When I lived in Atlanta, I used to have a roach problem - despite not having food or such stuff in the open. I called in the pest control a number of times, sometimes it was needed as frequently as once every two weeks. The pest control guy on one occasion explained to me the types of roaches, and told me that I was lucky enough to be visited by just Georgian roaches and not the African ones. Also, during winter, one also explained to me how the roaches were in my apartment due to the cold
I do prefer pest control guys who are less into the immigration status or psychology of those vermin. Maybe it's just me.
Precisely! Qatar, like Pakistan, is notorious for playing double games. They have in their country citizens who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah et al, and who fund those organizations as well. During the Bush years, there was an occasion when they could have hunted down Osama, except that a member of the al Thani royal family was w/ him, and would have gotten killed as collateral damage. Bush was a cretin to have made Qatar the Centcom headquarters in the region: he should have gone for Kuwait instead.
I do agree that Saudi Arabia is no better either, and I don't trust the new crown prince who was just appointed over the weekend. I do think that Obama's & Trump's policies, while different, synergistically combined to bring Riyadh to where it is now. Obama punished them for their past dealings w/ al Qaeda, and his perceived preference of Iran to Saudi Arabia did send them a strong message, and completely isolated them, while they faced not just an insurrection in neighboring Yemen, but also close to a Shi'ite revolt. So that when Trump decided to go there, they did everything they could to make him think that they're fully on his side: allowing a direct flight to Jerusalem, forcing Mahmoud Abbas to the table, cracking down on some Jihadist groups that the US had a problem w/, and so on.
Not just that, given that Obama did nothing other than impose sanctions that were actually driven by the EU, the Russians had more to gain had Hilary won. Just as Obama did nothing about Russia annexing Crimea or invading Donbass, Clinton would have done nothing had Russia gone in full force and annexed Donbass
On dbillIII's point #1 above, if having a Climate Denier is what they want, why would Russia itself be a signatory to the Paris accord? Right now, only Syria refused to sign it, while Nicaragua was dissatisfied w/ the scope of the accord. But Russia too could have bailed if they didn't agree w/ it. It hardly makes sense for Russia to root for a leader opposed to being a part of a global treaty that they themselves are a part of.
On the 4th point, flattery doesn't seem to have gotten Putin far w/ Trump regarding Syria. While the Trump administration - unlike Obama, is not opposed to Assad remaining in power, they have done things that Obama never did - bomb the Syrian base that launched chemical weapons, shoot down a Syrian jet that tried bombing US backed forces attacking Raqqa, down an Iranian drone, have that get together w/ the Arab states against Iran and Syria. The only thing that Putin's flattery of Trump did was to get Trump to praise him back, which provided useless fodder for Trump's GOP rivals. The Dems have been working on the theory that just b'cos of that, Putin did what he could to manipulate the US elections against Clinton. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence provided to that effect, much less that of a collusion b/w the Trump campaign and the Russians
Except that Putin had little reason to prefer one over the other. In the case the Dems won, their policy wasn't gonna change from the last 8 years, when they had Clinton & Kerry running the foreign policy. The Russians would still get what they wanted - the US refusing to do anything about Syria, the US selling uranium to Russia, the Iran deal and so on.
With the Republicans, yeah, it's true that Trump said good things about Putin (in response to Putin praising Trump). But policy wise, Trump didn't promise much that would make Russia happy. He was as opposed to the Iran deal as anyone else, he supported safe zones in Syria (something that both Damascus & Moscow are opposed to), and he called for making NATO accountable by making all countries pay their fair share, which would increase, not decrease, NATO spending.
And since coming to power, there are enough things that Trump has done that makes it irrelevant what his people may have said to the 2 Sergeis: bombing the Syrian base from where the chemical attack was made, shooting down a Syrian plane that attacked pro-US Sunni rebels assaulting Raqqa, shooting down an Iranian drone, carrying out joint military exercises in the Baltics, et al. Bottom line: Trump has delegated the entire military part of foreign policy to Mattis, and Moscow can't be thrilled about that.
Hence the probe is now looking into fictional issues regarding obstruction of something that is not a crime
This is the same Obama who gave a painstakingly detailed explanation to Trump on why the elections could not be hacked - from it being the states that run elections to a lot of machines not being on the internet... Yet after the election, all Dems can do is weep 'Russia, Russia, Russia'
No, that's what my multicast (or even anycast) suggestion was about: when you add a new ISP, just add that ISP's allocated addresses to the multicast address mapping, and you're good to go. So that an organization just needs to add that, and then all the sites serviced by the new ISP get the same content as before w/o having to update things on all the nodes
So in other words, get rid of national TLDs, and have only addresses based on.com,.org,.net &.gov? Could be a solution, except that multiple English speaking countries could have a 'National Bank', in which case, which one gets the nationalbank.com domain name?
Random IPs are not the solution, particularly if they are static. If they were dynamic, your idea would make sense. But organizations need static IPs as well, and as IoT grows, even people will need it. Maybe 1 solution to your issue could be to not have RIR -> nation, but rather, RIR to everybody in it, which would be a big headache for RIPE and a big potential headache for APNIC (w/ 3 billion people b/w China & India alone).
Incidentally, whatever happened to Internet2? The very high speed internet that colleges & such institutions were working on?
Anyway, my suggestion: for such a thing, deprecate IPv4 and use only IPv6, and that too, using a 96:32 split instead of 64:64. And make this hierarchichal, so that the uppermost blocks drill down from IANA -> RIR -> Nation -> Organizations. And instead of having provider independent IP addresses, which tends to break that, encourage them to use multicast addresses to group the IP addresses that they have in different domains, be it nations or complete regions.
What's there to stop the Russians from creating Chromebook VMs? That's easy to do on standard, more powerful computers. They can then work on those VMs.
The world is probably pretty even on this. Like the OpenBSD project is Canadian, not American, and their stuff is pretty much open. Chances are that not only do the Russians & Chinese have the latest & greatest, but even our Muslim enemies do. Export controls won't do a thing
WHAT evidence? Wikileaks is hardly evidence that the Russians tried to interfere. If anything, Dem administrations - both Clinton & Obama - tried interfering in foreign elections, such as Israel's.
Since China has been stealing not only our IP but also doing identity theft on Americans, it's hardly fair to let them have a monopoly on that. I fully support Russia horning in on the action. But they should give us land in Siberia for the privilege
Or create an automatic AI powered device driver generator for every hardware peripheral that a Linux device comes into contact w/. So that the main sore point of Linux is mitigated
He can do that w/ dronny planes instead of cars, where there ain't too many dronny plane owners like there are cars. So his loans for cars programs would actually work pretty well here
The regulations POTUS has been aiming at are regulations that hamper manufacturing, raise the cost of doing business in the US and thereby indirectly inhibiting the creation of new jobs. Compliance w/ regulations costs money, and companies are forced to set aside that cash, thereby hiring fewer people than what they could have hired.
It has nothing to do w/ laxing things like traffic rules, ATC regs and other laws that are meant for society to function more smoothly
Sorry, Karl Rove was a never-Trumper and to the end did not believe that Trump would win PA, much less WI or MI. And on election day, he credited the WI win to Paul Ryan, despite the fact that Ryan refused to campaign w/ Trump due to the Access Hollywood tape. And he had been all over FNC trashing Trump: it was only after the election that he's been somewhat more favorable, but still insufferable
Here, it's not illegal immigration, but rather, H1B employees that are the topic here.
From a political POV, the argument has been that H1B workers are used to simply undercut American workers - both citizens & permanent residents. Note that in the Labor Certification process, which a company has to go through while applying for these visas, they have to demonstrate that there are no American citizens or permanent residents available to take that job. That argument is badly undercut when you have outgoing American employees being required to train their replacements. Obviously illustrating a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
From the corporate standpoint, there have been two arguments. One is that it's impossible to find American workers who are interested in doing those jobs. One may add the caveat about the salaries required to do those. If those jobs can be offshored, it's a win-win: the US doesn't have to issue all those H1B visas, and the companies can pay Indian salaries to Indians sitting in Bangalore or Pune. If they cannot be, that's where the companies should be made to cough up the cash.
The other argument is that it's impossible to find Americans who are qualified to do those, which was the original purpose of the H1B visas. This is where the EB1/2/3 category comes into question. In which case, again, see if they can be done offshore, and if they can't, then issue those visas, but for a big price.
The best suggestion I've heard about H1B's is to put a floor of $150k on the salary. That would cut out the sub-par coders here that people complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't it be 127.0.0.1, so that the bedbugs do a loopback & end up biting themselves in their own ass?
Yeah, they are racist GOP bedbugs in red state Atlanta, only too happy to suck the blood out of the Kwanitas who work for Wipro
When I lived in Atlanta, I used to have a roach problem - despite not having food or such stuff in the open. I called in the pest control a number of times, sometimes it was needed as frequently as once every two weeks. The pest control guy on one occasion explained to me the types of roaches, and told me that I was lucky enough to be visited by just Georgian roaches and not the African ones. Also, during winter, one also explained to me how the roaches were in my apartment due to the cold
I do prefer pest control guys who are less into the immigration status or psychology of those vermin. Maybe it's just me.
But do they understand what he's saying?
And if they do, how the hell does he know? Do they talk back?
You beat me to it: that's exactly what I was wondering about our new Dr Doolittle
Precisely! Qatar, like Pakistan, is notorious for playing double games. They have in their country citizens who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah et al, and who fund those organizations as well. During the Bush years, there was an occasion when they could have hunted down Osama, except that a member of the al Thani royal family was w/ him, and would have gotten killed as collateral damage. Bush was a cretin to have made Qatar the Centcom headquarters in the region: he should have gone for Kuwait instead.
I do agree that Saudi Arabia is no better either, and I don't trust the new crown prince who was just appointed over the weekend. I do think that Obama's & Trump's policies, while different, synergistically combined to bring Riyadh to where it is now. Obama punished them for their past dealings w/ al Qaeda, and his perceived preference of Iran to Saudi Arabia did send them a strong message, and completely isolated them, while they faced not just an insurrection in neighboring Yemen, but also close to a Shi'ite revolt. So that when Trump decided to go there, they did everything they could to make him think that they're fully on his side: allowing a direct flight to Jerusalem, forcing Mahmoud Abbas to the table, cracking down on some Jihadist groups that the US had a problem w/, and so on.
Not just that, given that Obama did nothing other than impose sanctions that were actually driven by the EU, the Russians had more to gain had Hilary won. Just as Obama did nothing about Russia annexing Crimea or invading Donbass, Clinton would have done nothing had Russia gone in full force and annexed Donbass
On dbillIII's point #1 above, if having a Climate Denier is what they want, why would Russia itself be a signatory to the Paris accord? Right now, only Syria refused to sign it, while Nicaragua was dissatisfied w/ the scope of the accord. But Russia too could have bailed if they didn't agree w/ it. It hardly makes sense for Russia to root for a leader opposed to being a part of a global treaty that they themselves are a part of.
On the 4th point, flattery doesn't seem to have gotten Putin far w/ Trump regarding Syria. While the Trump administration - unlike Obama, is not opposed to Assad remaining in power, they have done things that Obama never did - bomb the Syrian base that launched chemical weapons, shoot down a Syrian jet that tried bombing US backed forces attacking Raqqa, down an Iranian drone, have that get together w/ the Arab states against Iran and Syria. The only thing that Putin's flattery of Trump did was to get Trump to praise him back, which provided useless fodder for Trump's GOP rivals. The Dems have been working on the theory that just b'cos of that, Putin did what he could to manipulate the US elections against Clinton. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence provided to that effect, much less that of a collusion b/w the Trump campaign and the Russians
Except that Putin had little reason to prefer one over the other. In the case the Dems won, their policy wasn't gonna change from the last 8 years, when they had Clinton & Kerry running the foreign policy. The Russians would still get what they wanted - the US refusing to do anything about Syria, the US selling uranium to Russia, the Iran deal and so on.
With the Republicans, yeah, it's true that Trump said good things about Putin (in response to Putin praising Trump). But policy wise, Trump didn't promise much that would make Russia happy. He was as opposed to the Iran deal as anyone else, he supported safe zones in Syria (something that both Damascus & Moscow are opposed to), and he called for making NATO accountable by making all countries pay their fair share, which would increase, not decrease, NATO spending.
And since coming to power, there are enough things that Trump has done that makes it irrelevant what his people may have said to the 2 Sergeis: bombing the Syrian base from where the chemical attack was made, shooting down a Syrian plane that attacked pro-US Sunni rebels assaulting Raqqa, shooting down an Iranian drone, carrying out joint military exercises in the Baltics, et al. Bottom line: Trump has delegated the entire military part of foreign policy to Mattis, and Moscow can't be thrilled about that.
Hence the probe is now looking into fictional issues regarding obstruction of something that is not a crime
This is the same Obama who gave a painstakingly detailed explanation to Trump on why the elections could not be hacked - from it being the states that run elections to a lot of machines not being on the internet... Yet after the election, all Dems can do is weep 'Russia, Russia, Russia'
No, that's what my multicast (or even anycast) suggestion was about: when you add a new ISP, just add that ISP's allocated addresses to the multicast address mapping, and you're good to go. So that an organization just needs to add that, and then all the sites serviced by the new ISP get the same content as before w/o having to update things on all the nodes
So in other words, get rid of national TLDs, and have only addresses based on .com, .org, .net & .gov? Could be a solution, except that multiple English speaking countries could have a 'National Bank', in which case, which one gets the nationalbank.com domain name?
Random IPs are not the solution, particularly if they are static. If they were dynamic, your idea would make sense. But organizations need static IPs as well, and as IoT grows, even people will need it. Maybe 1 solution to your issue could be to not have RIR -> nation, but rather, RIR to everybody in it, which would be a big headache for RIPE and a big potential headache for APNIC (w/ 3 billion people b/w China & India alone).
Incidentally, whatever happened to Internet2? The very high speed internet that colleges & such institutions were working on?
Anyway, my suggestion: for such a thing, deprecate IPv4 and use only IPv6, and that too, using a 96:32 split instead of 64:64. And make this hierarchichal, so that the uppermost blocks drill down from IANA -> RIR -> Nation -> Organizations. And instead of having provider independent IP addresses, which tends to break that, encourage them to use multicast addresses to group the IP addresses that they have in different domains, be it nations or complete regions.
What's there to stop the Russians from creating Chromebook VMs? That's easy to do on standard, more powerful computers. They can then work on those VMs.
The world is probably pretty even on this. Like the OpenBSD project is Canadian, not American, and their stuff is pretty much open. Chances are that not only do the Russians & Chinese have the latest & greatest, but even our Muslim enemies do. Export controls won't do a thing
Russia != USSR
WHAT evidence? Wikileaks is hardly evidence that the Russians tried to interfere. If anything, Dem administrations - both Clinton & Obama - tried interfering in foreign elections, such as Israel's.
Since China has been stealing not only our IP but also doing identity theft on Americans, it's hardly fair to let them have a monopoly on that. I fully support Russia horning in on the action. But they should give us land in Siberia for the privilege
Or create an automatic AI powered device driver generator for every hardware peripheral that a Linux device comes into contact w/. So that the main sore point of Linux is mitigated
He can do that w/ dronny planes instead of cars, where there ain't too many dronny plane owners like there are cars. So his loans for cars programs would actually work pretty well here
The Dems are now the anti science, anti tech party since they oppose drones?
The regulations POTUS has been aiming at are regulations that hamper manufacturing, raise the cost of doing business in the US and thereby indirectly inhibiting the creation of new jobs. Compliance w/ regulations costs money, and companies are forced to set aside that cash, thereby hiring fewer people than what they could have hired.
It has nothing to do w/ laxing things like traffic rules, ATC regs and other laws that are meant for society to function more smoothly
So is Apple full of employees related to people from Somalia or Yemen or any of the other 4 countries in that travel ban list?
Sorry, Karl Rove was a never-Trumper and to the end did not believe that Trump would win PA, much less WI or MI. And on election day, he credited the WI win to Paul Ryan, despite the fact that Ryan refused to campaign w/ Trump due to the Access Hollywood tape. And he had been all over FNC trashing Trump: it was only after the election that he's been somewhat more favorable, but still insufferable
Here, it's not illegal immigration, but rather, H1B employees that are the topic here.
From a political POV, the argument has been that H1B workers are used to simply undercut American workers - both citizens & permanent residents. Note that in the Labor Certification process, which a company has to go through while applying for these visas, they have to demonstrate that there are no American citizens or permanent residents available to take that job. That argument is badly undercut when you have outgoing American employees being required to train their replacements. Obviously illustrating a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
From the corporate standpoint, there have been two arguments. One is that it's impossible to find American workers who are interested in doing those jobs. One may add the caveat about the salaries required to do those. If those jobs can be offshored, it's a win-win: the US doesn't have to issue all those H1B visas, and the companies can pay Indian salaries to Indians sitting in Bangalore or Pune. If they cannot be, that's where the companies should be made to cough up the cash.
The other argument is that it's impossible to find Americans who are qualified to do those, which was the original purpose of the H1B visas. This is where the EB1/2/3 category comes into question. In which case, again, see if they can be done offshore, and if they can't, then issue those visas, but for a big price.
The best suggestion I've heard about H1B's is to put a floor of $150k on the salary. That would cut out the sub-par coders here that people complain about.
The only thing I've noticed Tim be concerned about is LGBTQ causes. Not his company or employees
Naah, Colombian coffee is the best! And it's smack dab near the equator, can't get much warmer than that