digital audio board: $250. Software: $250. Internet connection and web site: $50/mo.
For $2000 down, $50/month, and a bit of dedication, anyone can expand their fan base, make high-quality albums, advertise, get gigs, and make money as a musician.
Just ask The Brobdingnagian Bards.
I was in China in September, and I saw everything there. PS2's, XBoxes, GameCubes, GameBoy Advances, and all of the games.
What's this about -entering- the Chinese market again?
As far as I can see, they're already there.
Somehow I don't think that their sales will increase very much as a result of this...
And here, I thought I was the only person in the world who would be interested in pursuing such a thing! :) I'm glad to hear someone else is interested in this too.
What you say sounds reasonable. I've had similar thoughts as well. It seems that once a race condition gets into a program, the results are typically impossible to debug once the program starts, so some form of analysis -- possibly by the compiler -- seems to be the most likely route to success.
I think the problem with thin features is not a bug, but a feature.
.WAV file editor, Sound Forge, so that Sound Forge launches with that wave file if I double-click it.
A lot of the people who buy into the OSS concept also buy into the small tools philosophy -- where it is more powerful to have a lot of small tools that each do one little thing well than to have a handful of large tools that duplicate each other's functionalities to varying degrees.
Take digital audio editing, for example. I use SONAR for writing music now, which has some high-end features to make editing digital audio for music simple, along with support for plugins. I can also attach it to my favorite
But neither Sound Forge nor SONAR have the ability to do some of the audio processing things that CoolEdit can do. And of course, CoolEdit lacks features the other two have. So for me to use all of these features, I have to repeatedly open and reopen the wave file between the various editors until the file sounds the way I want it to.
The idea behind small tools would be to make each audio effect its own self-contained unit. Then you'd have another unit, the GUI for finding and merging all of these together. The music software (the SONAR equivalent) would then use the GUI for editing individual digital audio tracks, and then there's a whole separate batch of programs for dealing with MIDI, SMPTE, and other functions.
There can be several GUIs that all use these different functions. There can be several music software packages. And they all essentially work together.
This is how UNIX basically works. It's part of why getting anything done in Linux is a research project, and part of why we generally love Linux so.
Take CVS for a good example of the small-tools approach. It does one thing well: Merging multiple versions of files that many developers are working on around the world. That's really its only feature. But you can then use script files that it calls to enhance its functionality so that it sends you mail, updates a web page, works with BugZilla. You can integrate CVS into your IDE, and there are dozens of graphical front ends for it that can give you better views of changes. You can switch out what programs CVS calls, you can switch out the front ends, you can integrate it into your Emacs or your ProjectBuilder.
CVS thus becomes a version control software that can do everything even though it is a small tool that really just does one thing plus respecting the small tools approach -- although it needs a bit of configuration to work the way you want it to at first.
Linux itself is such a beast as well: It has invaded many markets simply because it is so configurable that it can be a server OS, a palmtop OS, a desktop OS, or even part of a mainframe system.
So I don't think feature-thinness is a problem; I think it is a philosophy that when applied correctly (as CVS and Linux do) that results in software that can do more than the most feature-rich bloated closed-source software out there.
The hardest thing I've ever had to chase down were race conditions.
Race conditions don't act the way you'd think they would. If two threads both try to read a variable, you wouldn't necessarily think there'd be a problem, much less a problem that causes your program to suddenly decide to corrupt your hard drive and crash your program. And there's no really effective way to find out where the crash happened, because it happens at random, when you don't expect it.
Even printf()'s fail you here.
The only way to find a race condition is to hand-inspect code, and make sure every shared variable is protected by mutual exclusion.
If I ever got back into grad school, I could probably dedicate an entire career to solving just this one problem.
I think the real problem, though, is not that there's a lack of good debugging tools, but rather that the really good debugging tools are rare, and the more common ones may have power but are difficult to use. And digging even deeper than that, the real problem is that people tend not to use languages that will enforce programmer discipline and help to prevent programmer errors from getting into the software in the first place.
When my bro and I were a kid, we played a game...
:)
Take a stormtrooper, or Luke. Put kid on exercise bike with large rubber wheel. Get wheel going very fast. Put head of figurine on wheel. Watch plastic head slowly burn off.
That was great fun. I'd rather have done that than gain a few measly bucks off of another stormtrooper, anyhow...
"This is what the AFL/CIO is suggesting."
Yes, and I understand the need for H1B reform. What bothers me is not that it needs fixing, but how AFL-CIO suggests we fix it.
"Other developed countries are protecting workers, while the US seems to be intent on discouraging it's own workers."
Those other countries are not having the long-term economic success and innovation that our country has, so that suggests to me that we're doing the right thing.
"Are you now in favor of allowing more H1B workers in? ... of course not."
Speak for yourself.
Mr. AC,
You are absolutely right that it's unfair, IF THE PROGRAM BENEFITS FOREIGNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICANS.
The facts are that these foreigners typically use H1B's as a way to get to the USA permanently, and do not go back home. Their expertise and hard work helps the overall economy, making more jobs here for everyone. Which means that this program benefits Americans more than it hurts us.
Now I've glossed over a lot of the supporting evidence for these facts because I'm busy, but if you do some research and keep an open mind, you'll discover that the evidence supports this conclusion overwhelmingly.
What's happening is that a large number of people really ARE xenophobic or racist (although not you obviously) and because of this they're unwilling to accept the evidence, or outside of facts, they will always choose to believe that immigration poses a threat rather than a benefit.
The AFL-CIO represents this point of view: The goal of the proposed "reforms" is not to reform, but rather to impose tighter restrictions on immigration. The problems with H1B visas are just an excuse to pursue the AFL-CIO's continued xenophobic agenda.
Actually, what makes the USA special is that immigrants DO want to come, regardless of whether or not someone will hire them, simply because of the American Dream. An attack on America is an attack on the rest of the world, because we -are- the rest of the world -- there are no "native Americans" except for the true native Americans, who themselves just happened to be the first immigrants.
The USA represents people of every nation in the world. And as the face of the world changes, the demographics of the USA change.
We citizens of the USA are responsible, in my opinion, for jealously guarding that dream as much as possible, to ensure that it is available to others. When I discuss politics with anyone about anything, this is my goal: To defend the liberties and freedoms that give people opportunities here at home, and to support actions abroad that will encourage the same to occur elsewhere. These liberties are those that we put in the Bill of Rights, keeping markets competitive so that there are new opportunities, and most importantly, allowing as many people who want to immigrate to this country to immigrate as is possible.
Right now, we're too quick to give up freedoms for illusory security, too quick to restructure regulation in ways that preserve the status quo, and dishonest with ourselves about our purely racist intentions when we restrict immigration even further.
In other words, we the citizens on the whole are far too interested in jealously defending our short-term gains at the expense of long-term benefits. Yeah, supporting that dictator might help us now, but what happens when he starts using the weapons we gave him to attack us? Yeah, you might save your job today, but you're going to hurt the economy in the long run, and then when you get laid off five years later, and your kids graduating college can't get jobs, and everything gets more expensive while wages go down, you realize you'd only delayed the inevitable, and in fact made the future worse.
yup
buy now pay later does not work folks
In theory, rdean400, what you say is dead on. In practice, however, most of the H1B's I know are looking to use it as a stepping-stone to permanent citizenship -- 6 years is plenty of time to find a spouse, for example.
For most immigrants, the hardest part about getting to the United States is just simply getting to the United States. The lottery is packed -- it takes DECADES for people to get over here on a regular immigrant visa. The H1B is a fast way to get your feet on American soil, and once here, hopefully get established enough to be able to stay through other means.
H1B's do not WANT to go back, see. If they did, they wouldn't come here in the first place.
So you're right about the theory of H1B visas, but the reality is different. The reality is that the H1B is a "gateway visa" to finding permanent resident -- or better, citizenship -- status.
I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not an h1b holder, I'm an American citizen.
The USA has tons of talent. But none of it is developed, and you have too many people in the tech industry (still) who are there not because they like tech, or work hard, but because they think it's easy money. On the radio, you hear the ads: "Come to the Crapola Institute, and graduate with a degree that will get you a high-paying job in the exciting tech industry!"
I'm glad to see that most of the posters here on Slashdot seem to be agreeing with the point of view that this proposal fails to identify real solutions and real problems, and is really just xenophobia disguised as economic reform. At least Americans appear not to be culturally ignorant... maybe all that "multiculturalism" stuff they forced down our throats in the early 90's actually had some value?
"Instead of wasting billions making it hard to steal cable, they should rather go for enforcement. Just like they did here in Denmark when it came to bars showing pay-per-view sports events without paying the special fee per guest. They simply checked to see which bars had registered to pay and visited those that didn't. If the game was on, a hefty fine was issued (and their general subscription closed). Simple and effective."
That's all well and good for Denmark, but here in the USA, you can't come knocking on the door of my home or business unless you have a warrant to do so. In other words, they have to have a good reason to believe you're already stealing it. Otherwise, they are in violation of the US Constitution, and the charges will not hold -- the bar will pay no penalty, and the prosecuting attorney's name will be mud.
It's all in the name of "protecting you from your government." Which is what Your Rights Online is really all about.
Time to burn off some karma.
I hate the whole issue of H1B reform, because rather than being framed in terms of fair treatment for H1B workers, it is framed in terms of "protecting American jobs." And any time that phrase comes up, it is a red flag for me.
Why does Patrick Buchanan want to build a wall around the USA? "Protecting American jobs." Yeah, I'm sure there are tons of Americans trying to get those high-paying home construction, hotel maid, and grape-picking jobs.
So when I see the AFL-CIO making noise about revising the H1B visa program in the name of "Protecting American jobs," I'm already suspicious.
This list is playing with people's emotions in a down economy to put forth a "keep all those brown-skinned people out!" agenda.
The real problem with the H1B visa program is that it essentially makes indentured servitude legitimate. It provides no way for laid-off immigrants holding H1B's to stay in the country. People here on H1B's (the list DOES mention this, but it's buried among all of the hate-mongering) are paid less than most workers.
What it does do, on the other hand, is ensures that the best and brightest people of the world become Americans, which makes America stronger. People on H1B's don't come here for brief periods -- they come here to stay. And that's a GOOD THING. Everyone in the USA benefits when immigrants come to this country, although they may not benefit in the short term or see the benefits immediately. Yes, that person with an H1B visa may have denied you that job, but that person is now producing for the USA and not for some other country, that person is keeping our culture lively by bringing hers in to mix with ours, and will start her family here, raising her children as Americans. She will work hard because it will be the first time she will be in a place where she will be valued for her hard work, and not for what caste she was born into.
And that hard work directly translates into a healthy economy, which means more jobs for people like you and me.
So ironically, immigration -creates- jobs.
If you're going to fix H1B, fix it properly. Make sure H1B visa holders have wages that are as high as those for citizens. But don't use the H1B problem as a front for racism and xenophobia the way the AFL-CIO does here.
It depends on how they "discovered" it. If they took a Coke can and were able to discover it through chemical analysis and deduction, no. If they worked for a law firm that represented Coca-Cola and then published a confidential document on a website where Pepsi execs could see it, yes.
Why? He broke the law. Fry 'im.