I live in a 300-unit apartment complex. Just about every one has a wireless router for cable or DSL service. Congestion during the day when everyone is at work isn't an issue. Between 7PM to 2AM, it's really bad.
I live in a 30 unit complex right behind a 200 unit complex, and while the 2.4Ghz band is crowded and littered with AT&T and Xfinity SSID's, there's not much interference on 5Ghz, the DFS bands are nearly empty.
There no "lawsuit" involved. If it's child pornography because the model was underage it doesn't matter who lied or when. The production and all copies are then child pornography, and you don't sue them, the Attorney general shows up with the power and unlimited funding of the government behind them and throws you in jail.
And as another poster mentioned, as soon as the state says the words child pornography to the jury you are going to jail. Mere possession of child pornography is 5 years in federal jail and that's for a SINGLE image, every additional image is an additional count. Creating pornography with an underage model is up to 20 years in federal prison per image. And ignorance of the models age is not a defense. Real porn producers won't TOUCH a model they aren't positive is over the age of 18 for this very reason.
Child pornography isn't a game, if as part of this guys scam he even photographed an underage person in the nude he's going to jail. Hell, they've put kids in jail for taking photographs of themselves because it's producing child pornography. Only very foolish people would take a risk like this.
Are you replying to the right person? Who said anything about underage performers in this thread? I and the post I was replying to specifically were talking about performers that are 18 years or older. Performers under the age of 18 are an entirely different story.
Tia Tanaka and Kitty Jung both started at 18, and attended the same high school. Supposedly there is an interview where Kitty says she started on her 18th birthday, I have not seen that. Here is a normal, dressed look at Kitty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GJbLI2Lo-I There is also the huge issue of Human Trafficking, where the women are basically slaves and may also be under age...
I didn't claim that no performers started when they were 18, but did either of them start filming the day they turned 18 and claim that they had just turned 18? I'll admit to not being familiar enough with either of them to know the answer, but I looked at Kitty's filmography and none of them are called "Barely legal Kitty's 18th birthday!"
But I admire your knowledge of porn and you had not one, but two 18 year old performers in mind!
A defense of "she lied about her age" is about as worthless as claiming the cops forced you to do it. Pornography is covered by some seriously powerful laws that require the publisher to obtain, photocopy and retain documentation of proof of age for 10 YEARS that can be requested at any time by just about anybody and if you don't produce the documents you go directly to jail.
"but she had a fake ID", good luck with that defense too. You apparently aren't aware of how strictly regulated pornography is in the US.
I'm not saying that the performer lied about her age, but the entire production company lied about her age and claimed it was her 18th birthday when it she's really years older.
You could certainly try to sue the company for misrepresenting her age, but you'd have a hard time proving damages "Your honor, I jacked off to her video for years before I realized she was actually 22, not 18 as stated. I deserve compensation for all of those orgasms".
And before someone says "not for porn" - which is true, that's 18 everywhere - it's not illegal to contact a 17 year old and ask if she wants to do porn when she turns 18. There's a huge market for "barely legal" porn and a lot of them are filmed the day after their 18th birthday. That can't happen unless it's planned in advance, which by necessity would occur when she was 17.
The other way it could happen would be if they lie about her age, and she's really a young looking 20 year old (or in some cases, not that young looking). It's not like porn is some bastion of truth where everything you see is real.
This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairlywealthy, as well as well paid.
Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that.287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."
I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.
Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.
You sure? Show me a link to verify from Amazon what you just said.
Why would you trust a link from Amazon? But, If you're going to trust Amazon, then here is "proof" that the Echo only sends audio shortly after it hears the wake word:
When Amazon Echo or Echo Dot detect the wake word, when you press the action button on top of the devices, or when you press and hold your remote's microphone button, the light ring around the top of your Amazon Echo turns blue, to indicate that Amazon Echo is streaming audio to the Cloud. When you use the wake word, the audio stream includes a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word, and closes once your question or request has been processed
If you don't trust Amazon, then why do you want to see a link from Amazon confirming that if the device doesn't send data, then it's not sending audio? Surely Amazon is not going to tell you that they use the top-secret invisible NSA access points to send data, so you won't be able to detect it.
Only if that function is enabled, which it isn't by default
If you're worried that manufacturers are spying on you when they say they are not (like when Amazon says that the Echo only listens after you say "Alexa"), then why would you trust that turning off the listening feature really turns it off? If they are going to outright lie to you about spying, they aren't going to let a user visible "on/off" control get in their way.
Audio is only uploaded once the wake word is used. As it exclusively uses your home wifi, it is easy to test for and monitor this, unlike the phone you likely carry in your pocket.
That isn't much comfort to me because I don't know what it's uploading. Plenty of keyloggers will record all of the keystrokes you type offline, then upload them in bursts when an internet connection is detected. How do I know Alexa isn't recording every time it hears the word "kill" or "heroin" and then uploading those clips in bursts the next time I ask Alexa to re-order toilet paper? If I'm sniffing the network, I won't see it uploading anything at the wrong time, but I don't know what it's uploading when it hears the wake word.
If you're worried about it, capture packets 24/7 from the device, compare traffic on days when you use it to days when you don't and you'll see that it's not sending enough data to be actively monitoring your conversations.
Do police regularly request cellular phone companies to provide recordings of ambient audio recorded by cellphones? In this example, the police DO treat an Echo differently from a cell phone, and the DO expect it to have stored audio that might aid their investigation, because unlike a cell phone, the echo records everything when active.
Law enforcement treats the objects differently, so seems perfectly rational for consumers to notice the difference.
How would you know what the police do with cell phones? Law enforcement even hides whether or not they use a stingray at all, and there is very little information about what the devices are and what they are capable of - maybe they really can remotely turn on your phone's microphone and record what you're saying? And all of these secrecy comes not just with the Justice Department's blessing, but at the outright request of the Justice department.
...The documents also discuss the possibility of flashing a phone’s firmware “so that you can intercept conversations using a suspect’s cell phone as a bug...
If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
that is not true, its not only 150$, you are also forbidden to drive real customers and take their money, until its done test phase, and this part could cost millions in lost revenue, just because something is being tested does not mean it is not allowed to make money
Is that true? There's nothing on the permit application that mentions any restrictions on carrying passengers for hire:
, regarding reporting, i am sure they don't need company help, all they need to is tell traffic cops "if you see one of this bling-y cars in accident forward us detailed report"
The reporting goes beyond simple accident reporting, the state also requires autonomous disengagement reports, which sounds quite useful for determining how useful the technology is and areas where it needs improvement:
Program Participant Annual Reporting of Disengagement Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 227.46, a manufacturer shall retain data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode caused by the failure of the technology or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires the test driver to take immediate manual control of the vehicle. Data shall be reported annually by January 1st of each year, which summarizes the prior month(s) specified activities. A form is not provided by the department; however, the report should summarize the following:
The total number of disengagements The circumstances or testing condition at the time The location or environment (i.e. highway, rural, parking facility) A brief description can include weather conditions, roadway, etc. The total number of miles each vehicle traveled in autonomous technology mode on public roads. The period of time elapsed from when the autonomous vehicle test driver was alerted of the failure and the when driver assumed manual control of the vehicle.
I'm seeing more and more ads on Youtube, and more and more, when I see an unskippable ad, I just close Youtube. It turns out that there's more than enough content out there to keep me entertained, and sitting through a 20 - 30 second ad isn't worth it.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
Public streets aren't meant for "cool stuff", do that on an off-road track. If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now. That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work
The FAA has a $15B budget, and has over 7000 people working in their aviation safety division alone -- they issue on average 5 - 10 Airworthiness Directives per day. Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency? Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air, and try the same thing for a car, and tell me which agency was easier to deal with (hint, the California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield).
California regulates self-driving cars (the part of regulation Uber most likely didn't like was the reporting requirement), and when Uber didn't want to play by the rules, they went somewhere that apparently doesn't care about making their public streets into unregulated test grounds for new technology.
wait, calculators? are we sure his story isn't from the 1980s?
There's still a thriving calculator market for students since some exams have a list of permitted calculators (that are permitted because they have limited (or no) programmability).
I still use my HP-15C when I have to do some basic math, it's faster and easier than using my computer or cell phone (even though I have an HP calculator emulator on the phone, having real keys makes a huge difference in accuracy)
OK I'm going to play Devil's advocate here. it seems to me that if they want to not count bandwidth for certain services against your allowance, that can only be a good thing. I mean you're actually still free to use the other services if you want. I'd have an issue if they tried blocking competition completely but as long as you ultimately have a free choice its no worse than Microsoft having their any of their browser/search engine/storefront/whatever open by default on Windows, until you explicitly choose an alternative.
If you believe the carriers, bandwidth is so expensive they have to ration it and keep people from using too much.
So even if you're not watching these "free" services, you're still paying for it in bandwidth costs. Why should *you* have a 5GB cap and expensive overage charges to watch Netflix while someone watching AT&T's service every day can use up 50GB a month and pay nothing extra?
So AT&T is using your money to subsidize users of its own video streaming service.
Maybe you don't care about streaming video, but will you care when it expands to other things? When Bing queries at fast, but Google queries are slowed down since AT&T has a partnership with Bing. Or you can use AT&T's driving directions app for free (because it's full of ads for AT&T's clients), but when you use Google Maps, the maps take 2 minutes to load at 10kbit/second because AT&T "deprioritized" their traffic since it "interferes" with AT&T's preferred app.
Since they are so sure that their 10 hour battery life estimate is correct, then there's no need to estimate battery lifetime in real-time, they can just start a simple 10 hour countdown timer when the laptop goes on battery, then the user knows exactly when their 10 hours of battery life time expire. If it's a little inaccurate and the user gets more than 10 hours, they can just call it bonus time.
I would work for as little as 2.50 USD / hour. I love programming, been doing it for 32 years, 20 off and on professionally. 2.50/hour programming is better than the general labor jobs I've been working recently.
Really? Unless you're independently wealthy and don't need the money (or are physically disabled), I don't see how you could be happier working 120 hours/week at $2.50/hour doing programming versus 40 hours/week at $7.25/hour minimum wage doing general labor. And I can't imagine that you're putting forth your best effort while working 17 hours days 7 days a week.
Mandating that for every H1B you hire, you must also hire and train 1 American worker, and then switch to the American worker (H1B limited time offer) would fix the problem.
That's not really practical when you use the H1-B system as it was meant to bring in skilled workers that aren't available locally. My company has a strong international recruiting presence where we recruit PhD's and others at the top of their industry and bring them here under H1-B visas. We literally can't find all of the talent we need in the USA (we recruit heavily at American colleges too, but there really aren't that many people world-wide that have the skills and knowledge we're looking for). Having an H1-B worker do on-the-job training in some innovative specialized subject that they they developed after 7 - 10 years of college is just not practical.
If the H1-B worker's knowledge is so commonplace that they could easily do on the job training of a replacement, then was that H1-B worker really needed?
pen as in a pen or is that supposed to be short for something?
Duh, it should be obvious from the context. PwC is an accounting firm. Accounting firms use a lot of pens. It would be ludicrous to give an accountant a non-functional pen, so they have a pen testing division that runs each pen through a battery of tests before they deploy it to an accountant.
No, because (somewhat ironically) its illegal to pay Americans that little.
The lawsuits says that workers were "brought-in", and were mostly H1-B holders. H1-B holders need to be paid market salary.
There's not much the workers can do about jobs that are actually off-shored, but if they were laid off and replaced by Indian H1-B workers who are working locally to transition to off shore teams only because they were not Indian, then they may have a case.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in a 300-unit apartment complex. Just about every one has a wireless router for cable or DSL service. Congestion during the day when everyone is at work isn't an issue. Between 7PM to 2AM, it's really bad.
I live in a 30 unit complex right behind a 200 unit complex, and while the 2.4Ghz band is crowded and littered with AT&T and Xfinity SSID's, there's not much interference on 5Ghz, the DFS bands are nearly empty.
I like how that little jab at Apple was tossed in just at the end of the summary without any context whatsoever
Isn't this context?
Back in 2011, Apple had a problem with iPhone alarms not working correctly on January 1st.
There no "lawsuit" involved. If it's child pornography because the model was underage it doesn't matter who lied or when. The production and all copies are then child pornography, and you don't sue them, the Attorney general shows up with the power and unlimited funding of the government behind them and throws you in jail.
And as another poster mentioned, as soon as the state says the words child pornography to the jury you are going to jail. Mere possession of child pornography is 5 years in federal jail and that's for a SINGLE image, every additional image is an additional count. Creating pornography with an underage model is up to 20 years in federal prison per image. And ignorance of the models age is not a defense. Real porn producers won't TOUCH a model they aren't positive is over the age of 18 for this very reason.
Child pornography isn't a game, if as part of this guys scam he even photographed an underage person in the nude he's going to jail. Hell, they've put kids in jail for taking photographs of themselves because it's producing child pornography. Only very foolish people would take a risk like this.
Are you replying to the right person? Who said anything about underage performers in this thread? I and the post I was replying to specifically were talking about performers that are 18 years or older. Performers under the age of 18 are an entirely different story.
Tia Tanaka and Kitty Jung both started at 18, and attended the same high school.
Supposedly there is an interview where Kitty says she started on her 18th birthday, I have not seen that. Here is a normal, dressed look at Kitty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GJbLI2Lo-I
There is also the huge issue of Human Trafficking, where the women are basically slaves and may also be under age...
I didn't claim that no performers started when they were 18, but did either of them start filming the day they turned 18 and claim that they had just turned 18? I'll admit to not being familiar enough with either of them to know the answer, but I looked at Kitty's filmography and none of them are called "Barely legal Kitty's 18th birthday!"
But I admire your knowledge of porn and you had not one, but two 18 year old performers in mind!
A defense of "she lied about her age" is about as worthless as claiming the cops forced you to do it. Pornography is covered by some seriously powerful laws that require the publisher to obtain, photocopy and retain documentation of proof of age for 10 YEARS that can be requested at any time by just about anybody and if you don't produce the documents you go directly to jail.
"but she had a fake ID", good luck with that defense too. You apparently aren't aware of how strictly regulated pornography is in the US.
I'm not saying that the performer lied about her age, but the entire production company lied about her age and claimed it was her 18th birthday when it she's really years older.
You could certainly try to sue the company for misrepresenting her age, but you'd have a hard time proving damages "Your honor, I jacked off to her video for years before I realized she was actually 22, not 18 as stated. I deserve compensation for all of those orgasms".
And before someone says "not for porn" - which is true, that's 18 everywhere - it's not illegal to contact a 17 year old and ask if she wants to do porn when she turns 18. There's a huge market for "barely legal" porn and a lot of them are filmed the day after their 18th birthday. That can't happen unless it's planned in advance, which by necessity would occur when she was 17.
The other way it could happen would be if they lie about her age, and she's really a young looking 20 year old (or in some cases, not that young looking). It's not like porn is some bastion of truth where everything you see is real.
Sorry if I've disillusioned you.
This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.
Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."
I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.
Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.
There, problem solved.
You sure?
Show me a link to verify from Amazon what you just said.
Why would you trust a link from Amazon? But, If you're going to trust Amazon, then here is "proof" that the Echo only sends audio shortly after it hears the wake word:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help...
When Amazon Echo or Echo Dot detect the wake word, when you press the action button on top of the devices, or when you press and hold your remote's microphone button, the light ring around the top of your Amazon Echo turns blue, to indicate that Amazon Echo is streaming audio to the Cloud. When you use the wake word, the audio stream includes a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word, and closes once your question or request has been processed
If you don't trust Amazon, then why do you want to see a link from Amazon confirming that if the device doesn't send data, then it's not sending audio? Surely Amazon is not going to tell you that they use the top-secret invisible NSA access points to send data, so you won't be able to detect it.
Only if that function is enabled, which it isn't by default
If you're worried that manufacturers are spying on you when they say they are not (like when Amazon says that the Echo only listens after you say "Alexa"), then why would you trust that turning off the listening feature really turns it off? If they are going to outright lie to you about spying, they aren't going to let a user visible "on/off" control get in their way.
Audio is only uploaded once the wake word is used. As it exclusively uses your home wifi, it is easy to test for and monitor this, unlike the phone you likely carry in your pocket.
That isn't much comfort to me because I don't know what it's uploading. Plenty of keyloggers will record all of the keystrokes you type offline, then upload them in bursts when an internet connection is detected. How do I know Alexa isn't recording every time it hears the word "kill" or "heroin" and then uploading those clips in bursts the next time I ask Alexa to re-order toilet paper? If I'm sniffing the network, I won't see it uploading anything at the wrong time, but I don't know what it's uploading when it hears the wake word.
If you're worried about it, capture packets 24/7 from the device, compare traffic on days when you use it to days when you don't and you'll see that it's not sending enough data to be actively monitoring your conversations.
Do police regularly request cellular phone companies to provide recordings of ambient audio recorded by cellphones? In this example, the police DO treat an Echo differently from a cell phone, and the DO expect it to have stored audio that might aid their investigation, because unlike a cell phone, the echo records everything when active.
Law enforcement treats the objects differently, so seems perfectly rational for consumers to notice the difference.
How would you know what the police do with cell phones? Law enforcement even hides whether or not they use a stingray at all, and there is very little information about what the devices are and what they are capable of - maybe they really can remotely turn on your phone's microphone and record what you're saying? And all of these secrecy comes not just with the Justice Department's blessing, but at the outright request of the Justice department.
...The documents also discuss the possibility of flashing a phone’s firmware “so that you can intercept conversations using a suspect’s cell phone as a bug...
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/...
"Congresses come and go, but there is one invariant: they all have trouble with mathematics."
That's not saying much, most people have trouble with mathematics.
Most people aren't making Federal policy decisions related to science, math, and technology while being unversed in science, math, and technology.
If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
that is not true, its not only 150$, you are also forbidden to drive real customers and take their money, until its done test phase, and this part could cost millions in lost revenue, just because something is being tested does not mean it is not allowed to make money
Is that true? There's nothing on the permit application that mentions any restrictions on carrying passengers for hire:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
, regarding reporting, i am sure they don't need company help, all they need to is tell traffic cops "if you see one of this bling-y cars in accident forward us detailed report"
The reporting goes beyond simple accident reporting, the state also requires autonomous disengagement reports, which sounds quite useful for determining how useful the technology is and areas where it needs improvement:
Program Participant Annual Reporting of Disengagement
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 227.46, a manufacturer shall retain data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode caused by the failure of the technology or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires the test driver to take immediate manual control of the vehicle. Data shall be reported annually by January 1st of each year, which summarizes the prior month(s) specified activities.
A form is not provided by the department; however, the report should summarize the following:
The total number of disengagements
The circumstances or testing condition at the time
The location or environment (i.e. highway, rural, parking facility)
A brief description can include weather conditions, roadway, etc.
The total number of miles each vehicle traveled in autonomous technology mode on public roads.
The period of time elapsed from when the autonomous vehicle test driver was alerted of the failure and the when driver assumed manual control of the vehicle.
I'm seeing more and more ads on Youtube, and more and more, when I see an unskippable ad, I just close Youtube. It turns out that there's more than enough content out there to keep me entertained, and sitting through a 20 - 30 second ad isn't worth it.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
Public streets aren't meant for "cool stuff", do that on an off-road track. If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now. That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work
The FAA has a $15B budget, and has over 7000 people working in their aviation safety division alone -- they issue on average 5 - 10 Airworthiness Directives per day. Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency? Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air, and try the same thing for a car, and tell me which agency was easier to deal with (hint, the California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield).
What a surprise -- regulation works!
California regulates self-driving cars (the part of regulation Uber most likely didn't like was the reporting requirement), and when Uber didn't want to play by the rules, they went somewhere that apparently doesn't care about making their public streets into unregulated test grounds for new technology.
wait, calculators? are we sure his story isn't from the 1980s?
There's still a thriving calculator market for students since some exams have a list of permitted calculators (that are permitted because they have limited (or no) programmability).
I still use my HP-15C when I have to do some basic math, it's faster and easier than using my computer or cell phone (even though I have an HP calculator emulator on the phone, having real keys makes a huge difference in accuracy)
OK I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
it seems to me that if they want to not count bandwidth for certain services against your allowance, that can only be a good thing. I mean you're actually still free to use the other services if you want.
I'd have an issue if they tried blocking competition completely but as long as you ultimately have a free choice its no worse than Microsoft having their any of their browser/search engine/storefront/whatever open by default on Windows, until you explicitly choose an alternative.
If you believe the carriers, bandwidth is so expensive they have to ration it and keep people from using too much.
So even if you're not watching these "free" services, you're still paying for it in bandwidth costs. Why should *you* have a 5GB cap and expensive overage charges to watch Netflix while someone watching AT&T's service every day can use up 50GB a month and pay nothing extra?
So AT&T is using your money to subsidize users of its own video streaming service.
Maybe you don't care about streaming video, but will you care when it expands to other things? When Bing queries at fast, but Google queries are slowed down since AT&T has a partnership with Bing. Or you can use AT&T's driving directions app for free (because it's full of ads for AT&T's clients), but when you use Google Maps, the maps take 2 minutes to load at 10kbit/second because AT&T "deprioritized" their traffic since it "interferes" with AT&T's preferred app.
This type of PR drivel is only possible in a country with math education so poor there is a market for tip calculators.
I'm pretty good at math, but not so good at arithmetic.
Since they are so sure that their 10 hour battery life estimate is correct, then there's no need to estimate battery lifetime in real-time, they can just start a simple 10 hour countdown timer when the laptop goes on battery, then the user knows exactly when their 10 hours of battery life time expire. If it's a little inaccurate and the user gets more than 10 hours, they can just call it bonus time.
I would work for as little as 2.50 USD / hour. I love programming, been doing it for 32 years, 20 off and on professionally. 2.50/hour programming is better than the general labor jobs I've been working recently.
Really? Unless you're independently wealthy and don't need the money (or are physically disabled), I don't see how you could be happier working 120 hours/week at $2.50/hour doing programming versus 40 hours/week at $7.25/hour minimum wage doing general labor. And I can't imagine that you're putting forth your best effort while working 17 hours days 7 days a week.
Mandating that for every H1B you hire, you must also hire and train 1 American worker, and then switch to the American worker (H1B limited time offer) would fix the problem.
That's not really practical when you use the H1-B system as it was meant to bring in skilled workers that aren't available locally. My company has a strong international recruiting presence where we recruit PhD's and others at the top of their industry and bring them here under H1-B visas. We literally can't find all of the talent we need in the USA (we recruit heavily at American colleges too, but there really aren't that many people world-wide that have the skills and knowledge we're looking for). Having an H1-B worker do on-the-job training in some innovative specialized subject that they they developed after 7 - 10 years of college is just not practical.
If the H1-B worker's knowledge is so commonplace that they could easily do on the job training of a replacement, then was that H1-B worker really needed?
pen as in a pen or is that supposed to be short for something?
Duh, it should be obvious from the context. PwC is an accounting firm. Accounting firms use a lot of pens. It would be ludicrous to give an accountant a non-functional pen, so they have a pen testing division that runs each pen through a battery of tests before they deploy it to an accountant.
No, because (somewhat ironically) its illegal to pay Americans that little.
The lawsuits says that workers were "brought-in", and were mostly H1-B holders. H1-B holders need to be paid market salary.
There's not much the workers can do about jobs that are actually off-shored, but if they were laid off and replaced by Indian H1-B workers who are working locally to transition to off shore teams only because they were not Indian, then they may have a case.
They didn't terminate them "based solely on their national origin and race"
They terminated them based on the fact they can pay Indian workers a fraction of the salary.
Did they offer the Americans an equivalent salary?