Interesting how open-borders supporters don't give a shit about lower-class American Citizens who would also like those jobs, but would like to be paid a living wage to do so.
If families want to be together, there's nothing stopping them from going back to their home countries to do so.
You're right about companies complaining about "having to pay too much" though, but the fact is, if you have an unlimited cheap-labor force (which you get with open borders), then there's zero reason to pay anyone any more than the minimum wage. Companies only pay more when they're forced to by a lack of capable labor. This is what unions did for low-skill work, but unlimited immigration destroys that.
Cisco is still here in California. This outsourcing scare is just like the terrorism boogeyman, an excuse for them to bring in more Democrat voters (or so they think). Companies are not going to relocate everything to India; does anyone really think the corporate executives are going to pack their bags, sell their mansions, and cruise in their megayachts over to Mumbai and set up new lives over there? You can't run a company with the executives in one country and all the operations somewhere else.
>... who thought that a Republican would be against bringing cheap labor in from other countries.
Um, me, and everyone else who's been paying attention?
In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats are the ones who are pushing for open borders with their "comprehensive immigration reform". It all sounds great if you're a big fan of Ayn Rand and extreme libertarianism, but for everyone else it sounds like a terrible idea because there's always someone, somewhere in the world, willing to do your job cheaper than you, and we can't maintain our current economy and lifestyle as middle-class workers if we just open the floodgates. Sure, with communications technology a lot of work can be offshored anyway, but why do we want to make things easier for the corporations? (Also, real-world results have found that just farming out work overseas, instead of keeping it nearby where management can oversee it, is a mixed bag.)
Neither party is for the big guy or the little guy. They are each allied to certain interests and industries, and have certain positions on things that make sense to people with different ideologies.
The Republicans are traditionally allied to (dirty) energy industries: coal, oil, gas, as well as Big Ag, and military/defense contractors.
The Democrats are traditionally allied to finance (Wall Street), big media (RIAA/MPAA)/the "copyright cartel", unions (not so much these days), and these days, the tech industry (the CEOs, not the STEM workers).
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is anti-abortion, anti-immigration (or at least anti-relaxing of immigration policy), anti-gun control, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues. Once in office, they only do so much on these issues, while spending most of their energy working for the moneyed interests who got them there. Sometimes this results in some actual progress, usually to keep their "base" happy, sometimes perhaps because they actually want to do something good, other times probably because their interests (and the moneyed interests behind them) actually align with those of many of us peons.
Recently, Eric Holder **finally** did something about the ridiculous civil forfeiture rules at the federal level, something both parties have done nothing about for ages. This guy sounds like he's finally going to work for American STEM workers, something the Dems seem to oppose for some reason. Honestly, I can't think offhand which moneyed interest this guy's position would benefit, since the big tech companies and assholes like Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs just want to exploit us for greater profit, and there's no STEM worker unions. It could just be like Obama: tough talk to appease the base, with zero actual results forthcoming. Or he's genuinely concerned about us STEM workers. Or the GOP wants to get STEM workers to switch sides (we're generally very strongly Democrat voters).
Personally, I agree with him, which is odd because I find most actions and positions of the GOP abhorrent. But like with Obama, who didn't really do much while in office despite all his grand rhetoric, we'll see how much progress this guy really makes. Maybe they'll blame it all on "Democrat obstructionism".
I do wonder, however, why Democrats seem to prioritize the interests of foreigners over those of American Citizens, even though what they're in effect doing is turning the job market into a libertarian hellhole, and doing the exact opposite of what Democrats of yore did in being big supporters of unions and workers' rights. Unionization is, at its very core, all about restricting the supply of labor to industry, so that a company can't just fire disgruntled workers and hire all-new staff so they can save some money; it's an attempt to give more power to the lower classes this way. Opening the borders to foreign workers is the exact opposite of this: it gives an endless supply of cheap labor to employers so they can exploit it and treat workers as disposable commodities. When exactly the Democrats became better friends of management rather than labor, I'm not sure.
Yes, it does. If you need to accelerate **right now**, you're not going to get it with a manual; you have to declutch, change gears, release the clutch, and then you can press on the gas pedal. There's a bare minimum of a half-second there, up to a whole second of delay time. As a result, a car with a stick doesn't have the same gearing: there needs to be enough power available to get some reasonable acceleration in top gear *without* downshifting.
With a modern automatic (esp. one like a DSG), this doesn't happen. You press the gas in top gear and it shifts in tens of milliseconds.
Can you downshift in 20 milliseconds? I didn't think so.
Now if you drive a manual wrong and don't shift at the right times, MPG could be bad, but on the highway where shifting isn't done, you are going to literally drive away from an automatic efficiency wise.
This is BS. EPA mileage figures are now showing most cars getting better highway mileage for automatics than for manuals, and as you say, you don't need to do much shifting on the highway. The reason for this is that automatics these days have more gears, and most likely have a higher gear ratio on the highway. Automatics can get away with having a higher gear ratio for their highest gear because it takes them milliseconds to downshift when the driver accelerates at speed; manuals can't do that, since they have fewer gears and drivers tend to hold gears more because shifting takes time and effort.
Things have really changed a LOT in the last 10-15 years with regard to the whole manual vs. automatic debate. 15+ years ago, manuals were clearly the superior choice for a competent driver, far and away. Not any more. For many cars, they're about the same now; for many others, automatics are clearly superior. In another 5 years, manuals will be a clearly inferior choice across the board. (It's taking some time for the most-advanced automatics to get into all car models.)
Get these people on the record so we know who to listen to when it comes to science related stuff.
How is that going to help anything? The voters don't care about science, and don't know jack shit about it. The voters actually believe that climate change is a hoax, that the moon landings never happened, that vaccines cause autism, etc. So they're naturally going to elect politicians who parrot the same stuff.
No, they have complete authority to declare things hoaxes, even if they aren't. This is what we get with democracy (or at least, a democratic republic): people who are actual experts in their fields are overruled by yahoos who were popularly elected by the People. It doesn't matter what's true or not, all that matters is what the People think and want, and they vote for it, based on promises made by political candidates running for office.
If the politicians campaign that they will pass a law that forces the circumference of a circle to be exactly 3 times its diameter, and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts mathematical reality. If they promise to pass a law which sets the speed of light to be infinity and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts observed fact.
You may think Congress has no business declaring jack shit when it comes to anything scientific, but you've been overruled by your countrymen at the polls, who think it does.
So? The 4A says the police can't just steal your stuff without due process (like losing a court case and them being awarded it in a judgment). But they've been stealing stuff for decades whenever it supposedly is involved in drugs, without any kind of court cases. Basically, the Bill of Rights is null and void at this point.
Star Trek's kiss was the first which American viewers got to see. So not the first TV kiss worldwide, but still the first in the US, at a time when British TV was probably never seen in the US unlike today.
I'm glad you found some enjoyment out of them because I found them to just be dreadful and I have a feeling history will NOT be kind to them, in a decade we'll look back at them and groan as much as we do at something like Attack Of The Clones (although to give them credit neither movie was as bad as Phantom Menace but I'd rather watch Ice Pirates than that snoozefest).
I'm very sorry to break this to you; you're probably around my age (~40) it sounds like, and yes, people of our generation did not like the SW Prequels. However, from the 20-somethings I've talked to about it, they actually *liked* those movies. A lot. Don't ask me why. I guess you could try to explain it away with the fact that, like us with Episodes 4-6, they were kids when those abominable movies came out, and did have amazing FX for the time (despite it looking like a cartoon and not realistic in any way), but that still doesn't explain how they, even when seeming otherwise like reasonably intelligent individuals, can have such high regard for these movies despite their horrifically bad dialog and plots.
That "filter" doesn't explain it. There's a LOT more natural-born Americans in America than people born outside America (duh!). Therefore, there should be more American-born (not from a recently-immigrated family etc.) women in these fields. But there's not.
That points a clear picture that there's simply something broken about our American society, which pushes women to stay out of these fields.
However, is it that the women are missing out on a great opportunity, or are they avoiding a bad career path which offers excessively-long hours for no extra pay than they'd get with a cushy HR job?
I think this sounds like a great thing, however I do have to question why it took so long for him to do this. How long have Obama and Holder been in office? Now, finally, when we're in Obama's last two lame-duck years, Holder decides to finally do something useful?
So yeah, it's great that he's finally fixed this horrible problem, but he sure could have done it earlier.
You mean that company that's about to go bankrupt, and is in talks with Samsung to be acquired? You know what happens when a company is acquired, right? Their products are usually quickly eliminated in favor of the parent company's, as the whole purpose for acquisition is to eliminate competition and perhaps acquire some technical talent, rather than product lines.
Buying into a Blackberry now would be sheer idiocy, as it's not going to be supported.
Maybe the iPhone just sucks with non-Apple bluetooth accessories? Dunno, I've never tried BT keyboards before.
As for the Kyocera, did you try installing Firefox on it? My crappy old HTC's browser sucks too, with constant crashing, but then I installed Firefox and it works great. With Android, you're not stuck with the browser that came on the phone.
Most people don't care about keyboards these days because then you wind up either with a tiny screen (compared to today's typical slate phones with 4.5"-6" screens), or a much larger (thicker) phone with a clunky slide-out keyboard module that eventually breaks. Most people are happy with on-screen keyboards, and they're much cheaper and easier to manufacture, so that's where everything went. No one wants to pay a huge premium for a special-model phone just for a keyboard.
An add-on keyboard isn't a bad idea though. But that's probably going to be rather inconvenient, trying to somehow prop up your phone so you can see it while holding the (BB-sized) keyboard in your hands, and having to fiddle with plugging a keyboard in. A small number of people would probably like this though, so they can use the keyboard when they want to and don't have to carry around a whole notebook computer. Or maybe someone could make a case that clips onto the phone and includes a keyboard plus a plug which plugs into the phone port. That way, if the keyboard breaks, you can replace it without replacing the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how open-borders supporters don't give a shit about lower-class American Citizens who would also like those jobs, but would like to be paid a living wage to do so.
If families want to be together, there's nothing stopping them from going back to their home countries to do so.
You're right about companies complaining about "having to pay too much" though, but the fact is, if you have an unlimited cheap-labor force (which you get with open borders), then there's zero reason to pay anyone any more than the minimum wage. Companies only pay more when they're forced to by a lack of capable labor. This is what unions did for low-skill work, but unlimited immigration destroys that.
Cisco is still here in California. This outsourcing scare is just like the terrorism boogeyman, an excuse for them to bring in more Democrat voters (or so they think). Companies are not going to relocate everything to India; does anyone really think the corporate executives are going to pack their bags, sell their mansions, and cruise in their megayachts over to Mumbai and set up new lives over there? You can't run a company with the executives in one country and all the operations somewhere else.
>... who thought that a Republican would be against bringing cheap labor in from other countries.
Um, me, and everyone else who's been paying attention?
In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats are the ones who are pushing for open borders with their "comprehensive immigration reform". It all sounds great if you're a big fan of Ayn Rand and extreme libertarianism, but for everyone else it sounds like a terrible idea because there's always someone, somewhere in the world, willing to do your job cheaper than you, and we can't maintain our current economy and lifestyle as middle-class workers if we just open the floodgates. Sure, with communications technology a lot of work can be offshored anyway, but why do we want to make things easier for the corporations? (Also, real-world results have found that just farming out work overseas, instead of keeping it nearby where management can oversee it, is a mixed bag.)
I'll bet there's a lot more pretty women in Finance/Accounting jobs too. Switching out of that was a terrible move.
Neither party is for the big guy or the little guy. They are each allied to certain interests and industries, and have certain positions on things that make sense to people with different ideologies.
The Republicans are traditionally allied to (dirty) energy industries: coal, oil, gas, as well as Big Ag, and military/defense contractors.
The Democrats are traditionally allied to finance (Wall Street), big media (RIAA/MPAA)/the "copyright cartel", unions (not so much these days), and these days, the tech industry (the CEOs, not the STEM workers).
They also push certain ideologies: the GOP is anti-abortion, anti-immigration (or at least anti-relaxing of immigration policy), anti-gun control, pro-religion, and get their votes from people who value these issues. The Democrats are pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, and pro-environmentalism, and get their votes from people who value these issues. Once in office, they only do so much on these issues, while spending most of their energy working for the moneyed interests who got them there. Sometimes this results in some actual progress, usually to keep their "base" happy, sometimes perhaps because they actually want to do something good, other times probably because their interests (and the moneyed interests behind them) actually align with those of many of us peons.
Recently, Eric Holder **finally** did something about the ridiculous civil forfeiture rules at the federal level, something both parties have done nothing about for ages. This guy sounds like he's finally going to work for American STEM workers, something the Dems seem to oppose for some reason. Honestly, I can't think offhand which moneyed interest this guy's position would benefit, since the big tech companies and assholes like Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs just want to exploit us for greater profit, and there's no STEM worker unions. It could just be like Obama: tough talk to appease the base, with zero actual results forthcoming. Or he's genuinely concerned about us STEM workers. Or the GOP wants to get STEM workers to switch sides (we're generally very strongly Democrat voters).
Personally, I agree with him, which is odd because I find most actions and positions of the GOP abhorrent. But like with Obama, who didn't really do much while in office despite all his grand rhetoric, we'll see how much progress this guy really makes. Maybe they'll blame it all on "Democrat obstructionism".
I do wonder, however, why Democrats seem to prioritize the interests of foreigners over those of American Citizens, even though what they're in effect doing is turning the job market into a libertarian hellhole, and doing the exact opposite of what Democrats of yore did in being big supporters of unions and workers' rights. Unionization is, at its very core, all about restricting the supply of labor to industry, so that a company can't just fire disgruntled workers and hire all-new staff so they can save some money; it's an attempt to give more power to the lower classes this way. Opening the borders to foreign workers is the exact opposite of this: it gives an endless supply of cheap labor to employers so they can exploit it and treat workers as disposable commodities. When exactly the Democrats became better friends of management rather than labor, I'm not sure.
>Shifting doesn't really take time and effort.
Yes, it does. If you need to accelerate **right now**, you're not going to get it with a manual; you have to declutch, change gears, release the clutch, and then you can press on the gas pedal. There's a bare minimum of a half-second there, up to a whole second of delay time. As a result, a car with a stick doesn't have the same gearing: there needs to be enough power available to get some reasonable acceleration in top gear *without* downshifting.
With a modern automatic (esp. one like a DSG), this doesn't happen. You press the gas in top gear and it shifts in tens of milliseconds.
Can you downshift in 20 milliseconds? I didn't think so.
Now if you drive a manual wrong and don't shift at the right times, MPG could be bad, but on the highway where shifting isn't done, you are going to literally drive away from an automatic efficiency wise.
This is BS. EPA mileage figures are now showing most cars getting better highway mileage for automatics than for manuals, and as you say, you don't need to do much shifting on the highway. The reason for this is that automatics these days have more gears, and most likely have a higher gear ratio on the highway. Automatics can get away with having a higher gear ratio for their highest gear because it takes them milliseconds to downshift when the driver accelerates at speed; manuals can't do that, since they have fewer gears and drivers tend to hold gears more because shifting takes time and effort.
Things have really changed a LOT in the last 10-15 years with regard to the whole manual vs. automatic debate. 15+ years ago, manuals were clearly the superior choice for a competent driver, far and away. Not any more. For many cars, they're about the same now; for many others, automatics are clearly superior. In another 5 years, manuals will be a clearly inferior choice across the board. (It's taking some time for the most-advanced automatics to get into all car models.)
Get these people on the record so we know who to listen to when it comes to science related stuff.
How is that going to help anything? The voters don't care about science, and don't know jack shit about it. The voters actually believe that climate change is a hoax, that the moon landings never happened, that vaccines cause autism, etc. So they're naturally going to elect politicians who parrot the same stuff.
Yeah, it's going to galvanize the Republican voters even more, and we're going to have even more Republicans elected in 2016.
Who really thinks that Republican voters are smart enough to know that climate change isn't a hoax?
No, they have complete authority to declare things hoaxes, even if they aren't. This is what we get with democracy (or at least, a democratic republic): people who are actual experts in their fields are overruled by yahoos who were popularly elected by the People. It doesn't matter what's true or not, all that matters is what the People think and want, and they vote for it, based on promises made by political candidates running for office.
If the politicians campaign that they will pass a law that forces the circumference of a circle to be exactly 3 times its diameter, and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts mathematical reality. If they promise to pass a law which sets the speed of light to be infinity and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts observed fact.
You may think Congress has no business declaring jack shit when it comes to anything scientific, but you've been overruled by your countrymen at the polls, who think it does.
In other developed countries (France, Germany, Japan, etc) there are a lot more hoops to jump through to lay someone off,
FTFY.
So? The 4A says the police can't just steal your stuff without due process (like losing a court case and them being awarded it in a judgment). But they've been stealing stuff for decades whenever it supposedly is involved in drugs, without any kind of court cases. Basically, the Bill of Rights is null and void at this point.
Bullshit.
The 4th Amendment says they can't just seize stuff without due process, but they've been doing that for many, many years.
What makes you think the 5th Amendment will be enforced when the 4th hasn't been for decades?
Star Trek's kiss was the first which American viewers got to see. So not the first TV kiss worldwide, but still the first in the US, at a time when British TV was probably never seen in the US unlike today.
Like a lens flare?
I'm glad you found some enjoyment out of them because I found them to just be dreadful and I have a feeling history will NOT be kind to them, in a decade we'll look back at them and groan as much as we do at something like Attack Of The Clones (although to give them credit neither movie was as bad as Phantom Menace but I'd rather watch Ice Pirates than that snoozefest).
I'm very sorry to break this to you; you're probably around my age (~40) it sounds like, and yes, people of our generation did not like the SW Prequels. However, from the 20-somethings I've talked to about it, they actually *liked* those movies. A lot. Don't ask me why. I guess you could try to explain it away with the fact that, like us with Episodes 4-6, they were kids when those abominable movies came out, and did have amazing FX for the time (despite it looking like a cartoon and not realistic in any way), but that still doesn't explain how they, even when seeming otherwise like reasonably intelligent individuals, can have such high regard for these movies despite their horrifically bad dialog and plots.
That "filter" doesn't explain it. There's a LOT more natural-born Americans in America than people born outside America (duh!). Therefore, there should be more American-born (not from a recently-immigrated family etc.) women in these fields. But there's not.
That points a clear picture that there's simply something broken about our American society, which pushes women to stay out of these fields.
However, is it that the women are missing out on a great opportunity, or are they avoiding a bad career path which offers excessively-long hours for no extra pay than they'd get with a cushy HR job?
OO (and LO) isn't written in Java, only a few modules (which you probably never use) are. The rest is either C or C++, I forget which (probably C++).
So is all this 2014 profitability coming after their stupid DRM-laden 2.0 coffeemakers?
I guess this just again proves H.L. Mencken's adage: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
I think this sounds like a great thing, however I do have to question why it took so long for him to do this. How long have Obama and Holder been in office? Now, finally, when we're in Obama's last two lame-duck years, Holder decides to finally do something useful?
So yeah, it's great that he's finally fixed this horrible problem, but he sure could have done it earlier.
You mean that company that's about to go bankrupt, and is in talks with Samsung to be acquired? You know what happens when a company is acquired, right? Their products are usually quickly eliminated in favor of the parent company's, as the whole purpose for acquisition is to eliminate competition and perhaps acquire some technical talent, rather than product lines.
Buying into a Blackberry now would be sheer idiocy, as it's not going to be supported.
I'm jealous, my problem is I can't find a carrier that has a plan cheap enough for me.
This is the USA: ALL plans are horrifically expensive. That's what we get for having a cartel and not having any decent government regulation.
Maybe the iPhone just sucks with non-Apple bluetooth accessories? Dunno, I've never tried BT keyboards before.
As for the Kyocera, did you try installing Firefox on it? My crappy old HTC's browser sucks too, with constant crashing, but then I installed Firefox and it works great. With Android, you're not stuck with the browser that came on the phone.
The previous poster thinks that Bluetooth is too slow. What do you think of this?
Most people don't care about keyboards these days because then you wind up either with a tiny screen (compared to today's typical slate phones with 4.5"-6" screens), or a much larger (thicker) phone with a clunky slide-out keyboard module that eventually breaks. Most people are happy with on-screen keyboards, and they're much cheaper and easier to manufacture, so that's where everything went. No one wants to pay a huge premium for a special-model phone just for a keyboard.
An add-on keyboard isn't a bad idea though. But that's probably going to be rather inconvenient, trying to somehow prop up your phone so you can see it while holding the (BB-sized) keyboard in your hands, and having to fiddle with plugging a keyboard in. A small number of people would probably like this though, so they can use the keyboard when they want to and don't have to carry around a whole notebook computer. Or maybe someone could make a case that clips onto the phone and includes a keyboard plus a plug which plugs into the phone port. That way, if the keyboard breaks, you can replace it without replacing the phone.