Somebody please mod the parent up. I think this is the strongest reason by far. As long as you're ambulatory, why would you waste a vacation day? Yes, it's selfish with regards to coworkers, but the real blame lies in corporate policy that lumps vacation and sick days into one homogenous grouping.
Please refer to the comment above where it is pointed out that H1-B's are specifically for technical positions, and the domestic labor force for this market segment is 2.5 million, NOT 150 million. In that context, 700k workers is %28 of the workforce. I would say that makes a very large difference.
I have worked with many H1-B's, and found that they are neither more or less competent than our American colleagues, on average. The problem is that they are an exploited resource (no real market negotiation, depress true market wages, easily threatened with deportation). I hold no grudge against any of them. My ire is directed entirely at the corporations who abuse the system to the detriment of all.
I'm all for eliminating H1-B's, and allowing open work visas for any qualified candidate. With appropriate safeguards in place to prevent artificial wage deflation, it would attract valuable foreign talent without depressing domestic wages.
Their "poor, unhealthy life choice" puts them at risk for communicable diseases. If you then contract these diseases, you endanger others around you who are at risk, such as infants (pre vaccination age), the sick (weakened immune response), or the elderly (decreased antibody effectiveness).
Other lifestyle choices that affect health (smoking, overeating, not enough exercise) have non communicable repercussions. Obviously second hand smoke is another issue, but the direct diseases smoking causes are not contagious.
Why shouldn't a doctor be able to fire someone who doesn't listen? The doctor has the background and training to make him a domain expert. If the patient thinks he knows better than the trained professional, why is he even bothering going to the doctor in the first place? Or, if it's simply one point he disagrees with (albeit, an arguably big point), then the patient really should find a doctor who's practice aligns more with himself. Of course, for this particular discussion that leaves few options. I sure as hell wouldn't trust any doctor who advocated against vaccines, but to each his own.
Seriously. This crap is just a complete waste of bandwidth. Do we really need an entire day full of this inanity? How about 1 or 2 postings, and call it a day.
"Creationists" and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive:
creationism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
-noun
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
While there are many scientists who find no conflict between their spiritual beliefs and the scientific method, creationists directly reject the scientific method.
Creationism and belief in an initial creation are not the same thing. Belief in creationism, by definition, requires rejection of well established scientific principles of geology, astronomy, evolution, and various other fields of research.
While I am an athiest, I respect other peoples beliefs in spiritual ideas that are beyond the bounds of current science. However, I reject any call for acceptance of beliefs of those who reject well established knowledge based on nothing more than self contradictory texts written by superstitious iron age villagers.
It's actually a rather good set of movies (haven't finished the third one yet), though it does have some disturbing content. It's in Swedish, with English subtitles. All three are currently available on Netflix streaming.
I heard that they're planning an Americanized Hollywood adaptation. I can only expect it to end up as awful and vile as "Point of No Return" was compared to "La Femme Nikita".
I firmly believe most people's beliefs fall into the "moderate" range. It's tiresome and counterproductive to constantly attempt to pigeonhole everything into a liberal/conservative, capitalist/socialist, them/us, good/evil, etc..
I just wish things would be discussed based on the merits of the proposal/concern/idea rather than attempting to divide everything in clear black and white terms.
As far as this particular issue, I find the ruling greatly disturbing. It's troubling enough that goverment has the right of emminent domain, but in it's current definition, it is rarely abused, since no real profit incentive is present to promote abuse. But allowing government to act as an intermediary to sieze private property for a private interest is just begging for abuse. Large bussinesses and corporations already have far too much influence over politics as it is.
I've always felt that a balance should be in place, but weighted more towards the interests of citizens/society than corporations. I'd like to see the following implemented:
Ten year copyright to the original author. The original author is defined as the single "person" or "group of people" who actually wrote/crafted/composed the work in question. Corporations and companies do not qualify as an original author.
The original author may transfer ownership of the work to another entity. Corporations and companies may qualify. This entity is considered the copyright holder, but is NOT considered as the original author.
If the original author still holds ownership of the copyright after the end of the original 10 year term, they may choose to extend it for 1 additional ten year term. The original author must explicitly seek the extension. By default, the work would fall into the public domain. If the original author is no longer the owner of the copyright, or has not maintained sole and exclusive ownership of the copyright for the entire original copyright period, then the copyright cannot be extended. No matter what occurs, all copyrights revert to the public domain after no more than 20 years maximum.
I believe such an arrangement allows plenty of time for an artist/author/composer to profit from their work, while protecting the publics interest of extending the public domain. It would also greatly curtail corporate hoarding of cultural works.
As far as fair use goes, I believe it's time to stop treating citizens as criminals by default. Time shifting, format conversion, and sampling should be completely unencumbered.
As far as the work as a whole is concerned, illegal redistribution should remain so. However, no government should attempt half-assed means to restrict technology with the short sighted goals of protecting copyright holders. Prosecute and punish the violators, not society as a whole.
to prospective Software Engineers. I'd never seen that practice before, but it actually works out quite well. It quickly weeds out those who don't really have a clue about programming. Everybody pads their resume to some degree or another, so it helps to determine who truly knows their stuff from people who merely recant the latest buzzwords.
We use three primary languages here: C, C++, and Java. Depending on the position/group a candidate is being interviewed for, the applicant is given a set of 5 simple problems to solve. They sit in a room with a pad of paper, pens and pencils, and a non-networked PC loaded with our dev toolchain. We're basically checking for the following:
1) Do they really know the language? Too many people claim fluency in a programming language under the belief that they can quickly come up to speed should they get hired. While I do believe that most languages share many common features and a competent geek can learn a new language in a weekend, true mastery takes more time. In this market, most companies hiring a software engineer for a given language expect them to have experience in that language.
2) Can they solve a problem? I'm truly amazed at the number of people out there who can't find a solution to simple problems. We hire software engineers, not programmers. We need thinkers. The tests we use aren't really difficult. Stuff like: given a text file, determine the number of characters, words, and occurences of the phrase "i like cheese".
3) On a more behavioural side of things, we note whether they're able to find their way around the system to perform the test. As I said, we set them at a PC with an xterm open, and a printed problem sheet. Can they find Vi/Emacs? Do they really understand the gnu toolchain? If not, do they ask for assistance? We'd much rather have an applicant ask for help when he needs it than waste an hour trying to muddle through.
This process usually weeds out 95% of the applicants. Of course this is only for basic skill verification. When they pass this round, we then do the face-to-face interviews.
Obviously, this doesn't quite translate to other job positions, but I'm sure there are many engineering type jobs that this sort of hands on test would be useful with.
As far as personality tests, my belief is that only a face to face interview, and of course time, will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody please mod the parent up. I think this is the strongest reason by far. As long as you're ambulatory, why would you waste a vacation day? Yes, it's selfish with regards to coworkers, but the real blame lies in corporate policy that lumps vacation and sick days into one homogenous grouping.
Please refer to the comment above where it is pointed out that H1-B's are specifically for technical positions, and the domestic labor force for this market segment is 2.5 million, NOT 150 million. In that context, 700k workers is %28 of the workforce. I would say that makes a very large difference.
I have worked with many H1-B's, and found that they are neither more or less competent than our American colleagues, on average. The problem is that they are an exploited resource (no real market negotiation, depress true market wages, easily threatened with deportation). I hold no grudge against any of them. My ire is directed entirely at the corporations who abuse the system to the detriment of all.
I'm all for eliminating H1-B's, and allowing open work visas for any qualified candidate. With appropriate safeguards in place to prevent artificial wage deflation, it would attract valuable foreign talent without depressing domestic wages.
Their "poor, unhealthy life choice" puts them at risk for communicable diseases. If you then contract these diseases, you endanger others around you who are at risk, such as infants (pre vaccination age), the sick (weakened immune response), or the elderly (decreased antibody effectiveness).
Other lifestyle choices that affect health (smoking, overeating, not enough exercise) have non communicable repercussions. Obviously second hand smoke is another issue, but the direct diseases smoking causes are not contagious.
Why shouldn't a doctor be able to fire someone who doesn't listen? The doctor has the background and training to make him a domain expert. If the patient thinks he knows better than the trained professional, why is he even bothering going to the doctor in the first place? Or, if it's simply one point he disagrees with (albeit, an arguably big point), then the patient really should find a doctor who's practice aligns more with himself. Of course, for this particular discussion that leaves few options. I sure as hell wouldn't trust any doctor who advocated against vaccines, but to each his own.
Leprosy is caused by a bacterial infection, and is easily cured with common antibiotics.
Seriously. This crap is just a complete waste of bandwidth. Do we really need an entire day full of this inanity? How about 1 or 2 postings, and call it a day.
creationism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
-noun
While there are many scientists who find no conflict between their spiritual beliefs and the scientific method, creationists directly reject the scientific method.
Creationism and belief in an initial creation are not the same thing. Belief in creationism, by definition, requires rejection of well established scientific principles of geology, astronomy, evolution, and various other fields of research.
While I am an athiest, I respect other peoples beliefs in spiritual ideas that are beyond the bounds of current science. However, I reject any call for acceptance of beliefs of those who reject well established knowledge based on nothing more than self contradictory texts written by superstitious iron age villagers.
Based on the books by Steig Larsen (http://www.amazon.com/Girl-Dragon-Tattoo-Millennium-Trilogy/dp/0307473473/ref=tmm_mmp_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1298415990&sr=8-4/).
It's actually a rather good set of movies (haven't finished the third one yet), though it does have some disturbing content. It's in Swedish, with English subtitles. All three are currently available on Netflix streaming.
I heard that they're planning an Americanized Hollywood adaptation. I can only expect it to end up as awful and vile as "Point of No Return" was compared to "La Femme Nikita".
Can anyone recommend a place like this in the SF South Bay area?
Well said!
I firmly believe most people's beliefs fall into the "moderate" range. It's tiresome and counterproductive to constantly attempt to pigeonhole everything into a liberal/conservative, capitalist/socialist, them/us, good/evil, etc..
I just wish things would be discussed based on the merits of the proposal/concern/idea rather than attempting to divide everything in clear black and white terms.
As far as this particular issue, I find the ruling greatly disturbing. It's troubling enough that goverment has the right of emminent domain, but in it's current definition, it is rarely abused, since no real profit incentive is present to promote abuse. But allowing government to act as an intermediary to sieze private property for a private interest is just begging for abuse. Large bussinesses and corporations already have far too much influence over politics as it is.
I've always felt that a balance should be in place, but weighted more towards the interests of citizens/society than corporations. I'd like to see the following implemented:
Ten year copyright to the original author. The original author is defined as the single "person" or "group of people" who actually wrote/crafted/composed the work in question. Corporations and companies do not qualify as an original author.
The original author may transfer ownership of the work to another entity. Corporations and companies may qualify. This entity is considered the copyright holder, but is NOT considered as the original author.
If the original author still holds ownership of the copyright after the end of the original 10 year term, they may choose to extend it for 1 additional ten year term. The original author must explicitly seek the extension. By default, the work would fall into the public domain. If the original author is no longer the owner of the copyright, or has not maintained sole and exclusive ownership of the copyright for the entire original copyright period, then the copyright cannot be extended. No matter what occurs, all copyrights revert to the public domain after no more than 20 years maximum.
I believe such an arrangement allows plenty of time for an artist/author/composer to profit from their work, while protecting the publics interest of extending the public domain. It would also greatly curtail corporate hoarding of cultural works.
As far as fair use goes, I believe it's time to stop treating citizens as criminals by default. Time shifting, format conversion, and sampling should be completely unencumbered.
As far as the work as a whole is concerned, illegal redistribution should remain so. However, no government should attempt half-assed means to restrict technology with the short sighted goals of protecting copyright holders. Prosecute and punish the violators, not society as a whole.
Just my $0.02
to prospective Software Engineers. I'd never seen that practice before, but it actually works out quite well. It quickly weeds out those who don't really have a clue about programming. Everybody pads their resume to some degree or another, so it helps to determine who truly knows their stuff from people who merely recant the latest buzzwords. We use three primary languages here: C, C++, and Java. Depending on the position/group a candidate is being interviewed for, the applicant is given a set of 5 simple problems to solve. They sit in a room with a pad of paper, pens and pencils, and a non-networked PC loaded with our dev toolchain. We're basically checking for the following: 1) Do they really know the language? Too many people claim fluency in a programming language under the belief that they can quickly come up to speed should they get hired. While I do believe that most languages share many common features and a competent geek can learn a new language in a weekend, true mastery takes more time. In this market, most companies hiring a software engineer for a given language expect them to have experience in that language. 2) Can they solve a problem? I'm truly amazed at the number of people out there who can't find a solution to simple problems. We hire software engineers, not programmers. We need thinkers. The tests we use aren't really difficult. Stuff like: given a text file, determine the number of characters, words, and occurences of the phrase "i like cheese". 3) On a more behavioural side of things, we note whether they're able to find their way around the system to perform the test. As I said, we set them at a PC with an xterm open, and a printed problem sheet. Can they find Vi/Emacs? Do they really understand the gnu toolchain? If not, do they ask for assistance? We'd much rather have an applicant ask for help when he needs it than waste an hour trying to muddle through. This process usually weeds out 95% of the applicants. Of course this is only for basic skill verification. When they pass this round, we then do the face-to-face interviews. Obviously, this doesn't quite translate to other job positions, but I'm sure there are many engineering type jobs that this sort of hands on test would be useful with. As far as personality tests, my belief is that only a face to face interview, and of course time, will tell.