comparing education levels and pay in cybersecurity makes me immediately question this studies conclusions. Anyone working in this industry will be aware that beyond your first job interview your degrees mean less than nothing. Experience and industry knowledge is what earns pay levels in cybersecurity and I am not aware of any of my female colleagues that get paid less for the same job.
I think you can even extend that to your first job interview. Nearly everything I know about computers and computer security did not come from any classes I took at University. For me, it all came from hobby time.
When I interview NCGs (new college grads), I have no interest in their degree at all except why they wanted to pursue that degree. I spend all my time trying to figure out what motivates them to learn outside the classroom and see if they have a natural curiosity for the subject. I'm not interested in them solving homework problems, but open-ended problems that probably have multiple solutions all with different cost-benefit tradeoffs. Unfortunately that requires being literate/articulate enough to explain your thought process to someone else. One would think the stereotypical woman would be at least as good if not better at this than the stereotypical man (since stereotypically, women have better language skills than men). However, in my experience, neither are generally better or worse than average (and sadly the average for NCGs is really low). Unfortunately, they don't train for that at Universities (as the Socratic teaching method has long been abandoned by universities) and it shows. Lacking any articulate conversation ability, at least some literacy in the subject is useful. This is where the hobby-time and out-of-classroom intangibles come into play. If I had to wager, I'd say that more men play the role of amateur IT-shleps for their family/friends than women, so there's something to be said about that. Maybe that isn't fair, but life is not fair.
As an interesting data point, over the last 30 years of interviewing people, it seems to me that men are more likely to attempt to BS an answer than a women, maybe most people doing the hiring don't have good BS filters (I know mine isn't perfect), and that accounts for some of the problem. What do they say, fake it until you make it, right?
There was a 2 and 3? Non sense. Why not sequels of Starship Troopers while you are at it!
If ever there was a movie needing re-imaging... Starship Troopers. I take that back, moving closer to the book (power suits) is not quite re-imagining is it?
The project is not a remake or a reboot of director Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 sci-fi movie, studio insiders said. Instead, the filmmakers are going back to the source material — a novel by Robert Heinlein. Nobody who worked on the 1997 film will be involved in the new project.
Mark Swift and Damian Shannon, who wrote the upcoming “Baywatch” comedy starring Zach Efron and Dwayne Johnson, will pen the screenplay. “Fast & Furious” producer Neal H. Moritz is producing along with Toby Jaffe (both worked on the original “Total Recall”).
Why go through so much effort of learning those silly "letter" thingies, when we could be using emoticons or classic Chinese picture inspired words or hieroglyphics and "save ourselves so much trouble"?
I suspect that given the way emoticons are taking over chat and the fact that the Chinese are taking over the economy, we may be heading in that direction...
Fourty years ago computer science folks decided that they wouldn't be making a profession, but creating a job out of their hobby. Thus they created a job category with no credentialing, no apprenticing, no continuing education requirements, no board certification, so they continue with they hobby with the lowest set of requirements so they could change the world w/o having to deal with the "grown-ups".
Now that hobby has become an industry and a certain amount of "pride" has set in the old-timers. Of course now that the table is set, the next generation of non-grown-ups comes along and wants the same leway. These new arrogant kids are basically the new crop of the old arrogant kids. Some of them will add value, some of them won't (just like the old crop). The big difference is that the barrier to entry is much lower now, so there is probably more chaff than in the past. It doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, though, but you have to look at things with a more critical eye before you jump...
Full disclosure, I *am* one of those old-timers. I just need to look in the mirror to see the same thing as what I see in the young-ins...
Good middlemen make sure that the producer makes more than he would without the middleman, and that the consumer gets more at a better price than he would without the middleman, enough so that the middleman can get his cut. The good middleman never tries to cut off non-middleman transactions, because he doesn't need to.
Middlemen might generate benefit for producers and consumers, but calling the successful ones "good" is often a bit of a stretch.
By working to intimidate/cripple/locking-out/buying-off/killing-off other middlemen, a less scrupulous middleman can assure that a producer has little choice but to use the remaining middleman to distribute their goods because the consumer will have difficulty to purchase the products from anyone else and obtain these benefits. After this all happens, the non-middleman transactions are a vanishingly small part of the business so they don't need to do anything about it. I wouldn't generally call any of these middlemen behaviors "good", as the typical competitive behavior between middlemen is sometimes a bit bordering the legal boundary (or sometimes blowing way past it), yet it often achieves a similar by appearance locally stable point, but generally slightly sub-optimal for both producers and consumers...
A few examples, LiveNation, Apple iTunes, Amazon, Uber, Drug-gangs, Mafia, etc...
yeah, they used to trade stocks on the grass in downtown manhattan in the 1700's and 1800's until things grew and they needed a central exchange. same with banks before clearance houses
However, end users still by stocks through brokers (often the same ones from the 1800's), and end users still clear checks through banks (ditto). The advanced technology is often simply to allow the middlemen to be disrupted by smaller nimbler middle men (e.g., discount stock brokers like e-trade and savings and loan banks, remember them?), but generally do not democratize the field down to the end user... In a way these types of new technology simply allows us to meet our new masters, often same as the old masters...
Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?
I find most people who have grown long in the tooth and accepted 2% raises as normal aren't curious about anything.
Curious. I find many people that hop jobs every couple years to be not curious enough to deeply learn about anything, and are mostly just greener-grass folks looking to trade some sweat for money.
Sometimes staying put for a while correlates with a desire to learn something a bit more than superficially. Although trade skills often be practiced anywhere, learning a business and industry enough (to understand how to create value in a business) often takes more than one project cycle and 23 (or 29) months perspective is a pretty short time to see what generates value for customers and what is unimportant... Generally, if you aren't spending VC money, it's better value to companies to have employees know what is important and what is unimportant over the long term. You can only be twice as good as another ditch digger, but good ideas can be 100x better than bad ideas...
Of course there are companies where little can be learned and there's little reason to stay there at all, and maybe you simply stay there 23 months to make it look like you aren't a job hopper. But that's probably 22 months too long IMHO, as there are generally other fish in the sea...
Because the most useful concepts describe what you're looking at in such a way as you get an accurate perception of what they are. The current non-planet trend for Pluto doesn't do that for me.
If you follow the latest "trends", Pluto is trending back... Unfortunately, as part of this trend, "that's no moon orbiting around the earth, that's a planet..." And we get 110 "planets"...
All in the spirit that everyone gets a participation medal;^)
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
I'm pretty good with Windows and Linux desktops... there are steps I can take to check for spyware/malware and deal with them if found.
But my Samsung TV, I haven't the foggiest idea. I don't know how to type commands into it or even what kind of an OS it runs.
If your "desktop" machine has been owned enough with a boot sector style spyware/malware (like a keylogger), I don't think that there are simple steps you can take to detect them (you pretty much have to move your boot drive to a trusted machine to scan/fix it)... Since Smart TVs get manufacturer OTA updates all the time to update their "apps", I suspect Weeping Angel would want to operate on a level similar to a boot sector style spyware/malware and compromise the device on a low enough level to survive a typical OTA...
You have zero knowledge of US history, but I am not surprised. ADA was a brainchild of Reagan. The act was established in 1990 (Reagan/Bush ruled as president from 81-92).
AFAIK, blind activist Patrisha Wright and representative Tom Harkin (Dem who has a deaf brother) were the brainchilds of the ADA. Reagan was against it and he may of actually precipitated it by threatening to revoke Section 504 of the (American) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which was opposed by Nixon and Ford, but passed by Carter) when he was in office.
However, after the Reagan era, Bush1 signed the ADA in 1990... and Bush2 signed the amended version in 1998...
I really want to buy one but at the same time I don't.
Maybe if you don't look at your credit card bill, you can stay in a superposition of 1/2 bought, 1/2 resisted for a while, but as soon as you look, your world will collapse... Or maybe the decision is entangled with your spouse in which case your spouse can spontaneously collapse that decision for you...
What if - and stay with me here for a second, but what if we pumped the water into the clouds? It works for data, surely it would work with water.
I believe we have a pump for that: the sun (not to be confused with sun microsystems). The problem with that is a bunch of environmentalists won't let us build turbines to recover that energy, so we are stuck with these balls...
The X-Files had an episode where a rapid freezing agent was the key enabler to allow people to time travel, but of course that means a future self will come back to kill you because time travel is so messed up, so it never really happens... Or does it?
but, uneducated opinion here, wouldn't any hint of antibiotic slightly related to the pathogen strengthen any bacteria against it?
you know, that whole theory of "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger?"... or does that not apply to the microbiology world?
In the microbiology world, whatever doesn't kill you, but weakens or kills your competitors, makes your progeny (and your resistance) more prevalent. So in the metagenetic sense it makes your germ-line stronger, but it doesn't do much for you specifically (except get rid of your competition).
I wouldn't call a modern GPU that constrained really. The only thing they lack is memory protection. It's also a lot easier to program on a GPU ever since the SIMT paradigm came out (i.e. CUDA, OpenCL). Also plenty of modern processors come with a GPU on the same die as the CPU. Like nearly all smartphones for example.
Actually all modern GPU have had memory protection for several generations. The problem GPUs have is that don't generally have full support for demand paging and precise exceptions (SIMT makes that pretty expensive). For example, putting in hardware for highest possible performance and hardware to be able to hit a page fault and be able to clean up and restart multiple threads (that might be communicating or synchronizing states) are two different hardware optimization points. That being said, some limited support for demand paging is generally possible.
People ride "driverless" elevators everyday without shitting or pissing in them. Why would horizontal movement be so different from vertical movement?
I wish I could be more optimistic than you... For example, BART.
Unlike an elevator, to get into a self-driving-taxi you will need to provide a CC#, or an account number linked to your identity. Your behavior in the vehicle will be recorded by one or more $5 cameras. If you soil the seats, your account will be debited, as you agreed when you clicked on the TOS.
Although a CC is probably a deterrent, ask any taxi driver that works the downtown late-night last-call scene, and they will tell you bodily fluids/solids are routinely ejected in their vehicles. Of course these are the same vehicles used in the daytime...
But the simplest way is to copy the Australians and Canadians.
You get a certain number of points for each year of education and experience, a certain number of points for speaking English fluently, a certain number of points for being in an "in-demand" occupation.
If you score enough points, you pay a few grand to uncle sam, then uncle sam asks you to prove you have enough cash to support yourself for a year and enough for a return ticket (in case it doesn't work out) as well as pass a medical test to make sure you don't have the pox, then sign a contract that you won't try to claim welfare till you've paid at least five years worth of tax (for example).
THEN... after all that, Uncle Sam cuts you a green card and in you come.
Within limits. e.g. no more than 250,000 invididuals per year.
THAT works in Canada and Australia and there not the huge indentured servant problem. It's not tied to company sponsorship.
The point system is great for *merit* based immigration, but in the US, immigration advocates are worried that certain categories of people are underrepresented in the immigration quota, thus we have a *quota* based system for each of Family-Based and Employment-Based and Diversity lottery. Within each of these is a preference level (families based preferences favoring children, spouses and siblings, where employment based favoring advance degrees and exceptional ability over simply professionals and investors).
The problem is that because the way the law is structured to embody diversity quotas instead of points, a maximum of non-exempt 7% of immigrants can come from a *specific* country. This pushes many folks from impacted countries to seek alternative non-immigrant visas like the H1B (temporary worker status) which has it's own issues because it wasn't designed for that. The reason H1B works has a loophole in that you can come right away and work whilst you wait for your green-card (if you come on most other non-immigrant visas, you cannot work and/or apply for a green card). This H1B is also overused by the hi-tech job shop. People often conflate green-cards with H1B. For many, there is nothing stopping you from applying for a green-card with your job offer to come to the US (current green-card processing times are generally about the same as H1B processing times).
For a current viewof priority dates for US green cards, we can see that most are current (which means they process green card applications as received and are processed as fast as a massively inefficient bureaucracy can general move which means about 120 days). As expected, the problematic countries are India and China, but as expected EB-1 (the highest preference employment-based category) is current for all countries (including India and China). The worst is EB-3 India (priority date of 22MAR05 more than 10 years) which is the one flooded by the H1B holders hi-tech job shops
I don't expect that most US voters outside of the hi-tech job distortion field think this is too broken. Exceptional people from all countries get green cards as fast as our grinding government bureaucracy can move. Working stiffs wait in a diversity enforcing quota line. Family doesn't have to wait behind employment. We limit the immigration rate to a manageable amount. It works the way they generally want it to work.
Are people actually going to risk being detained at the airport for hours or being put in jail just to attend an Apple Conference. This is not snark. I am really interested if these kind of things held in the US are still viable. I expect to see more North American international conferences held in Canada. I know that most people attending the conference will be light skinned, but still...
Given the number of H1b's in the US that come from countries that would need visa's to enter Canada (e.g., India, China) for a conference, I expect that very few North American international tech conference that expect a large number of US attendees will attempt to hold them in Canada...
A whole article about this and not a single mention of Gattaca. And you call yourselves nerds.
Actually, I was thinking about the eyeball lab scene from Blade Runner. Just one of many areas where the movie was better than the book Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep...
I really learned something from your comment. It really put some meat on the bone, Yes, for the reasons you so clearly stated, whatever the Chinese do with gene tech will not be pretty or even handed. One would hope that we can move forward with more decency and with a higher ethical standard... But move forward we must. And quickly.
So we aren't going with the lysine contingency route then?
Colored contact lenses solved this problem long ago too...
There's actually a side issue here about genetic prevalence, racial attitudes and (especially) ongoing reactionary racial biases. If one can put aside the historical baggage of Aryan theory for a moment, why *wouldn't* we want to save genetically unique features that are possessed by a small *and dwindling* minority of the population, including (but certainly not limited to) red or blond hair, Nordic-pale skin, blue eyes, etc.?
I think there is an analogy with fuzzy cute animals are the only ones that make it to the endangered species list, but I'll leave it to others to make the case as to why that is...
Slashdot Mirror
comparing education levels and pay in cybersecurity makes me immediately question this studies conclusions. Anyone working in this industry will be aware that beyond your first job interview your degrees mean less than nothing. Experience and industry knowledge is what earns pay levels in cybersecurity and I am not aware of any of my female colleagues that get paid less for the same job.
I think you can even extend that to your first job interview. Nearly everything I know about computers and computer security did not come from any classes I took at University. For me, it all came from hobby time.
When I interview NCGs (new college grads), I have no interest in their degree at all except why they wanted to pursue that degree. I spend all my time trying to figure out what motivates them to learn outside the classroom and see if they have a natural curiosity for the subject. I'm not interested in them solving homework problems, but open-ended problems that probably have multiple solutions all with different cost-benefit tradeoffs. Unfortunately that requires being literate/articulate enough to explain your thought process to someone else. One would think the stereotypical woman would be at least as good if not better at this than the stereotypical man (since stereotypically, women have better language skills than men). However, in my experience, neither are generally better or worse than average (and sadly the average for NCGs is really low). Unfortunately, they don't train for that at Universities (as the Socratic teaching method has long been abandoned by universities) and it shows. Lacking any articulate conversation ability, at least some literacy in the subject is useful. This is where the hobby-time and out-of-classroom intangibles come into play. If I had to wager, I'd say that more men play the role of amateur IT-shleps for their family/friends than women, so there's something to be said about that. Maybe that isn't fair, but life is not fair.
As an interesting data point, over the last 30 years of interviewing people, it seems to me that men are more likely to attempt to BS an answer than a women, maybe most people doing the hiring don't have good BS filters (I know mine isn't perfect), and that accounts for some of the problem. What do they say, fake it until you make it, right?
There was a 2 and 3? Non sense. Why not sequels of Starship Troopers while you are at it!
If ever there was a movie needing re-imaging ... Starship Troopers. I take that back, moving closer to the book (power suits) is not quite re-imagining is it?
I assume you mean this reboot of Starship Troopers...
The project is not a remake or a reboot of director Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 sci-fi movie, studio insiders said. Instead, the filmmakers are going back to the source material — a novel by Robert Heinlein. Nobody who worked on the 1997 film will be involved in the new project.
Mark Swift and Damian Shannon, who wrote the upcoming “Baywatch” comedy starring Zach Efron and Dwayne Johnson, will pen the screenplay.
“Fast & Furious” producer Neal H. Moritz is producing along with Toby Jaffe (both worked on the original “Total Recall”).
I dunno, the jury is out on that one...
Why go through so much effort of learning those silly "letter" thingies, when we could be using emoticons or classic Chinese picture inspired words or hieroglyphics and "save ourselves so much trouble"?
I suspect that given the way emoticons are taking over chat and the fact that the Chinese are taking over the economy, we may be heading in that direction...
For your bemusement...
Also, what comes around, goes around.
Fourty years ago computer science folks decided that they wouldn't be making a profession, but creating a job out of their hobby. Thus they created a job category with no credentialing, no apprenticing, no continuing education requirements, no board certification, so they continue with they hobby with the lowest set of requirements so they could change the world w/o having to deal with the "grown-ups".
Now that hobby has become an industry and a certain amount of "pride" has set in the old-timers. Of course now that the table is set, the next generation of non-grown-ups comes along and wants the same leway. These new arrogant kids are basically the new crop of the old arrogant kids. Some of them will add value, some of them won't (just like the old crop). The big difference is that the barrier to entry is much lower now, so there is probably more chaff than in the past. It doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, though, but you have to look at things with a more critical eye before you jump...
Full disclosure, I *am* one of those old-timers. I just need to look in the mirror to see the same thing as what I see in the young-ins...
Good middlemen make sure that the producer makes more than he would without the middleman, and that the consumer gets more at a better price than he would without the middleman, enough so that the middleman can get his cut. The good middleman never tries to cut off non-middleman transactions, because he doesn't need to.
Middlemen might generate benefit for producers and consumers, but calling the successful ones "good" is often a bit of a stretch.
By working to intimidate/cripple/locking-out/buying-off/killing-off other middlemen, a less scrupulous middleman can assure that a producer has little choice but to use the remaining middleman to distribute their goods because the consumer will have difficulty to purchase the products from anyone else and obtain these benefits. After this all happens, the non-middleman transactions are a vanishingly small part of the business so they don't need to do anything about it. I wouldn't generally call any of these middlemen behaviors "good", as the typical competitive behavior between middlemen is sometimes a bit bordering the legal boundary (or sometimes blowing way past it), yet it often achieves a similar by appearance locally stable point, but generally slightly sub-optimal for both producers and consumers...
A few examples, LiveNation, Apple iTunes, Amazon, Uber, Drug-gangs, Mafia, etc ...
yeah, they used to trade stocks on the grass in downtown manhattan in the 1700's and 1800's until things grew and they needed a central exchange. same with banks before clearance houses
However, end users still by stocks through brokers (often the same ones from the 1800's), and end users still clear checks through banks (ditto).
The advanced technology is often simply to allow the middlemen to be disrupted by smaller nimbler middle men (e.g., discount stock brokers like e-trade and savings and loan banks, remember them?), but generally do not democratize the field down to the end user... In a way these types of new technology simply allows us to meet our new masters, often same as the old masters...
Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?
I find most people who have grown long in the tooth and accepted 2% raises as normal aren't curious about anything.
Curious. I find many people that hop jobs every couple years to be not curious enough to deeply learn about anything, and are mostly just greener-grass folks looking to trade some sweat for money.
Sometimes staying put for a while correlates with a desire to learn something a bit more than superficially. Although trade skills often be practiced anywhere, learning a business and industry enough (to understand how to create value in a business) often takes more than one project cycle and 23 (or 29) months perspective is a pretty short time to see what generates value for customers and what is unimportant... Generally, if you aren't spending VC money, it's better value to companies to have employees know what is important and what is unimportant over the long term. You can only be twice as good as another ditch digger, but good ideas can be 100x better than bad ideas...
Of course there are companies where little can be learned and there's little reason to stay there at all, and maybe you simply stay there 23 months to make it look like you aren't a job hopper. But that's probably 22 months too long IMHO, as there are generally other fish in the sea...
Because the most useful concepts describe what you're looking at in such a way as you get an accurate perception of what they are. The current non-planet trend for Pluto doesn't do that for me.
If you follow the latest "trends", Pluto is trending back...
Unfortunately, as part of this trend, "that's no moon orbiting around the earth, that's a planet..." And we get 110 "planets"...
All in the spirit that everyone gets a participation medal ;^)
3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programs detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel." That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices -- so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.
I'm pretty good with Windows and Linux desktops... there are steps I can take to check for spyware/malware and deal with them if found.
But my Samsung TV, I haven't the foggiest idea. I don't know how to type commands into it or even what kind of an OS it runs.
If your "desktop" machine has been owned enough with a boot sector style spyware/malware (like a keylogger), I don't think that there are simple steps you can take to detect them (you pretty much have to move your boot drive to a trusted machine to scan/fix it)... Since Smart TVs get manufacturer OTA updates all the time to update their "apps", I suspect Weeping Angel would want to operate on a level similar to a boot sector style spyware/malware and compromise the device on a low enough level to survive a typical OTA...
You have zero knowledge of US history, but I am not surprised. ADA was a brainchild of Reagan. The act was established in 1990 (Reagan/Bush ruled as president from 81-92).
AFAIK, blind activist Patrisha Wright and representative Tom Harkin (Dem who has a deaf brother) were the brainchilds of the ADA. Reagan was against it and he may of actually precipitated it by threatening to revoke Section 504 of the (American) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which was opposed by Nixon and Ford, but passed by Carter) when he was in office.
However, after the Reagan era, Bush1 signed the ADA in 1990... and Bush2 signed the amended version in 1998...
I really want to buy one but at the same time I don't.
Maybe if you don't look at your credit card bill, you can stay in a superposition of 1/2 bought, 1/2 resisted for a while, but as soon as you look, your world will collapse... Or maybe the decision is entangled with your spouse in which case your spouse can spontaneously collapse that decision for you...
What if - and stay with me here for a second, but what if we pumped the water into the clouds? It works for data, surely it would work with water.
I believe we have a pump for that: the sun (not to be confused with sun microsystems). The problem with that is a bunch of environmentalists won't let us build turbines to recover that energy, so we are stuck with these balls...
The X-Files had an episode where a rapid freezing agent was the key enabler to allow people to time travel, but of course that means a future self will come back to kill you because time travel is so messed up, so it never really happens... Or does it?
but, uneducated opinion here, wouldn't any hint of antibiotic slightly related to the pathogen strengthen any bacteria against it?
you know, that whole theory of "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger?"... or does that not apply to the microbiology world?
In the microbiology world, whatever doesn't kill you, but weakens or kills your competitors, makes your progeny (and your resistance) more prevalent. So in the metagenetic sense it makes your germ-line stronger, but it doesn't do much for you specifically (except get rid of your competition).
GPUs are problematic because there's not a good way to compute matrix factorizations on them.
Have you looked at this paper on large matrix factorization?
Making all the other supercomputers Wirth-less.
Or by name, Veert-ually worthless...
I wouldn't call a modern GPU that constrained really. The only thing they lack is memory protection. It's also a lot easier to program on a GPU ever since the SIMT paradigm came out (i.e. CUDA, OpenCL). Also plenty of modern processors come with a GPU on the same die as the CPU. Like nearly all smartphones for example.
Actually all modern GPU have had memory protection for several generations. The problem GPUs have is that don't generally have full support for demand paging and precise exceptions (SIMT makes that pretty expensive). For example, putting in hardware for highest possible performance and hardware to be able to hit a page fault and be able to clean up and restart multiple threads (that might be communicating or synchronizing states) are two different hardware optimization points. That being said, some limited support for demand paging is generally possible.
People ride "driverless" elevators everyday without shitting or pissing in them. Why would horizontal movement be so different from vertical movement?
I wish I could be more optimistic than you... For example, BART.
Unlike an elevator, to get into a self-driving-taxi you will need to provide a CC#, or an account number linked to your identity. Your behavior in the vehicle will be recorded by one or more $5 cameras. If you soil the seats, your account will be debited, as you agreed when you clicked on the TOS.
Although a CC is probably a deterrent, ask any taxi driver that works the downtown late-night last-call scene, and they will tell you bodily fluids/solids are routinely ejected in their vehicles. Of course these are the same vehicles used in the daytime...
What is a self-sealing stem bolt?
From DS-9, even hard core trekkies would have a hard time with that plot device reminiscent of Milo Minderbinder or perhaps the internet story of one red paperclip...
This.
But the simplest way is to copy the Australians and Canadians.
You get a certain number of points for each year of education and experience, a certain number of points for speaking English fluently, a certain number of points for being in an "in-demand" occupation.
If you score enough points, you pay a few grand to uncle sam, then uncle sam asks you to prove you have enough cash to support yourself for a year and enough for a return ticket (in case it doesn't work out) as well as pass a medical test to make sure you don't have the pox, then sign a contract that you won't try to claim welfare till you've paid at least five years worth of tax (for example).
THEN... after all that, Uncle Sam cuts you a green card and in you come.
Within limits. e.g. no more than 250,000 invididuals per year.
THAT works in Canada and Australia and there not the huge indentured servant problem. It's not tied to company sponsorship.
The point system is great for *merit* based immigration, but in the US, immigration advocates are worried that certain categories of people are underrepresented in the immigration quota, thus we have a *quota* based system for each of Family-Based and Employment-Based and Diversity lottery. Within each of these is a preference level (families based preferences favoring children, spouses and siblings, where employment based favoring advance degrees and exceptional ability over simply professionals and investors).
The problem is that because the way the law is structured to embody diversity quotas instead of points, a maximum of non-exempt 7% of immigrants can come from a *specific* country. This pushes many folks from impacted countries to seek alternative non-immigrant visas like the H1B (temporary worker status) which has it's own issues because it wasn't designed for that. The reason H1B works has a loophole in that you can come right away and work whilst you wait for your green-card (if you come on most other non-immigrant visas, you cannot work and/or apply for a green card). This H1B is also overused by the hi-tech job shop. People often conflate green-cards with H1B. For many, there is nothing stopping you from applying for a green-card with your job offer to come to the US (current green-card processing times are generally about the same as H1B processing times).
For a current viewof priority dates for US green cards, we can see that most are current (which means they process green card applications as received and are processed as fast as a massively inefficient bureaucracy can general move which means about 120 days). As expected, the problematic countries are India and China, but as expected EB-1 (the highest preference employment-based category) is current for all countries (including India and China). The worst is EB-3 India (priority date of 22MAR05 more than 10 years) which is the one flooded by the H1B holders hi-tech job shops
I don't expect that most US voters outside of the hi-tech job distortion field think this is too broken. Exceptional people from all countries get green cards as fast as our grinding government bureaucracy can move. Working stiffs wait in a diversity enforcing quota line. Family doesn't have to wait behind employment. We limit the immigration rate to a manageable amount. It works the way they generally want it to work.
Are people actually going to risk being detained at the airport for hours or being put in jail just to attend an Apple Conference. This is not snark. I am really interested if these kind of things held in the US are still viable. I expect to see more North American international conferences held in Canada. I know that most people attending the conference will be light skinned, but still...
Given the number of H1b's in the US that come from countries that would need visa's to enter Canada (e.g., India, China) for a conference, I expect that very few North American international tech conference that expect a large number of US attendees will attempt to hold them in Canada...
A whole article about this and not a single mention of Gattaca. And you call yourselves nerds.
Actually, I was thinking about the eyeball lab scene from Blade Runner. Just one of many areas where the movie was better than the book Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep...
I really learned something from your comment. It really put some meat on the bone, Yes, for the reasons you so clearly stated, whatever the Chinese do with gene tech will not be pretty or even handed. One would hope that we can move forward with more decency and with a higher ethical standard... But move forward we must. And quickly.
So we aren't going with the lysine contingency route then?
Well, substitute blue eyes then.
Colored contact lenses solved this problem long ago too...
There's actually a side issue here about genetic prevalence, racial attitudes and (especially) ongoing reactionary racial biases. If one can put aside the historical baggage of Aryan theory for a moment, why *wouldn't* we want to save genetically unique features that are possessed by a small *and dwindling* minority of the population, including (but certainly not limited to) red or blond hair, Nordic-pale skin, blue eyes, etc.?
I think there is an analogy with fuzzy cute animals are the only ones that make it to the endangered species list, but I'll leave it to others to make the case as to why that is...