I don't think that figuring out the 'what' is all that interesting. You look at this glitch-"art" and if you know relevant engineering, you'll easily tell what it is. You look at the Pieta and of course you can easily tell what it is as well (a carving of some people, duh). As far as *what* is supposedly said -- now here's where it's hairy, because social context and prior experiences are a big part of getting the message. That's the problem with art: it tells everyone something, but it's hard to know in advance what will it say. Art as a means of communication is simply crap. Not that it's not enjoyable, oftentimes, of course.
You're welcome. I have learned a bunch of stuff here as well. As far as non recoverability of zeroed-out data goes, nothing really beats a modern hard drive. Personally I think drive-level encryption in the drive can't be trusted for non-recoverability because I'm sure they can store the key somewhere where the informed governments can read it, it's not hard to hide it well enough. So, basically, there's no way to audit an encrypted hard drive to ensure there's no backdoor to the cryptographic key, so it can't be trusted for non-recoverability. Heck, there are many drives that store the plaintext password to the key, and there are even free tools that can recover that for some drive families! Then there are non-free tools that run a couple $k that recover that for most any drive out there, so it makes a bit of a joke of the whole on-drive-encryption thing.
You misunderstood what the cited article was saying. First of all, the article was essentially hearsay - a story of what Johnson said, retold by someone who didn't have much clue. Yet, obviously, nowhere did they say that they used magnetic force microscopy to recover data from the platters, as that would be the only technology that would have a chance (except, these days, it doesn't). All they did was a regular read from the drive and found some sectors that the zero-fill didn't overwrite. What happened, most likely, was that the zero-fill was only attempted on areas declared unallocated by the filesystem. Such areas are necessarily declared conservatively -- you should never trust a free-space erase on a mounted filesystem, and that's what seems to have happened here.
Nowhere does the article disagree with what I'm saying, because, again, the legend of recovering the data from a zeroed-out hard drive is at this time nothing more. If you're lucky as in winning the lotto jackpot, and you're looking for very small amounts of data (say cryptographic keys), you may be able to recover useful error-correctable data from sectors that got reallocated because they started to fail. This doesn't require opening up the drive, merely gaining access to it via the factory/manufacturer mechanisms (there are software tools for that), so that you can read any sector, whether mapped into the space accessible via regular ATA data access calls or not. That's a slim chance, but if you're after a key or other short blurb, it's a low-hanging fruit -- and yes, in that case you need original drive, not an image.
The deal with the drive you cite was as follows: it never got fully overwritten with zeroes. Was that the case, you'd never read about any large (more than dozens or hundreds randomly scattered sectors worth) data coming off of it, because, again, it's not possible anymore. If you want to overwrite a drive, you boot a DBAN CD/dongle and do it. One set of zeroes is enough. If you really worry about the few tens of nanometers worth of possibly relevant domains left over "between" the tracks, you can always overwrite it a couple times; I'd think thrice with random data plus once with zeroes is enough. You don't muck around with free-space overwriting, OS reinstallation, or anything of that sort.
I think I posted something about it once somewhere where I argued that "obviously it's possible duh duh" -- I used to believe it until I looked at a honest-to-goodness drive platters with a magnetic force microscope. Even at a highest magnification, where a single pixel is a few nanometers across, you can't see anything but random hash "between" the tracks. At such magnification, the individual bits are huge, and any remnants would be quite obvious. They were very obvious in times of early PRML drives and before that. That time is long gone. Thus, an obvious tip: don't store sensitive data on old hard drives (say early IDE drives).
Isnt it convinent shit can have no "mass" but still have "momentum".
No rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass, m_r = h*f/c^2, where h is Planck's constant, f is photon's frequency, and c is speed of light. And they are affected by gravity, a photon emitted from a flashlight held horizontal will fall on Earth a bit. That's why gravitational lensing works.
There is no such thing and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's a legend that was once true: in times of MFM and RLL drives, and early PRML drives. Nobody offers such analysis, feel free to prove me wrong by providing someone who would quote it for any hard drive that was shipped in the last decade. The quote would be for data recovery after the drive was overwritten precisely once with zeroes.
The first thing you learn is that it's not the same data if it's not on the original storage medium.
Since, obviously, the data cares very much what medium it's on, and bits may start looking all worried at you if you copy them. You get the original drive, use a disk imager to obtain the digital signature of original contents (the private key and the signing engine is in a tamperproof chip inside the imager), make an image, get the signature on the image, sign the affidavits, and be good and done.
...it detects that you're not the usual sysadmin and silently wipes all logs.
You need to choose a level of paranoia. If you really think that there's so much going on that there's anything useful in the RAM of the server, then it's not a long shot to assume that if said server detects that both gigabit links on the back are down, it may as well wipe stuff.
IOW: there's no ideal, realistic solution. If you assume that the sysadmin was paranoid to the point of encrypting all the data and the keys being only in RAM, then it's fair deal to assume that the data is lost as soon as you start tweaking things, even moving the server while powered up.
If you assume, like on every normal server out there, that RAM contents are of no importance, then probably it's safe to assume that single-user mode operates as designed, and it can be used to get the data off the drives in spite of not having a proper tool to directly read the drives that are a part of hardware RAID (like they'd likely to be). If you don't know the passwords, then of course single user mode is out anyway, and you have to reboot to your recovery medium of choice and use that to dump the drives; most RAID out there would be handled by any recent linux recovery disk so you'd get access to drive contents.
Alas, professionals would have forensic data recovery software available, so there's no point in not pressing the power button, waiting for the shutdown (or even forcibly cutting power), then imaging the drives and dealing with reconstructing it once you're back in the office.
So, they really need a whole big stinkin' server? If you're a professional, you'd switch the server to single user mode, dump the drive contents to a portable drive, reboot the server, and be on your merry way. If they have proper forensic data analysis tools, they should be able to deal with all popular raid arrays out there, so given those you shut the server down, use a portable disk imager to copy the drives, you then replace the drives, power the server back up, and are on your merry way. I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Never mind that such events are endless pits where public money gets dumped for no good reason. It doesn't make any financial sense to organize those events, they lose money head over heels.
The heck? To me, all the formatting belongs in the Format menu. Why the heck did MS put page formatting under the File menu is beyond me. I always found it counterintuitive. I think that anyone arguing that Page formatting in the Format menu in OOo.org/LO is somehow bad have just never really critically looked at their daily work environment: it's a confounding mess and they merely grew used to it over the years.
There is nothing "standard" about what MS is doing. It's smoke and mirrors. I did a couple proofs of concept for unbelieving superiors who bought into this "standard" stuff. It's a joke of a standard.
Here's a lovely tidbit that indicates how bad things are: you open an old word file in Office 97 format, and save it as docx, all using latest office. You then inspect it, and there's a little flag that basically tells word to format it as if it were old Office 97 or whatever. Yes, it's a docx file that merely carries the behavior expected of the old doc file. There's no documentation anywhere about how to implement that flag. A whole lot of docx documents has this flag set because, guess, what, they where effectively imported from old doc into docx. There is no way to handle this without reverse engineering what Office 97 did, and documenting its behavior.
Never forget that it doesn't appear that MS wrote the opendoc standard first and then worked off of it, in a clean room fashion, in implementing their xml office file format support. Nope. They were at best documenting things as they went, and the only "standard" is the microsoft implementation of it in their office product. If you try and come up with your own implementation, you'll run into endless slightly incorrect statements, slight bits of missing information, slight smoke and mirrors; the general feel of the standard is that it was someone's second thought, never meant to be used for implementing anything, but merely used to appease the (rightful) "oh noes vendor lock-in" crowd. Smoke and mirrors, that'll be all there's to it.
Yes, the opendoc standard does IIRC correctly document the xml schema and whatnot, but that's a far cry from implementing the formatting engine. Merely knowing the data structures is only one side of the medal. Similarly, if you were to attempt reverse-engineering the old document stream format, you'd only end up with how they represent the document data in the stream (doc is an OLE compound storage file). You still need to know how all this data drives the formatter to produce the visible output. And that formatter, ladies and gentlemen, is so intertwined with the details of the underlying GUI engine in Windows, that expecting a pixel-identical output is absurd unless you'd reverse engineer and produce a formal spec of the formatter code from old Word, and do the necessary work of documenting how it interacts with the font rendering system -- because that's also anything but trivial.
I've done all the homework and projects in the graduate school using LyX, and there's something to be said for having makefiles and cron. When a new homework or project assignment was given, I'd set up a crontab entry to fire 30 minutes before the due time and run a script. The script would first do an svn checkout from a local repo where I committed my work-in-progress. Then it'd keep doing svn update followed by make and a checkin of the files to be submitted for as long as the svn revision kept changing (a grad student keeps working up to the last minute, you see). A separate crontab entry firing a minute before the due time simply did a checkout of the submittal file directory and ran make submit. The latter emailed or uploaded the output files wherever the assignments were supposed to go.
The writeup was in LyX, and the programming work was done in some mix of octave, maxima, C++, fortran, ansys, C# and java, depending on what course it was for. The makefile would generate all the input for LyX, and any other files that were to be submitted. Those were tables, plots, abbreviated listings, program output. Finally LyX would be fired up from command line to generate the pdf(s). My experience is that you often get half a grade better score simply by submitting a clean and professional looking assignment. As a grader myself, I can no doubt appreciate not having to decipher yet another stack of handwritten scribbles.
I will say that this is propaganda and rhetoric, but you really need to think about this. Not replacig those jobs is a failure of the Republic. The average person in the Republic does not want to be a Rocket Scientist. They want to go to work, put in an 8 hour day and get paid enough to have necessities and a bit of security. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, the average person does not want to be highly educated. And that is something that is no more a reasonable demand. That's the end of it. If one feels, and I do, that the Republic should help such people, I've said that the solution is damningly simple:
it'd be simpler and lower overhead to give the money to people as cash
But then everyone would be screaming bloody murder about the freeloaders. Sigh.
You are right, and I'm familiar with The Republic, but I don't see how it's relevant here.
I don't see how government can fix something that is inherently unfixable: we don't need ladies stringing core memory nor assembling transistors under the microscopes, we need ladies with decent CSE education working on giving us software tools to make our on- and off-the-job life better. Even call centers, the epitome of low-skills-in-practice workforce, need less and less employees, as customer service moves online. It's not the 70s with mail- and phone-order catalogues. There are entire industries that had tens of thousands of low-formal-education-demanding jobs that have vanished in the last 30 years, and there's no need for anything to replace those jobs.
I don't see corporations making more low-skill jobs available because no one really needs those jobs; I don't see any economic indicators that low-skill jobs will come back in droves if we only get the economy "healthier", whatever the heck that means. If the government forced the corporate hands with an edict, this would amount to fairly intrusive enforcement of having jobs for jobs' sake, while lowering overall productivity. Besides, forcing the corporate hand IMHO is just a big waste anyhow, it'd be simpler and lower overhead to give the money to people as cash.
You do understand that an Economy needs to be able to accommodate every level of education and desire to work in order to be an economy right?
That's obviously a God given law that it must be so, right? Where the heck did you get that idea? We live in a world where quite a bit of the workforce is pretty much useless, and it's only getting worse, not better. The 10% unemployment in the U.S. is not a fluke nor a sign of bad economic times. It's a sign that those people quite literally have nothing to do, and they won't. Nobody needs them for a job. That's what the employers are telling us by not employing those people. That's all there is to it. The economy is moving towards higher productivity and higher specialization, but the social structure of the workforce is lagging decades behind. Nobody needs all that many janitors or call center people, that's what I make of it.
I know that may not be quite what you meant, but have you ever thought how most good U.S. universities would look if you'd stop supporting all the graduate foreign students with public money? The engineering and science department rolls would be probably 80-90% empty.
Oh here we go, another dumbass AC spewing BS around. Here's where you are wrong on your facts: there are plenty of government programs that both nonresidents and noncitizens can apply for legally. Heck, I know about them because I used all of the following:
- Woman Infant Child (WIC, state), - Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC, state), - Child tax credit (state and federal), - First time homebuyer tax credit (federal), - Earned income tax credit (federal).
All of this is perfectly legal for a nonresident, and I'm sure a lot of nonimmigrant foreign grad students use as many of those programs as they can.
Most other forms of government assistance are available most definitely to non-citizens, because they are available to resident aliens, I mean DUH not everyone here legally for a longer time has to be a citizen!!
As for the without valid immigration status ("illegal"), you'd definitely have to brush up on your law, because while there are some forms of assistance that exclude people without valid immigration status, there's plenty of them that do not discriminate based on immigration status. You can of course discuss whether a change to the law would be useful, but being an illegal immigrant doesn't make you ineligible for all assistance like you seem to believe.
I also think that your view that those people would magically repatriate to where they came from is wishful thinking. They'd simply go deeper into the lawless underworld, they would be even riper for exploitation, and you'd have more problem with very serious crime (human trafficking, sexual exploitation, etc).
It is ridiculous! Tell that into face of anyone working for SpaceX and they'll be very glad to tell you, I'm sure, how that "no space program" is working for them. Pays the bills all right.
There is no need for a replacement. Nobody wanted to pay that much money to fly on that thing. That's the economic reality. Just because you can do something does not mean people will pay for it.
SpaceX will require the help of the ISS's robot arm to properly dock with the station.
That's not due to any sort of a deeply entrenched technical limitation. They simply chose to start with a simpler task first. Once they get the supplies flowing smoothly, they'll work on docking. No need to pile all that engineering up at the beginning of the project.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. Many engineering jobs are project-oriented, a new project is often like an entirely new job, only you don't have to interview again.
I don't think that figuring out the 'what' is all that interesting. You look at this glitch-"art" and if you know relevant engineering, you'll easily tell what it is. You look at the Pieta and of course you can easily tell what it is as well (a carving of some people, duh). As far as *what* is supposedly said -- now here's where it's hairy, because social context and prior experiences are a big part of getting the message. That's the problem with art: it tells everyone something, but it's hard to know in advance what will it say. Art as a means of communication is simply crap. Not that it's not enjoyable, oftentimes, of course.
You're welcome. I have learned a bunch of stuff here as well. As far as non recoverability of zeroed-out data goes, nothing really beats a modern hard drive. Personally I think drive-level encryption in the drive can't be trusted for non-recoverability because I'm sure they can store the key somewhere where the informed governments can read it, it's not hard to hide it well enough. So, basically, there's no way to audit an encrypted hard drive to ensure there's no backdoor to the cryptographic key, so it can't be trusted for non-recoverability. Heck, there are many drives that store the plaintext password to the key, and there are even free tools that can recover that for some drive families! Then there are non-free tools that run a couple $k that recover that for most any drive out there, so it makes a bit of a joke of the whole on-drive-encryption thing.
You misunderstood what the cited article was saying. First of all, the article was essentially hearsay - a story of what Johnson said, retold by someone who didn't have much clue. Yet, obviously, nowhere did they say that they used magnetic force microscopy to recover data from the platters, as that would be the only technology that would have a chance (except, these days, it doesn't). All they did was a regular read from the drive and found some sectors that the zero-fill didn't overwrite. What happened, most likely, was that the zero-fill was only attempted on areas declared unallocated by the filesystem. Such areas are necessarily declared conservatively -- you should never trust a free-space erase on a mounted filesystem, and that's what seems to have happened here.
Nowhere does the article disagree with what I'm saying, because, again, the legend of recovering the data from a zeroed-out hard drive is at this time nothing more. If you're lucky as in winning the lotto jackpot, and you're looking for very small amounts of data (say cryptographic keys), you may be able to recover useful error-correctable data from sectors that got reallocated because they started to fail. This doesn't require opening up the drive, merely gaining access to it via the factory/manufacturer mechanisms (there are software tools for that), so that you can read any sector, whether mapped into the space accessible via regular ATA data access calls or not. That's a slim chance, but if you're after a key or other short blurb, it's a low-hanging fruit -- and yes, in that case you need original drive, not an image.
The deal with the drive you cite was as follows: it never got fully overwritten with zeroes. Was that the case, you'd never read about any large (more than dozens or hundreds randomly scattered sectors worth) data coming off of it, because, again, it's not possible anymore. If you want to overwrite a drive, you boot a DBAN CD/dongle and do it. One set of zeroes is enough. If you really worry about the few tens of nanometers worth of possibly relevant domains left over "between" the tracks, you can always overwrite it a couple times; I'd think thrice with random data plus once with zeroes is enough. You don't muck around with free-space overwriting, OS reinstallation, or anything of that sort.
I think I posted something about it once somewhere where I argued that "obviously it's possible duh duh" -- I used to believe it until I looked at a honest-to-goodness drive platters with a magnetic force microscope. Even at a highest magnification, where a single pixel is a few nanometers across, you can't see anything but random hash "between" the tracks. At such magnification, the individual bits are huge, and any remnants would be quite obvious. They were very obvious in times of early PRML drives and before that. That time is long gone. Thus, an obvious tip: don't store sensitive data on old hard drives (say early IDE drives).
Isnt it convinent shit can have no "mass" but still have "momentum".
No rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass, m_r = h*f/c^2, where h is Planck's constant, f is photon's frequency, and c is speed of light. And they are affected by gravity, a photon emitted from a flashlight held horizontal will fall on Earth a bit. That's why gravitational lensing works.
That's some lame ass commie country, in my commie country we knew laws of dynamics in grade 8 at the latest ;)
There is no such thing and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's a legend that was once true: in times of MFM and RLL drives, and early PRML drives. Nobody offers such analysis, feel free to prove me wrong by providing someone who would quote it for any hard drive that was shipped in the last decade. The quote would be for data recovery after the drive was overwritten precisely once with zeroes.
The first thing you learn is that it's not the same data if it's not on the original storage medium.
Since, obviously, the data cares very much what medium it's on, and bits may start looking all worried at you if you copy them. You get the original drive, use a disk imager to obtain the digital signature of original contents (the private key and the signing engine is in a tamperproof chip inside the imager), make an image, get the signature on the image, sign the affidavits, and be good and done.
Yeah, but the AC above does have a point:
...it detects that you're not the usual sysadmin and silently wipes all logs.
You need to choose a level of paranoia. If you really think that there's so much going on that there's anything useful in the RAM of the server, then it's not a long shot to assume that if said server detects that both gigabit links on the back are down, it may as well wipe stuff.
IOW: there's no ideal, realistic solution. If you assume that the sysadmin was paranoid to the point of encrypting all the data and the keys being only in RAM, then it's fair deal to assume that the data is lost as soon as you start tweaking things, even moving the server while powered up.
If you assume, like on every normal server out there, that RAM contents are of no importance, then probably it's safe to assume that single-user mode operates as designed, and it can be used to get the data off the drives in spite of not having a proper tool to directly read the drives that are a part of hardware RAID (like they'd likely to be). If you don't know the passwords, then of course single user mode is out anyway, and you have to reboot to your recovery medium of choice and use that to dump the drives; most RAID out there would be handled by any recent linux recovery disk so you'd get access to drive contents.
Alas, professionals would have forensic data recovery software available, so there's no point in not pressing the power button, waiting for the shutdown (or even forcibly cutting power), then imaging the drives and dealing with reconstructing it once you're back in the office.
So, they really need a whole big stinkin' server? If you're a professional, you'd switch the server to single user mode, dump the drive contents to a portable drive, reboot the server, and be on your merry way. If they have proper forensic data analysis tools, they should be able to deal with all popular raid arrays out there, so given those you shut the server down, use a portable disk imager to copy the drives, you then replace the drives, power the server back up, and are on your merry way. I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Never mind that such events are endless pits where public money gets dumped for no good reason. It doesn't make any financial sense to organize those events, they lose money head over heels.
The heck? To me, all the formatting belongs in the Format menu. Why the heck did MS put page formatting under the File menu is beyond me. I always found it counterintuitive. I think that anyone arguing that Page formatting in the Format menu in OOo.org/LO is somehow bad have just never really critically looked at their daily work environment: it's a confounding mess and they merely grew used to it over the years.
There is nothing "standard" about what MS is doing. It's smoke and mirrors. I did a couple proofs of concept for unbelieving superiors who bought into this "standard" stuff. It's a joke of a standard.
Here's a lovely tidbit that indicates how bad things are: you open an old word file in Office 97 format, and save it as docx, all using latest office. You then inspect it, and there's a little flag that basically tells word to format it as if it were old Office 97 or whatever. Yes, it's a docx file that merely carries the behavior expected of the old doc file. There's no documentation anywhere about how to implement that flag. A whole lot of docx documents has this flag set because, guess, what, they where effectively imported from old doc into docx. There is no way to handle this without reverse engineering what Office 97 did, and documenting its behavior.
Never forget that it doesn't appear that MS wrote the opendoc standard first and then worked off of it, in a clean room fashion, in implementing their xml office file format support. Nope. They were at best documenting things as they went, and the only "standard" is the microsoft implementation of it in their office product. If you try and come up with your own implementation, you'll run into endless slightly incorrect statements, slight bits of missing information, slight smoke and mirrors; the general feel of the standard is that it was someone's second thought, never meant to be used for implementing anything, but merely used to appease the (rightful) "oh noes vendor lock-in" crowd. Smoke and mirrors, that'll be all there's to it.
Yes, the opendoc standard does IIRC correctly document the xml schema and whatnot, but that's a far cry from implementing the formatting engine. Merely knowing the data structures is only one side of the medal. Similarly, if you were to attempt reverse-engineering the old document stream format, you'd only end up with how they represent the document data in the stream (doc is an OLE compound storage file). You still need to know how all this data drives the formatter to produce the visible output. And that formatter, ladies and gentlemen, is so intertwined with the details of the underlying GUI engine in Windows, that expecting a pixel-identical output is absurd unless you'd reverse engineer and produce a formal spec of the formatter code from old Word, and do the necessary work of documenting how it interacts with the font rendering system -- because that's also anything but trivial.
I've done all the homework and projects in the graduate school using LyX, and there's something to be said for having makefiles and cron. When a new homework or project assignment was given, I'd set up a crontab entry to fire 30 minutes before the due time and run a script. The script would first do an svn checkout from a local repo where I committed my work-in-progress. Then it'd keep doing svn update followed by make and a checkin of the files to be submitted for as long as the svn revision kept changing (a grad student keeps working up to the last minute, you see). A separate crontab entry firing a minute before the due time simply did a checkout of the submittal file directory and ran make submit. The latter emailed or uploaded the output files wherever the assignments were supposed to go.
The writeup was in LyX, and the programming work was done in some mix of octave, maxima, C++, fortran, ansys, C# and java, depending on what course it was for. The makefile would generate all the input for LyX, and any other files that were to be submitted. Those were tables, plots, abbreviated listings, program output. Finally LyX would be fired up from command line to generate the pdf(s). My experience is that you often get half a grade better score simply by submitting a clean and professional looking assignment. As a grader myself, I can no doubt appreciate not having to decipher yet another stack of handwritten scribbles.
I agree on all points.
I will say that this is propaganda and rhetoric, but you really need to think about this. Not replacig those jobs is a failure of the Republic. The average person in the Republic does not want to be a Rocket Scientist. They want to go to work, put in an 8 hour day and get paid enough to have necessities and a bit of security. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, the average person does not want to be highly educated. And that is something that is no more a reasonable demand. That's the end of it. If one feels, and I do, that the Republic should help such people, I've said that the solution is damningly simple:
it'd be simpler and lower overhead to give the money to people as cash
But then everyone would be screaming bloody murder about the freeloaders. Sigh.
Obviously, you can't move the average up, noooo, that's impossible. We're still all peasants, right?
You are right, and I'm familiar with The Republic, but I don't see how it's relevant here.
I don't see how government can fix something that is inherently unfixable: we don't need ladies stringing core memory nor assembling transistors under the microscopes, we need ladies with decent CSE education working on giving us software tools to make our on- and off-the-job life better. Even call centers, the epitome of low-skills-in-practice workforce, need less and less employees, as customer service moves online. It's not the 70s with mail- and phone-order catalogues. There are entire industries that had tens of thousands of low-formal-education-demanding jobs that have vanished in the last 30 years, and there's no need for anything to replace those jobs.
I don't see corporations making more low-skill jobs available because no one really needs those jobs; I don't see any economic indicators that low-skill jobs will come back in droves if we only get the economy "healthier", whatever the heck that means. If the government forced the corporate hands with an edict, this would amount to fairly intrusive enforcement of having jobs for jobs' sake, while lowering overall productivity. Besides, forcing the corporate hand IMHO is just a big waste anyhow, it'd be simpler and lower overhead to give the money to people as cash.
You do understand that an Economy needs to be able to accommodate every level of education and desire to work in order to be an economy right?
That's obviously a God given law that it must be so, right? Where the heck did you get that idea? We live in a world where quite a bit of the workforce is pretty much useless, and it's only getting worse, not better. The 10% unemployment in the U.S. is not a fluke nor a sign of bad economic times. It's a sign that those people quite literally have nothing to do, and they won't. Nobody needs them for a job. That's what the employers are telling us by not employing those people. That's all there is to it. The economy is moving towards higher productivity and higher specialization, but the social structure of the workforce is lagging decades behind. Nobody needs all that many janitors or call center people, that's what I make of it.
Quit paying to train the foreigners
I know that may not be quite what you meant, but have you ever thought how most good U.S. universities would look if you'd stop supporting all the graduate foreign students with public money? The engineering and science department rolls would be probably 80-90% empty.
Oh here we go, another dumbass AC spewing BS around. Here's where you are wrong on your facts: there are plenty of government programs that both nonresidents and noncitizens can apply for legally. Heck, I know about them because I used all of the following:
- Woman Infant Child (WIC, state),
- Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC, state),
- Child tax credit (state and federal),
- First time homebuyer tax credit (federal),
- Earned income tax credit (federal).
All of this is perfectly legal for a nonresident, and I'm sure a lot of nonimmigrant foreign grad students use as many of those programs as they can.
Most other forms of government assistance are available most definitely to non-citizens, because they are available to resident aliens, I mean DUH not everyone here legally for a longer time has to be a citizen!!
As for the without valid immigration status ("illegal"), you'd definitely have to brush up on your law, because while there are some forms of assistance that exclude people without valid immigration status, there's plenty of them that do not discriminate based on immigration status. You can of course discuss whether a change to the law would be useful, but being an illegal immigrant doesn't make you ineligible for all assistance like you seem to believe.
I also think that your view that those people would magically repatriate to where they came from is wishful thinking. They'd simply go deeper into the lawless underworld, they would be even riper for exploitation, and you'd have more problem with very serious crime (human trafficking, sexual exploitation, etc).
Good call. Thanks.
It is ridiculous! Tell that into face of anyone working for SpaceX and they'll be very glad to tell you, I'm sure, how that "no space program" is working for them. Pays the bills all right.
There is no need for a replacement. Nobody wanted to pay that much money to fly on that thing. That's the economic reality. Just because you can do something does not mean people will pay for it.
SpaceX will require the help of the ISS's robot arm to properly dock with the station.
That's not due to any sort of a deeply entrenched technical limitation. They simply chose to start with a simpler task first. Once they get the supplies flowing smoothly, they'll work on docking. No need to pile all that engineering up at the beginning of the project.