Well, if you can prove that carcinogenic isn't the cause of cancer, then repeat the methods they have used to prove that it causes cancer. If the result comes out otherwise, maybe carcinogenic doesn't cause cancer? Is that what prove a negative you are asking for?
The idea is nice, but this is not really a good idea for most consumers. The cost of recycling could easily double the price of goods. As a result, it would affect the economy.
Doing the right thing doesn't always mean affordable...
You said as if WinRAR has no choice of their library. Hmm... Who made the decision to use the library then? Not WinRAR? Then they can't find an alternative after knowing the bug? Yeah right.
Your subject line is bullshit, as your post points out. It's bad programmers. Why that's insightful is most likely due to JS haters and not logic. Don't for a second think any other web language can't be abused in the same way.
You are correct and incorrect about JavaScript. You are correct that the problem stems from programmers (or those who do scripting). But that is the point! You can hardly find someone who really knows JavaScript inside out nowadays (but rather JQuery or any other wrappers). Most of programmers simply use others' libraries because they don't want to reinvent the wheel (as a common concept). Besides, reusing others' libraries save a lot of implementation time. As a result, most people simply take an easy way out regardless initial page load time and resources.
The language itself is a bit of a problem as well; however, to me, it is a good language to do certain tasks, but not the way websites are using nowadays.
The sound is reflected, it doesn't just disappear. The echo chamber inside your engine could experience some undesirable effects from all the resonance if the sound does not find somewhere else to radiate out from.
So you didn't RTFA. If you did, you wouldn't post a comment like this.
The basic premise is that the metamaterial needs to be shaped in such a way that it sends incoming sounds back to where they came from, they say.
By 2006, the government and Return Mail were talking about licensing options and a formal pilot program.
That is the part I'm not certain about because it is vague. What process was he using in negotiation? What was the deal/option he wanted? Was it appropriate? Also, a similar system does NOT mean it is a copy of a patent. If the system has only partially similar to his patent claims, then his patent is not covering the system. Business method has specific steps to execute especially in his patent. So the system may or may not be infringing his patent.
if I recall Uber had no qualms about hiring a Waymo engineer on the basis of the proprietary information that he had, so some US companies certainly will do it.
Yes, Uber did. But that doesn't mean nothing happen. Waymo didn't care about their engineer but went after the bigger one -- Uber -- and it actually ended up with a lawsuit and settlement. That's how you do in the U.S. I doubt you can do that in China.
I'm not sure how your post is related to what you quoted from the parent post...
What the parent post talking about is that the money that goes into SS fund is coming out from each employee and employer at the rate of 6.2% of the employee's salary. The amount is calculated separately from (or in addition to) federal/state taxes. If you look at your W2, you should be able to figure it out.
But a discount for cash isn't the same thing as adding a surcharge for credit cards as far as pricing the CC cost into the retailer's prices. Since CC fees vary, fairly wildly, offering a set discount either means that some cards are still going to cost the retailer more than others. The best the retailer can hope for is an average. The retailer certainly can't offer a discount based on what credit card a customer might have used!
No, it is not the same, but that doesn't mean cash discount is a bad thing to do. Besides, adding surcharge on top of the total would also give more money to the credit card due to the cumulative value (of a transaction). Let me give you an example of how it works (some stores have already done this).
Let say the total bill (excluding taxes) of a purchase is $100. Taxes is 10% for easy calculation. There is no tips involved. Visa charges 3% transaction fees. If the store has a policy saying that if the customer pays with cash instead of a credit card, the customer gets 2% off the total purchase. Now, let see how much it would be.
Pay with Cash
price: $98 (2% less)
taxes: $9.80 (10% of total amount)
TOTAL: $107.80
Credit card company earned: $0
Store earned: $98
Pay with a Credit Card
price: $100
taxes: $10 (10% of total amount)
Total: $110
Credit card company earned: $3.30
Store earned: $96.70 ($100 - $3.30)
As you can see, the store still earns more money even with cash discount compared to going through a credit card process. The only advantage that the store gets is to provide convenience of payment to customers. If a store owner is smart, the store should offer discount if the payment is cash.
It is obvious that you, AC, doesn't own or work in a big company. Your comment seems to come from a small (or individually own) company point of view.
It all depends on how deep the big tech companies have their root in where they are. Besides, they will have to look for other locations and that would take some times. I highly doubt it is easy for any big tech companies to simply pack their stuff and go right now. They have to adapt to the situation and may plan to move if necessary, but it wouldn't be in the near future.
I highly doubt that when there are a lot of people do live stream all at once, the speed you are talking about is actually workable. I would expect that there will be a lot of lagging/buffering when there are thousands of people do the live stream in the same area. Also, remember that it is "mobile Internet" not a wire internet. Thus, it is also involve cell tower network, not only on wire. You are too optimistic in this case.
Furthermore, the bill is vague. What does it mean by "impair" in the bill? Where is the line? The bill could open up many different lawsuits...
Unless you're a user, you're likely not paying for it - and that's the point. If the charges aren't excessive and if they're utilizing the surplus efficiently in their domain (primarily benefiting their users) then it might not be such a bad thing. Optimistic if's of course.
Oh the "It is not a problem when it is not in my backyard" attitude! I hope you will be involved in a law suit soon, and you will easily change your mind.
Besides, one may want to do some research when the one is going to deal with some companies (e.g. contractors). The commercial review sites are useless because they are there for, you know, 'commercial'. If you are serious about hiring a contractor (e.g. to build your house) and no one can recommend any to you (or even so), court paper in the state would be a much better credential you can look for in your research.
You are correct that what Apple did was to exploit the loophole of the tax laws in Europe. You could also be correct about how France forced Apple to pay.
However, the way you write sounds like it is OK to look for a loophole and exploit it. Your attitude sounds like it is the other's fault to leave the door open, so if the laws don't forbid(see the differences from the laws allow?), you will do whatever you want that benefit yourself. You completely separate ethics from laws. In this case, it is unethical (exploit) but lawful (not forbid but doesn't say it is allowed).
The thing is that if you are on the side of being exploited, I'm not sure whether your attitude is still the same as now. I know that a few people could accept the losses and move on (not just talk). However, I highly doubt that in reality most people would be able to accept the losses when the situation really happens to them.
In the past during most work was on paper (30+ years ago), it was possible for some people to get multiple SSNs. These people kept the numbers. Generally, it is not legal. That's the major loophole in the system that allow those who have multiple SSNs to do many things (e.g. filing bankruptcy with no impacted) without being noticed in the past. the SS office should now be able to close that loophole with the current technology (digitized everything). However, I doubt that they are doing any investigation. Sadly...
Missing from the stories I've read is that the cap was 65,000 2 years ago. Trump's Admin raised the cap by 20,000, which is where those newly favored Master's and Doctoral candidates land.
I'm sorry but I have to point out the wrong information. The 20,000 additional cap of H1B has been included for advance degrees since 2006 (Bush jr. administration).
No, that's what the O visa is for. H1Bs are explicitly for temporary jobs.
No, O visa is different in the sense of restriction. If you want to get an O visa, you must already have a clear plan/project/itinerary of what you are going to do within a specific period of time. A company who is going to hire someone often times doesn't have a clear plan of what the person to do, let alone the length of time of the work. That's why H1B is more appropriate in this situation.
The visa belongs to the employee and never to the employer. It is a myth that the visa belongs to the employer. The only thing that the employee needs is a sponsor (employer) of the visa. The sponsor can be the current employer or any other employer, but only one employer can sponsor at a time. The employee has legal right to move to work for another employer as long as the new employer sponsors and does due diligence of the paper work for the employee (including guarantee the prevailing wage). However, the same time limit left of the visa still applies. For example, A comes into the U.S. with H1B visa and works for company B. A has been working for B for 2 years, and then A switches to work for company C (company C sponsors A to move to the company). A will have up to 4 more years of the visa length (1 year plus 3-year renewable) to work for C, not 6-year again.
The only reason why people believe that the visa belongs to employers because the way recruiting companies/corporations abuse/exploit the use of visa. The employees come in and don't know much about H1B but are happy to come to work in the U.S., so they don't really look out for what they can actually do. Furthermore, these companies make it more difficult to switch jobs. Just want to clear it out.
You obviously have no idea how it works. These workers go from one H1B job to the next. If you're in the US long enough (legal or illegal), you start a family or get married and at time of deportation you can apply for the hardship rule which most immigration judges test with a minimum length of time, about 10 years is more than sufficient to prove this.
You are talking about the edge cases only. Still, that is just a "work around" but not the real way because it is not a 100% guarantee. Besides, if the person is married to a legal resident or American citizen and have a family, then the work around may (not guarantee) work. Most people who overstay are NOT qualified for the work around (or they simply use marriage as their path to get a green card but no kids or family). You can't simply be on H1B for 10 years because the maximum is 6 years unless you are already applied for a green card.
Though, a person may be on a work permit (somewhat similar to H1B but not quite) longer than 6 years if and only if the person came into the country as a refugee or any other legitimate reason why the person had to leave his/her own country. This way, the person will have to apply for renewal every year, and it depends on the judge whether or not the work permit is renewed. Most of the time, the person has still been involved in a proceeding and is waiting for the resolution.
Thus, it is a NO in general (most cases). Besides, the 10-year thing can't simply be used to establish your legal presence in the country. Even if you are legal and holding a non-immegration visa (e.g. F1), the time you are presence in the country does NOT count toward the eligibility for a green card application.
If that was the idea, then the H-1B was (and is) a bad solution to that problem. Look north of the border for a more sensible approach.
Actually, no. In the past (around 1990s), the visas were issued in order to entice foreign medical doctors/nurses to come into the U.S. and work. Then during the dot com, things changed (from medical to tech). Then recruiting companies/corporations found a way to abuse/exploit the visa. Now it is at the point where the visa is being used to hire cheap labor.
The intent of the program in Canada is not the same as in the U.S. It works in general, and I also prefer the Canadian version. Though, I doubt that the U.S. will change their version any time soon.
But that doesn't mean you can't apply for Master+Ph.D. program form EE as the grandparent said. The Master+Ph.D. program seems to be offered by most (if not all) universities in the U.S. You are required to graduate from Master degree program first, and then you would automatically be qualified for Ph.D. program in the field/major you are in without the need to apply for the program again. In other words, it is easier to get into a Master program, and then you need to show the university that you are a good student to be kept on Ph.D. program.
Yes but, it's entirely possible to retain these people without driving the societal cost up. The loans which people can't escape through bankruptcy essentially serve as a massive source of free money into the system.
Could you please elaborate the boldface part ("these people")? Who are they? Foreign students or Americans? Also, when you are talking about student loan in America, there are a few way to avoid paying it (some people do). One easiest way is to have multiple SSNs (and I know some people who have them).
Slashdot Mirror
Prove a negative?
Well, if you can prove that carcinogenic isn't the cause of cancer, then repeat the methods they have used to prove that it causes cancer. If the result comes out otherwise, maybe carcinogenic doesn't cause cancer? Is that what prove a negative you are asking for?
The idea is nice, but this is not really a good idea for most consumers. The cost of recycling could easily double the price of goods. As a result, it would affect the economy.
Doing the right thing doesn't always mean affordable...
You said as if WinRAR has no choice of their library. Hmm... Who made the decision to use the library then? Not WinRAR? Then they can't find an alternative after knowing the bug? Yeah right.
Well, is it possible that the same money-grabber psychopathic corporate executives move between AMD and NVidia? Just a thought...
Your subject line is bullshit, as your post points out. It's bad programmers. Why that's insightful is most likely due to JS haters and not logic. Don't for a second think any other web language can't be abused in the same way.
You are correct and incorrect about JavaScript. You are correct that the problem stems from programmers (or those who do scripting). But that is the point! You can hardly find someone who really knows JavaScript inside out nowadays (but rather JQuery or any other wrappers). Most of programmers simply use others' libraries because they don't want to reinvent the wheel (as a common concept). Besides, reusing others' libraries save a lot of implementation time. As a result, most people simply take an easy way out regardless initial page load time and resources.
The language itself is a bit of a problem as well; however, to me, it is a good language to do certain tasks, but not the way websites are using nowadays.
The sound is reflected, it doesn't just disappear. The echo chamber inside your engine could experience some undesirable effects from all the resonance if the sound does not find somewhere else to radiate out from.
So you didn't RTFA. If you did, you wouldn't post a comment like this.
The basic premise is that the metamaterial needs to be shaped in such a way that it sends incoming sounds back to where they came from, they say.
Or you can click the window you want.
The key is to do it quickly. Alt+Tab allows you to switch between 2 programs quickly (and instantly) with one hand.
By 2006, the government and Return Mail were talking about licensing options and a formal pilot program.
That is the part I'm not certain about because it is vague. What process was he using in negotiation? What was the deal/option he wanted? Was it appropriate? Also, a similar system does NOT mean it is a copy of a patent. If the system has only partially similar to his patent claims, then his patent is not covering the system. Business method has specific steps to execute especially in his patent. So the system may or may not be infringing his patent.
I haven't read the patent, so I have no idea what the patent covers.
Here is the application of the patent -- U.S. 2003/0191651. And here is the patent itself -- U.S. 6,826,548.
if I recall Uber had no qualms about hiring a Waymo engineer on the basis of the proprietary information that he had, so some US companies certainly will do it.
Yes, Uber did. But that doesn't mean nothing happen. Waymo didn't care about their engineer but went after the bigger one -- Uber -- and it actually ended up with a lawsuit and settlement. That's how you do in the U.S. I doubt you can do that in China.
I'm not sure how your post is related to what you quoted from the parent post...
What the parent post talking about is that the money that goes into SS fund is coming out from each employee and employer at the rate of 6.2% of the employee's salary. The amount is calculated separately from (or in addition to) federal/state taxes. If you look at your W2, you should be able to figure it out.
But a discount for cash isn't the same thing as adding a surcharge for credit cards as far as pricing the CC cost into the retailer's prices. Since CC fees vary, fairly wildly, offering a set discount either means that some cards are still going to cost the retailer more than others. The best the retailer can hope for is an average. The retailer certainly can't offer a discount based on what credit card a customer might have used!
No, it is not the same, but that doesn't mean cash discount is a bad thing to do. Besides, adding surcharge on top of the total would also give more money to the credit card due to the cumulative value (of a transaction). Let me give you an example of how it works (some stores have already done this).
Let say the total bill (excluding taxes) of a purchase is $100. Taxes is 10% for easy calculation. There is no tips involved. Visa charges 3% transaction fees. If the store has a policy saying that if the customer pays with cash instead of a credit card, the customer gets 2% off the total purchase. Now, let see how much it would be.
Pay with Cash
price: $98 (2% less)
taxes: $9.80 (10% of total amount)
TOTAL: $107.80
Credit card company earned: $0
Store earned: $98
Pay with a Credit Card
price: $100
taxes: $10 (10% of total amount)
Total: $110
Credit card company earned: $3.30
Store earned: $96.70 ($100 - $3.30)
As you can see, the store still earns more money even with cash discount compared to going through a credit card process. The only advantage that the store gets is to provide convenience of payment to customers. If a store owner is smart, the store should offer discount if the payment is cash.
It is obvious that you, AC, doesn't own or work in a big company. Your comment seems to come from a small (or individually own) company point of view.
It all depends on how deep the big tech companies have their root in where they are. Besides, they will have to look for other locations and that would take some times. I highly doubt it is easy for any big tech companies to simply pack their stuff and go right now. They have to adapt to the situation and may plan to move if necessary, but it wouldn't be in the near future.
I highly doubt that when there are a lot of people do live stream all at once, the speed you are talking about is actually workable. I would expect that there will be a lot of lagging/buffering when there are thousands of people do the live stream in the same area. Also, remember that it is "mobile Internet" not a wire internet. Thus, it is also involve cell tower network, not only on wire. You are too optimistic in this case.
Furthermore, the bill is vague. What does it mean by "impair" in the bill? Where is the line? The bill could open up many different lawsuits...
Unless you're a user, you're likely not paying for it - and that's the point. If the charges aren't excessive and if they're utilizing the surplus efficiently in their domain (primarily benefiting their users) then it might not be such a bad thing. Optimistic if's of course.
Oh the "It is not a problem when it is not in my backyard" attitude! I hope you will be involved in a law suit soon, and you will easily change your mind.
Besides, one may want to do some research when the one is going to deal with some companies (e.g. contractors). The commercial review sites are useless because they are there for, you know, 'commercial'. If you are serious about hiring a contractor (e.g. to build your house) and no one can recommend any to you (or even so), court paper in the state would be a much better credential you can look for in your research.
You are correct that what Apple did was to exploit the loophole of the tax laws in Europe. You could also be correct about how France forced Apple to pay.
However, the way you write sounds like it is OK to look for a loophole and exploit it. Your attitude sounds like it is the other's fault to leave the door open, so if the laws don't forbid(see the differences from the laws allow?), you will do whatever you want that benefit yourself. You completely separate ethics from laws. In this case, it is unethical (exploit) but lawful (not forbid but doesn't say it is allowed).
The thing is that if you are on the side of being exploited, I'm not sure whether your attitude is still the same as now. I know that a few people could accept the losses and move on (not just talk). However, I highly doubt that in reality most people would be able to accept the losses when the situation really happens to them.
In the past during most work was on paper (30+ years ago), it was possible for some people to get multiple SSNs. These people kept the numbers. Generally, it is not legal. That's the major loophole in the system that allow those who have multiple SSNs to do many things (e.g. filing bankruptcy with no impacted) without being noticed in the past. the SS office should now be able to close that loophole with the current technology (digitized everything). However, I doubt that they are doing any investigation. Sadly...
Missing from the stories I've read is that the cap was 65,000 2 years ago. Trump's Admin raised the cap by 20,000, which is where those newly favored Master's and Doctoral candidates land.
I'm sorry but I have to point out the wrong information. The 20,000 additional cap of H1B has been included for advance degrees since 2006 (Bush jr. administration).
No, that's what the O visa is for. H1Bs are explicitly for temporary jobs.
No, O visa is different in the sense of restriction. If you want to get an O visa, you must already have a clear plan/project/itinerary of what you are going to do within a specific period of time. A company who is going to hire someone often times doesn't have a clear plan of what the person to do, let alone the length of time of the work. That's why H1B is more appropriate in this situation.
The visa belongs to the employee and never to the employer. It is a myth that the visa belongs to the employer. The only thing that the employee needs is a sponsor (employer) of the visa. The sponsor can be the current employer or any other employer, but only one employer can sponsor at a time. The employee has legal right to move to work for another employer as long as the new employer sponsors and does due diligence of the paper work for the employee (including guarantee the prevailing wage). However, the same time limit left of the visa still applies. For example, A comes into the U.S. with H1B visa and works for company B. A has been working for B for 2 years, and then A switches to work for company C (company C sponsors A to move to the company). A will have up to 4 more years of the visa length (1 year plus 3-year renewable) to work for C, not 6-year again.
The only reason why people believe that the visa belongs to employers because the way recruiting companies/corporations abuse/exploit the use of visa. The employees come in and don't know much about H1B but are happy to come to work in the U.S., so they don't really look out for what they can actually do. Furthermore, these companies make it more difficult to switch jobs. Just want to clear it out.
You obviously have no idea how it works. These workers go from one H1B job to the next. If you're in the US long enough (legal or illegal), you start a family or get married and at time of deportation you can apply for the hardship rule which most immigration judges test with a minimum length of time, about 10 years is more than sufficient to prove this.
You are talking about the edge cases only. Still, that is just a "work around" but not the real way because it is not a 100% guarantee. Besides, if the person is married to a legal resident or American citizen and have a family, then the work around may (not guarantee) work. Most people who overstay are NOT qualified for the work around (or they simply use marriage as their path to get a green card but no kids or family). You can't simply be on H1B for 10 years because the maximum is 6 years unless you are already applied for a green card.
Though, a person may be on a work permit (somewhat similar to H1B but not quite) longer than 6 years if and only if the person came into the country as a refugee or any other legitimate reason why the person had to leave his/her own country. This way, the person will have to apply for renewal every year, and it depends on the judge whether or not the work permit is renewed. Most of the time, the person has still been involved in a proceeding and is waiting for the resolution.
Thus, it is a NO in general (most cases). Besides, the 10-year thing can't simply be used to establish your legal presence in the country. Even if you are legal and holding a non-immegration visa (e.g. F1), the time you are presence in the country does NOT count toward the eligibility for a green card application.
If that was the idea, then the H-1B was (and is) a bad solution to that problem. Look north of the border for a more sensible approach.
Actually, no. In the past (around 1990s), the visas were issued in order to entice foreign medical doctors/nurses to come into the U.S. and work. Then during the dot com, things changed (from medical to tech). Then recruiting companies/corporations found a way to abuse/exploit the visa. Now it is at the point where the visa is being used to hire cheap labor.
The intent of the program in Canada is not the same as in the U.S. It works in general, and I also prefer the Canadian version. Though, I doubt that the U.S. will change their version any time soon.
But that doesn't mean you can't apply for Master+Ph.D. program form EE as the grandparent said. The Master+Ph.D. program seems to be offered by most (if not all) universities in the U.S. You are required to graduate from Master degree program first, and then you would automatically be qualified for Ph.D. program in the field/major you are in without the need to apply for the program again. In other words, it is easier to get into a Master program, and then you need to show the university that you are a good student to be kept on Ph.D. program.
That doesn't mean there aren't diploma Mills in the US.
Don't talk about my Devry University where I got my M.S. and University of Phoenix where I got my Ph.D. please!
Yes but, it's entirely possible to retain these people without driving the societal cost up. The loans which people can't escape through bankruptcy essentially serve as a massive source of free money into the system.
Could you please elaborate the boldface part ("these people")? Who are they? Foreign students or Americans? Also, when you are talking about student loan in America, there are a few way to avoid paying it (some people do). One easiest way is to have multiple SSNs (and I know some people who have them).