I was asking what the difference was. How come one of them is considered "the dumbest question ever", and the other one is standard, even though there's quite a bit in common ?
that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.
It's fairly common for a contractor to have exactly such a contract, otherwise you're making things really hard for yourself when you get hired for a different job, and you need the same piece of code to solve a problem.
I know. Just pointing out that you can be paid for your time, and still keep ownership of the code. In theory, an employee could negotiate a contract that allows him the same.
Clearly, if the H1Bs needed training, then they weren't qualified in the first place.
There's a difference between background/education, and being familiar with the exact work that you're going to do. When I trained my replacements, I explained to them exactly how the code worked. Obviously, that's not something anybody would know, if they weren't involved in the initial design. A person can be called qualified, if they can learn to do this in a timely manner.
So, the businesses that already have hired H1-B holders are doing worse than other businesses ? And now they realized it's been a mistake, and are trying to back pedal ?
In a previous job I had the choice between leaving and leaving with a bonus if I would train my replacements. I took the bonus, which was the rational choice.
An earlier problem is the fact that the sun will slowly get hotter. Nature has been keeping temperatures on earth more or less balanced, because the hotter sun increases rock weathering, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse effect, keeping the earth cool. In about a billion years, there won't be any CO2 left to continue this process, so nothing will stop it from getting hotter. Also, there won't be enough CO2 left for plants.
Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium
And that equilibrium is determined by air temperature. It doesn't matter how many non-permeable surfaces we use, if the atmosphere doesn't heat up, the vapor will just precipitate back out.
As you can see, it's still going up. It's not going up as steep, but that's because the starting date was hotter than the trend. Keep in mind that 1998 was an extremely hot 2-sigma outlier year, whereas 2014 was a normal year, even though 2014 was hotter than 1998.
It's like smoking. There's no immediate threat, but if you continue to smoke, there may be a point 30 years in the future where you'll face an immediate threat of dying from lung cancer. At that point, it will be too late to undo the damage. Of course, as you point out, that doesnt mean that science (yes, the real one, not the anti tabacco religion) wont solve these problems all by itself over the next 20-30 years.
The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.
The same side effects are going to happen anyway when you continue business as usual until fossil fuels run out, except they'll be more severe due to lack of preparation, and they'll be combined with a much hotter climate.
Slashdot Mirror
The employee could trade in some of his salary.
I was asking what the difference was. How come one of them is considered "the dumbest question ever", and the other one is standard, even though there's quite a bit in common ?
that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.
It's fairly common for a contractor to have exactly such a contract, otherwise you're making things really hard for yourself when you get hired for a different job, and you need the same piece of code to solve a problem.
THEY DO NOT PAY YOU BECAUSE THEY LIKE YOU -- THEY PAY YOU FOR OUTPUT
The output could be working code plus a license to use it. It doesn't require the company to have the copyright.
How's it different from a contractor, working for the same company, and using the same resources ?
I know. Just pointing out that you can be paid for your time, and still keep ownership of the code. In theory, an employee could negotiate a contract that allows him the same.
I work as a contractor. People pay me to develop things, but I keep the copyright. They get a license to use it.
it's not a good theory, or practice, even if it did apply to everyone. we live in a society, not some dog-eat-dog nightmare-fantasy hellhole.
That's right. Fuck those poor Indians who think they have a shot a decent income by coming over to the US.
Asking for highly moral business choices is pointless if these business can't compete with less moral ones.
Clearly, if the H1Bs needed training, then they weren't qualified in the first place.
There's a difference between background/education, and being familiar with the exact work that you're going to do. When I trained my replacements, I explained to them exactly how the code worked. Obviously, that's not something anybody would know, if they weren't involved in the initial design. A person can be called qualified, if they can learn to do this in a timely manner.
That's what I thought, but that has nothing to do with having Indian DNA.
So, the businesses that already have hired H1-B holders are doing worse than other businesses ? And now they realized it's been a mistake, and are trying to back pedal ?
Please explain, what's the competitive advantage of somebody from a different culture, background, and speaking english as a 2nd language ?
That doesn't meant that the replacements can't do it better.
Why ? I would think a local employee would have an advantage over a foreign one.
In a previous job I had the choice between leaving and leaving with a bonus if I would train my replacements. I took the bonus, which was the rational choice.
So, it's not the businesses that are to blame. It's the laws that permits them.
Everybody wants cheaper stuff. Are you ashamed of yourself when buying a cheaper consumer article ?
An earlier problem is the fact that the sun will slowly get hotter. Nature has been keeping temperatures on earth more or less balanced, because the hotter sun increases rock weathering, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse effect, keeping the earth cool. In about a billion years, there won't be any CO2 left to continue this process, so nothing will stop it from getting hotter. Also, there won't be enough CO2 left for plants.
Besides that, an inaccurate scientific prediction is wrong by definition
It's wrong but useful, not unlike Newton's theory of motion.
Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium
And that equilibrium is determined by air temperature. It doesn't matter how many non-permeable surfaces we use, if the atmosphere doesn't heat up, the vapor will just precipitate back out.
The exhaled CO2 comes from carbon in the food, and the food took that carbon from the air. It's a short cycle with no net CO2 effect.
You take todays date, you go back in time until you can no longer find a flat line
Here's the same graph, but now with extra trend line between 1997 and 2015:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
As you can see, it's still going up. It's not going up as steep, but that's because the starting date was hotter than the trend. Keep in mind that 1998 was an extremely hot 2-sigma outlier year, whereas 2014 was a normal year, even though 2014 was hotter than 1998.
THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE THREAT
It's like smoking. There's no immediate threat, but if you continue to smoke, there may be a point 30 years in the future where you'll face an immediate threat of dying from lung cancer. At that point, it will be too late to undo the damage. Of course, as you point out, that doesnt mean that science (yes, the real one, not the anti tabacco religion) wont solve these problems all by itself over the next 20-30 years.
The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.
The same side effects are going to happen anyway when you continue business as usual until fossil fuels run out, except they'll be more severe due to lack of preparation, and they'll be combined with a much hotter climate.