I think the terminology involved here is getting a little confused. The "natural" term you seem to be hanging onto, as I think I understand your definition, is that of... "an organism that interacts with its environment to suit its own pre-determined purpose."
Beaver modifying its environment as compared to humans modifying our environment... I think I get the comparision. And I agree.
However, I think the original meaning behind "natural" was really referring to that of balance. The beaver's evolved to a point of balance within its environment, meaning it can affect an ecosystem, but (and now I'm playing biologist) the turn around for recovery of the environment after the beaver leaves is shorter than say the remains that would be left behind if/when the human race is gone (think nuclear waste or any garbage dump for that matter).
Beavers are typically thought of as rodents (I think). We had some invade a small pond my family frequented. They trashed so many trees without concern for how large the tree was, it was amazing. But the trees will still grow back, it may take a few decades, but it'll happen. For us, the recovery of our impact, I think, is considerably longer. And maybe that's the real concern, that any change we cause on another planet on a global scale could result in several thousand (if not millions?) of years before it gets back to some state of equilibrium.
In reading your post again, maybe we're saying some of the same things. I'm just trying to understand the rationale for NOT doing it at all. I think its an interesting idea (thawing Mars) worth exploring, if not committing to.
I *totally* agree with this. My brother just got married over the weekend and while I have *no* idea what the photographer was paid, but the guy pulled up in a Nissan 350z.
Someone else at the wedding overheard the photographer talking to someone about wanting to purchase a Bently.
My sense is that even if they were prevented from "legally" using those numbers, isn't it still possible that they could (or could have) acquire them through alternate means?
I don't think that we can assume that any numbers on the DNC list are numbers they didn't have already OR, more specifically, could *say* they had them already.
All I know is that whenever the opportunity to sign up for this list came about we signed up. I cannot even remember when the last time it was that we received a call (hallelujia!).
Does anyone know if the potential for this is that it only affects our friends in Oklahoma? I would assume it has to go to a higher court in order for it to affect people in alternate states, but I'm not sure.
I was working on a project a couple years ago where it was decided necessary to hire outside help. I provided the skillset requirements and let others handle the hiring. As a result we hired (temporarily) a fellow from Bangladesh, through a consultant organization.
I can't remember the particulars of his situation, but the place he worked for really had some strick rules. In order for him to work in the US, he needed someone to sponsor his visa (as others have suggested). He wanted a job here, permanently, but in order to do so had to have someone sponsor him through the process.
His family (a wife and a newborn) came over later on. I think it was a condition of his contract that he work several months away from them. I might have that wrong. But there was definitely something time related to the job, either he'd have to work for them for X number years or something simliar.
As I recall the contract fee was cheap, $25k or so over several months. So I can only imagine what he was actually paid. At any moment as well, I belive they could fire/let-him-go and without a visa he'd have to return to Bangladesh. What's more, a lot of the expenses related to the job he had to cover himself (apartment, transportation, travel, etc.).
Eventually I think he was considering moving to Canada because the immigration process would be faster (6 or 7 years!). But this was before the attacks on the World Trade Center so one can only imagine that it's even longer now.
I'm not saying I agree with the whole "ship everything out of the country cuz its cheaper" idea. But opposing H1Bs doesn't solve anything either. Ultimately we're all people who are trying to do the best for either ourselves or our families. Folks in other countries have just as much right to find work as we do. As others have suggested, I don't find it too surprising that they'd indicated no Americans could apply. When the consultant I worked with tried to find work elsewhere, as I recall, some places couldn't hire him because they weren't able to sponsor his visa (or didn't want to), one was a state (wisconsin) funded agency.
Slashdot Mirror
I think more importantly ... what levels/colors could we tie to this new "Patent Threat Advisory System" system?
Completely Hopeless (red)
Hopeless (orange)
Pointless (yellow)
Mostly Harmless (green)
Harmless (blue)
I think the terminology involved here is getting a little confused. The "natural" term you seem to be hanging onto, as I think I understand your definition, is that of ... "an organism that interacts with its environment to suit its own pre-determined purpose."
Beaver modifying its environment as compared to humans modifying our environment... I think I get the comparision. And I agree.
However, I think the original meaning behind "natural" was really referring to that of balance. The beaver's evolved to a point of balance within its environment, meaning it can affect an ecosystem, but (and now I'm playing biologist) the turn around for recovery of the environment after the beaver leaves is shorter than say the remains that would be left behind if/when the human race is gone (think nuclear waste or any garbage dump for that matter).
Beavers are typically thought of as rodents (I think). We had some invade a small pond my family frequented. They trashed so many trees without concern for how large the tree was, it was amazing. But the trees will still grow back, it may take a few decades, but it'll happen. For us, the recovery of our impact, I think, is considerably longer. And maybe that's the real concern, that any change we cause on another planet on a global scale could result in several thousand (if not millions?) of years before it gets back to some state of equilibrium.
In reading your post again, maybe we're saying some of the same things. I'm just trying to understand the rationale for NOT doing it at all. I think its an interesting idea (thawing Mars) worth exploring, if not committing to.
I *totally* agree with this. My brother just got married over the weekend and while I have *no* idea what the photographer was paid, but the guy pulled up in a Nissan 350z.
Someone else at the wedding overheard the photographer talking to someone about wanting to purchase a Bently.
hmmm....maybe I SHOULD use my darkroom more.My sense is that even if they were prevented from "legally" using those numbers, isn't it still possible that they could (or could have) acquire them through alternate means?
I don't think that we can assume that any numbers on the DNC list are numbers they didn't have already OR, more specifically, could *say* they had them already.
All I know is that whenever the opportunity to sign up for this list came about we signed up. I cannot even remember when the last time it was that we received a call (hallelujia!).
Does anyone know if the potential for this is that it only affects our friends in Oklahoma? I would assume it has to go to a higher court in order for it to affect people in alternate states, but I'm not sure.
I was working on a project a couple years ago where it was decided necessary to hire outside help. I provided the skillset requirements and let others handle the hiring. As a result we hired (temporarily) a fellow from Bangladesh, through a consultant organization.
I can't remember the particulars of his situation, but the place he worked for really had some strick rules. In order for him to work in the US, he needed someone to sponsor his visa (as others have suggested). He wanted a job here, permanently, but in order to do so had to have someone sponsor him through the process.
His family (a wife and a newborn) came over later on. I think it was a condition of his contract that he work several months away from them. I might have that wrong. But there was definitely something time related to the job, either he'd have to work for them for X number years or something simliar.
As I recall the contract fee was cheap, $25k or so over several months. So I can only imagine what he was actually paid. At any moment as well, I belive they could fire/let-him-go and without a visa he'd have to return to Bangladesh. What's more, a lot of the expenses related to the job he had to cover himself (apartment, transportation, travel, etc.).
Eventually I think he was considering moving to Canada because the immigration process would be faster (6 or 7 years!). But this was before the attacks on the World Trade Center so one can only imagine that it's even longer now.
I'm not saying I agree with the whole "ship everything out of the country cuz its cheaper" idea. But opposing H1Bs doesn't solve anything either. Ultimately we're all people who are trying to do the best for either ourselves or our families. Folks in other countries have just as much right to find work as we do. As others have suggested, I don't find it too surprising that they'd indicated no Americans could apply. When the consultant I worked with tried to find work elsewhere, as I recall, some places couldn't hire him because they weren't able to sponsor his visa (or didn't want to), one was a state (wisconsin) funded agency.