There is a quota of 80,000 H1Bs per year. This is currently filled randomly, according to a lottery..
Is it? You'd think it was somehow give first dibs to Indians since they make up the majority of them. It's an odd choice when you think about it, if you want immigration, you'd think it would be preferential to have immigrants from places that have similar values/language to your own.
As Boris Johnson, mayor of London said recently, (I'm paraphrasing) It's absurd that anyone from the EU can live and work in Britain freely, but Australians and New Zealanders, ie people who's families originally came from the UK, can't.
I would think that if the US H1B's went to more white, English speaking nationalities, it might not be as big a deal.
I always wondered what that Mexican lift guy who works in the Trump elevator in The Apprentice thinks of his boss's opinions?
That guy has been there since season one. 10 years of operating Donald's elevator only to hear him say that he thinks he's a rapist.
It not always that the people don't want to learn a new skill set, but more times than not, its a matter of cost of training. Its hard to fork down money for a training program if you are not working. Moreover, there is another problem in that people are reluctant to lay down cash on a skill set if they are unsure that it will be used in two years.
I have a solution to this. I never learn anything properly. When I hear some new buzzwords doing the rounds (last time it was AWS and Devops) I learn enough to know the jargon EC2! Bamboo! and wing it. This is enough to get past the head-hunters and even a lot of managers, because the thing with fast moving tech is that no-one else knows it either, so everyone is bluffing to some degree.
With a local order taker, that person sits there whether orders come on or not so you pay for idle time. By outsourcing, you get the benefits of scale, and the client only pays a fee per call, so can manage costs better.
You get ice cream machine broken/rude operator issues even with local workers, so this makes no difference.
They claim, they can't find the talent. Utter BS, often they replaced trained with untrained workers, and have the trained workers train their replacements.
And a lot of them are fucking hopeless.
There's tonnes of them, all with the full suite of certificates that can't even answer the first non-scripted question in an interview. The scary part is that they still get hired. Who hires these people?
Last time I was in the job market I got interviewed by two of those companies. Both times it was a phone interview with someone in India who couldn't speak English well enough to have a conversation with. Why anyone would give companies like this business is beyond me.
Financially it was moderately successful, and the reviews gave it decent scores. I remember watching it when it came out and thinking it was a good movie.
None of this is consistent with "the stench of the box-office flop". The comment is out of line and this needs to be pointed out.
So how does this work? You sue someone from another country, who of course is in no place to defend themselves, since who is going to take time off, travel overseas, hire foreign lawyers, build a defence case against some bullshit claim from someone they've never heard of etc etc.
It seems like easy money for lawsuit trolls...
Who has been convinced? Just because some website I've never visited says so, doesn't make it true. Part of being a critical thinker is not believing something just because you read it.
I would put it somewhere between usual and unusual. It's a little unusual in the inner city suburbs, which are populated by office types, but further out where working class guys have workshops in their garages, they are more common.
Authorities see all those zeros and all precedent and due process go straight out the window; instant door kicking time.
I think you've been watching too many movies. I'd be waiting til some real information came out before casting judgement. Or if trial by tabloid headlines works for you, see where that gets you.
Well apart from that time that they got cracked (yes I realise the encryption wasn't cracked, but the point is that any system as only strong as your weakest part (ie the human).
As a security friend told me once, you have no password strong enough that I can't figure it out by jamming a screwdriver in your ear.
I need to listen more closely because you haven't been paying attention? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I see the "nobody needs" argument EVERY time gun control comes up,
Ok I 'll clarify that, maybe you should stop listening to junk news and current affairs shows, and try and listen to some informed debate instead.
There are nutters on both sides of every argument, you have to decide if you will be one of them, or something better.
It's quite naive to think that a Slashdot user wouldn't create new accounts every so often.
I've been here since before your UID was created, and one thing I've learnt in that time is to always argue the point, not the person....
To counter your bullshit, I found those numbers too, but there is a serious problem with them. They do not count...
Citation? Or are you making stuff up to suit your argument?
Here's another for the excuse mill:
WW1: 10 Million military deaths, 2 million civilians.
Of course none of this matters. US gun ownership has nothing to do with preventing/reducing military invasion, if it did there would also be compulsory military training like in Switzerland and Israel.
That is why they wrote it down as an amendment, because they knew the tyranny would return (the book "The Founders’ Second Amendment" has tons of references on this.)
The tyranny is that you are handcuffed by a document written over 200 years ago. There's some good stuff in there, but like any historical wisdom, not all of it relevant today.
At this point, every citizen of every country has a moral obligation to arm themselves and carry when possible
Even babies? Who protects the babies? What about the disabled or mentally unstable? How about old people? Does your theory allow for armed escorts for all of those incapable of arming themselves?
Of course we know that universal arming doesn't work (see a battelfield for examples), but we do know that disarming does have positive results. Less guns means less gun violence.
I don't understand how so many people on a site like Slashdot are against simple common sense of arming more citizens, when they would not bat an eye when proclaiming that defense in depth was a sound strategy for computer security...
If your endpoint protection was more likely to hose your system and those of your family than protect it, then most people wouldn't use it. Same concept.
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
The police have guns yet still get shot. How does that fit with the theory?
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant.
Seems to be a bit like the Muslims. Where are all the moderate gun owners decrying the acts of the extremist minority? Is there some other rifle association that speaks for moderate gun owners, or is the NRA all there is?
You need to listen to what the anti-gun people say a bit more closely. "Nobody needs..." isn't directed at the real criminals who use one or two guns to kill people, it's directed at the collectors who are quite sensible in their ownership and don't kill anyone.
Maybe it is you that needs to listen a bit more closely becasue I've never heard that argument.
Everyone uses Australia as the example, and in Australia you can still buy and own guns. Regulation is about sorting out legimate, responsible owners from the nutjobs.
No they didn't. I live in Australia AND owned firearms at the time of the buy back. The weapons had to be registered and then if you wanted to continue keeping them you had to get yourself a license for those firearms. If you did that you didn't have to hand them in.
And do you remember what happened immediately afterwards? The King of England invaded and raped your wife! Not so smart now eh?
This is a European country with probably the most liberal gun laws in Europe (they even have shall-issue concealed carry). Yet it doesn't seem to have a gun violence problem -.
If you've ever been to the Czech Republic you'll know why. Hot blonde haired blue eyed babes as far as the eye can see, and most of them will have sex with you for $50. Bring that into the US and your problems will be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a quota of 80,000 H1Bs per year. This is currently filled randomly, according to a lottery. .
Is it? You'd think it was somehow give first dibs to Indians since they make up the majority of them. It's an odd choice when you think about it, if you want immigration, you'd think it would be preferential to have immigrants from places that have similar values/language to your own.
As Boris Johnson, mayor of London said recently, (I'm paraphrasing) It's absurd that anyone from the EU can live and work in Britain freely, but Australians and New Zealanders, ie people who's families originally came from the UK, can't.
I would think that if the US H1B's went to more white, English speaking nationalities, it might not be as big a deal.
I always wondered what that Mexican lift guy who works in the Trump elevator in The Apprentice thinks of his boss's opinions?
That guy has been there since season one. 10 years of operating Donald's elevator only to hear him say that he thinks he's a rapist.
It not always that the people don't want to learn a new skill set, but more times than not, its a matter of cost of training. Its hard to fork down money for a training program if you are not working. Moreover, there is another problem in that people are reluctant to lay down cash on a skill set if they are unsure that it will be used in two years.
I have a solution to this. I never learn anything properly. When I hear some new buzzwords doing the rounds (last time it was AWS and Devops) I learn enough to know the jargon EC2! Bamboo! and wing it. This is enough to get past the head-hunters and even a lot of managers, because the thing with fast moving tech is that no-one else knows it either, so everyone is bluffing to some degree.
With a local order taker, that person sits there whether orders come on or not so you pay for idle time. By outsourcing, you get the benefits of scale, and the client only pays a fee per call, so can manage costs better.
You get ice cream machine broken/rude operator issues even with local workers, so this makes no difference.
They claim, they can't find the talent. Utter BS, often they replaced trained with untrained workers, and have the trained workers train their replacements.
And a lot of them are fucking hopeless.
There's tonnes of them, all with the full suite of certificates that can't even answer the first non-scripted question in an interview. The scary part is that they still get hired. Who hires these people?
1 Infosys 23,816 $76,794 2 Tata Consultancy Services 14,096 $67,673 3 Wipro 8,365 $69,936
Last time I was in the job market I got interviewed by two of those companies. Both times it was a phone interview with someone in India who couldn't speak English well enough to have a conversation with. Why anyone would give companies like this business is beyond me.
Financially it was moderately successful, and the reviews gave it decent scores. I remember watching it when it came out and thinking it was a good movie.
None of this is consistent with "the stench of the box-office flop". The comment is out of line and this needs to be pointed out.
So how does this work? You sue someone from another country, who of course is in no place to defend themselves, since who is going to take time off, travel overseas, hire foreign lawyers, build a defence case against some bullshit claim from someone they've never heard of etc etc.
It seems like easy money for lawsuit trolls...
we have all been convinced to be...
Who has been convinced? Just because some website I've never visited says so, doesn't make it true. Part of being a critical thinker is not believing something just because you read it.
I would put it somewhere between usual and unusual. It's a little unusual in the inner city suburbs, which are populated by office types, but further out where working class guys have workshops in their garages, they are more common.
Authorities see all those zeros and all precedent and due process go straight out the window; instant door kicking time.
I think you've been watching too many movies. I'd be waiting til some real information came out before casting judgement. Or if trial by tabloid headlines works for you, see where that gets you.
Well apart from that time that they got cracked (yes I realise the encryption wasn't cracked, but the point is that any system as only strong as your weakest part (ie the human).
As a security friend told me once, you have no password strong enough that I can't figure it out by jamming a screwdriver in your ear.
Um, no.
A bullet will always be cheaper then a gun.
There is no gun in this analogy
A bullet designed to stop other bullets will cost more than just a regular bullet.
I need to listen more closely because you haven't been paying attention? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I see the "nobody needs" argument EVERY time gun control comes up,
Ok I 'll clarify that, maybe you should stop listening to junk news and current affairs shows, and try and listen to some informed debate instead.
There are nutters on both sides of every argument, you have to decide if you will be one of them, or something better.
It's quite naive to think that a Slashdot user wouldn't create new accounts every so often.
I've been here since before your UID was created, and one thing I've learnt in that time is to always argue the point, not the person....
To counter your bullshit, I found those numbers too, but there is a serious problem with them. They do not count...
Citation? Or are you making stuff up to suit your argument?
Here's another for the excuse mill:
WW1: 10 Million military deaths, 2 million civilians.
Of course none of this matters. US gun ownership has nothing to do with preventing/reducing military invasion, if it did there would also be compulsory military training like in Switzerland and Israel.
That is why they wrote it down as an amendment, because they knew the tyranny would return (the book "The Founders’ Second Amendment" has tons of references on this.)
The tyranny is that you are handcuffed by a document written over 200 years ago. There's some good stuff in there, but like any historical wisdom, not all of it relevant today.
It was a joke. The second Amendment was designed to prevent the King of England invading...
At this point, every citizen of every country has a moral obligation to arm themselves and carry when possible
Even babies? Who protects the babies? What about the disabled or mentally unstable? How about old people? Does your theory allow for armed escorts for all of those incapable of arming themselves?
Of course we know that universal arming doesn't work (see a battelfield for examples), but we do know that disarming does have positive results. Less guns means less gun violence.
I don't understand how so many people on a site like Slashdot are against simple common sense of arming more citizens, when they would not bat an eye when proclaiming that defense in depth was a sound strategy for computer security...
If your endpoint protection was more likely to hose your system and those of your family than protect it, then most people wouldn't use it. Same concept.
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
The police have guns yet still get shot. How does that fit with the theory?
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant.
Seems to be a bit like the Muslims. Where are all the moderate gun owners decrying the acts of the extremist minority? Is there some other rifle association that speaks for moderate gun owners, or is the NRA all there is?
Just like the Russians. Most impolite mother fuckers you'll ever meet.
You need to listen to what the anti-gun people say a bit more closely. "Nobody needs ..." isn't directed at the real criminals who use one or two guns to kill people, it's directed at the collectors who are quite sensible in their ownership and don't kill anyone.
Maybe it is you that needs to listen a bit more closely becasue I've never heard that argument.
Everyone uses Australia as the example, and in Australia you can still buy and own guns. Regulation is about sorting out legimate, responsible owners from the nutjobs.
No they didn't. I live in Australia AND owned firearms at the time of the buy back. The weapons had to be registered and then if you wanted to continue keeping them you had to get yourself a license for those firearms. If you did that you didn't have to hand them in.
And do you remember what happened immediately afterwards? The King of England invaded and raped your wife! Not so smart now eh?
This is a European country with probably the most liberal gun laws in Europe (they even have shall-issue concealed carry). Yet it doesn't seem to have a gun violence problem -.
If you've ever been to the Czech Republic you'll know why. Hot blonde haired blue eyed babes as far as the eye can see, and most of them will have sex with you for $50. Bring that into the US and your problems will be solved.