I'd much rather lurk than post but there are so many misconceptions about the whole H1B/green card situation that I decided to break my own rule to try and clear some of them up. For the record, I am from India and am in the process of going from H1B status to permanent resident status. I have gone through the H1B/green card process myself and know several hundred others who also have - so I feel qualified to talk about it.
Misconception 1: H1B workers are poorly paid - This is most definitely not true. The law states that you have to pay them equally and usually they are paid equally. I know people in all sorts of tech-related jobs in various different parts of the country and the general impression I get is that the majority of them feel that they are paid as well as their non-H1 colleagues and get more-or-less the same raises and promotions. There are exceptions but they are not as many as some would have you believe. The one thing that H1B workers find very hard to do is to get much higher than deserved salary from their employer by threatening to leave - which brings me to the next misconception
Misconception 2: H1B workers cannot change jobs. This is not true. H1B workers can change jobs but the process is complex because the new employer will have to file H1 paperwork and the the employee cannot start working in his new job till the process is over. Nowadays this takes 3-4 months. Another reason preventing this from happenning is that changing jobs stops the green card process and it has to be started again from the beginning by the new employer. The whole green card process can take 4-5 years - so people are discouraged from changing jobs. It wasn't always like this - in the early 90s, H1B processing used to take 1 month and the green card process would take between 1.5 and 2.5 years. Some efforts are being made to bring processing times back to those levels again. The bill that recently passed (I think) lets an H1B worker join his job once the papers are filed (and not after the processing is complete). A couple of years ago the INS introduced new procedures that could cut the green card processing time to about 3 years. These new rules went into effect in 1997 and a lot of people who have started green card processing after that are practically done by now. This makes changing jobs a lot easier for an H1B worker - it isn't as easy as it should be but it is a huge improvement from what it was not too long ago.
Misconception 3: H1B workers are forced to work ridiculously long hours - This is utter nonsense. I know a huge number of people who are currently on H1B visas or were until not too long ago - these people have qualifications ranging from 1 or 2 years diplomas to PhD degrees; their jobs are equally varied and so are the places where they work. The vast majority work no harder then their colleagues. The ones in start-ups put in 80 hour weeks and the ones in universities put in 30 hour weeks;-) but few people I know are being *forced* to work much harder than others becuase of their H1 status. This is not to say that exploitation of H1B workers does not happen - I am almost certain it does - but it is nowhere near as widespread as some seem to think.
> I don't find it offensive, I find it illogical.
> I find it hard to believe that an organism as
> complex as a human can be derived from a random
> set (no matter how big) of mutations
If that is all that the theory of evolution was, it would have never got off the ground. Mathematics was very advanced in Darwin's day and there were several tens of thousands of mathematicians who would have picked Darwin apart if that was all he proposed. Evolution has two components - mutation (which is random) and natural selection (which is not random). If you need proof of how powerful this concept is, go to any good library and pick up a book on genetic algorithms. This isn't biology - it's computer science. These algorithms have been used to provide exceptionally good solutions to for intractable problems - one example is placement and routing problems in chip design. And they use the same procedure that Darwin described in the Origin of Species.
Evolution has been examined from every conceivable mathematical angle and has survived intact. If all that Darwin proposed was random changes people would have torn his theory apart with glee. It wouldn't have survived 15 minutes - let alone 150 years.
> I heard this analogy once, that evolution is
> like making subtle modifications to a watch.
Yet another variant of the watchmaker argument! It is amazing how many times people have to repeat this tired, old argument. This argument was first proposed by William Paley before Darwin was born (of course, it didn't involve digital watches but the argument was similar). Darwin and his supporters were certainly aware of it and addressed it in their writings and talks. More recently, evolutionist Richard Dawkins wrote a book that addressed this very argument. The basic problem with the analogy is that there is one essential characteristic that all living beings possess that watches don't - they are alive. A watch, if left alone, will wind down, start to decay/rust/disintegrate. Living beings may die but they can reproduce several times before they do and pass their genes on to their descendants. Watches cannot do anything remotely similar. That is why radical evolution is completely ruled out in the case of a watch and not ruled out in the case of living beings.
> Please, please, when you hear that someoneis a
> creationist, assume that he or she is some
> crackpot who rejects everything scientific
> because he or she is "religious."
I am not assuming you are a crackpot. However, if someone says claims that evolution is merely the accumulation of mutations, I can draw one of two conclusions. Either he is knows better and is deliberately spreading a falsehood or he doesn't know better and is uninformed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. One more thing - religion has nothing to do with it. I know plenty of people who believe in God *and* accept the theory of Evolution.
> It isn't accurate to characterise this theory
> as "confirmed, Objective fact". There is a lot
> of very good evidence to support Evolution.
> There is no rival theory that has any
> signficant evidence. Religious "explainations",
> especially those of creationists are so riddled
> with errors and run so counter to all the
> evidence that they do not deserve serious
> consideration. So certainly, the intelligent
> response is to accept Evolution as the best
> explaination out there, but it isn't proved
> fact.
Here we go again...;-)
When we call something a "fact" in casual conversation, we mean that it has been 100 percent established to be true with no room for error or doubt. If you applied that standard to science, we would have very few facts left. The only things that would be fact are those that are supported by direct observation. A lot of things are in some sense "remote" and cannot be supported by direct observations and we have to get indirect evidence for them. No one has seen an electron or a neutrino or a quark. No one has seen a black hole or a pulsar either. And yes, no one has seen any creature evolve into a radically different one. In such situations, we try and gather evidence by indirect means - and there is a mountain of such evidence available for evolution.
When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he comes up with an explanation that fits the known facts. That is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis with all details filled-in that stands up to significant critical examination is elevated to the status of a theory. When there is an extremely large body of evidence in favor of a theory, none against and no credible rival theories, then it is called a fact. When a scientist is calling something a fact, all that he is doing it is giving it provisional acceptence. What he is saying, in effect, is that this is a sufficiently firm foundation on top of which other hypotheses and theories (and eventually facts) can be developed.
The paragraph quoted above concedes that evolution meets all the above criteria - so it is, as far as scientists are concerned, "confirmed, objective fact".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd much rather lurk than post but there are so many misconceptions about the whole H1B/green card situation that I decided to break my own rule to try and clear some of them up. For the record, I am from India and am in the process of going from H1B status to permanent resident status. I have gone through the H1B/green card process myself and know several hundred others who also have - so I feel qualified to talk about it.
Misconception 1: H1B workers are poorly paid - This is most definitely not true. The law states that you have to pay them equally and usually they are paid equally. I know people in all sorts of tech-related jobs in various different parts of the country and the general impression I get is that the majority of them feel that they are paid as well as their non-H1 colleagues and get more-or-less the same raises and promotions. There are exceptions but they are not as many as some would have you believe. The one thing that H1B workers find very hard to do is to get much higher than deserved salary from their employer by threatening to leave - which brings me to the next misconception
Misconception 2: H1B workers cannot change jobs. This is not true. H1B workers can change jobs but the process is complex because the new employer will have to file H1 paperwork and the the employee cannot start working in his new job till the process is over. Nowadays this takes 3-4 months. Another reason preventing this from happenning is that changing jobs stops the green card process and it has to be started again from the beginning by the new employer. The whole green card process can take 4-5 years - so people are discouraged from changing jobs. It wasn't always like this - in the early 90s, H1B processing used to take 1 month and the green card process would take between 1.5 and 2.5 years. Some efforts are being made to bring processing times back to those levels again. The bill that recently passed (I think) lets an H1B worker join his job once the papers are filed (and not after the processing is complete). A couple of years ago the INS introduced new procedures that could cut the green card processing time to about 3 years. These new rules went into effect in 1997 and a lot of people who have started green card processing after that are practically done by now. This makes changing jobs a lot easier for an H1B worker - it isn't as easy as it should be but it is a huge improvement from what it was not too long ago.
Misconception 3: H1B workers are forced to work ridiculously long hours - This is utter nonsense. I know a huge number of people who are currently on H1B visas or were until not too long ago - these people have qualifications ranging from 1 or 2 years diplomas to PhD degrees; their jobs are equally varied and so are the places where they work. The vast majority work no harder then their colleagues. The ones in start-ups put in 80 hour weeks and the ones in universities put in 30 hour weeks
Just my $0.02
> I don't find it offensive, I find it illogical.
> I find it hard to believe that an organism as
> complex as a human can be derived from a random
> set (no matter how big) of mutations
If that is all that the theory of evolution was, it would have never got off the ground. Mathematics was very advanced in Darwin's day and there were several tens of thousands of mathematicians who would have picked Darwin apart if that was all he proposed. Evolution has two components - mutation (which is random) and natural selection (which is not random). If you need proof of how powerful this concept is, go to any good library and pick up a book on genetic algorithms. This isn't biology - it's computer science. These algorithms have been used to provide exceptionally good solutions to for intractable problems - one example is placement and routing problems in chip design. And they use the same procedure that Darwin described in the Origin of Species.
Evolution has been examined from every conceivable mathematical angle and has survived intact. If all that Darwin proposed was random changes people would have torn his theory apart with glee. It wouldn't have survived 15 minutes - let alone 150 years.
> I heard this analogy once, that evolution is
> like making subtle modifications to a watch.
Yet another variant of the watchmaker argument! It is amazing how many times people have to repeat this tired, old argument. This argument was first proposed by William Paley before Darwin was born (of course, it didn't involve digital watches but the argument was similar). Darwin and his supporters were certainly aware of it and addressed it in their writings and talks. More recently, evolutionist Richard Dawkins wrote a book that addressed this very argument. The basic problem with the analogy is that there is one essential characteristic that all living beings possess that watches don't - they are alive. A watch, if left alone, will wind down, start to decay/rust/disintegrate. Living beings may die but they can reproduce several times before they do and pass their genes on to their descendants. Watches cannot do anything remotely similar. That is why radical evolution is completely ruled out in the case of a watch and not ruled out in the case of living beings.
> Please, please, when you hear that someoneis a
> creationist, assume that he or she is some
> crackpot who rejects everything scientific
> because he or she is "religious."
I am not assuming you are a crackpot. However, if someone says claims that evolution is merely the accumulation of mutations, I can draw one of two conclusions. Either he is knows better and is deliberately spreading a falsehood or he doesn't know better and is uninformed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. One more thing - religion has nothing to do with it. I know plenty of people who believe in God *and* accept the theory of Evolution.
> It isn't accurate to characterise this theory
... ;-)
> as "confirmed, Objective fact". There is a lot
> of very good evidence to support Evolution.
> There is no rival theory that has any
> signficant evidence. Religious "explainations",
> especially those of creationists are so riddled
> with errors and run so counter to all the
> evidence that they do not deserve serious
> consideration. So certainly, the intelligent
> response is to accept Evolution as the best
> explaination out there, but it isn't proved
> fact.
Here we go again
When we call something a "fact" in casual conversation, we mean that it has been 100 percent established to be true with no room for error or doubt. If you applied that standard to science, we would have very few facts left. The only things that would be fact are those that are supported by direct observation. A lot of things are in some sense "remote" and cannot be supported by direct observations and we have to get indirect evidence for them. No one has seen an electron or a neutrino or a quark. No one has seen a black hole or a pulsar either. And yes, no one has seen any creature evolve into a radically different one. In such situations, we try and gather evidence by indirect means - and there is a mountain of such evidence available for evolution.
When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he comes up with an explanation that fits the known facts. That is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis with all details filled-in that stands up to significant critical examination is elevated to the status of a theory. When there is an extremely large body of evidence in favor of a theory, none against and no credible rival theories, then it is called a fact. When a scientist is calling something a fact, all that he is doing it is giving it provisional acceptence. What he is saying, in effect, is that this is a sufficiently firm foundation on top of which other hypotheses and theories (and eventually facts) can be developed.
The paragraph quoted above concedes that evolution meets all the above criteria - so it is, as far as scientists are concerned, "confirmed, objective fact".