And this is exactly why a lawsuit... or better yet, criminal charges (so it means time in prison when convicted) needs to be brought to court, to clear this up.
That said, I'm in favor of letting provably qualified workers come to this country under certain conditions. Number 1 is they are free to move on to a new employer at any time, which they might want to do for better pay and/or better conditions. And number 2 is that they state an intent to seek American citizenship, and move through the steps to get that over the course of their visa based employment.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's discrimination by the employer that considers the "qualification" to be one who has a visa that ensures they cannot move along to a new employer for 6 years.
H-1B rules are different. H-1B allows brining in foreign workers to fill the gap when Americans with the qualifications cannot be found. Assuming she is qualified and assuming she did apply for the job, then they have no basis to use H-1B to bring in the foreign worker.
More likely she is being discriminated against because she won't submit to a captive (stuck with the same employer and cannot complaint about horrible working conditions we so often see in H-1B situations).
Personally, I'd rather see an open system. But that also means the foreign workers who hold the H-1Bs can jump over to any employer they want (carrying a prorated debt to the company that paid for getting them the H-1B). So anyone that wants an open system needs to also allow this or it isn't really open.
The division of what rights are divided among the parties to support is just a big crock. They say they support certain rights. None supports them all, not matter what.
The NSA is not my worry. While we don't like being spied on and especially don't like it when not told about it, as long as the data is only going to them, then I'm really not worried. Their motivation is not to spam me or rip off my bank account. I'm more upset at the Congress people that knew about this but lied and said it did not exist (as compared to the NSA position of "we never comment on anything"). I figured this out a few years ago from public info. Lots of people did. But now that everyone knows, more people actually "get" the jokes made about the NSA (like: what telemarketer just called? ask the NSA).
Now what is the KGB, GRU, and NKVD up to these days? More "in Soviet Russia" jokes?
One problem is lack of shared memory of the code. The JVM file could be shared if done via read-only memory mapping. But then JIT compilation has to work on the side, not in-place. And processes can't share their JIT results, so Java has to depend more on threads.
Use a totally separate browser context for each different place you want to carry out secure, JavaScript-based, web activities. Although there are other ways (need a little coding), the simplest way to do this is just create multiple users (on your own computer), each designated for visiting the places you need security (one for each bank account, one for each retailer, one for access to work related stuff, etc). Browsers do have special features to do this kind of thing, but I have found they are not as separately isolated as I would like. I'm not so paranoid (yet) to use separate virtual machines, but others might. Three letter agencies are known to use physically separate machines.
Yes and no. A private individual can in some places petition a Grand Jury to bring an indictment, without the prosecutor being involved, or even knowing about it.
These systems get their tech support and vendor updates via... the internet (and most likely not encrypted). Oh, I agree. The air gap needs to be mandated.
Based on many engineers I know, the job is NEVER finished. They can always keep improving it. So apparently what you see is a kind of "product snapshot" in progress, because management wants to deliver something NOW, instead of wait 10 years for it to be nearly perfect for what the market wants THIS year.
The "free market" just means the corporations are "free" to do whatever the hell they want to. Usually, we expect them to be driven to maximize profit. That happens when the executives are smart enough to achieve it. In reality, they are often smart enough to get fairly close to what their maximum profit could be. But this does not include YOU. If you are going to refuse to buy their next $200 phone, they are not going to give a damn about retro-fixing the current phone, which would cost them millions to code it, test it, and deploy it, just to be sure they get your business the next time. Now if enough of you can make them believe they would lose more than it costs, that can get their attention. Go for that. if you want things to not be this way, then join me in promoting the concept of a "fair market", which places more regulations on big corporations so they realize a loss in the form of fines for doing things wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is exactly why a lawsuit ... or better yet, criminal charges (so it means time in prison when convicted) needs to be brought to court, to clear this up.
That said, I'm in favor of letting provably qualified workers come to this country under certain conditions. Number 1 is they are free to move on to a new employer at any time, which they might want to do for better pay and/or better conditions. And number 2 is that they state an intent to seek American citizenship, and move through the steps to get that over the course of their visa based employment.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's discrimination by the employer that considers the "qualification" to be one who has a visa that ensures they cannot move along to a new employer for 6 years.
H-1B rules are different. H-1B allows brining in foreign workers to fill the gap when Americans with the qualifications cannot be found. Assuming she is qualified and assuming she did apply for the job, then they have no basis to use H-1B to bring in the foreign worker.
More likely she is being discriminated against because she won't submit to a captive (stuck with the same employer and cannot complaint about horrible working conditions we so often see in H-1B situations).
Personally, I'd rather see an open system. But that also means the foreign workers who hold the H-1Bs can jump over to any employer they want (carrying a prorated debt to the company that paid for getting them the H-1B). So anyone that wants an open system needs to also allow this or it isn't really open.
Qualified for == entitled to under H-1B rules.
Under H-1B rules, they still must hire an American if they can find one that is qualified, over a non-American.
Yeah. Old. Be more interesting if it was newer ... like from yesterday.
The division of what rights are divided among the parties to support is just a big crock. They say they support certain rights. None supports them all, not matter what.
The NSA is not my worry. While we don't like being spied on and especially don't like it when not told about it, as long as the data is only going to them, then I'm really not worried. Their motivation is not to spam me or rip off my bank account. I'm more upset at the Congress people that knew about this but lied and said it did not exist (as compared to the NSA position of "we never comment on anything"). I figured this out a few years ago from public info. Lots of people did. But now that everyone knows, more people actually "get" the jokes made about the NSA (like: what telemarketer just called? ask the NSA).
Now what is the KGB, GRU, and NKVD up to these days? More "in Soviet Russia" jokes?
Encrypt at home or at work ... then the end points are in better control.
Privately encrypted quantum communications. Who needs a net.
Throw more RAM at it. Allocate a little swap space in ramdisk so a few programs that go nuts when there is no swap will be quiet. It's only money.
Good C programmers have this already worked out into their common patterns.
One problem is lack of shared memory of the code. The JVM file could be shared if done via read-only memory mapping. But then JIT compilation has to work on the side, not in-place. And processes can't share their JIT results, so Java has to depend more on threads.
Big business is more dangerous to your rights, and to society in general, than big government is.
Only when someone leaks them.
Use a totally separate browser context for each different place you want to carry out secure, JavaScript-based, web activities. Although there are other ways (need a little coding), the simplest way to do this is just create multiple users (on your own computer), each designated for visiting the places you need security (one for each bank account, one for each retailer, one for access to work related stuff, etc). Browsers do have special features to do this kind of thing, but I have found they are not as separately isolated as I would like. I'm not so paranoid (yet) to use separate virtual machines, but others might. Three letter agencies are known to use physically separate machines.
Yes and no. A private individual can in some places petition a Grand Jury to bring an indictment, without the prosecutor being involved, or even knowing about it.
A "Jury of your Peers"? Hardly. More like a "Jury of your Pees".
If the NSA would just open up their computers, then information would finally be truly free.
This should cause furious Slash-gasms among the nerds, and plenty of page hits, and plenty of profit.
Nah. Not really. It's typical gaff from Anonymous Coward. We're used to it by now. Move along.
... until today. So are they gonna ride on the Slashdot Effect fame, now?
These systems get their tech support and vendor updates via ... the internet (and most likely not encrypted). Oh, I agree. The air gap needs to be mandated.
Based on many engineers I know, the job is NEVER finished. They can always keep improving it. So apparently what you see is a kind of "product snapshot" in progress, because management wants to deliver something NOW, instead of wait 10 years for it to be nearly perfect for what the market wants THIS year.
The "free market" just means the corporations are "free" to do whatever the hell they want to. Usually, we expect them to be driven to maximize profit. That happens when the executives are smart enough to achieve it. In reality, they are often smart enough to get fairly close to what their maximum profit could be. But this does not include YOU. If you are going to refuse to buy their next $200 phone, they are not going to give a damn about retro-fixing the current phone, which would cost them millions to code it, test it, and deploy it, just to be sure they get your business the next time. Now if enough of you can make them believe they would lose more than it costs, that can get their attention. Go for that. if you want things to not be this way, then join me in promoting the concept of a "fair market", which places more regulations on big corporations so they realize a loss in the form of fines for doing things wrong.