How closely were your loss of your job and subsequent inability to get another one correlated with your claims of God talking to you?
The irony is very amusing, all the more for how so many are oblivious to it. Many of those who join Zuck and Bill in being pro-H1-B visa program, liken those who are opposed to the Know-Nothings. Uh, folks, read your history - the Know-Nothings were primarily anti-Catholic. Meanwhile this sort of bigotry, where someone is made fun of for having religious beliefs, passes almost entirely without comment.
You're confusing the supposed market value of Zuck's stock with FB's income. FB has a P/E of 123. If they don't reduce that, somebody may eventually wake up and issue a lot of sell orders for FB. Besides, there's the principle of the thing. Even if Zuck didn't personally like the idea (admittedly a very big "if"), the Wall Street buys will derate your stock if you're not doing everything possible to screw your American employees.
Why do we need a "dual intent" visa? Many of the people here, who join Zuckerberg and Gates in extolling the virtues of an expanded H-1B program, confuse the issue by saying things like "immigrants are an integral part of the American Dream". I agree with their sentiment about immigrants, but how does immigration of the past compare to today's H-1B program? Amongst other things, American immigration law eschewed guest worker programs, and forbade employers from seeking out or hiring people in foreign countries for jobs in the US. Back then people understood that that would undermine labor in the US. Nowadays people are propagandized into thinking that that's a good thing.
People should go back and look up the Know Nothing party of the 1840's...
Those people include you, because you don't understand what the Know Nothing party was about. Mostly it was anti-Catholic, because supposedly Catholics would obey what the pope said and hence were anti-democratic. Nevertheless there were more general xenophobic sentiments, but don't view things from a 21st century POV and underestimate the strength of anti-Catholic sentiment back then.
Contrast that to today. Do you see any concern here for guest workers having different religious beliefs than most Americans? Or because of the color of their skin? Didn't think so.
Nice try though trying to smear the people who have economic concerns about guest worker programs by associating them in any way with a 19th century nativist movement.
In which alternate universe were those "old days"?
But, as the AC immediately above you pointed out, at least people would have tried to run them out of town. Or, at the very least, people would have wanted to run them out of town, and thought they deserved it.
Compare that to today where most people don't think they should be run out of town. Talk about effective brainwashing! At least most people back then understood economic reality, despite supposedly being less educated. Maybe the absence of TV, not to mention the existence of an actual opposition press (as opposed to today's supposedly "balanced" media) made it harder to brainwash people.
It's posted in the VERY STORY about the "hour of code" designed to train young people everywhere (which includes Amercia!) how to code!
A week long "hour of code" just puts a positive spin on their overall program, which focuses mostly on things like the H-1B program. If you're fooled by that propaganda effort, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
The actual middle class has savings in investments and that 15% tax rates helps them lots.
The vast majority of middle class investments are in IRA's and 401k's, where they should be, and where you don't pay taxes on them until you retire anyway. Very few retirees pay above a 15% tax rate, so the limit on capitals gains rates doesn't help them at all.
Maybe it should be 15% on the first 100K and go up from there but just blanket raising the capital gains would be bad for middle class America.
That's the same idea as the progressive rates on other forms of income. Ergo, there is no need to do anything other than eliminate the 15% ceiling on capital gains rates. Even Reagan thought that was a good idea, and signed into law a bill that did that.
How did you determine it's "plenty", by noting that they pay more in the way of taxes than you do? "Plenty" should be in proportion to income.
But corporate income tax comes out of the pockets of some combination of their employees, customers, and shareholders.
"Some combination" leaves a lot of latitude and the biggest question of all unanswered. You did however make the observation that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Let me add that the sun rises in the east and that water is wet. They're all truisms, but so obviously true as to make the mention of them trite.
If you think customers should pay more, then raise sales taxes. If you think shareholders should pay more then raise taxes on dividends and capital gains.
I'll vote for the last. Taxing "long term" (greater than 1 year is long term?) capital gains at a a max marginal rate of 15%, even if you're a billionaire, while middle class schnooks pay a higher marginal rate on their earned income (IRS term), is obscene. Have you noticed the vast political movement to change that? Or that the average person in the street, fed "information" by the sycophantic media, are even aware of such an absurd disparity?
a poorly designed corporate income tax is easily avoided
To the extent that it's poorly designed, it's because of all the loopholes "requested" by the likes of Gates and Zuck. Despite the bleatings of major corporations and their sycophants, the US effective corporate income tax rate is modest by world standards. I'm all for eliminating the loopholes and reducing the nominal rate, but there seems to be little push for it. Why? Because those that have been most effective in pushing their political/economic agendas are the ones who benefit most from those loopholes.
Why? FB/Zuck and MS/Gates are the ultimate entitlists. They think they're entitled to not pay taxes, unlike us middle class schnooks. They think they're entitled to special government programs, like the H-1B visa program, to increase the profitability of already wealthy corporations and their major stockholders.
By contrast, you play the useful idiot, regurgitating propaganda like the "global economy you need to give companies an incentive to stay and support your local economy". As for "why should they even stay in America", they would have left a long time ago if they thought it would increase their profits. They have no commitment to the United States, or the slightest shred of patriotism, or belief in the ethics of reciprocity towards the country that fostered the creation of those corporations and their immense personal wealth.
Gates was a robber baron in the mode of Rockefeller and Carnegie
What was Gates' equivalent to the Homestead Strike? Please, stop the hyperbole. It doesn't help your arguments. I remember Microsoft in the 80's and (especially) the 90's. Their sleazy business practices should have been stopped. They did economic harm to customers (the main concern of anti-trust law). The company should have been broken up after the anti-trust trial (MS Office on Linux would make Linus desktop adoption much easier). Nevertheless, last I checked, Microsoft IP goons are generally unarmed.
You typically need cooling water to efficiently generate electricity, no matter what source of heat is used to drive the boilers.
Thermodynamics has never been my strong point, but I believe the idea is that the hi-temp of the LFTR (MSR's in general?), about 700C, means you could use air-cooling with little loss in efficiency. They're also talking about Brayton instead of Rankine cycle. From the Wikipedia LFTR article:
Air cooling. A high temperature power cycle can be air-cooled at little loss in efficiency, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce. No need for large water cooling towers used in conventional steam-powered systems would also decrease power plant construction costs.
Now if all of a sudden gravity stops working then we have much bigger problems.
You haven't thought this through. If gravity stops working, we might have a nuclear accident, but you'll be able to avoid it by jumping off into space. Problem solved. Ergo MSR's are safe even if gravity stops working. Besides, without an atmosphere, who'll care?
S-PRISM is sodium cooled. Maybe that's the hidden poop. A great choice for a reactor coolant is obviously one that reacts violently with water, and for good measure produces hydrogen in the process.
That actually makes sense. The problem is that they can't measure many of the most important things. and they either ignore the factor (just ignore inconvenient aspects of reality) or pretend they can measure it using some BS metric.
A sign that Einstein had in his office read:
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
I dare say the man had some knowledge of meaningful measurements, and was reputed to be rather bright.
P.S. That line shouldn't be attributed to Einstein. He obviously liked it, but didn't coin it.
Arrrgh! That's what Dr. Brown thought in 1955! Watch the rest of the movie. By 1985 he knew that you'd have to obtain it from other sources. By 2015 you could just buy a Mr. Fusion. As little over two years tops (worst case being the end of 2015) and we'll be set - at least so long as we can maintain an adequate supply of banana peels.
The LFTR (and other MSR's) are passively safe. You can shut down all the cooling pumps, etc. and it will not be a hazard. Had these been the reactors used at Fukushima, there would have been no problem. Also, LFTR's can be air-cooled. Without the need for cooling water there is no reason to build these things near vulnerable coastlines. It would also avoid a lot of site selection and thermal pollution issues. Maybe we should build reactors out in the desert, but where are you going to get the cooling water? Currently you're limited to locations next to major rivers or lakes.
Slashdot Mirror
CS degrees come with skill gaps and BS / BA is to much class room time.
You mean the type of CS degrees that are a primary justification for H-1B's?
Would you care to make an argument instead of a series of assertions? Otherwise your post is most likely BS.
How closely were your loss of your job and subsequent inability to get another one correlated with your claims of God talking to you?
The irony is very amusing, all the more for how so many are oblivious to it. Many of those who join Zuck and Bill in being pro-H1-B visa program, liken those who are opposed to the Know-Nothings. Uh, folks, read your history - the Know-Nothings were primarily anti-Catholic. Meanwhile this sort of bigotry, where someone is made fun of for having religious beliefs, passes almost entirely without comment.
For too many Slashdot mods, "flamebait" means "opinion I don't agree with".
You're confusing the supposed market value of Zuck's stock with FB's income. FB has a P/E of 123. If they don't reduce that, somebody may eventually wake up and issue a lot of sell orders for FB. Besides, there's the principle of the thing. Even if Zuck didn't personally like the idea (admittedly a very big "if"), the Wall Street buys will derate your stock if you're not doing everything possible to screw your American employees.
I'm on a H1B working for Microsoft. My salary is at the same level as my American coworkers
Microsoft is one of the few companies that's actually pretty good about that.
and if Microsoft decides to lay me off tomorrow, I have 30 days to move to another tech company
30 days, woo-hoo! But if you're out of work for the unheard of period of 5 weeks, you're supposed to be deported.
Ah, yes, the old "Europe is so much older than America" condescension. Not a one of you Europeans doesn't trace his or her ancestry back to Africa.
But it is a dual intent visa.
Why do we need a "dual intent" visa? Many of the people here, who join Zuckerberg and Gates in extolling the virtues of an expanded H-1B program, confuse the issue by saying things like "immigrants are an integral part of the American Dream". I agree with their sentiment about immigrants, but how does immigration of the past compare to today's H-1B program? Amongst other things, American immigration law eschewed guest worker programs, and forbade employers from seeking out or hiring people in foreign countries for jobs in the US. Back then people understood that that would undermine labor in the US. Nowadays people are propagandized into thinking that that's a good thing.
People should go back and look up the Know Nothing party of the 1840's ...
Those people include you, because you don't understand what the Know Nothing party was about. Mostly it was anti-Catholic, because supposedly Catholics would obey what the pope said and hence were anti-democratic. Nevertheless there were more general xenophobic sentiments, but don't view things from a 21st century POV and underestimate the strength of anti-Catholic sentiment back then.
Contrast that to today. Do you see any concern here for guest workers having different religious beliefs than most Americans? Or because of the color of their skin? Didn't think so.
Nice try though trying to smear the people who have economic concerns about guest worker programs by associating them in any way with a 19th century nativist movement.
In which alternate universe were those "old days"?
But, as the AC immediately above you pointed out, at least people would have tried to run them out of town. Or, at the very least, people would have wanted to run them out of town, and thought they deserved it.
Compare that to today where most people don't think they should be run out of town. Talk about effective brainwashing! At least most people back then understood economic reality, despite supposedly being less educated. Maybe the absence of TV, not to mention the existence of an actual opposition press (as opposed to today's supposedly "balanced" media) made it harder to brainwash people.
It's posted in the VERY STORY about the "hour of code" designed to train young people everywhere (which includes Amercia!) how to code!
A week long "hour of code" just puts a positive spin on their overall program, which focuses mostly on things like the H-1B program. If you're fooled by that propaganda effort, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
The actual middle class has savings in investments and that 15% tax rates helps them lots.
The vast majority of middle class investments are in IRA's and 401k's, where they should be, and where you don't pay taxes on them until you retire anyway. Very few retirees pay above a 15% tax rate, so the limit on capitals gains rates doesn't help them at all.
Maybe it should be 15% on the first 100K and go up from there but just blanket raising the capital gains would be bad for middle class America.
That's the same idea as the progressive rates on other forms of income. Ergo, there is no need to do anything other than eliminate the 15% ceiling on capital gains rates. Even Reagan thought that was a good idea, and signed into law a bill that did that.
They pay plenty of taxes ...
How did you determine it's "plenty", by noting that they pay more in the way of taxes than you do? "Plenty" should be in proportion to income.
But corporate income tax comes out of the pockets of some combination of their employees, customers, and shareholders.
"Some combination" leaves a lot of latitude and the biggest question of all unanswered. You did however make the observation that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Let me add that the sun rises in the east and that water is wet. They're all truisms, but so obviously true as to make the mention of them trite.
If you think customers should pay more, then raise sales taxes. If you think shareholders should pay more then raise taxes on dividends and capital gains.
I'll vote for the last. Taxing "long term" (greater than 1 year is long term?) capital gains at a a max marginal rate of 15%, even if you're a billionaire, while middle class schnooks pay a higher marginal rate on their earned income (IRS term), is obscene. Have you noticed the vast political movement to change that? Or that the average person in the street, fed "information" by the sycophantic media, are even aware of such an absurd disparity?
a poorly designed corporate income tax is easily avoided
To the extent that it's poorly designed, it's because of all the loopholes "requested" by the likes of Gates and Zuck. Despite the bleatings of major corporations and their sycophants, the US effective corporate income tax rate is modest by world standards. I'm all for eliminating the loopholes and reducing the nominal rate, but there seems to be little push for it. Why? Because those that have been most effective in pushing their political/economic agendas are the ones who benefit most from those loopholes.
stop being such an entitlist
Why? FB/Zuck and MS/Gates are the ultimate entitlists. They think they're entitled to not pay taxes, unlike us middle class schnooks. They think they're entitled to special government programs, like the H-1B visa program, to increase the profitability of already wealthy corporations and their major stockholders.
By contrast, you play the useful idiot, regurgitating propaganda like the "global economy you need to give companies an incentive to stay and support your local economy". As for "why should they even stay in America", they would have left a long time ago if they thought it would increase their profits. They have no commitment to the United States, or the slightest shred of patriotism, or belief in the ethics of reciprocity towards the country that fostered the creation of those corporations and their immense personal wealth.
Gates was a robber baron in the mode of Rockefeller and Carnegie
What was Gates' equivalent to the Homestead Strike? Please, stop the hyperbole. It doesn't help your arguments. I remember Microsoft in the 80's and (especially) the 90's. Their sleazy business practices should have been stopped. They did economic harm to customers (the main concern of anti-trust law). The company should have been broken up after the anti-trust trial (MS Office on Linux would make Linus desktop adoption much easier). Nevertheless, last I checked, Microsoft IP goons are generally unarmed.
... and earth exploding and the sun going out.
Don't panic. Let's take these one at a time, okay?
The obvious answer: make it out of neutronium.
You typically need cooling water to efficiently generate electricity, no matter what source of heat is used to drive the boilers.
Thermodynamics has never been my strong point, but I believe the idea is that the hi-temp of the LFTR (MSR's in general?), about 700C, means you could use air-cooling with little loss in efficiency. They're also talking about Brayton instead of Rankine cycle. From the Wikipedia LFTR article:
Air cooling. A high temperature power cycle can be air-cooled at little loss in efficiency, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce. No need for large water cooling towers used in conventional steam-powered systems would also decrease power plant construction costs.
Isn't that how CERN is funded?
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.
-- Lord Kelvin, 1900
Now if all of a sudden gravity stops working then we have much bigger problems.
You haven't thought this through. If gravity stops working, we might have a nuclear accident, but you'll be able to avoid it by jumping off into space. Problem solved. Ergo MSR's are safe even if gravity stops working. Besides, without an atmosphere, who'll care?
S-PRISM is sodium cooled. Maybe that's the hidden poop. A great choice for a reactor coolant is obviously one that reacts violently with water, and for good measure produces hydrogen in the process.
"If you can measure it you can manage it"
That actually makes sense. The problem is that they can't measure many of the most important things. and they either ignore the factor (just ignore inconvenient aspects of reality) or pretend they can measure it using some BS metric.
A sign that Einstein had in his office read:
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
I dare say the man had some knowledge of meaningful measurements, and was reputed to be rather bright.
P.S. That line shouldn't be attributed to Einstein. He obviously liked it, but didn't coin it.
Arrrgh! That's what Dr. Brown thought in 1955! Watch the rest of the movie. By 1985 he knew that you'd have to obtain it from other sources. By 2015 you could just buy a Mr. Fusion. As little over two years tops (worst case being the end of 2015) and we'll be set - at least so long as we can maintain an adequate supply of banana peels.
The LFTR (and other MSR's) are passively safe. You can shut down all the cooling pumps, etc. and it will not be a hazard. Had these been the reactors used at Fukushima, there would have been no problem. Also, LFTR's can be air-cooled. Without the need for cooling water there is no reason to build these things near vulnerable coastlines. It would also avoid a lot of site selection and thermal pollution issues. Maybe we should build reactors out in the desert, but where are you going to get the cooling water? Currently you're limited to locations next to major rivers or lakes.