The best workers do it for love, and are treated with the best resources. The mediocre does do it for money, and are thrown money.
The problem with this specific quote is... I can't tell if you are being genuine and really mean this, or are cynically saying this to reduce how much you would have to pay employees.
I hope you can see that, from my point of view, based on this comment, there is no way for me to tell what kind of person you are. Because someone who wants to manipulate their employees would say the exact same thing.
Finally, I hardly think it's wrong to ask employers to return even a small part of their VAST fortunes to their employees who creates the opportunity for the profit to be made.
I encourage anyone with skin in the game to read the court documents, they are easy to read and really lay out the case for how anti-recruitment agreements (whereby Google agreed not to directly recruit from Apple and vice versa) directly affect overall pay scale. It is laid out clearly, concretely, and isn't just a wishful case. There are a few solid narratives which I think will put google under severe pressure at trial (eg: giving EVERY employee a 10% raise because of Facebook's aggressive recruiting).
First off, it's a FACT that Google's (and other companies) agreements are illegal. That isn't even what this case is about - the DOJ came to a settlement and Google is no longer allowed to make such agreements. This case is about wage impact and class impact. Now that the class action was certified by a judge, there is good chance that in a trial a connection between the illegal activities the companies in question were conducting and class-impact and wages were affected.
Since you used to work at Google, presumably you're a smart person, I hope you can see how your own personal feelings about how recruiters from other companies should or should not behave have little bearing on the actual illegal activities that Google was undertaking.
Now, as a Google employee, you certainly know about the pay bands, right? That your pay is not at the sole discretion of your hiring manager or your manager, but set in a company wide policy that employees of job title X get paid between $A - $B with GSU/RSU/option grants in a specific range as well. There are pay bands for every single title in the company (except maybe executives). Google (and Intel, and many companies) make it a high priority to keep internal equity between employees at given titles (eg: SRE II), so if too many employees were being recruited away and retained they would have to adjust pay, either by giving promotions or adjusting pay bands.
As we know, Google had to elect to do the latter. In response to Facebook recruiting, Google gave across the board 10% raises, and specific raises to SRE titles as well. This is all laid out in court discovery, and is a fact, even Google's lawyers dont deny that.
The class filing has a lot of discovery, a strong narrative, and statistical modeling to demonstrate there was "class wide impact" (aka YOU were affected by your coworkers inability to discover their true worth via getting unsolicited job offers).
Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is... why is this justified? Where's the legal basis for such a strict restriction? Also how does it affect overall market dynamics? Maybe if there was an country-wide law for this, but what purpose would it serve? In a market based economy wages are set by companies bidding for employees. Since a lot of people in this field have jobs nearly all the time, the only way to find out they are unpaid is to be offered a job with a higher pay. There are only 2 ways for this to happen, one is for the employee to seek, the other is for companies to reach out. Why restrict companies?
I think a lot of your arguments are around the notion of definitions of "aggressive", polite or decorum. Legally speaking there isnt any distinction here, and I am not sure the common good is benefited by restricting the function of the market of jobs and employees.
So I am a bit of a pen fan, and I use fountain pens... They arent necessarily the solution for you, but this leads in to a really important consideration...
Paper.
What paper are you using? Maybe try a better quality paper? I use whitelines: http://whitelines.se/
and the paper is AMAZING. No bleed (which is also a factor of paper), thick paper, the white lines is an awesome feature, etc.
DO NOT use the moleskine paper... it is just crappy.
I don't think i'd say it is the 'only behavior' - you're forgetting an important aspect, that of scale. Doing the checks in real time on the SMTP connection isn't always feasible. Just look at qmail.
not to mention the class A/B shares - the company isn't actually answerable to shareholders!
Besides which, google had basically no choice but to go public - the SEC rule would have require them to file financial papers as if they were public - so why not get the benefit as well?
A SS card doesn't event prove that you have the right to work in the US.
For example, H1B non-immigrants are issued SS numbers. And without proof of the continuing validity of the H1B, the SS card alone is not sufficient. The cards say "only valid for work with INS authorization".
The problem is already solved. DMVs also issue "state ID" which is valid for all purposes that a drivers license is used for.
A national ID doesn't solve any particular problem people have on a day to day basis.
I can tell you what a national ID will make worse: identity theft. Oh but wait you say - a national ID is highly verified and impossible to duplicate or forge. Never say never - a national ID will have forgeries. Except since everyone "knows" that a ID is not forgeable, those who will be the unfortunate victim of identity thefts won't be able to get off the hook.
A similar situation has happened recently. Newer model cars with immobilizers are "unstealable" - until they are not. There is a good Wired article about this:
"Since you reportedly can account for all the vehicle keys, the forensic information suggests that the loss did not occur as reported," the company wrote to Wassef, denying his claim. The barely hidden subtext: Wassef was lying."
Now imagine instead of cars we're talking about your identity. If your ID is not forgeable, then anything done with your ID tagged to it is clearly done by you. Now imagine these RFID IDs are in fact trivial to clone with the right equipment... now what?
In the end, what problem are we solving? I keep on hearing in the US the Real ID solves the issue of multiple drivers licenses from multiple states. But if that hole was plugged would it prevent terrorism? Probably not I'm thinking. Then what problem would it really help with? Tracking down and punishing people for trivial crimes will end up being the #1 application of these things.
Except that we are not living in continental Europe and we don't expect to give our ID for "any reason whatsoever".
Lets talk about what Europe does to the gypsies. ID schemes are a form of social control. They require people to do things " a certain way" and live their lives precisely and exactly according to rules.
Now the situation in this particular article is exactly who gets access to the database, and the whole 10m tracking thing. The biggest problem is one of "mission creep". So if someone can read your ID without you knowing, then anyone could, say a grocery store. Or any institution. Or any individual. What happens if I set up a system where i can tell people near me that they've been near me before. I think they'd get pretty creeped out by that. A great way to stalk someone let me tell you.
Just because you think ID cards are working out "great" for you, doesn't mean that (a) they are actually working out great and (b) they'd work out "great" here too. The inconviences are not daily, but in the aggregate, all for what benefits?
- Claimed reduction in "identity theft"
- this problem is uniquely american for 2 reasons that are solvable without ID cards:
- Treating the SSN as a secret that only 1 person knows. Easy to solve.
- Credit card companies are deliberately slack about security. No online pin transactions, no signature verification, etc. - Identifying yourself is easier.
- This is not a real problem people have in their day to day lives. For most people their existing driver's license (or state ID) is sufficient, it has a picture and a signature. Done. Unlike Europeans, American and Canadians don't cross borders often. Being required to extra prove your identity is something that hardly ever happens.
So to summarize: Streamlining bank sign up processes and fixing bank/credit card company problems for them by giving yourself a easy to track ID doesn't seem like a very good trade off to me.
Last but not least, I think you are forgetting these IDs are readable at a LONG DISTANCE. You could drive past people and read their IDs. With some data collection, GPS system and mining you can construct a name -> ID number mapping that in theory only the police should have.
I'll disagree with you here - when you know Java and.NET but don't know anything about memory management, you produce horrible bloated junk. Oh, creating 100 MB/sec of garbage is bad? Who knew?!
Maybe you can get away with hacking together some shitty system, but the second you go beyond that you are in trouble. A full and in depth understanding of how the GC system works comes in real handy at times. If you are trying to do anything at scale, you will need to know these things. Or at least you'll need someone nearby who can come clean up your mess.
Yes, early 90s - but have you checked out universities lately? We're talking cradle to grave Java. Intro to dev in Java, mid level courses in Java, Sr courses in Java. We're graduating people who don't know what pointers are!
COME ON!
And don't tell me Java doesn't have pointers - what do you think references are? Glorified pointers with auto-null checks.
One problem I've seen is Java Developer Syndrome (JDS) - think devs who don't know the difference between Java API names and datastructures that are used to implement them.
Think of someone who when you ask them what a hashtable is, they say 'oh, that's the synchronized version of HashMap'. Tell me that is a quality developer you want to work with. Go ahead, TELL ME.
The Gmail UI interface is one of the best I've seen. The threaded view is so efficient on the screen space and is a great way to read mail lists. It's also great at work too, since replies to old threads brings the whole thing to the top, so everyone on the list gets the whole history right there.
I've used squirrelmail, and I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest that it is better than gmail's UI. The only potential negative is that gmail is not self-hosted.
Just admit it - for your needs/desires you don't like webmail. That doesn't mean there are no benefits or positive things about webmail. If you admitted that you'd be less of an asshole.
I used to work in supply chain at Amazon, thank god I don't anymore.
But simply put, if you have an 'arrives on' date of the 24th or sooner then you will get it on the 24th. If they have to upgrade you from super saver to next day air, then so be it.
Of course due to reasons beyond Amazon's control (eg: vendors didn't deliver) some people don't get what they ordered. In which case we email them on the 23rd after we're certain it's not going (or sooner if possible) and let you know that you won't get it.
I will order my gifts from Amazon this year as much as possible. Beats the hell out of going to a mall. And I have absolute confidence in the supply chain. Plus I have Amazon Prime to second day shipping is free for me.
This is not true - you're describing postal injection, which does not involve sending packages "in the right direction". It's highly calculated and precise - based on zip3 (the first 3 of your zip). Generally most postal injection lanes pick up 3 days/week. If there is no postal injection available and your super-saver shipment is due in 3 days, it'll go UPS ground. Not to mention that PI is expensive to run if there isn't high utilization, hence it isn't run all year long.
There is much more controls on how super-savers are treated. The overriding rule though is to ship by promised-ship date to ensure delivery by the promised delivery date. Check those dates on your order, they are extremely important and used to prioritize everything. Basically the thinking is "we promised to deliver on X so we will do so".
I should know - I designed and coded the controls for these systems.
But what if Google did the 'other thing' that you wanted them to do? What if they allowed the ad... now you have this slippery slope where some trademarked names are ok to use, some aren't, judgement calls, etc.
It's better to adhere to a strict policy. I like this policy because it's fully fair and automatically enforced programatically.
The senator's campaign should have hired some real ad copy writers and come up with a clever 2 sentence ad and placed that.
It's just a trademark case. If the RNC told google to block any ads with the text 'republican national congress' in them, and they held a trademark for such, then Google would do so.
What google does allow is any advertising on any keyword. Meaning the anti-moveon people could come up with an ad that doesn't use the trademarked text 'moveon.org' and still have it show in the search results when people look for 'moveon' as a keyword search.
This is a very fair system. There is no judging of 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' trademark usage, it's fully automated, and it doesn't prevent people from placing anti-X ads against keywords for 'X' whatever X may be - DNC, RNC, libertarian, etc.
people like to paint this picture of this huge dichotomy between 'engineers' and 'artists'. reminds me of the science vs religion epic battle royale in the movie 'Contact'.
But it isn't true. Engineers have artistic leanings, artists have engineering leanings. Engineers don't just crank out 'solutions' and rely on artists to give them 'elegant solutions'.
You talk about how an artist is better equipped to decide what maks a good UI design. Now, if you are saying a mechanical or electrical engineer isn't a good UI designer, you might be right. But there are software engineers who spend their entire life doing user interfaces, and know a good one from a bad one from the perspective of a user.
So what would you have to say to an engineer who can paint and draw? Presumably your head would explode from the paradox of an artistic engineer!
The first part of my post was indicating how the not only is the tax burden lower for H1-B, but it is higher, since you pay for services you are not legally entitled to receive.
Maybe you should start by describing what you want from the high tech employers in this country? In my experience hiring for a large company, the issue is people are (a) unwilling to move or (b) not qualified. There is no tech job shortage, just (as always) a shortage of smart people. Not skilled, but smart people.
As a H1B, I don't have a lower tax burden than you. I pay the same income tax and sales tax as any other citizen, only I on a H1B I wont be able to take advantage of some of the services I'm paying for (Social security anyone?)
The only difference between H1Bs and americans is they cannot start their own company easily. That is about it, it's neither subservience or pampering. My colleagues got paid the same as me, had the same raises and opportunities as me.
A thing you might want to consider, you may not be one of the best and the brightest. Managers will tell you that to butter you up.
San Diego seems kind of like a weird place to be homeless. Maybe you should move? You know, escape the small town?
The problem with parallel programming is we don't have the right set of primitives. Right now the primitives are threads, mutexes, semaphores, shared memory and queues. This is the machine language of concurrency - it's too primitive to effective write lots of code by anyone who isn't a genius.
What we need is more advanced primitives. Here are my 2 or 3 top likely suspects:
- Concurrent Sequential Programs - CSP. This is the programming model behind Erlang - one of the most successful concurrent programming languages available. Writing large, concurrent, robust apps is as simple as 'hello world' in Erlang. There is a whole new way of thinking that is pretty much mind bending. However, it is that new methodology that is key to the concurrency and robustness of the end applications. Be warned, it's functional! - Highly optimizing functional languages (HOFL) - These are in the proto-phase, and there isn't much available, but I think this will be the key to extremely high performance parallel apps. Erlang is nice, but not high performance computing, but HOFLs won't be as safe as Erlang. You get one or the other. The basic concept is most computation in high performance systems is bound up in various loops. A loop is a 'noop' from a semantic point of view. To get efficient highly parallel systems Cray uses loop annotations and special compilers to get more information about loops. In a functional language (such as Haskel) you would use map/fold functions or list comprehensions. Both of which convey more semantic meaning to the compiler. The compiler can auto-parallelize a functional-map where each individual map-computation is not dependent on any other. - Map-reduce - the paper is elegant and really cool. It seems like this is a half way model between C++ and HOFLs that might tide people over.
In the end, the problem is the abstractions. People will consider threads and mutexes as dangerous and unnecessary as we consider manual memory allocation today.
It's not that trivial as slapping up IMAP in front of gmail. The gmail system is not really like other systems - there are no folders, only labels. What do you do if you have an email labeled twice? Is that like the same email copied to 2 different folders?
The problem is gmail is different, and I think it's a good thing. I use gmail and pop download to permanantify my email, and I'm happy.
Slashdot Mirror
The best workers do it for love, and are treated with the best resources. The mediocre does do it for money, and are thrown money.
The problem with this specific quote is... I can't tell if you are being genuine and really mean this, or are cynically saying this to reduce how much you would have to pay employees.
I hope you can see that, from my point of view, based on this comment, there is no way for me to tell what kind of person you are. Because someone who wants to manipulate their employees would say the exact same thing.
Finally, I hardly think it's wrong to ask employers to return even a small part of their VAST fortunes to their employees who creates the opportunity for the profit to be made.
I encourage anyone with skin in the game to read the court documents, they are easy to read and really lay out the case for how anti-recruitment agreements (whereby Google agreed not to directly recruit from Apple and vice versa) directly affect overall pay scale. It is laid out clearly, concretely, and isn't just a wishful case. There are a few solid narratives which I think will put google under severe pressure at trial (eg: giving EVERY employee a 10% raise because of Facebook's aggressive recruiting).
First off, it's a FACT that Google's (and other companies) agreements are illegal. That isn't even what this case is about - the DOJ came to a settlement and Google is no longer allowed to make such agreements. This case is about wage impact and class impact. Now that the class action was certified by a judge, there is good chance that in a trial a connection between the illegal activities the companies in question were conducting and class-impact and wages were affected.
Since you used to work at Google, presumably you're a smart person, I hope you can see how your own personal feelings about how recruiters from other companies should or should not behave have little bearing on the actual illegal activities that Google was undertaking.
Now, as a Google employee, you certainly know about the pay bands, right? That your pay is not at the sole discretion of your hiring manager or your manager, but set in a company wide policy that employees of job title X get paid between $A - $B with GSU/RSU/option grants in a specific range as well. There are pay bands for every single title in the company (except maybe executives). Google (and Intel, and many companies) make it a high priority to keep internal equity between employees at given titles (eg: SRE II), so if too many employees were being recruited away and retained they would have to adjust pay, either by giving promotions or adjusting pay bands.
As we know, Google had to elect to do the latter. In response to Facebook recruiting, Google gave across the board 10% raises, and specific raises to SRE titles as well. This is all laid out in court discovery, and is a fact, even Google's lawyers dont deny that.
The class filing has a lot of discovery, a strong narrative, and statistical modeling to demonstrate there was "class wide impact" (aka YOU were affected by your coworkers inability to discover their true worth via getting unsolicited job offers).
Now, finally, you said "some people have argued... shouldn't even be actively be contacting candidates." The question is ... why is this justified? Where's the legal basis for such a strict restriction? Also how does it affect overall market dynamics? Maybe if there was an country-wide law for this, but what purpose would it serve? In a market based economy wages are set by companies bidding for employees. Since a lot of people in this field have jobs nearly all the time, the only way to find out they are unpaid is to be offered a job with a higher pay. There are only 2 ways for this to happen, one is for the employee to seek, the other is for companies to reach out. Why restrict companies?
I think a lot of your arguments are around the notion of definitions of "aggressive", polite or decorum. Legally speaking there isnt any distinction here, and I am not sure the common good is benefited by restricting the function of the market of jobs and employees.
So I am a bit of a pen fan, and I use fountain pens... They arent necessarily the solution for you, but this leads in to a really important consideration...
Paper.
What paper are you using? Maybe try a better quality paper? I use whitelines:
http://whitelines.se/
and the paper is AMAZING. No bleed (which is also a factor of paper), thick paper, the white lines is an awesome feature, etc.
DO NOT use the moleskine paper... it is just crappy.
I don't think i'd say it is the 'only behavior' - you're forgetting an important aspect, that of scale. Doing the checks in real time on the SMTP connection isn't always feasible. Just look at qmail.
not to mention the class A/B shares - the company isn't actually answerable to shareholders!
Besides which, google had basically no choice but to go public - the SEC rule would have require them to file financial papers as if they were public - so why not get the benefit as well?
A SS card doesn't event prove that you have the right to work in the US.
For example, H1B non-immigrants are issued SS numbers. And without proof of the continuing validity of the H1B, the SS card alone is not sufficient. The cards say "only valid for work with INS authorization".
The problem is already solved. DMVs also issue "state ID" which is valid for all purposes that a drivers license is used for.
A national ID doesn't solve any particular problem people have on a day to day basis.
I can tell you what a national ID will make worse: identity theft. Oh but wait you say - a national ID is highly verified and impossible to duplicate or forge. Never say never - a national ID will have forgeries. Except since everyone "knows" that a ID is not forgeable, those who will be the unfortunate victim of identity thefts won't be able to get off the hook.
A similar situation has happened recently. Newer model cars with immobilizers are "unstealable" - until they are not. There is a good Wired article about this:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey.html
a choice quote:
"Since you reportedly can account for all the vehicle keys, the forensic information suggests that the loss did not occur as reported," the company wrote to Wassef, denying his claim. The barely hidden subtext: Wassef was lying."
Now imagine instead of cars we're talking about your identity. If your ID is not forgeable, then anything done with your ID tagged to it is clearly done by you. Now imagine these RFID IDs are in fact trivial to clone with the right equipment... now what?
In the end, what problem are we solving? I keep on hearing in the US the Real ID solves the issue of multiple drivers licenses from multiple states. But if that hole was plugged would it prevent terrorism? Probably not I'm thinking. Then what problem would it really help with? Tracking down and punishing people for trivial crimes will end up being the #1 application of these things.
Except that we are not living in continental Europe and we don't expect to give our ID for "any reason whatsoever".
Lets talk about what Europe does to the gypsies. ID schemes are a form of social control. They require people to do things " a certain way" and live their lives precisely and exactly according to rules.
Now the situation in this particular article is exactly who gets access to the database, and the whole 10m tracking thing. The biggest problem is one of "mission creep". So if someone can read your ID without you knowing, then anyone could, say a grocery store. Or any institution. Or any individual. What happens if I set up a system where i can tell people near me that they've been near me before. I think they'd get pretty creeped out by that. A great way to stalk someone let me tell you.
Just because you think ID cards are working out "great" for you, doesn't mean that (a) they are actually working out great and (b) they'd work out "great" here too. The inconviences are not daily, but in the aggregate, all for what benefits?
- Claimed reduction in "identity theft"
- this problem is uniquely american for 2 reasons that are solvable without ID cards:
- Treating the SSN as a secret that only 1 person knows. Easy to solve.
- Credit card companies are deliberately slack about security. No online pin transactions, no signature verification, etc.
- Identifying yourself is easier.
- This is not a real problem people have in their day to day lives. For most people their existing driver's license (or state ID) is sufficient, it has a picture and a signature. Done. Unlike Europeans, American and Canadians don't cross borders often. Being required to extra prove your identity is something that hardly ever happens.
So to summarize: Streamlining bank sign up processes and fixing bank/credit card company problems for them by giving yourself a easy to track ID doesn't seem like a very good trade off to me.
Last but not least, I think you are forgetting these IDs are readable at a LONG DISTANCE. You could drive past people and read their IDs. With some data collection, GPS system and mining you can construct a name -> ID number mapping that in theory only the police should have.
I'll disagree with you here - when you know Java and .NET but don't know anything about memory management, you produce horrible bloated junk. Oh, creating 100 MB/sec of garbage is bad? Who knew?!
Maybe you can get away with hacking together some shitty system, but the second you go beyond that you are in trouble. A full and in depth understanding of how the GC system works comes in real handy at times. If you are trying to do anything at scale, you will need to know these things. Or at least you'll need someone nearby who can come clean up your mess.
Agreed - you cannot develop expertly without top to bottom knowledge.
Sure you can make something happen, but when we're talking about making systems _sing_.
Then again, I guess you probably make good bank writing inspiring accounting systems. Grats.
Yes, early 90s - but have you checked out universities lately? We're talking cradle to grave Java. Intro to dev in Java, mid level courses in Java, Sr courses in Java. We're graduating people who don't know what pointers are!
COME ON!
And don't tell me Java doesn't have pointers - what do you think references are? Glorified pointers with auto-null checks.
One problem I've seen is Java Developer Syndrome (JDS) - think devs who don't know the difference between Java API names and datastructures that are used to implement them.
Think of someone who when you ask them what a hashtable is, they say 'oh, that's the synchronized version of HashMap'. Tell me that is a quality developer you want to work with. Go ahead, TELL ME.
The Gmail UI interface is one of the best I've seen. The threaded view is so efficient on the screen space and is a great way to read mail lists. It's also great at work too, since replies to old threads brings the whole thing to the top, so everyone on the list gets the whole history right there.
I've used squirrelmail, and I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest that it is better than gmail's UI. The only potential negative is that gmail is not self-hosted.
Just admit it - for your needs/desires you don't like webmail. That doesn't mean there are no benefits or positive things about webmail. If you admitted that you'd be less of an asshole.
This comment is off base - your shared data is in fact now SHARED.
Things that people cannot see:
- what blogs you are subscribed to
- what items you star
- what you read or dont read
etc
In other words, when you share something, it is in fact shared.
I used to work in supply chain at Amazon, thank god I don't anymore.
But simply put, if you have an 'arrives on' date of the 24th or sooner then you will get it on the 24th. If they have to upgrade you from super saver to next day air, then so be it.
Of course due to reasons beyond Amazon's control (eg: vendors didn't deliver) some people don't get what they ordered. In which case we email them on the 23rd after we're certain it's not going (or sooner if possible) and let you know that you won't get it.
I will order my gifts from Amazon this year as much as possible. Beats the hell out of going to a mall. And I have absolute confidence in the supply chain. Plus I have Amazon Prime to second day shipping is free for me.
This is not true - you're describing postal injection, which does not involve sending packages "in the right direction". It's highly calculated and precise - based on zip3 (the first 3 of your zip). Generally most postal injection lanes pick up 3 days/week. If there is no postal injection available and your super-saver shipment is due in 3 days, it'll go UPS ground. Not to mention that PI is expensive to run if there isn't high utilization, hence it isn't run all year long.
There is much more controls on how super-savers are treated. The overriding rule though is to ship by promised-ship date to ensure delivery by the promised delivery date. Check those dates on your order, they are extremely important and used to prioritize everything. Basically the thinking is "we promised to deliver on X so we will do so".
I should know - I designed and coded the controls for these systems.
But what if Google did the 'other thing' that you wanted them to do? What if they allowed the ad... now you have this slippery slope where some trademarked names are ok to use, some aren't, judgement calls, etc.
It's better to adhere to a strict policy. I like this policy because it's fully fair and automatically enforced programatically.
The senator's campaign should have hired some real ad copy writers and come up with a clever 2 sentence ad and placed that.
The original article is very very wrong.
It's just a trademark case. If the RNC told google to block any ads with the text 'republican national congress' in them, and they held a trademark for such, then Google would do so.
What google does allow is any advertising on any keyword. Meaning the anti-moveon people could come up with an ad that doesn't use the trademarked text 'moveon.org' and still have it show in the search results when people look for 'moveon' as a keyword search.
This is a very fair system. There is no judging of 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' trademark usage, it's fully automated, and it doesn't prevent people from placing anti-X ads against keywords for 'X' whatever X may be - DNC, RNC, libertarian, etc.
Maintaining a high level of customer service is an admirable goal. Why is this "evil"? Note, this isn't closing _adsense_ but the Adsense API.
people like to paint this picture of this huge dichotomy between 'engineers' and 'artists'. reminds me of the science vs religion epic battle royale in the movie 'Contact'.
But it isn't true. Engineers have artistic leanings, artists have engineering leanings. Engineers don't just crank out 'solutions' and rely on artists to give them 'elegant solutions'.
You talk about how an artist is better equipped to decide what maks a good UI design. Now, if you are saying a mechanical or electrical engineer isn't a good UI designer, you might be right. But there are software engineers who spend their entire life doing user interfaces, and know a good one from a bad one from the perspective of a user.
So what would you have to say to an engineer who can paint and draw? Presumably your head would explode from the paradox of an artistic engineer!
Sheesh, modernism is dead. Get over it already!
ffs dude, quit qqing on the 'net and do something with your life.
sheesh. really. the world isnt stacked against you.
The first part of my post was indicating how the not only is the tax burden lower for H1-B, but it is higher, since you pay for services you are not legally entitled to receive.
Maybe you should start by describing what you want from the high tech employers in this country? In my experience hiring for a large company, the issue is people are (a) unwilling to move or (b) not qualified. There is no tech job shortage, just (as always) a shortage of smart people. Not skilled, but smart people.
As a H1B, I don't have a lower tax burden than you. I pay the same income tax and sales tax as any other citizen, only I on a H1B I wont be able to take advantage of some of the services I'm paying for (Social security anyone?)
The only difference between H1Bs and americans is they cannot start their own company easily. That is about it, it's neither subservience or pampering. My colleagues got paid the same as me, had the same raises and opportunities as me.
A thing you might want to consider, you may not be one of the best and the brightest. Managers will tell you that to butter you up.
San Diego seems kind of like a weird place to be homeless. Maybe you should move? You know, escape the small town?
Who is 'they' ? I've worked for 2 employers under the H1-B program, and to the best of my knowledge I was paid on par with my colleagues.
The problem with parallel programming is we don't have the right set of primitives. Right now the primitives are threads, mutexes, semaphores, shared memory and queues. This is the machine language of concurrency - it's too primitive to effective write lots of code by anyone who isn't a genius.
What we need is more advanced primitives. Here are my 2 or 3 top likely suspects:
- Concurrent Sequential Programs - CSP. This is the programming model behind Erlang - one of the most successful concurrent programming languages available. Writing large, concurrent, robust apps is as simple as 'hello world' in Erlang. There is a whole new way of thinking that is pretty much mind bending. However, it is that new methodology that is key to the concurrency and robustness of the end applications. Be warned, it's functional!
- Highly optimizing functional languages (HOFL) - These are in the proto-phase, and there isn't much available, but I think this will be the key to extremely high performance parallel apps. Erlang is nice, but not high performance computing, but HOFLs won't be as safe as Erlang. You get one or the other. The basic concept is most computation in high performance systems is bound up in various loops. A loop is a 'noop' from a semantic point of view. To get efficient highly parallel systems Cray uses loop annotations and special compilers to get more information about loops. In a functional language (such as Haskel) you would use map/fold functions or list comprehensions. Both of which convey more semantic meaning to the compiler. The compiler can auto-parallelize a functional-map where each individual map-computation is not dependent on any other.
- Map-reduce - the paper is elegant and really cool. It seems like this is a half way model between C++ and HOFLs that might tide people over.
In the end, the problem is the abstractions. People will consider threads and mutexes as dangerous and unnecessary as we consider manual memory allocation today.
It's not that trivial as slapping up IMAP in front of gmail. The gmail system is not really like other systems - there are no folders, only labels. What do you do if you have an email labeled twice? Is that like the same email copied to 2 different folders?
The problem is gmail is different, and I think it's a good thing. I use gmail and pop download to permanantify my email, and I'm happy.