I'd avoid weaponizing it. I think the science labs that weaponize viruses on the argument that they need to know how to counter weaponized viruses is a little bunk. But I do think the viruses should be kept on file. Keep them in deep dark vaults... but keep them. I don't know if we'll ever need them for some reason but if we do they're there.
As to the worry that scientists might misuse them. I didn't say I'd let the scientists play with them. Just keep them. Seal them away somewhere and require a public hearing to release them to any lab.
Possibly include a 24 hour armed guard to accompany the virus if its released to a lab. The expense of such a guard should discourage casual research.
By this logic Sharia law isn't a failed legal system or governmental model because there are people that are still trying to put it in place and many people still see it as a threat.
This is despite the fact that it has destroyed every culture that has followed its tenants closely and no society that has employed it has thrived.
Your standard for a "failed" ideology is whether or not it still have believers or not.
That's fine. However that is not my definition.
My definition is any ideology that has demonstrably failed to deliver on its promises.
For example, if my ideology promises to make you immortal and you die despite doing everything it asks... I'd call that a failed ideology.
Or if you prefer, when I say an ideology is failed... I just mean its wrong.
That doesn't mean people stop believing in it any more then believing the world is flat was impossible despite the world not being flat.
Now I know what you're going to say here because I suspect you're a believer in socialism and possibly communism. You're going to say that past incarnations of your ideal social model have never been properly realized. That they were corrupted etc.
Well, that's fine. My concern is that people like you might always say that in any situation where your ideology fails to deliver using the circular logic that because it didn't succeed it mustn't have been applied properly.
That is my concern.
I'd also point out that there are a lot of other ideologies that you probably think are bad that could use the same argument to argue for their adoption.
For example, total free market capitalism as a counter point to socialism and communism could argue that its never been properly implemented. That its always been corrupted by government interference, etc.
Now, I am not especially a believer in either of these systems. Grasp that. My own idealized society is something different enough from whatever most people are familiar with that I have no hope getting anyone to respect or consider my ideas... ever. And thus alienated from the issue, my perspective is more objective in some senses because I've no hope of anything I care about actually happening.
Your socialism and communism ideology in my view has high aspirations and good intentions. But that's not an uncommon virtue in idealized social models. Most of them have good intentions. However, in my opinion, neither system has lived up to its promises.
I also worry about such systems over time. They strike me as being inherently unsustainable social models that grant too much power to power elites in government, concentrating nearly all resources in government departments largely at the whim of bureaucrats, and there seems to be no merit based link between power and ability.
I like that such systems take care of the poor. But I worry further that that mission becomes a tool for power. In ancient Rome the "mob" was used by senators to gain power. You give the masses something they want and you can do whatever you want. Give the people free food... and you can get legions of slaves or soldiers or endless money etc etc.
I worry that the helping of the poor becomes a means to power rather then an end unto itself.
And it is for these reasons that I am very skeptical about the wholesomeness of those ideologies. I think they are ultimately shallow and unwise. Too blinded by their seeming of virtue to examine the sinews of their nature.
As regards anti virus programs, my big problem with them is that they're invariably blacklisting programs which is silly because its easier to keep track of legitimate code then illegitimate code.
That is, better anti virus should rely on WHITE lists.
A company like Symantec could easily catalog all good code and provide an automated mechanism for major vendors to update known good code signatures.
As such, anything not signed and cataloged would be labeled "unknown."
The average user would be encouraged to avoid all unknown code as defined by the anti viral.
This is actually more similar to how biological immune systems work. They don't just look for known viruses. They also on principle attack anything they don't know.
Computer systems should have something of this hybrid response. By all means, identify known bad code and isolate it. But also discourage all but experts from running anything but known good code. Hackers, malware makers, etc can then do whatever they want... their code won't be executed because it won't match known good code.
Doubtless there will be loopholes but I think this would hugely improve security.
Unrelated question... what do you think of running your own DNS service?
That would seem to be a superior way to handle this situation. Your host file is very large and user machines are not well disposed to make use of it.
Furthermore, consider that we could use something like this for more then just redirecting bad websites. We could also use it to find good websites.
Consider further the whole "domain" system is limited and there is a lot of demand for certain names. But those names are nothing but DNS association with IP numbers. If you have your own DNS then all the domain names open up again. I could direct "google.com" to my own website or whatever if I wanted to do that.
The point is that you could create distinct internet communities. Sort of like the deep web but with no attempt to encrypt anything.
It seems like your file is so large that simply making it part of a DNS server would make more sense.
... you do realize that there is such a thing as a failed ideology right? There are political models that have been tried that have not been successful.
You do know that every failed ideology will make the same claim when its failures are held up to the light of day.
You cite the time they had power and every time they'll say "oh but we didn't, some splinter faction of people we don't agree with took over and corrupted our perfect ideology"...
Its always the way. Cite anything... and the supporters will disavow past failures blaming it on misinterpretations and corruptions of their perfect vision.
A key feature of iron dome is that it calculates the trajectory of incoming rockets. If rockets are going to land in an area that is unpopulated then Iron dome does not intercept it.
It only intercepts when a rocket is going to land in an area that is populated. Its goal is therefore to protect those specific areas. If iron dome causes a rocket to not land in one of those areas but rather explode in a non-populated area then that is a success since the goal of iron dome is to protect populated areas.
I too am I a big believer in layered security. I also believe in doing things differently.
I do a lot of things that only I do to enhance my own security. I've written a few simple programs to do a few things in my systems and because they're so simple I don't really feel comfortable sharing them. But they make my systems distinct. I've had infections try to gain control of my systems and they can't because my systems are non-standard.
I also always change my defaults. All my port numbers are different as a simple example. I don't use standard port numbers for any service I host. And then I like to use unusual/unpopular software to host those services. That means attackers, malware, etc simply aren't written for my systems. The hackers I encounter probe my systems. I log the probes... but they don't touch my services. They can't even detect them. They're unusual, often proprietary, secret, and unique.
I'm a big fan of taking lots of simple programs and bits of technology I understand and combining them in elaborate scripting programs to form much more sophisticated programs.
For example, made a very powerful backup script using volume shadow copy, a program to verify and compare files between directories, a compression program, and just plan old copy.
I create a Volume shadow copy of a database, then I verify directories are identical (Volume Shadow copy bugs and does not copy properly sometimes.), then I use a compression program to compress the directory into an archive (I have an archive that is kept in non-solid form that is updated so that only portions of the archive that need to change are changed), then use some simple scripts to calculate the time of day/day of month/year, etc... which determines backup location using a Grandfather, Father, Son backup scheme. Then the script pushes the files around my network. To lose anything 4 separate machines on my network would have to crash at once.
The only thing it doesn't have which I'm still working on is block level copies.
Anyway, the above allows me to do very sophisticated things. I've tried many commercial backup programs and none of them are even close to as configurable or reliable.
I've got detailed logs and statistics of all the activity as well as dead man switch fail safes that cry in the event that something doesn't happen.
Its very sophisticated.
So understand, I appreciate having a layered defense. I am likewise multifaceted. I do not have the same respect for efficiency you might. I praise adaptability over speed or efficiency. But those are simply our divergent biases.
The professor is saying that if the warhead is no destroyed the intercept fails. That's nonsense. If you knock it off course or cause it to fall off target then it succeeded.
Furthermore, the statistics seem to suggest that SOMETHING is stopping the missiles because we have fairly reliable figures on the number of missiles fired and the number of missiles that landed in populated areas. We also have stats from previous bombardments... comparing the two we can see a huge difference. So why is that? Is the suggestion that the israelis are lying? Its possible. But there's no evidence of that to hang an argument upon. And even if they were doing it for the sake of argument there is no data to define the extent of that deceit. Its all theoretical.
I've been a big fan of using the host file for security for many years. Though, I've always done it through spybot.
Obviously that list is much more limited and you question the integrity of the people that compile it. That's possible. But you're preaching to the choir as regards host files.
That said, obviously a comprehensive host file is not a panacea. You need many layers to block things out.
For example, I use an addon called Flashblock. I use it because I don't want flash videos to auto run when I load websites. That said, I don't actually want to prevent them from running at all. I just want them to wait until I intentionally trigger them. For example, I might open five tabs on youtube each with a different youtube video. Without flashblock they'll all run at once the instant their pages load. This would then require me to go to each page and pause each video one at a time EVERY SINGLE TIME I open several such pages at once.
Because I have flash block, I can open them all at once and not worry about any of them because none of the videos will play until I trigger them.
That's just an example.
Another example is cookie monster which passively denies all cookies unless specified otherwise. It has an icon I can click in the status bar that lets me grant cookie permissions to a website or revoke it. Generally I forbid cookie access to all websites unless the site is non-functional without cookies. And then I only enable the cookies I have to enable to make the site functional. Its a very easy addon to use and I can effortlessly enable or disable cookie access on any site very quickly.
Then there's NoScript... which I use to disable javascript on most websites. Even on sites I do enable it on, I don't enable the scripts that I don't need. For example, Google Analytics is never enabled.
So there you go. I'm sure you have accomplished some of this natively in Opera but I'm pretty sure you don't have noscript or flash block natively running in opera. I personally am a big fan of addons. yes, my browser does sometimes use excessive amounts of ram. It tends to use somewhere between 1 and 2 gigabytes of ram. But I have lots of ram and it just doesn't matter.
I didn't cut down your writing style. I pointed out it was bizarre.
1.biÂzarre adjective \bÉ(TM)-ËzÃr\
: very unusual or strange Full Definition of BIZARRE : strikingly out of the ordinary: as a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities â" biÂzarreÂly adverb â" biÂzarreÂness noun
Your grammatical structure is bizarre and difficult to read which is my subjective opinion of it and frankly I doubt many would disagree.
That said, I've stuck with it and have not insulted you for it. I have done my best to translate it into intelligible script.
Again, I thank you for your help with this matter and will deal with it later when I have the attention span to go changing system settings.
I'll monkey with it later... thanks for you input and seriously make an effort to be less abrasive. Its unlikely to make people receptive if you keep rubbing salt in people's eyes.
Grasp I'm just going on what people here are telling me both one way and the other.
What would you say to the people that are claiming this technology sets off hundreds of intense pressure waves that sound continuously for weeks on end?
You don't need to be hyper specific to every specialization.
The point of the whole thing is to keep companies from importing labor to get lower prices. So if we need to be fuzzy on the numbers we guess high and move on.
The point is not to understand what every possible specialization is worth in every possible industry. The point is to make it impractical to import labor to save costs. You don't have to guess or know the right number. You just have to be in the ball park or about 20 to 40 percent above it. You set it high enough that no one wants to import labor unless there are literally skills they can't get locally.
Look the jobs we're attempting to protect here range in annual compensation from about 30k to about 100k a year. All you've got to do is find the number that is roughly correct for that industry, add 20-40%, and require the company pay that to qualify for the H1-B visa.
If the job pays more then 100 grand a year then that is a labor shortage issue and the company has a point about shortages. The point here would be to protect jobs in that compensation range.
Given the price range its not actually hard to come up with a number that is close enough to accomplish the task. You can't be that far off because the range isn't that big.
I tried the host file you listed and I couldn't even load slashdot with that host file. Its a giant 18MB host file... which is impressive but it appears to wall off most of the internet including the portions that aren't bad.
I don't know... maybe I did something wrong. But when I removed that host file and went back to the old one... everything started working again.
There's no need to be insulting, sir. Your own odd grammar makes it difficult to understand what you're saying. That is not an insult. Its merely a fact. And you can hold that as a weakness on my part, but your grammar is unusual and it does make it harder for you to be understood.
As to your software, I've never heard of it and I'm a little dubious of using unverified software that has been backed by no one. But I'll give it a look and thank you for your suggestion, patience, and creation of software that you're apparently freely sharing.
Thank you, truly.
PS: You tend to put little insults and barbs in your post and I don't know if that is in your interest if you want people to listen to you. I cannot be offended. That is something specific to my nature. But most people can be offended quite easily. You should try to avoid insults until you've lost interest in convincing people.
I take every post as it is... so far he's not been especially rude and seems to be attempting to have a conversation. So I'll continue to afford him common courtesy until I've been satisfied otherwise.
First, I took great pains to NOT insult you for the weird grammar. Nothing I delivered was come back poor or otherwise. I didn't even try to use it as a reason why your post or point was wrong. I just noted that it is weird and then moved on. Try to not be so sensitive.:-) -- This is a smiley face... to express that I'm trying to be nice and am in no way trying to diss you.
Second... alright, tell me how to block everything with the hosts file. Do you have a program that does this?... Sure there's opera, but I've never seen this feature in opera.
First... your grammatical structure is bizarre... possibly I'm not one to complain but seriously its odd.
Second, I use fast machines so the efficiency is personally irrelevant.
Third, I value customization. I like being able to use odds and ends. Opera is a nice browser but it doesn't do everything I want the way I want.
Forth, I use host file blocking as well which I update through Spybot Search and Destroy which has an "immunization" feature which is little more then a host file redirection of known malicious sites.
You shouldn't push policies that are so radical that they have no chance of adoption. The policy I'm pushing is skirting crossing that line as it is... yours goes well over it and thus is non-viable since it has zero chance of passing the legislature.
Are you telling me a private company couldn't figure this out using a radically smaller staff and budget?
because if you're saying "the government will spend this to do that" then I'll have to agree with you. However, if you're saying "the service actually costs that and the government is being quite efficient about it all"... then I'm going to call bullshit.
None of which can be relied upon by a humble user like myself. I've got the addons. There is no where else I can turn.
And they work.
Between adblock, noscript, cookiemonster, and flashblock I am almost never annoyed by anything on the web. Sites are kept simple by noscript. Adblock blocks out about 99 percent of ads I would see, cookie monster prevents sites from putting tracking cookies on my browser, and flashblock stops autoplaying flash animations, movies, sounds files...
That's fine. If they are that desperate to lower labor costs then they can do that. They're going to lose access to most of their US programmers in the process and that will probably be death for them in the long run.
US programmers are still the best. Not the cheapest but the best.
For what its worth, I fired off an email to my congressman. Sounds like its too far gone to stop but we can hope.
Understand, I am pro oil drilling, pro nuclear power... and all sorts of other things you likely find unsavory. But this just seems wanton to me. I'm not a monster or an idiot... and this seems like madness.
If it didn't disturb marine life then I'd be fine with it. But blasting that into the water for months on end?... no.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd avoid weaponizing it. I think the science labs that weaponize viruses on the argument that they need to know how to counter weaponized viruses is a little bunk. But I do think the viruses should be kept on file. Keep them in deep dark vaults... but keep them. I don't know if we'll ever need them for some reason but if we do they're there.
As to the worry that scientists might misuse them. I didn't say I'd let the scientists play with them. Just keep them. Seal them away somewhere and require a public hearing to release them to any lab.
Possibly include a 24 hour armed guard to accompany the virus if its released to a lab. The expense of such a guard should discourage casual research.
By this logic Sharia law isn't a failed legal system or governmental model because there are people that are still trying to put it in place and many people still see it as a threat.
This is despite the fact that it has destroyed every culture that has followed its tenants closely and no society that has employed it has thrived.
Your standard for a "failed" ideology is whether or not it still have believers or not.
That's fine. However that is not my definition.
My definition is any ideology that has demonstrably failed to deliver on its promises.
For example, if my ideology promises to make you immortal and you die despite doing everything it asks... I'd call that a failed ideology.
Or if you prefer, when I say an ideology is failed... I just mean its wrong.
That doesn't mean people stop believing in it any more then believing the world is flat was impossible despite the world not being flat.
Now I know what you're going to say here because I suspect you're a believer in socialism and possibly communism. You're going to say that past incarnations of your ideal social model have never been properly realized. That they were corrupted etc.
Well, that's fine. My concern is that people like you might always say that in any situation where your ideology fails to deliver using the circular logic that because it didn't succeed it mustn't have been applied properly.
That is my concern.
I'd also point out that there are a lot of other ideologies that you probably think are bad that could use the same argument to argue for their adoption.
For example, total free market capitalism as a counter point to socialism and communism could argue that its never been properly implemented. That its always been corrupted by government interference, etc.
Now, I am not especially a believer in either of these systems. Grasp that. My own idealized society is something different enough from whatever most people are familiar with that I have no hope getting anyone to respect or consider my ideas... ever. And thus alienated from the issue, my perspective is more objective in some senses because I've no hope of anything I care about actually happening.
Your socialism and communism ideology in my view has high aspirations and good intentions. But that's not an uncommon virtue in idealized social models. Most of them have good intentions. However, in my opinion, neither system has lived up to its promises.
I also worry about such systems over time. They strike me as being inherently unsustainable social models that grant too much power to power elites in government, concentrating nearly all resources in government departments largely at the whim of bureaucrats, and there seems to be no merit based link between power and ability.
I like that such systems take care of the poor. But I worry further that that mission becomes a tool for power. In ancient Rome the "mob" was used by senators to gain power. You give the masses something they want and you can do whatever you want. Give the people free food... and you can get legions of slaves or soldiers or endless money etc etc.
I worry that the helping of the poor becomes a means to power rather then an end unto itself.
And it is for these reasons that I am very skeptical about the wholesomeness of those ideologies. I think they are ultimately shallow and unwise. Too blinded by their seeming of virtue to examine the sinews of their nature.
As regards anti virus programs, my big problem with them is that they're invariably blacklisting programs which is silly because its easier to keep track of legitimate code then illegitimate code.
That is, better anti virus should rely on WHITE lists.
A company like Symantec could easily catalog all good code and provide an automated mechanism for major vendors to update known good code signatures.
As such, anything not signed and cataloged would be labeled "unknown."
The average user would be encouraged to avoid all unknown code as defined by the anti viral.
This is actually more similar to how biological immune systems work. They don't just look for known viruses. They also on principle attack anything they don't know.
Computer systems should have something of this hybrid response. By all means, identify known bad code and isolate it. But also discourage all but experts from running anything but known good code. Hackers, malware makers, etc can then do whatever they want... their code won't be executed because it won't match known good code.
Doubtless there will be loopholes but I think this would hugely improve security.
Unrelated question... what do you think of running your own DNS service?
That would seem to be a superior way to handle this situation. Your host file is very large and user machines are not well disposed to make use of it.
Furthermore, consider that we could use something like this for more then just redirecting bad websites. We could also use it to find good websites.
Consider further the whole "domain" system is limited and there is a lot of demand for certain names. But those names are nothing but DNS association with IP numbers. If you have your own DNS then all the domain names open up again. I could direct "google.com" to my own website or whatever if I wanted to do that.
The point is that you could create distinct internet communities. Sort of like the deep web but with no attempt to encrypt anything.
It seems like your file is so large that simply making it part of a DNS server would make more sense.
Your thoughts?
... you do realize that there is such a thing as a failed ideology right? There are political models that have been tried that have not been successful.
Citing those examples in history is valid.
You've given me a lot to think about. I it will take awhile to properly process all your information and attempt to implement it my own way.
Thank you for being patient and informative.
You do know that every failed ideology will make the same claim when its failures are held up to the light of day.
You cite the time they had power and every time they'll say "oh but we didn't, some splinter faction of people we don't agree with took over and corrupted our perfect ideology"...
Its always the way. Cite anything... and the supporters will disavow past failures blaming it on misinterpretations and corruptions of their perfect vision.
A key feature of iron dome is that it calculates the trajectory of incoming rockets. If rockets are going to land in an area that is unpopulated then Iron dome does not intercept it.
It only intercepts when a rocket is going to land in an area that is populated. Its goal is therefore to protect those specific areas. If iron dome causes a rocket to not land in one of those areas but rather explode in a non-populated area then that is a success since the goal of iron dome is to protect populated areas.
I too am I a big believer in layered security. I also believe in doing things differently.
I do a lot of things that only I do to enhance my own security. I've written a few simple programs to do a few things in my systems and because they're so simple I don't really feel comfortable sharing them. But they make my systems distinct. I've had infections try to gain control of my systems and they can't because my systems are non-standard.
I also always change my defaults. All my port numbers are different as a simple example. I don't use standard port numbers for any service I host. And then I like to use unusual/unpopular software to host those services. That means attackers, malware, etc simply aren't written for my systems. The hackers I encounter probe my systems. I log the probes... but they don't touch my services. They can't even detect them. They're unusual, often proprietary, secret, and unique.
I'm a big fan of taking lots of simple programs and bits of technology I understand and combining them in elaborate scripting programs to form much more sophisticated programs.
For example, made a very powerful backup script using volume shadow copy, a program to verify and compare files between directories, a compression program, and just plan old copy.
I create a Volume shadow copy of a database, then I verify directories are identical (Volume Shadow copy bugs and does not copy properly sometimes.), then I use a compression program to compress the directory into an archive (I have an archive that is kept in non-solid form that is updated so that only portions of the archive that need to change are changed), then use some simple scripts to calculate the time of day/day of month/year, etc... which determines backup location using a Grandfather, Father, Son backup scheme. Then the script pushes the files around my network. To lose anything 4 separate machines on my network would have to crash at once.
The only thing it doesn't have which I'm still working on is block level copies.
Anyway, the above allows me to do very sophisticated things. I've tried many commercial backup programs and none of them are even close to as configurable or reliable.
I've got detailed logs and statistics of all the activity as well as dead man switch fail safes that cry in the event that something doesn't happen.
Its very sophisticated.
So understand, I appreciate having a layered defense. I am likewise multifaceted. I do not have the same respect for efficiency you might. I praise adaptability over speed or efficiency. But those are simply our divergent biases.
The professor is saying that if the warhead is no destroyed the intercept fails. That's nonsense. If you knock it off course or cause it to fall off target then it succeeded.
Furthermore, the statistics seem to suggest that SOMETHING is stopping the missiles because we have fairly reliable figures on the number of missiles fired and the number of missiles that landed in populated areas. We also have stats from previous bombardments... comparing the two we can see a huge difference. So why is that? Is the suggestion that the israelis are lying? Its possible. But there's no evidence of that to hang an argument upon. And even if they were doing it for the sake of argument there is no data to define the extent of that deceit. Its all theoretical.
I've been a big fan of using the host file for security for many years. Though, I've always done it through spybot.
Obviously that list is much more limited and you question the integrity of the people that compile it. That's possible. But you're preaching to the choir as regards host files.
That said, obviously a comprehensive host file is not a panacea. You need many layers to block things out.
For example, I use an addon called Flashblock. I use it because I don't want flash videos to auto run when I load websites. That said, I don't actually want to prevent them from running at all. I just want them to wait until I intentionally trigger them. For example, I might open five tabs on youtube each with a different youtube video. Without flashblock they'll all run at once the instant their pages load. This would then require me to go to each page and pause each video one at a time EVERY SINGLE TIME I open several such pages at once.
Because I have flash block, I can open them all at once and not worry about any of them because none of the videos will play until I trigger them.
That's just an example.
Another example is cookie monster which passively denies all cookies unless specified otherwise. It has an icon I can click in the status bar that lets me grant cookie permissions to a website or revoke it. Generally I forbid cookie access to all websites unless the site is non-functional without cookies. And then I only enable the cookies I have to enable to make the site functional. Its a very easy addon to use and I can effortlessly enable or disable cookie access on any site very quickly.
Then there's NoScript... which I use to disable javascript on most websites. Even on sites I do enable it on, I don't enable the scripts that I don't need. For example, Google Analytics is never enabled.
So there you go. I'm sure you have accomplished some of this natively in Opera but I'm pretty sure you don't have noscript or flash block natively running in opera. I personally am a big fan of addons. yes, my browser does sometimes use excessive amounts of ram. It tends to use somewhere between 1 and 2 gigabytes of ram. But I have lots of ram and it just doesn't matter.
I didn't cut down your writing style. I pointed out it was bizarre.
1.biÂzarre
adjective \bÉ(TM)-ËzÃr\
: very unusual or strange
Full Definition of BIZARRE
: strikingly out of the ordinary: as
a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode
b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities
â" biÂzarreÂly adverb
â" biÂzarreÂness noun
Your grammatical structure is bizarre and difficult to read which is my subjective opinion of it and frankly I doubt many would disagree.
That said, I've stuck with it and have not insulted you for it. I have done my best to translate it into intelligible script.
Again, I thank you for your help with this matter and will deal with it later when I have the attention span to go changing system settings.
I'll monkey with it later... thanks for you input and seriously make an effort to be less abrasive. Its unlikely to make people receptive if you keep rubbing salt in people's eyes.
Grasp I'm just going on what people here are telling me both one way and the other.
What would you say to the people that are claiming this technology sets off hundreds of intense pressure waves that sound continuously for weeks on end?
You don't need to be hyper specific to every specialization.
The point of the whole thing is to keep companies from importing labor to get lower prices. So if we need to be fuzzy on the numbers we guess high and move on.
The point is not to understand what every possible specialization is worth in every possible industry. The point is to make it impractical to import labor to save costs. You don't have to guess or know the right number. You just have to be in the ball park or about 20 to 40 percent above it. You set it high enough that no one wants to import labor unless there are literally skills they can't get locally.
Look the jobs we're attempting to protect here range in annual compensation from about 30k to about 100k a year. All you've got to do is find the number that is roughly correct for that industry, add 20-40%, and require the company pay that to qualify for the H1-B visa.
If the job pays more then 100 grand a year then that is a labor shortage issue and the company has a point about shortages. The point here would be to protect jobs in that compensation range.
Given the price range its not actually hard to come up with a number that is close enough to accomplish the task. You can't be that far off because the range isn't that big.
I tried the host file you listed and I couldn't even load slashdot with that host file. Its a giant 18MB host file... which is impressive but it appears to wall off most of the internet including the portions that aren't bad.
I don't know... maybe I did something wrong. But when I removed that host file and went back to the old one... everything started working again.
There's no need to be insulting, sir. Your own odd grammar makes it difficult to understand what you're saying. That is not an insult. Its merely a fact. And you can hold that as a weakness on my part, but your grammar is unusual and it does make it harder for you to be understood.
As to your software, I've never heard of it and I'm a little dubious of using unverified software that has been backed by no one. But I'll give it a look and thank you for your suggestion, patience, and creation of software that you're apparently freely sharing.
Thank you, truly.
PS: You tend to put little insults and barbs in your post and I don't know if that is in your interest if you want people to listen to you. I cannot be offended. That is something specific to my nature. But most people can be offended quite easily. You should try to avoid insults until you've lost interest in convincing people.
I take every post as it is... so far he's not been especially rude and seems to be attempting to have a conversation. So I'll continue to afford him common courtesy until I've been satisfied otherwise.
First, I took great pains to NOT insult you for the weird grammar. Nothing I delivered was come back poor or otherwise. I didn't even try to use it as a reason why your post or point was wrong. I just noted that it is weird and then moved on. Try to not be so sensitive. :-) -- This is a smiley face... to express that I'm trying to be nice and am in no way trying to diss you.
Second... alright, tell me how to block everything with the hosts file. Do you have a program that does this?... Sure there's opera, but I've never seen this feature in opera.
First... your grammatical structure is bizarre... possibly I'm not one to complain but seriously its odd.
Second, I use fast machines so the efficiency is personally irrelevant.
Third, I value customization. I like being able to use odds and ends. Opera is a nice browser but it doesn't do everything I want the way I want.
Forth, I use host file blocking as well which I update through Spybot Search and Destroy which has an "immunization" feature which is little more then a host file redirection of known malicious sites.
You shouldn't push policies that are so radical that they have no chance of adoption. The policy I'm pushing is skirting crossing that line as it is... yours goes well over it and thus is non-viable since it has zero chance of passing the legislature.
Are you telling me a private company couldn't figure this out using a radically smaller staff and budget?
because if you're saying "the government will spend this to do that" then I'll have to agree with you. However, if you're saying "the service actually costs that and the government is being quite efficient about it all"... then I'm going to call bullshit.
None of which can be relied upon by a humble user like myself. I've got the addons. There is no where else I can turn.
And they work.
Between adblock, noscript, cookiemonster, and flashblock I am almost never annoyed by anything on the web. Sites are kept simple by noscript. Adblock blocks out about 99 percent of ads I would see, cookie monster prevents sites from putting tracking cookies on my browser, and flashblock stops autoplaying flash animations, movies, sounds files...
What else is left for me to worry about?
That's fine. If they are that desperate to lower labor costs then they can do that. They're going to lose access to most of their US programmers in the process and that will probably be death for them in the long run.
US programmers are still the best. Not the cheapest but the best.
For what its worth, I fired off an email to my congressman. Sounds like its too far gone to stop but we can hope.
Understand, I am pro oil drilling, pro nuclear power... and all sorts of other things you likely find unsavory. But this just seems wanton to me. I'm not a monster or an idiot... and this seems like madness.
If it didn't disturb marine life then I'd be fine with it. But blasting that into the water for months on end?... no.