For most professions that are classically dominated by women, there is a more highly coveted position that's dominated by men. Men are pushed to become doctors rather than nurses. There are more male college professors than female. Men are pushed to be managers, foremen etc while women are allowed to be satisfied in support positions like secretaries and assistants.
I think it would be great if people chose what profession they are most excited about and everyone else was happy for them. But it's stupid to pretend that the problem is that there aren't more female trash collectors.
I think there is a difference between use of the original content for satire or documentary and this case. I am in favor of limiting companies' ability to digitize us for profit. What will be more interesting to me is if Alfonso even has legal standing to sue. If the move was a work for hire or given to him by choreographers attached to the show, they would be the ones who'd have to bring suit I would think.
I feel like intent matters. The gaming company wanted to pimp their product using pop culture references that they expected people would recognize and feel positively about. This isn't some kid in a restaurant who happens to end up on YouTube performing the move for his friends. Epic tried to add value to their product by stealing the work of others. It's pretty much what copyright, performance and intellectual properly laws were written for.
I left IBM a little over 2 years ago after working there for 11 years. I don't think upper management at IBM is capable of learning anything. The current crop is all about cutting costs so that it looks like they might one day turn a profit. But they cut costs by getting rid of everyone who knew anything. There's no talent left to build or sell anything. Meanwhile, top executives rake in millions every year for steering the ship into the iceberg.
We have a black president. One could claim that affirmative action did set up America to accept that a black man could serve in our highest public office.
I left IBM when they started the co-location nonsense.
How can you target a layoff to folks over 35 without saying it outright? Tell most of your employees they have to relocate to a city of IBM's choosing. And you have to do it within 90 days. And even if you relocate, you'll have no more job security than you had before.
Result: IBM have preferentially "laid off" the older employees who are more likely to have community and family that they don't want to disrupt. Fresh graduates with no kids in school or elderly parents to look after will be more likely to pack up and go where they're told. All the while IBM says it's to improve collaboration and not their fault if not everyone wants to play along.
I'm sure someone got a huge bonus when they presented that scheme to management.
Even 'under the law' our society is skewed in favor of the rich. How many rich kids go to jail on drug offenses vs. poor kids?
Ours is a world where the rich can buy themselves better lawyers, doctors, teachers and just about everything else that gives them an advantage over the poor. Sure, some of them have earned it through skill and hard work, and we've a natural desire to see them rewarded for that. We want rich people to have great lives because we are creatures of hope and we want to think we can work hard and develop a skill and join them in their lifestyle.
It doesn't change the fact that social mobility is declining. There are no rules, no caste system, that says the poor aren't allowed to change their lot in life. But the wealth gap is growing and leaping over it is becoming more difficult. There are social problems caused by that, and they won't go away by being blind to capitalism's short-comings.
We don't have equality of opportunity either. Children of rich, connected parents will start higher on the pyramid and have an easier time climbing higher still. Trump likes to call the million dollar loan from his father "small," but extremely few Americans have parents who could loan them a million dollars. Or have connections to all the best colleges and businessmen and politicians in the state.
Social mobility is declining in America and I don't think that's a good thing at all.
This is why they are preyed on by utter shitbags who are the real villains in this story.
The scammers who prey on our most vulnerable and the greedy idiots at WU who helped them should rot in jail in some third world shithole.,
Say what you want about how it's really their fault and they should have known better. If you're lucky you'll live to be 77+ and you can feel the pain of having earned wisdom only to have it fade away, to have contributed all your life and have it mean nothing. The lack of sympathy in this thread is appalling.
Just because other people do other more or less stupid things while driving doesn't make using your phone any smarter. If you use a headset then at least you're keeping your eyes free to watch the road.
But by now we've all been on the road the day everyone is dodging around someone who's weaving between lanes, or going half the speed limit - any when it's finally your turn to go around the car, sure enough the driver has a phone in their face. There are plenty of ways to die in this world, but if I get taken out by someone who thinks their email is more important than my life, I hope I can haunt them for eternity.
Anyone who thinks their fucking phone is more important than their own or someone else's life deserves to get ratted out to anyone who will listen. A ticket and/or insurance rate hike is a much smaller price than some people pay for that idiocy. Sadly, it isn't always the idiot who pays.
Sure, sounds great, so why doesn't the law read that way? Why doesn't the law make it easier for anyone who can be gainfully employed within X days of entry or is currently pursuing a college degree and passing, or entered the military etc... It's stupid for the law to say one thing and everyone's feeling and pity leads to a totally different outcome. These people should not have to sneak in, live in fear and oppression at the whims of executive orders and crap if we actually need them in our economy. And if we don't or can't make ourselves admit it, then enforce the laws strictly and people will quit coming in illegally hoping for that eventual amnesty. The law should encode what we actually want to happen and the we should enforce it strictly.
Like I said, I'm not fan of DACA. But I'm less a fan of pretending we're controlling immigration and then occasionally passing amnesty so that we continue to encourage illegal entry. I think anyone who entered illegally, whatever their age now or upon entry, has to leave OR we just give up and change the law and say if you make it to US soil you can stay. But of course, as @SensitiveMale says, neither side really wants to solve this as it makes a nice political football.
I'm no fan of DACA but the Republicans brought it on themselves by fighting every single thing Obama did regardless of whether they personally agreed with it or not. He had no way to get this through the Republican Congress; they would never give him the win. So his choices were do something that would at the very least spur the conversation or do nothing. My own personal feeling is that we have to quit rewarding illegal immigration by passing amnesty bills every so often. These people sneak across the border, live in fear and hope and then *blam* at some point are legalized in bulk. The whole process is stupid. Either change the law or enforce it. So long as they know it's likely to one day get amnesty they keep coming and we keep pushing the ball down the field.
They keep making the change "going forward." The parents know there's a good chance America will feel guilty about tossing out people who are illegally established here whether they arrived as children or adults. I think it's time we either change the law and say if you manage to sneak in you can stay, or enforce the existing laws and deport anyone who didn't arrive legally. These folks coming in and living under a legal cloud only to be occasionally legalized in bulk is nuts.
What's obvious is that is a bad analogy. The President's physical security is protected by fences. The President's ego is all that's protected by blocking Twitter accounts. On the other hand, all the complaining about Trump and his actions only makes his supporters dig in deeper and feel more justified, so I think we'd hurt Trump more by ignoring him and hoping he goes away.
I never said I had only one focus, or even that I paid that much attention to the issue. But pointing out other problems doesn't invalidate the problem of accidental and felonious gun use. We can debate hundreds of solutions to thousands of problems if we admit there are problems. I think there is room for improvement on gun safety in America. There's tons of room improvement on other issues as well.
Hospitals and doctors operate under tons of regulation. Saying that other things also cause death is no reason to stop thinking about how to minimize shooting deaths.
When this edict was handed down in my IBM department I quit. Found a new telecommute position for more money, more freedom, better products and management that actually appreciates employees. IBM was once a great place to work, but that was a decade ago. Now I'm only ashamed I stayed as long as I did.
I've been working remote as a software developer for almost 9 years now. It works well for me and I've been productive even in environments where some of my teammates have been in the office. It requires tools like online meeting software and chat rooms, but it can work really well. I think people feel that being in an office means you can make sure someone is doing their work, but I've had office mates get fired when management figured out they'd been working on personal projects all day long in the office for months.
If your team is structured so poorly that you can't tell if someone is doing their work, it's not a problem with where they sit. Teams can be good or bad, productive or not completely separately from co-location.
If the company is willing to provide the tools then it is just a matter of hiring the right people. And that's true no matter the remote work policy.
According to this: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa... Cap Gemini do seem to be part of the problem. I've worked with two really good H1-B people and one of them ended up sent back to India because the company decided not to sponsor his permanent residency. I'm not sure what happened with the other one, but I think she got married and stayed in the US via marriage to a citizen. It's ridiculous to say the US economy is in desperate need of talent and then have the companies go hog wild over a temporary visa program. Either we need them and they should stay or we don't and it's just a game to keep costs low.
You could also make some headway by enforcing the novelty requirement for patents. If a software troll can make piles of money suing 32 companies who accidentally independently created software that infringes the patent... I think you'd have to question the novelty. If enough other people have done it by themselves without your help or even a decent description of how you did it (as most software patents are written) then I don't think it would meet any sane person's idea of a novel idea.
The idea is for places to simply close down their internal IT shop and send the work out to one of these hives. Often with the soon-to-be laid off current IT workers having to do a knowledge transfer for their foreign replacements. The use case of a few developers hired into a team to work along side them as equals is still not great, but it is not the source of most of the abuse either.
The solution is an accelerated permanent residency for foreigners with skills needed here. If we really need the skills, why futz around with temporary visas and indentured servitude?
Slashdot Mirror
For most professions that are classically dominated by women, there is a more highly coveted position that's dominated by men. Men are pushed to become doctors rather than nurses. There are more male college professors than female. Men are pushed to be managers, foremen etc while women are allowed to be satisfied in support positions like secretaries and assistants.
I think it would be great if people chose what profession they are most excited about and everyone else was happy for them. But it's stupid to pretend that the problem is that there aren't more female trash collectors.
I think there is a difference between use of the original content for satire or documentary and this case. I am in favor of limiting companies' ability to digitize us for profit. What will be more interesting to me is if Alfonso even has legal standing to sue. If the move was a work for hire or given to him by choreographers attached to the show, they would be the ones who'd have to bring suit I would think.
I feel like intent matters. The gaming company wanted to pimp their product using pop culture references that they expected people would recognize and feel positively about. This isn't some kid in a restaurant who happens to end up on YouTube performing the move for his friends. Epic tried to add value to their product by stealing the work of others. It's pretty much what copyright, performance and intellectual properly laws were written for.
I left IBM a little over 2 years ago after working there for 11 years. I don't think upper management at IBM is capable of learning anything. The current crop is all about cutting costs so that it looks like they might one day turn a profit. But they cut costs by getting rid of everyone who knew anything. There's no talent left to build or sell anything. Meanwhile, top executives rake in millions every year for steering the ship into the iceberg.
have > had :) I wish we could edit posts.
We have a black president. One could claim that affirmative action did set up America to accept that a black man could serve in our highest public office.
I left IBM when they started the co-location nonsense.
How can you target a layoff to folks over 35 without saying it outright? Tell most of your employees they have to relocate to a city of IBM's choosing. And you have to do it within 90 days. And even if you relocate, you'll have no more job security than you had before.
Result: IBM have preferentially "laid off" the older employees who are more likely to have community and family that they don't want to disrupt. Fresh graduates with no kids in school or elderly parents to look after will be more likely to pack up and go where they're told. All the while IBM says it's to improve collaboration and not their fault if not everyone wants to play along.
I'm sure someone got a huge bonus when they presented that scheme to management.
Even 'under the law' our society is skewed in favor of the rich. How many rich kids go to jail on drug offenses vs. poor kids?
Ours is a world where the rich can buy themselves better lawyers, doctors, teachers and just about everything else that gives them an advantage over the poor. Sure, some of them have earned it through skill and hard work, and we've a natural desire to see them rewarded for that. We want rich people to have great lives because we are creatures of hope and we want to think we can work hard and develop a skill and join them in their lifestyle.
It doesn't change the fact that social mobility is declining. There are no rules, no caste system, that says the poor aren't allowed to change their lot in life. But the wealth gap is growing and leaping over it is becoming more difficult. There are social problems caused by that, and they won't go away by being blind to capitalism's short-comings.
We don't have equality of opportunity either. Children of rich, connected parents will start higher on the pyramid and have an easier time climbing higher still. Trump likes to call the million dollar loan from his father "small," but extremely few Americans have parents who could loan them a million dollars. Or have connections to all the best colleges and businessmen and politicians in the state.
Social mobility is declining in America and I don't think that's a good thing at all.
Sadly, it is a known fact that the bullshit meter starts to fail in the elderly:
https://health.howstuffworks.c...
This is why they are preyed on by utter shitbags who are the real villains in this story.
The scammers who prey on our most vulnerable and the greedy idiots at WU who helped them should rot in jail in some third world shithole.,
Say what you want about how it's really their fault and they should have known better. If you're lucky you'll live to be 77+ and you can feel the pain of having earned wisdom only to have it fade away, to have contributed all your life and have it mean nothing. The lack of sympathy in this thread is appalling.
Just because other people do other more or less stupid things while driving doesn't make using your phone any smarter. If you use a headset then at least you're keeping your eyes free to watch the road.
But by now we've all been on the road the day everyone is dodging around someone who's weaving between lanes, or going half the speed limit - any when it's finally your turn to go around the car, sure enough the driver has a phone in their face. There are plenty of ways to die in this world, but if I get taken out by someone who thinks their email is more important than my life, I hope I can haunt them for eternity.
Anyone who thinks their fucking phone is more important than their own or someone else's life deserves to get ratted out to anyone who will listen. A ticket and/or insurance rate hike is a much smaller price than some people pay for that idiocy. Sadly, it isn't always the idiot who pays.
I love the face co-processor analogy. I've never understood it to be "gray blur" but rather an identity face mapping that's broken.
Sure, sounds great, so why doesn't the law read that way? Why doesn't the law make it easier for anyone who can be gainfully employed within X days of entry or is currently pursuing a college degree and passing, or entered the military etc... It's stupid for the law to say one thing and everyone's feeling and pity leads to a totally different outcome. These people should not have to sneak in, live in fear and oppression at the whims of executive orders and crap if we actually need them in our economy. And if we don't or can't make ourselves admit it, then enforce the laws strictly and people will quit coming in illegally hoping for that eventual amnesty. The law should encode what we actually want to happen and the we should enforce it strictly.
Like I said, I'm not fan of DACA. But I'm less a fan of pretending we're controlling immigration and then occasionally passing amnesty so that we continue to encourage illegal entry. I think anyone who entered illegally, whatever their age now or upon entry, has to leave OR we just give up and change the law and say if you make it to US soil you can stay. But of course, as @SensitiveMale says, neither side really wants to solve this as it makes a nice political football.
I'm no fan of DACA but the Republicans brought it on themselves by fighting every single thing Obama did regardless of whether they personally agreed with it or not. He had no way to get this through the Republican Congress; they would never give him the win. So his choices were do something that would at the very least spur the conversation or do nothing. My own personal feeling is that we have to quit rewarding illegal immigration by passing amnesty bills every so often. These people sneak across the border, live in fear and hope and then *blam* at some point are legalized in bulk. The whole process is stupid. Either change the law or enforce it. So long as they know it's likely to one day get amnesty they keep coming and we keep pushing the ball down the field.
They keep making the change "going forward." The parents know there's a good chance America will feel guilty about tossing out people who are illegally established here whether they arrived as children or adults. I think it's time we either change the law and say if you manage to sneak in you can stay, or enforce the existing laws and deport anyone who didn't arrive legally. These folks coming in and living under a legal cloud only to be occasionally legalized in bulk is nuts.
What's obvious is that is a bad analogy. The President's physical security is protected by fences. The President's ego is all that's protected by blocking Twitter accounts. On the other hand, all the complaining about Trump and his actions only makes his supporters dig in deeper and feel more justified, so I think we'd hurt Trump more by ignoring him and hoping he goes away.
I never said I had only one focus, or even that I paid that much attention to the issue. But pointing out other problems doesn't invalidate the problem of accidental and felonious gun use. We can debate hundreds of solutions to thousands of problems if we admit there are problems. I think there is room for improvement on gun safety in America. There's tons of room improvement on other issues as well.
Hospitals and doctors operate under tons of regulation. Saying that other things also cause death is no reason to stop thinking about how to minimize shooting deaths.
When this edict was handed down in my IBM department I quit. Found a new telecommute position for more money, more freedom, better products and management that actually appreciates employees. IBM was once a great place to work, but that was a decade ago. Now I'm only ashamed I stayed as long as I did.
I've been working remote as a software developer for almost 9 years now. It works well for me and I've been productive even in environments where some of my teammates have been in the office. It requires tools like online meeting software and chat rooms, but it can work really well. I think people feel that being in an office means you can make sure someone is doing their work, but I've had office mates get fired when management figured out they'd been working on personal projects all day long in the office for months.
If your team is structured so poorly that you can't tell if someone is doing their work, it's not a problem with where they sit. Teams can be good or bad, productive or not completely separately from co-location.
If the company is willing to provide the tools then it is just a matter of hiring the right people. And that's true no matter the remote work policy.
According to this: http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa... Cap Gemini do seem to be part of the problem. I've worked with two really good H1-B people and one of them ended up sent back to India because the company decided not to sponsor his permanent residency. I'm not sure what happened with the other one, but I think she got married and stayed in the US via marriage to a citizen. It's ridiculous to say the US economy is in desperate need of talent and then have the companies go hog wild over a temporary visa program. Either we need them and they should stay or we don't and it's just a game to keep costs low.
You could also make some headway by enforcing the novelty requirement for patents. If a software troll can make piles of money suing 32 companies who accidentally independently created software that infringes the patent... I think you'd have to question the novelty. If enough other people have done it by themselves without your help or even a decent description of how you did it (as most software patents are written) then I don't think it would meet any sane person's idea of a novel idea.
The problem is with a few IT body shops that specialize in outsourcing. Not off-shoring. See: http://www.epi.org/blog/new-da...
The idea is for places to simply close down their internal IT shop and send the work out to one of these hives. Often with the soon-to-be laid off current IT workers having to do a knowledge transfer for their foreign replacements. The use case of a few developers hired into a team to work along side them as equals is still not great, but it is not the source of most of the abuse either.
The solution is an accelerated permanent residency for foreigners with skills needed here. If we really need the skills, why futz around with temporary visas and indentured servitude?