Federal laws prohibit discrimination not just on race, but also "national origin"
"National origin" refers to what country a person, or a person's ancestors, are from. What we're talking about here is country of citizenship. By your reasoning, it's discrimination to say that only US citizens can vote in US elections.
I bet the PLA has lots of young, sexy Chinese grad students in America, seducing older, male professors, bugging their computers, taking photos to send back to the mainland, establishing relations with Americans to use in the future for blackmail.
Having seen many STEM students, I doubt that's their approach.
American universities... are profiting from those students working for them for a pittance here.
True - what industry doesn't like cheap labor? That doesn't mean other Americans necessarily benefit from it.
Trust me, if American citizens were clogging up the system of doctoral programs in STEM then no university would be going through the strenuous process of getting foreign students to do the drudgework for their research standing glory.
Perhaps Americans aren't clogging the system because it doesn't pay for them to. For decades plenty of Americans got STEM Ph.D.'s. The problem was that, due to the high demand for them, they got paid decently. Fortunately the National Science Foundation (a trade association for academia paid for by the US government) recognized this problem in the 1980's, and discussed how a vast increase in student visas could lower the price of employing Ph.D.'s. Unsurprisingly, it worked!
Our company on average pays about $40K to get a foreigner like me into the country.
You think $40k is a lot of money? That (hopefully) represents only a fraction of the burdened labor cost for employing someone for a year.
Do you nitwits really think they would ever do that if they could find Americans who were capable of doing the same thing?
What does "capable" mean? If you mean have the mental ability, oddly there was an adequate supply of Americans before the flood of students visas. I doubt you're calling Americans dumb though, so I presume you mean obtained their Ph.D.'s. There was also an adequate supply. Why that's no longer the case was explained above.
sometimes go for months without finding the right candidates
Since you're looking for highly educated and specialized people, something would be wrong if it didn't take months to find them. The typical attitude of someone involved in hiring today is that they should be able to get highly qualified people as quickly and easily as you can hire burger flippers. At one point, before other options opened up, American companies understood that talent was something you had to look hard for, and they both invested in and made an effort to retain such people. Such people didn't get canned because business is down this quarter, and the Great Minds of the stock analysts want to see expenses trimmed by almost as much as the CEO's salary. Thinking beyond the next quarter, companies didn't can such people because they knew it would be difficult to find comparable talent when business turned up the next quarter.
P.S. How is it that attacks such as yours are usually posted AC?
Bricks, concrete blocks? (since you object to the vernacular dual use of the word cement). "Stands up to strong winds"? I don't think you appreciate the intensity of a good tornado. Force due to wind is proportional to the square of the wind speed. Trucks get thrown through the air. The difference between wood and masonry construction is the difference between a pile of splinters and a pile of rubble. The only thing that will stand up is reinforced concrete, and then only if poured in a single piece or very strongly joined. The reinforced concrete panels typically used to construct big box stores won't cut it.
Your 60 year old home is better than the majority of homes built 60 years ago, which is why yours is still standing when most of them are not
Really? Not on Long Island, and I doubt it's because of stricter building codes. For example, there are thousands of houses in Levittown, which were built as tiny inexpensive homes, and the last of them was built exactly 60 years ago. They're virtually all standing, have been expanded, and are in good shape. In my town, there are lots of houses built in the 1920's (a construction boom era), and quite a few that date back further than that.
You are the idiot. If you think brick or even cement block stands up to a tornado much better than plywood, you know nothing about tornadoes. Your ignorance is tolerable, but not when compounded with arrogance.
Get your nose out of the clouds. Surprisingly, most people are not familiar with the type of soil in Oklahoma, and how it affects construction. This denizen of the East Coast found the article interesting and informative. BTW, I presume you're familiar with the details of how barrier islands shift, what preservation efforts do and don't work for them (and why), the stability of different varieties of coastal sand bluffs, the hydrology of Long Island, which affects millions of people, the reason for the hump in the Manhattan sky line, and how despite the explanation for that, the tallest building in the country could still be built in Chicago.
While we're at it, "who" is becoming acceptable where "whom" should be used. Referring to a person's gender is nonsensical - people have a sex, and words have a gender. Shall I go on? Yet none of those things leads to any real confusion or ambiguity (if they did, you wouldn't be able to correct them).
Anyone who bought a house on a floodplain in tornado country is a goddamned idiot.
Then anyone who lives in a known major earthquake zone is an idiot, so most of California (actually the whole West Coast) should be abandoned. Alternatively, they could have building codes that minimize loss of life in the event of an earthquake, but that's just swimming against the tide, isn't it?
And Australians still remember it as making a farce of representative government. One guy didn't like the government, so he dismissed it. BTW, tt wasn't the queen, but the governor general, who technically is her representative, but was acting on his initiative. It also led to the movement for an Australian republic - getting rid of the queen and her governor general. Surely any American can sympathize with a cause like that.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives
It says no such thing. You're confusing it with raising revenue. From Article I, Section 7:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
As does the senate, and least in a negative sense, the president via his veto power. What's your point?
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want.
So the House cannot blame other people for passing Obamacare. I agree.
we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to
No, we know that two factions are controlling the situation. All the House has to do is pass a budget that funds Obamacare.
unless the Republicans get their side of the story out
Cry me a river. Those poor Republicans and their victim complex - they're so misunderstood! What's the most popular news channel in America? Oh, that's right, Fox News. What a shame that they won't present the Republican side of the story.
The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a spending bill funding the entire federal government - except Obamacare.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, it was passed into law by a majority of both houses and the president's signature, just like the Constitution requires. Now the house R's, instead of trying to repeal the law, are instituting a tyranny of the minority. Don't do what we want, and we'll screw up everything. Much as it sucks to have the federal government largely shut down, the D's are right not to give into this extortion. Let this kind of crap get started, and we'll have a situation where an overall minority that controls one house, or the presidency, gets a chance every year to effectively veto any law they don't like.
the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
That and the fact that it costs a lot of money. Not that that's a bad reason (I believe it's the best reason), but it's an important one you left out.
The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending
If the libertarian wing is that uncompromising, then they're either politically naive or just poseurs. It's better to get some of what you want than none of what you want. If you can make common cause with someone, even though you completely disagree with them otherwise, the do it. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were working together on a push to investigate the Fed.
The leftmost blue team factions (i.e. Kucinich) might like to reduce military expenditures, but no one listens to them.
Who listens to the libertarian faction? Nobody listens to the left wing, because there aren't that many of them. Kucinich, Sanders, uh, help me, I'm running out of names. The genuinely libertarian faction? Ron Paul, and, uh, I don't know. I know less about them so add names if appropriate.
It's a series of statements, logical processes, and permitted rules of inference ABOUT squares, triangles, etc. You are not permitted to actually use the figures in the proof...
No kidding. Now please explain how you can use that to calculate, for a basic example, the behavior of a damped harmonic oscillator. Stumped? Gosh, maybe that's what I meant by "will only get you so far".
Slashdot Mirror
Federal laws prohibit discrimination not just on race, but also "national origin"
"National origin" refers to what country a person, or a person's ancestors, are from. What we're talking about here is country of citizenship. By your reasoning, it's discrimination to say that only US citizens can vote in US elections.
I bet the PLA has lots of young, sexy Chinese grad students in America, seducing older, male professors, bugging their computers, taking photos to send back to the mainland, establishing relations with Americans to use in the future for blackmail.
Having seen many STEM students, I doubt that's their approach.
Because if you don't like them, why do you keep investing over there?
Who is "you"? Do you think all Americans are of a like mind? Has it ever occurred to you that what benefits TPTB may not benefit the average American?
American universities ... are profiting from those students working for them for a pittance here.
True - what industry doesn't like cheap labor? That doesn't mean other Americans necessarily benefit from it.
Trust me, if American citizens were clogging up the system of doctoral programs in STEM then no university would be going through the strenuous process of getting foreign students to do the drudgework for their research standing glory.
Perhaps Americans aren't clogging the system because it doesn't pay for them to. For decades plenty of Americans got STEM Ph.D.'s. The problem was that, due to the high demand for them, they got paid decently. Fortunately the National Science Foundation (a trade association for academia paid for by the US government) recognized this problem in the 1980's, and discussed how a vast increase in student visas could lower the price of employing Ph.D.'s. Unsurprisingly, it worked!
Our company on average pays about $40K to get a foreigner like me into the country.
You think $40k is a lot of money? That (hopefully) represents only a fraction of the burdened labor cost for employing someone for a year.
Do you nitwits really think they would ever do that if they could find Americans who were capable of doing the same thing?
What does "capable" mean? If you mean have the mental ability, oddly there was an adequate supply of Americans before the flood of students visas. I doubt you're calling Americans dumb though, so I presume you mean obtained their Ph.D.'s. There was also an adequate supply. Why that's no longer the case was explained above.
sometimes go for months without finding the right candidates
Since you're looking for highly educated and specialized people, something would be wrong if it didn't take months to find them. The typical attitude of someone involved in hiring today is that they should be able to get highly qualified people as quickly and easily as you can hire burger flippers. At one point, before other options opened up, American companies understood that talent was something you had to look hard for, and they both invested in and made an effort to retain such people. Such people didn't get canned because business is down this quarter, and the Great Minds of the stock analysts want to see expenses trimmed by almost as much as the CEO's salary. Thinking beyond the next quarter, companies didn't can such people because they knew it would be difficult to find comparable talent when business turned up the next quarter.
P.S. How is it that attacks such as yours are usually posted AC?
And bat guano. Still, I kinda like the idea. Who says being a troglodyte is bad.
Bricks, concrete blocks? (since you object to the vernacular dual use of the word cement). "Stands up to strong winds"? I don't think you appreciate the intensity of a good tornado. Force due to wind is proportional to the square of the wind speed. Trucks get thrown through the air. The difference between wood and masonry construction is the difference between a pile of splinters and a pile of rubble. The only thing that will stand up is reinforced concrete, and then only if poured in a single piece or very strongly joined. The reinforced concrete panels typically used to construct big box stores won't cut it.
2x10's and hurricane straps wouldn't even merit a laugh from a tornado.
Your 60 year old home is better than the majority of homes built 60 years ago, which is why yours is still standing when most of them are not
Really? Not on Long Island, and I doubt it's because of stricter building codes. For example, there are thousands of houses in Levittown, which were built as tiny inexpensive homes, and the last of them was built exactly 60 years ago. They're virtually all standing, have been expanded, and are in good shape. In my town, there are lots of houses built in the 1920's (a construction boom era), and quite a few that date back further than that.
The only grammatical 'rule' is to use 'whom' when it is governed by a preposition
And you're complaining about pedants?
What's your record on aerial bombardment? Location matters.
Does anyone know if this type of soil is why houses don't have basements in San Diego? I don't live there, but even locals don't seem to know why.
Cite? Not that I doubt you, but I'd be interested in details, whether it had been tested, what strength tornado, etc.
You are the idiot. If you think brick or even cement block stands up to a tornado much better than plywood, you know nothing about tornadoes. Your ignorance is tolerable, but not when compounded with arrogance.
I should thing that a heavily reinforced, hardened concrete structure could have mush thinner walls.
Nah, walls made of mush wouldn't work.
To an American a hundred years is a long time, and to a Briton a hundred miles is a long distance.
Grammar nazism stops wars.
English grammar or German grammar?
Get your nose out of the clouds. Surprisingly, most people are not familiar with the type of soil in Oklahoma, and how it affects construction. This denizen of the East Coast found the article interesting and informative. BTW, I presume you're familiar with the details of how barrier islands shift, what preservation efforts do and don't work for them (and why), the stability of different varieties of coastal sand bluffs, the hydrology of Long Island, which affects millions of people, the reason for the hump in the Manhattan sky line, and how despite the explanation for that, the tallest building in the country could still be built in Chicago.
Everyone thinks Slashdot is mostly read by tech nerds. Nonsense - most Slashdotters are frustrated proofreaders.
While we're at it, "who" is becoming acceptable where "whom" should be used. Referring to a person's gender is nonsensical - people have a sex, and words have a gender. Shall I go on? Yet none of those things leads to any real confusion or ambiguity (if they did, you wouldn't be able to correct them).
Anyone who bought a house on a floodplain in tornado country is a goddamned idiot.
Then anyone who lives in a known major earthquake zone is an idiot, so most of California (actually the whole West Coast) should be abandoned. Alternatively, they could have building codes that minimize loss of life in the event of an earthquake, but that's just swimming against the tide, isn't it?
And Australians still remember it as making a farce of representative government. One guy didn't like the government, so he dismissed it. BTW, tt wasn't the queen, but the governor general, who technically is her representative, but was acting on his initiative. It also led to the movement for an Australian republic - getting rid of the queen and her governor general. Surely any American can sympathize with a cause like that.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives
It says no such thing. You're confusing it with raising revenue. From Article I, Section 7:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
As does the senate, and least in a negative sense, the president via his veto power. What's your point?
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want.
So the House cannot blame other people for passing Obamacare. I agree.
we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to
No, we know that two factions are controlling the situation. All the House has to do is pass a budget that funds Obamacare.
unless the Republicans get their side of the story out
Cry me a river. Those poor Republicans and their victim complex - they're so misunderstood! What's the most popular news channel in America? Oh, that's right, Fox News. What a shame that they won't present the Republican side of the story.
The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a spending bill funding the entire federal government - except Obamacare.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, it was passed into law by a majority of both houses and the president's signature, just like the Constitution requires. Now the house R's, instead of trying to repeal the law, are instituting a tyranny of the minority. Don't do what we want, and we'll screw up everything. Much as it sucks to have the federal government largely shut down, the D's are right not to give into this extortion. Let this kind of crap get started, and we'll have a situation where an overall minority that controls one house, or the presidency, gets a chance every year to effectively veto any law they don't like.
the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
That and the fact that it costs a lot of money. Not that that's a bad reason (I believe it's the best reason), but it's an important one you left out.
The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending
If the libertarian wing is that uncompromising, then they're either politically naive or just poseurs. It's better to get some of what you want than none of what you want. If you can make common cause with someone, even though you completely disagree with them otherwise, the do it. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were working together on a push to investigate the Fed.
The leftmost blue team factions (i.e. Kucinich) might like to reduce military expenditures, but no one listens to them.
Who listens to the libertarian faction? Nobody listens to the left wing, because there aren't that many of them. Kucinich, Sanders, uh, help me, I'm running out of names. The genuinely libertarian faction? Ron Paul, and, uh, I don't know. I know less about them so add names if appropriate.
It's a series of statements, logical processes, and permitted rules of inference ABOUT squares, triangles, etc. You are not permitted to actually use the figures in the proof ...
No kidding. Now please explain how you can use that to calculate, for a basic example, the behavior of a damped harmonic oscillator. Stumped? Gosh, maybe that's what I meant by "will only get you so far".