Perhaps they should just have to explicitly state that they want to run an downloaded program. Enter their password and read a warning.
Ignoring for a second this is the system already in place...
History has demonstrated _repeatedly_ that it doesn't work. Heck, there are malware variants that require the end user to open a password-protected zipfile and execute the contents. Throwing another "are you sure" dialog up does nothing whatsoever to stop people from trying to see the dancing bunnies.
The fundamental problem is this: you cannot secure a platform where an ignorant end user is allowed to run arbitrary software at elevated privileges.
I think you fail to appreicate the proprietary nature of most Windows software. Even the freeware is closed-sourced and copyrighted in such a way that you are not authorized to redistribute it. That means you cannot legally operate a repository containing a library of Windows software from a single source, because you'd have to get written permission from the authors of each individual piece of software allowing you to redistribute their software from your single source. It'd be an absolute nightmare and one mistake would make you end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
That is, of course, not beginning to address the issues surrounding the redistribution of commercial for-pay software. Redistributing that without the express blessing of the creator is usually called "piracy" and may be severely punished by the civil courts.
This is what's called a straw man.
It's a particularly ridiculous one, as well, since by its logic neither brick and mortar, nor online, software stores (like, say, Steam) could exist due to exactly the same copyright and licensing problems. Hopefully the stupidity of this line of reasoning is obvious.
Incidentally, there's no need for Microsoft to maintain a repository of software on behalf of others. All they need is a portal that links to registered products directly from the vendors themselves.
The only way around this would be for Microsoft to create a walled-garden type of environment sort of like Apple's App Store. Then they could dictate what licenses and/or terms of copyright are and are not acceptable. But you better believe that this would raise monopoly issues when that single vendor controls over 90% of the marketshare. Want your software to reach 90% of all desktop users? Then you play by their rules, or else. At that point the software license is no longer between the vendor and the user who is their customer; Microsoft is now the referee whether or not this is against the will of the vendor or user.
There is no _requirement_ whatsoever for any special or unique licensing terms to exist. None.
A centralized package manager for Windows is such a great idea that it would have been implemented by now except that there are some damned good reasons why such a thing is destined to fail miserably.
Package managers exist primarily to address problems that essentially doesn't exist on Windows - or most other platforms for that matter - locating software that will work on your particularly branch of a fractured, inconsistent, unstable platform and minimising dependency hell.
Finally, your whole premise is broken. The proportion of malware distributed as genuine and legitimate software is practically nonexistent. The same people who are prepared to open up password protected zipfiles in Windows and execute the contents will be chomping at the bit to chmod +x an email attachment so they can see the dancing bunnies.
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing.
No, it does not. The only real barrier to something like that on Windows is the usual cries of "monopoly", which tend to be louder on Slashdot than anywhere else.
If Microsoft released Windows with a default configuration that could only install applications they approved of, Slashdot would be in a state of apoplectic outrage, even if it was trivially simple (say, a checkbox in a control panel) to turn that feature off (that is to say, defeat the purpose of having it at all).
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to?
So they can run legitimate software they may have downloaded, compiled, or otherwise acquired themselves ?
what does "health care" mean to you? If you mention technology at all, I'll say that's my point. You don't have health care in the Amazon or on a Island by yourself, except that which you provide for yourself... which is my point.
It's irrelevant because my argument is not whether or not healthcare is a right, merely that a right which cannot be upheld does not exist in any meaningful sense.
You cannot argue that a citizen of an oppressive state who will be executed for speaking out against its leaders has the right to free speech.
And yes, I can provide a list if you need one. Sad that you need one.
Please do. I want to make sure that everything on it is something every person on earth can do, without fear or harm.
Like I asked another person, if society thinks Slavery is okay you're okay with it? Stoning Adulteresses? Sharia Law? Does everyone have to agree or do we just have to agree with you???
So if society thinks it's ok to leave someone in the hospital emergency room to die because they're poor, that's ok with you ? How about if they run out of money halfway through a treatment - just rolling them out into the parking lot and tipping them on the ground would be fine by you if everyone else voted for such a law ? How about if someone is wrongfully accused of a crime ? You're OK with them going to gaol because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves ?
Um, how does it? Lets imagine a scenario with no public schools at all.
Why imagine it ? Just go back a hundred-odd years in history then look at everything before that.
The world wouldn't suddenly collapse, people would just learn more efficiently. People would have a greater deal of specialization which would allow them to better perform in the workplace. Lets face it, why should Joe Sixpack who is really great at, say, diesel mechanics have to read Shakespeare when he can simply be learning how to be a better mechanic?
How do you propose he figures out whether he's better at fixing diesel engines or standing on stage ?
Its silly that we've put people on a treadmill to "higher education" that basically screws the poor and the working-class.
Right. Because having them grow up illiterate and uneducated - or in the best case class-stratified and railroaded into whatever jobs their families already do - wouldn't screw them in the slightest.
Because of government-run schools, a high school diploma is basically worthless, its not a qualification. If you walk into almost every job interview situation and proudly proclaim you graduated high school you will get laughed at. So what happens? Even for entry-level positions employers now want a college degree and that screws the poor.
That has nothing to do with government-run schools and everything to do with a badly run education system.
Consider Joe Sixpack, he is a great diesel mechanic but bad at English, Algebra and History.
How does he know ? Without public schools he's never had the chance to even *try* English, Algebra and History because he's been working 12 hours a day down at the local subway station with his dad shining shoes for a dollar each since he was 5.
So rather than Joe Sixpack being able to really study mechanics and being a better worker, he has to sit through classes that are boring for him and cost taxpayer dollars. Not only that but thanks to a high school degree being basically worthless, Joe Sixpack now has to go to tech school or a university at his own expense basically screwing him financially for the next ten years of his life unless he magically finds a job that doesn't require that, which is rare these days.
You've described a poorly run education system, not any fundamental problem with a publicly funded education system. I'll admit to not being familiar with the American system, but in the systems I am familiar with students are free to start choosing most of their subjects and specialising (outside of a few core requirements like English and Maths) as of about 14 years old.
Post-highschool study is always going to be required if you want to be a skilled worker, of any stripe. In some cases you get this at a University, in others you get it at a trade school, and in still others you get it on the job. The point is that nobody outside of unnatural prodigies can acquire the necessary skills by 17 to be finely skilled at anything, without grossly neglecting the rest of the education and going back to the days of class stratification.
Most people should not go to college its silly that its so forced on people, we now have people only being productive from 22+ years or older and piled on with debt, or too poor to get into college and have a door slammed on them by potential employers for not going to college.
Now you are describing a broken hiring culture in a addition to a broken education system. Again, the problem here has nothing to do with government, it is solely the fault of private enterprise's unrealistic expectations.
The elimination of the public school system would allow for greater specialization, better workers, better innovators who aren't wasting their time and my money.
Bullshit. It would result in the same thing it resulted in previously. Child labor, class stratification, dramatically reduced class mobility, an illiterate, ignorant public and the inaccessibility of education to anyone except rich or extraordinarily lucky individuals.
Public education is, quite possibly, one of the greatest achievements and defining features of modern civilisation.
Why is it that almost every single privately educated student is better educated than a public school educated student despite massive redistribution of wealth?
Because they nearly all come from middle to upper class families and can concentrate on their education, rather that silly frivolities like eating, babysitting their brothers and sisters, and not being shot.
And, most importantly, because they can kick out anyone who might negatively affect their averages or is disruptive to others.
With a private school, they have to make every dollar count.
Your understanding of how private schools function is not in line with reality.
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Private industries breed greed, selfishness and corruption and can never result in a society of equal opportunity because they are inherently divisive.
That's what is happening in every government agency.
It's hardly isolated to government agencies. Most every private company I've worked in functions the same way, with the exception of startups - who simple don't worry about silly little things like budgets at all.
Rights don't require any technology to exist, people to enforce them, they just are. Rights existed 200 years ago, exist today and visa versa.
So you mean you can produce a list of such rights that has been unchanged since the stone age and will never be changed in the future, that everyone in the world agrees on ?
Making such a distinction is hardly arbitrary.
Says the guy equating health care with MRIs and modern hospitals.
The reason why the Ipad sold well is that people are willing to spend extra money to get an Apple. Partly due to fashion (they are 'cooler') and partly due to anti-virus fears, and partly due to a hatred of Windows.
I'm pretty sure I don't fall into any of those categories, yet I'm *nearly* convinced my iPad was worth it. The things I've been using it for in preference to my 13" laptop are:
* Plane travel. The laptop is barely usable in economy at the best of times, as there's barely enough root to fold the screen out. The iPad just sits straight on the tray table with the screen pointing up, or with a bit of creatively can be hung off the back of the seat in front, making it infinitely more usable for things like watching movies.
* The gym. Fits nicely on top of the machines so I can watch what I want to watch, rather than whatever crap they have on, check some email, read/., etc. The laptop is a bit too chunky and the usability of a keyboard + trackpad suffers compared to the touch screen.
* VMworld. The laptop, even with a spare battery, would struggle to make it through a whole day. I was using the iPad for ~10 hours straight and it still had a double-digit percentage of battery remaining (aside, it blew my mind how few powerpoints there were at VMworld - you invite 17k people, 99% of whom are going to have at least a laptop and smartphone, and don't have power strips every 10 feet ? Madness). The same would hold true for any sort of day-long event.
I was very much an iPad - and tablet in general - sceptic. When I bought it, it was with the plan of taking it back at the end of the week of VMworld, or at worst giving it to my wife as a gift since she really wanted one. Now I'm seriously considering getting a second one so we don't have to share (mainly waiting to see how the first Android tablets shape up).
I'll stick with my netbook because I prefer having a real keyboard (even a smaller one). I don't know if it's just me being a late adapter, but I like the feel of real keys over a touchscreen.
Between the two I'd take the touchscreen. A typical netbook keyboard is too cramped to be useful for anything serious. The iPad's touchscreen keyboard is has similar limitations, but at least you don't have to sacrifice the physical space necessary to house it.
Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.
Political contributions are not "speech".
You may wish to argue that contributions should not be restricted - to which I would disagree strongly - but do not conflate them with speech, something they resemble in no way whatsoever.
Yes, H1B holders can change jobs as easily as anyone else. "Finding another sponser" is just "looking for work" by any other name.
No, it's not. Firstly because it costs the employer and/or potential employee $thousands to sponsor a H1B, secondly because the number of H1Bs is limited and thirdly because if the situation is an issue of being fired, rather than looking for another job while already employed, there are severe time constraints.
To say a H1B can change jobs as easily as a citizen or permanent resident is laughable. Heck, even when you have a trivially acquired and practically free visa like mine (E3), it's still not even remotely close to the same thing as being able to pack up and find another job whenever you want.
Health Care is NOT a right. Rights don't depend on other people, they are self evident (exist on their own).
Yes they do, as rights that cannot be upheld are rights that do not exist.
BTW, all three of those things are subject to change, and are changing even as we speak, because we have continued to make privileges into rights, and killing our ability to compete against countries that have no such illusions.
I think you mean countries that don't respect any rights at all, not ones which draw some arbitrary distinction between "rights" and "privileges".
Unless you can point to an example of the latter ?
Yes, I have relatives in Europe who complain endlessly about how crappy their health care system is. They wish they had the option to have a US style health care system.
What prevents them from seeking private medical care with their own money ?
So from what I can tell, these people are near useless.
I used to feel the same way. However, after recently spending several months trying to find a VMware and SAN administrator (with a smattering of Linux also good) with no luck, I eventually turned to a recruiter. Within a week I had a dozen good prospects to pick from, and while I eventually ended up going with someone who applied directly via our website (one of the 3 suitable applicants - out of 100 or so in total - to come from our website+monster+craigslist), it was a bit eye-opening.
(It does not help that the typical American Resume is borderline useless, usually having next to no helpful information about what the person is capable of, just a single page with a few brief bullet points about their previous positions and maybe a short list of skills-related keywords.)
Legally, you have to pay an H1B market rate (and all H1B salaries are public, so it's easy to check), and since an H1B worker can change jobs, he'll leave like anyone else if you try to get too cheap (like anyone else, that can be hard right now).
An H1B visa holder can **NOT** change jobs. His visa is valid only for the specific job he was sponsored for. To change jobs, he needs to find another sponsor (and get a _new_ H1B - which may not be possible), switch to some other visa class (generally not possible, if he wants to work), or leave the country.
Sorry, does that mean they're highly in demand, or completely worthless? The data point you offer in comparison doesn't really mean anything to me.
I can't speak for the WoW edition named, but a boxed copy of the Kilrathi Saga is worth quite a lot - far more than I can imagine anything WoW-related could be, given it's only a few years old.
DirectX was designed to solve precisely one problem: that game developers wrote games for DOS and didn't regard Windows as a sufficiently capable platform for gaming.
No, DirectX was designed to solve this problem:
You might remember games like SimCity 2000 requiring you to select which graphics card you had. It would use accelerated line drawing and blits if they were available.
People seem to forget that DirectX is a lot more than just an interface to your video card. It was created so game devs didn't have to write specific support for video cards, sound cards, input controllers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they should just have to explicitly state that they want to run an downloaded program. Enter their password and read a warning.
Ignoring for a second this is the system already in place...
History has demonstrated _repeatedly_ that it doesn't work. Heck, there are malware variants that require the end user to open a password-protected zipfile and execute the contents. Throwing another "are you sure" dialog up does nothing whatsoever to stop people from trying to see the dancing bunnies.
The fundamental problem is this: you cannot secure a platform where an ignorant end user is allowed to run arbitrary software at elevated privileges.
I think you fail to appreicate the proprietary nature of most Windows software. Even the freeware is closed-sourced and copyrighted in such a way that you are not authorized to redistribute it. That means you cannot legally operate a repository containing a library of Windows software from a single source, because you'd have to get written permission from the authors of each individual piece of software allowing you to redistribute their software from your single source. It'd be an absolute nightmare and one mistake would make you end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
That is, of course, not beginning to address the issues surrounding the redistribution of commercial for-pay software. Redistributing that without the express blessing of the creator is usually called "piracy" and may be severely punished by the civil courts.
This is what's called a straw man.
It's a particularly ridiculous one, as well, since by its logic neither brick and mortar, nor online, software stores (like, say, Steam) could exist due to exactly the same copyright and licensing problems. Hopefully the stupidity of this line of reasoning is obvious.
Incidentally, there's no need for Microsoft to maintain a repository of software on behalf of others. All they need is a portal that links to registered products directly from the vendors themselves.
The only way around this would be for Microsoft to create a walled-garden type of environment sort of like Apple's App Store. Then they could dictate what licenses and/or terms of copyright are and are not acceptable. But you better believe that this would raise monopoly issues when that single vendor controls over 90% of the marketshare. Want your software to reach 90% of all desktop users? Then you play by their rules, or else. At that point the software license is no longer between the vendor and the user who is their customer; Microsoft is now the referee whether or not this is against the will of the vendor or user.
There is no _requirement_ whatsoever for any special or unique licensing terms to exist. None.
A centralized package manager for Windows is such a great idea that it would have been implemented by now except that there are some damned good reasons why such a thing is destined to fail miserably.
Package managers exist primarily to address problems that essentially doesn't exist on Windows - or most other platforms for that matter - locating software that will work on your particularly branch of a fractured, inconsistent, unstable platform and minimising dependency hell.
Finally, your whole premise is broken. The proportion of malware distributed as genuine and legitimate software is practically nonexistent. The same people who are prepared to open up password protected zipfiles in Windows and execute the contents will be chomping at the bit to chmod +x an email attachment so they can see the dancing bunnies.
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing.
No, it does not. The only real barrier to something like that on Windows is the usual cries of "monopoly", which tend to be louder on Slashdot than anywhere else.
If Microsoft released Windows with a default configuration that could only install applications they approved of, Slashdot would be in a state of apoplectic outrage, even if it was trivially simple (say, a checkbox in a control panel) to turn that feature off (that is to say, defeat the purpose of having it at all).
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to?
So they can run legitimate software they may have downloaded, compiled, or otherwise acquired themselves ?
what does "health care" mean to you? If you mention technology at all, I'll say that's my point. You don't have health care in the Amazon or on a Island by yourself, except that which you provide for yourself ... which is my point.
It's irrelevant because my argument is not whether or not healthcare is a right, merely that a right which cannot be upheld does not exist in any meaningful sense.
You cannot argue that a citizen of an oppressive state who will be executed for speaking out against its leaders has the right to free speech.
And yes, I can provide a list if you need one. Sad that you need one.
Please do. I want to make sure that everything on it is something every person on earth can do, without fear or harm.
Like I asked another person, if society thinks Slavery is okay you're okay with it? Stoning Adulteresses? Sharia Law? Does everyone have to agree or do we just have to agree with you???
So if society thinks it's ok to leave someone in the hospital emergency room to die because they're poor, that's ok with you ? How about if they run out of money halfway through a treatment - just rolling them out into the parking lot and tipping them on the ground would be fine by you if everyone else voted for such a law ? How about if someone is wrongfully accused of a crime ? You're OK with them going to gaol because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves ?
Um, how does it? Lets imagine a scenario with no public schools at all.
Why imagine it ? Just go back a hundred-odd years in history then look at everything before that.
The world wouldn't suddenly collapse, people would just learn more efficiently. People would have a greater deal of specialization which would allow them to better perform in the workplace. Lets face it, why should Joe Sixpack who is really great at, say, diesel mechanics have to read Shakespeare when he can simply be learning how to be a better mechanic?
How do you propose he figures out whether he's better at fixing diesel engines or standing on stage ?
Its silly that we've put people on a treadmill to "higher education" that basically screws the poor and the working-class.
Right. Because having them grow up illiterate and uneducated - or in the best case class-stratified and railroaded into whatever jobs their families already do - wouldn't screw them in the slightest.
Because of government-run schools, a high school diploma is basically worthless, its not a qualification. If you walk into almost every job interview situation and proudly proclaim you graduated high school you will get laughed at. So what happens? Even for entry-level positions employers now want a college degree and that screws the poor.
That has nothing to do with government-run schools and everything to do with a badly run education system.
Consider Joe Sixpack, he is a great diesel mechanic but bad at English, Algebra and History.
How does he know ? Without public schools he's never had the chance to even *try* English, Algebra and History because he's been working 12 hours a day down at the local subway station with his dad shining shoes for a dollar each since he was 5.
So rather than Joe Sixpack being able to really study mechanics and being a better worker, he has to sit through classes that are boring for him and cost taxpayer dollars. Not only that but thanks to a high school degree being basically worthless, Joe Sixpack now has to go to tech school or a university at his own expense basically screwing him financially for the next ten years of his life unless he magically finds a job that doesn't require that, which is rare these days.
You've described a poorly run education system, not any fundamental problem with a publicly funded education system. I'll admit to not being familiar with the American system, but in the systems I am familiar with students are free to start choosing most of their subjects and specialising (outside of a few core requirements like English and Maths) as of about 14 years old.
Post-highschool study is always going to be required if you want to be a skilled worker, of any stripe. In some cases you get this at a University, in others you get it at a trade school, and in still others you get it on the job. The point is that nobody outside of unnatural prodigies can acquire the necessary skills by 17 to be finely skilled at anything, without grossly neglecting the rest of the education and going back to the days of class stratification.
Most people should not go to college its silly that its so forced on people, we now have people only being productive from 22+ years or older and piled on with debt, or too poor to get into college and have a door slammed on them by potential employers for not going to college.
Now you are describing a broken hiring culture in a addition to a broken education system. Again, the problem here has nothing to do with government, it is solely the fault of private enterprise's unrealistic expectations.
The elimination of the public school system would allow for greater specialization, better workers, better innovators who aren't wasting their time and my money.
Bullshit. It would result in the same thing it resulted in previously. Child labor, class stratification, dramatically reduced class mobility, an illiterate, ignorant public and the inaccessibility of education to anyone except rich or extraordinarily lucky individuals.
Public education is, quite possibly, one of the greatest achievements and defining features of modern civilisation.
Why is it that almost every single privately educated student is better educated than a public school educated student despite massive redistribution of wealth?
Because they nearly all come from middle to upper class families and can concentrate on their education, rather that silly frivolities like eating, babysitting their brothers and sisters, and not being shot.
And, most importantly, because they can kick out anyone who might negatively affect their averages or is disruptive to others.
With a private school, they have to make every dollar count.
Your understanding of how private schools function is not in line with reality.
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Private industries breed greed, selfishness and corruption and can never result in a society of equal opportunity because they are inherently divisive.
That's what is happening in every government agency.
It's hardly isolated to government agencies. Most every private company I've worked in functions the same way, with the exception of startups - who simple don't worry about silly little things like budgets at all.
Rights don't require any technology to exist, people to enforce them, they just are. Rights existed 200 years ago, exist today and visa versa.
So you mean you can produce a list of such rights that has been unchanged since the stone age and will never be changed in the future, that everyone in the world agrees on ?
Making such a distinction is hardly arbitrary.
Says the guy equating health care with MRIs and modern hospitals.
For instance, a portion of beef, let's say a steak is only 4oz. Do you have any real idea how small that is?
About half the size of a small steak. :)
The reason why the Ipad sold well is that people are willing to spend extra money to get an Apple. Partly due to fashion (they are 'cooler') and partly due to anti-virus fears, and partly due to a hatred of Windows.
I'm pretty sure I don't fall into any of those categories, yet I'm *nearly* convinced my iPad was worth it. The things I've been using it for in preference to my 13" laptop are:
* Plane travel. The laptop is barely usable in economy at the best of times, as there's barely enough root to fold the screen out. The iPad just sits straight on the tray table with the screen pointing up, or with a bit of creatively can be hung off the back of the seat in front, making it infinitely more usable for things like watching movies. /., etc. The laptop is a bit too chunky and the usability of a keyboard + trackpad suffers compared to the touch screen.
* The gym. Fits nicely on top of the machines so I can watch what I want to watch, rather than whatever crap they have on, check some email, read
* VMworld. The laptop, even with a spare battery, would struggle to make it through a whole day. I was using the iPad for ~10 hours straight and it still had a double-digit percentage of battery remaining (aside, it blew my mind how few powerpoints there were at VMworld - you invite 17k people, 99% of whom are going to have at least a laptop and smartphone, and don't have power strips every 10 feet ? Madness). The same would hold true for any sort of day-long event.
I was very much an iPad - and tablet in general - sceptic. When I bought it, it was with the plan of taking it back at the end of the week of VMworld, or at worst giving it to my wife as a gift since she really wanted one. Now I'm seriously considering getting a second one so we don't have to share (mainly waiting to see how the first Android tablets shape up).
I'll stick with my netbook because I prefer having a real keyboard (even a smaller one). I don't know if it's just me being a late adapter, but I like the feel of real keys over a touchscreen.
Between the two I'd take the touchscreen. A typical netbook keyboard is too cramped to be useful for anything serious. The iPad's touchscreen keyboard is has similar limitations, but at least you don't have to sacrifice the physical space necessary to house it.
I was not making my comment from the perspective of what the US legal system may believe.
Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.
Political contributions are not "speech".
You may wish to argue that contributions should not be restricted - to which I would disagree strongly - but do not conflate them with speech, something they resemble in no way whatsoever.
My home server "problems" involve a hell of a lot more disk space than can be attached to one of those things.
It wouldn't.
Not having to keep transcoding every video I have would be a definitely plus, however, as would being able to plug it into a 60" TV.
Yes, H1B holders can change jobs as easily as anyone else. "Finding another sponser" is just "looking for work" by any other name.
No, it's not. Firstly because it costs the employer and/or potential employee $thousands to sponsor a H1B, secondly because the number of H1Bs is limited and thirdly because if the situation is an issue of being fired, rather than looking for another job while already employed, there are severe time constraints.
To say a H1B can change jobs as easily as a citizen or permanent resident is laughable. Heck, even when you have a trivially acquired and practically free visa like mine (E3), it's still not even remotely close to the same thing as being able to pack up and find another job whenever you want.
Health Care is NOT a right. Rights don't depend on other people, they are self evident (exist on their own).
Yes they do, as rights that cannot be upheld are rights that do not exist.
BTW, all three of those things are subject to change, and are changing even as we speak, because we have continued to make privileges into rights, and killing our ability to compete against countries that have no such illusions.
I think you mean countries that don't respect any rights at all, not ones which draw some arbitrary distinction between "rights" and "privileges".
Unless you can point to an example of the latter ?
Yes, I have relatives in Europe who complain endlessly about how crappy their health care system is. They wish they had the option to have a US style health care system.
What prevents them from seeking private medical care with their own money ?
So from what I can tell, these people are near useless.
I used to feel the same way. However, after recently spending several months trying to find a VMware and SAN administrator (with a smattering of Linux also good) with no luck, I eventually turned to a recruiter. Within a week I had a dozen good prospects to pick from, and while I eventually ended up going with someone who applied directly via our website (one of the 3 suitable applicants - out of 100 or so in total - to come from our website+monster+craigslist), it was a bit eye-opening.
(It does not help that the typical American Resume is borderline useless, usually having next to no helpful information about what the person is capable of, just a single page with a few brief bullet points about their previous positions and maybe a short list of skills-related keywords.)
Legally, you have to pay an H1B market rate (and all H1B salaries are public, so it's easy to check), and since an H1B worker can change jobs, he'll leave like anyone else if you try to get too cheap (like anyone else, that can be hard right now).
An H1B visa holder can **NOT** change jobs. His visa is valid only for the specific job he was sponsored for. To change jobs, he needs to find another sponsor (and get a _new_ H1B - which may not be possible), switch to some other visa class (generally not possible, if he wants to work), or leave the country.
Sorry, does that mean they're highly in demand, or completely worthless? The data point you offer in comparison doesn't really mean anything to me.
I can't speak for the WoW edition named, but a boxed copy of the Kilrathi Saga is worth quite a lot - far more than I can imagine anything WoW-related could be, given it's only a few years old.
DirectX was designed to solve precisely one problem: that game developers wrote games for DOS and didn't regard Windows as a sufficiently capable platform for gaming.
No, DirectX was designed to solve this problem:
You might remember games like SimCity 2000 requiring you to select which graphics card you had. It would use accelerated line drawing and blits if they were available.
People seem to forget that DirectX is a lot more than just an interface to your video card. It was created so game devs didn't have to write specific support for video cards, sound cards, input controllers, etc.
Just to make sure I read this correctly...in Australia, the government gives people DEMERITS? What is this, summer camp? Boot camp? What foolishness.
Is there any country whose licensing system does not have the concept of demerit points ?
If you accumulate demerits then should it not read "gain 2 demerits"?
Yes, it should. Whoever wrote the original sentence doesn't know how the system works.