It's an app kids use to share videos of themselves posing on your lawn. But it doesn't store videos for you to use as evidence, so you'll have to catch them in the act.
Why would anyone trust Facebook not to store the content? Even if they don't store the video itself, I'd expect them to run voice recognition on it and store and index the text so they can send you ads about whatever you talk about.
Some people watch TV -- for example a baseball game -- and play games at the same time. Split-screen is the worst way to do that though. Microsoft must have had big internal cultural problems for something like that to make it all the way to a final shipping product.
If that was their only problem, they could have recovered more easily. But they also had: - $100 higher price to cover the cost of Kinect -- a device few wanted - the TV stuff and the Snap interface so you could split-screen TV and gaming -- providing a poor TV-watching experience and a poor gaming experience simultaneously - a giant box that looked like a VCR with a big external power brick - somewhat worse performance than the PS4 because of the speed of the RAM interface
It's difficult to dig yourself out of a hole that deep.
The Science! people chose the other side. They've been really nasty and partisan for more than 10 years now. Then their party lost the election and they're crying that the side they chose to make into enemies is cutting their funding.
Here's a clue for the future:
Stop being partisan jerks and go back to studying things. Then next time you can say "we're not political, we just need funding to learn useful new things". It might take a while to make that message believable, but that's the way it goes. Hope you learned something.
Man, you just don't understand how important it is to preach the one true politics. Why do you hate progress? Don't you know the world will end unless we save it by quoting people out of context and telling each other made up stories about the future?
You mean it's not enough to say "elevated storage tanks" (and then feel smugly self-superior)? They don't just appear, along with the solar cells to fill them, and start operating magically?
Because I'm guessing a farmer can just make a call and rent a diesel generator, and have it delivered to his farm within 2-3 days. And make another call to setup periodic refueling.
Why don't they just water their crops with utopian idealism? Or they could power their pumps with apocalyptic predictions of the distant future. Since these are the things that matter most, surely they must make crops grow.
we don't search for a candidate if we're not looking for one.
I've seen it happen though. A manager will decide they want to hire a specific person. But that person has a visa issue. So they go through the motions of pretending to search before they can hire the person they already decided to hire.
When I say we search for a local candidate, we do a legitimate search, bring candidates in for interviews (flying them in if they are from out of area), and then if we don't find someone locally, we'll start interviewing potential H1-B's. If there's a qualified American candidate, there's no reason to take an H1-B over him (or her) -- it's not like we're saving any money with H1-B's -- the highly qualified individuals we hire know the market and won't let us undercut them on salary.
It would be cool if some Americans got the opportunity to improve their positions sometimes. That would mean hiring someone who was only somewhat "qualified" and letting them learn the rest on the job. HR people and recruiters seem to oppose this and use "qualifications" to favor bringing in H1Bs.
I've seen 2 reasons for companies actually preferring H1Bs in my industry:
1. It's a good cultural fit because everyone else is/was an H1B. The Americans are too alien and don't fit in as well. 2. H1Bs can't quit without jeopardizing their residency status. So the company doesn't have to treat them as well as Americans or permanent residents. The company can ask them to work extra long hours or to live in a small apartment in San Jose rather than in the house they could afford to live in anywhere else in the US.
I'm just trying to prove or disprove "companies can't hire an H1B over a local". Because I don't like phony arguments. So far there's not a single example of an H1B losing out to a local because of this requirement.
I'd like to see more "unqualified" applicants get a chance in the US. Many people are capable of doing great work that they can't get hired to do because they don't meet the qualifications.
The companies that I have worked for haven't used them that way. But there's no way a local could ever be hired for a position instead of an H1B if they'd already decided to hire the H1B. They decide on the person they want and then go through an exercise of pretending the job is open to locals. After keeping up the pretense for a while, they hire the H1B.
Those companies pick the best applicant regardless of H1B status. It would only matter if it was a tie, because the H1B would be more of a pain to deal with. But in reality, ties don't happen.
This is what makes the argument that "companies are legally required to hire locals first and H1Bs only when there are no locals available" a phony argument. It's just not how it works.
I'm looking for counter-examples. So far, none. Companies hire who they want. Legal requirements just add time and paperwork but don't really change the outcome.
When there are multiple applications for a job, we only interview H1Bs if there is no local US person applying who seem qualified.
Say you interview 2 locals and decide neither one is a good fit. Are you saying you wouldn't go on to interview an H1B candidate after that because you can't hire an H1B for a position that locals have applied for?
I doubt it. But I'm looking for more info to either confirm or refute my doubts.
I don't think companies hire a local who is an 80% fit for a position over an H1B who is an 85% or 90% fit -- unless they can't get the H1B for other reasons. But if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know.
Because claiming to know the future has become accepted instead of laughed at -- by people who are intelligent enough to know better but not wise enough to avoid being fools.
And no, statements about "searches" aren't really what I'm looking for. Designing a "search" with the objective to find zero "qualified" candidates is trivially easy.
So you would agree that the legal requirement to hire locals instead of H1Bs is essentially fictional in your case? Because that's just not how the hiring process works?
I'm in favor of H1Bs too (with some critically needed reforms).
But I don't like being told "there's a legal requirement to hire locals first" because it's disingenuous -- companies hire who they want, not who they don't want. I want to tell those people who make that argument to be more truthful and to make genuine arguments, not phony ones. And I want to be correct when I say it, hence the question.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an app kids use to share videos of themselves posing on your lawn. But it doesn't store videos for you to use as evidence, so you'll have to catch them in the act.
There's a difference between regular advertising and the creepy follow everyone to every website and profile them that Facebook does.
Why would anyone trust Facebook not to store the content? Even if they don't store the video itself, I'd expect them to run voice recognition on it and store and index the text so they can send you ads about whatever you talk about.
iPad or remote play
Some people watch TV -- for example a baseball game -- and play games at the same time. Split-screen is the worst way to do that though. Microsoft must have had big internal cultural problems for something like that to make it all the way to a final shipping product.
If that was their only problem, they could have recovered more easily. But they also had:
- $100 higher price to cover the cost of Kinect -- a device few wanted
- the TV stuff and the Snap interface so you could split-screen TV and gaming -- providing a poor TV-watching experience and a poor gaming experience simultaneously
- a giant box that looked like a VCR with a big external power brick
- somewhat worse performance than the PS4 because of the speed of the RAM interface
It's difficult to dig yourself out of a hole that deep.
Celebrates trolling people into clicking on bullshit.
You wouldn't like it when it's angry.
The Science! people chose the other side. They've been really nasty and partisan for more than 10 years now. Then their party lost the election and they're crying that the side they chose to make into enemies is cutting their funding.
Here's a clue for the future:
Stop being partisan jerks and go back to studying things. Then next time you can say "we're not political, we just need funding to learn useful new things". It might take a while to make that message believable, but that's the way it goes. Hope you learned something.
It's the next Industrial Revolution. And we're the world leader!
Man, you just don't understand how important it is to preach the one true politics. Why do you hate progress? Don't you know the world will end unless we save it by quoting people out of context and telling each other made up stories about the future?
You mean it's not enough to say "elevated storage tanks" (and then feel smugly self-superior)? They don't just appear, along with the solar cells to fill them, and start operating magically?
Because I'm guessing a farmer can just make a call and rent a diesel generator, and have it delivered to his farm within 2-3 days. And make another call to setup periodic refueling.
Why? What's the half-life of ground water?
Why don't they just water their crops with utopian idealism? Or they could power their pumps with apocalyptic predictions of the distant future. Since these are the things that matter most, surely they must make crops grow.
If no company ever had to hire a local person when they wanted to hire an H1B instead, the requirement is fictional.
we don't search for a candidate if we're not looking for one.
I've seen it happen though. A manager will decide they want to hire a specific person. But that person has a visa issue. So they go through the motions of pretending to search before they can hire the person they already decided to hire.
When I say we search for a local candidate, we do a legitimate search, bring candidates in for interviews (flying them in if they are from out of area), and then if we don't find someone locally, we'll start interviewing potential H1-B's. If there's a qualified American candidate, there's no reason to take an H1-B over him (or her) -- it's not like we're saving any money with H1-B's -- the highly qualified individuals we hire know the market and won't let us undercut them on salary.
It would be cool if some Americans got the opportunity to improve their positions sometimes. That would mean hiring someone who was only somewhat "qualified" and letting them learn the rest on the job. HR people and recruiters seem to oppose this and use "qualifications" to favor bringing in H1Bs.
I've seen 2 reasons for companies actually preferring H1Bs in my industry:
1. It's a good cultural fit because everyone else is/was an H1B. The Americans are too alien and don't fit in as well.
2. H1Bs can't quit without jeopardizing their residency status. So the company doesn't have to treat them as well as Americans or permanent residents. The company can ask them to work extra long hours or to live in a small apartment in San Jose rather than in the house they could afford to live in anywhere else in the US.
I'm just trying to prove or disprove "companies can't hire an H1B over a local". Because I don't like phony arguments. So far there's not a single example of an H1B losing out to a local because of this requirement.
I'd like to see more "unqualified" applicants get a chance in the US. Many people are capable of doing great work that they can't get hired to do because they don't meet the qualifications.
The companies that I have worked for haven't used them that way. But there's no way a local could ever be hired for a position instead of an H1B if they'd already decided to hire the H1B. They decide on the person they want and then go through an exercise of pretending the job is open to locals. After keeping up the pretense for a while, they hire the H1B.
Those companies pick the best applicant regardless of H1B status. It would only matter if it was a tie, because the H1B would be more of a pain to deal with. But in reality, ties don't happen.
This is what makes the argument that "companies are legally required to hire locals first and H1Bs only when there are no locals available" a phony argument. It's just not how it works.
I'm looking for counter-examples. So far, none. Companies hire who they want. Legal requirements just add time and paperwork but don't really change the outcome.
When there are multiple applications for a job, we only interview H1Bs if there is no local US person applying who seem qualified.
Say you interview 2 locals and decide neither one is a good fit. Are you saying you wouldn't go on to interview an H1B candidate after that because you can't hire an H1B for a position that locals have applied for?
I doubt it. But I'm looking for more info to either confirm or refute my doubts.
I don't think companies hire a local who is an 80% fit for a position over an H1B who is an 85% or 90% fit -- unless they can't get the H1B for other reasons. But if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know.
Because claiming to know the future has become accepted instead of laughed at -- by people who are intelligent enough to know better but not wise enough to avoid being fools.
And no, statements about "searches" aren't really what I'm looking for. Designing a "search" with the objective to find zero "qualified" candidates is trivially easy.
So you would agree that the legal requirement to hire locals instead of H1Bs is essentially fictional in your case? Because that's just not how the hiring process works?
I'm in favor of H1Bs too (with some critically needed reforms).
But I don't like being told "there's a legal requirement to hire locals first" because it's disingenuous -- companies hire who they want, not who they don't want. I want to tell those people who make that argument to be more truthful and to make genuine arguments, not phony ones. And I want to be correct when I say it, hence the question.
But that's not the question. Did you ever want to hire a specific H1B for a position, but you had to hire a local person instead? That's the question.
I've never heard of anyone following the rules. Could you elaborate on this happening at "small companies"?