The purpose of incarceration is supposed to be reforming the prisoner,
Selective reasoning, and not always true.
Imprisonment has three purposes:
- rehabilitation
- protection of society
- the punishment aspect
The rehabilitation part of incarceration is the exact opposite of the seriousness of the crime: the more serious the crime, the bigger the parts of punishment and protection of society are. This means the rehabilitation will not be a huge part of the sentence. This is especially true in the case of life-without-parole, and in capital cases.
Let me give you an example:
Lisa Montgomery. This offender admitted to strangling a pregnant woman, then cutting the 8-month old fetus out of the womb, then strangling the victim again as she regained consciousness. Again, she admitted, and there is an ocean of evidence against her.
She received the death penalty, but let's say she would have received life without parole. Would that really be any different? Would there really be any aspect of rehabilitation? I don't think so.
On a side note, these are the type of cases that flip the balance in favor of capital punishment, in many peoples opinion. Is that justified? That's up to the voters, who can change laws. But as long as recent votes continue to support capital punishment, it is up to the proponents to come with arguments and get voters to change the law.
A good example of where I personally would not find the death penalty a good idea is the Sierra LaMar case, in Santa Clara county, CA. No body, only bits of DNA found in connection to the suspect. Prosecutors are going for the death penalty. Brr.
Successful people are those who fail and don't give up. The same is true for aeronautical design. If you don't fail a couple of times, you won't win either.
10gb ports for backhaul? What century are you in? We can now DWDM over 1,000 10gb links over a a single industry standard fiber and without signal regeneration or repeaters with about 700km ranges. Keep up with the tech.
Yes, read again. 10GB ports for backhaul. As you are saying yourself:
100gb and 400gb ports are now entering telcoms and 1tb is slated for next year.
Exactly right. So at this time, most equipment will be limited to multiple 10G links in a LAG-group. No matter how great your 1Tb DWDM device is, your layer 3 router (and by that I mean Cisco CRS or Juniper MX960) will still be limited to multiple 10G ports. And yes, I am aware that there are 100G ports, but they are not nearly as common as 10G ports. On top of that, Netflix telling Comcast via a Level 3 proxy to upgrade their 10G LAG to multiple 100G ports because Netflix wants to send their traffic to Comcast customers is exactly my point. I'm not arguing who is right or wrong, but I am saying that this is basically what is going on.
Comcast was dropping traffic on the floor. Traffic that their customers had paid to receive. If Comcast is unhappy with the traffic patterns generated by their customers, they should not do business with those customers, or they should raise the price for them. Deliberately dropping paid-for traffic on the floor is exactly what a decent ISP never does.
Your statement is factually untrue. Comcast is not dropping traffic. Comcast does not have the capacity on their links with Level 3 to accept the traffic, so the traffic is being tail-dropped on the egress-queue of Level 3's equipment.
For providers and data demanded by Comcast customers. I also complain about that, but I'm not in a position to get quoted for it. Does that make it less valid a complaint?
Keep in mind, every bit Netflix ever sent me was at my request. I am responsible for that traffic. Why is Comcast trying to charge someone else for my choice?
That is a very valid comment, from a consumer's point of view. The answer is not simple, but let me try and simplify it.
Consumer broadband connections are always oversubscribed. This means that for every 100Mbps customer, an ISP will have an X amount of actual bandwidth available. For example, an oversubscribtion rate of 1:25 means that for every 25 100Mbps subscribers, only one 100Mbps link will be provisioned. The reason for this is that building a network is ridiculously expensive, and this is the only way to make it affordable for consumers. Another reason is that very few consumers will actually use the bandwidth. For example, I have a 25Mbps link from Charter. If I look at my stats, I barely used 512kbps on average over a month. However, when I do actually download something, I see that my link is more than what I pay for; I usually get over 30Mbps.
Further down the road, that oversubscription becomes a bit blurred. Most large ISPs have big networks, with multiple entry and exit points. In short, there are two ways in which traffic flows from one network to another: via direct peering, or via a paid transit provider. Direct peering is most of the time handled at an Internet Exchange point. Members will all connect to each other, and peer whenever they come to an agreement. Transit is when I pay a third party to transport my packets to someone else. So, let's say I am Comcast, and I need to transport packets to and from AT&T. If I do not have a peering with AT&T, I will find someone who does. Let's say Level 3 Communications does have a peering agreement with AT&T. I can then pay Level 3 Communications to transport my traffic to AT&T. The path will then become: Comcast Level 3 AT&T.
In this example, interconnect 1 is paid, and interconnect 2 may be paid transit or free peering (from Comcast's perspective, that is irrelevant).
There will be many of these entry and exit points. Today, most of these interconnects are at 10 Gigabit Ethernet speeds. This does mean, that in a lot of cases. the aggregate bandwidth between two networks on the internet is 10Gb. Let's turn back to our example. In this case, it is actually reversed. Comcast has a peering agreement with Level 3, and Netflix pays Level 3 for transit traffic. So what ends up happening is:
Comcast Level 3 Netflix
While "peering" sounds free, it is in fact not. Peering requires network ports and backhaul capacity. If Comcast has 1 10G peering port with Level 3, they only need to haul back 10G to the rest of the network. If Comcast upgrades that to 10G, then not only do they need an additional 10G port, but also the capacity to transport that traffic further downstream. This is regardless of the rest of Comcast's network. They may have (and probably will) have hundreds of other 10G peering points elsewhere, with tons of capacity. That is useless here, since all of a sudden all traffic is centralized to 1 entry point.
Now, from Comcast's point of view, I totally understand their reluctance to invest significantly only to haul back the traffic of Netflix, which then makes a profit off of it. Is it the right thing to do? That's debatable. But to bluntly say that all of a sudden Comcast is the root of all evil, that's a bit too far.
It is Comcast creating the bottleneck and it is done deliberately.
Deep inside that article, hidden in the flood of useless words, is the real complaint:
These ISPs break the Internet by refusing to increase the size of their networks unless their tolls are paid
Ah, so that is the true complaint. Michael Mooney is not complaining about their bandwidth being throttled, or about Comcast not willing to peer with them. Michael Mooney is complaining that a business is not willing, or unable, to increase the size of their infrastructure, at a significant cost, to accommodate for OTT (over the top) providers such as Netflix and Youtube.
While it is most certainly valid for Comcast users to expect reasonable upgrades, it is most definitely not up to Level 3, Netflix or anyone else to dictate to Comcast whether or not to invest in a particular area.
You fail to realise just how much the small hobby equipment has caught up with it's military counterparts.
Yeah, and only if the owners of that gear would be responsible in using it. I nearly hit something flying at 3500ft over Palo Alto on a Bay Tour last week. I reported it to Norcal Approach, but there was not much they could do.
What angers me about that is that these idiots fly their toys in class B airspace without caring much about the people that are actually in the air. If I make a mistake, I die. If they make a mistake, I die.
The H class is the only dual-purpose visa the US provides, and is thus the only one that allows a foreign worker to apply while working in the US.
Well, Jim, I'd suggest you have a look at the L1 visa.
Foreign workers holding an L1-A visa are usually classified in EB1c when filing an I-140 and do not even need to apply for labor certification. And as a bonus, are usually eligible to file I-140 and I-485 in one go. My previous manager went from 0 to GC in less than 5 months, on his dual-intent L1 visa.
This was handled similarly to a flaw I discovered, and I think it makes sense. Facebook, for example, has about a billion users. If you have a colleague you trust at Facebook, informing that one colleague can protect Facebook's billion users.
Ah yes, the duckface pictures of a bunch of teens are way more important than, let's say, millions of tax returns.
I would love to do some recreational flying, but I can't afford to with a family and a mortgage and many expenses. And I couldn't justify it as an expensive hobby before then.
I totally understand. However, most flight schools will offer an introductory flight for about $150.
The point was simply that people don't fly because it isn't economically viable to do so. The number of pilot's licenses isn't an indication of people's ability to fly or their inclination to do so. It is an indication of the expense of flying which is partly the result of FAA regulations and the lack of efficient mass production of light aircraft.
Yes, you are 100% correct. The reason why flying is so expensive is because maintenance is so expensive. You can buy an aircraft for the price of a mid-size car (~$30k). However, every 100 hours and every year you'll need inspection. Every 2000 hours you'll need an engine overhaul (or a new engine). And then there is the fuel consumption: your average Cessna 172 (one of the most popular GA aircraft), slurps between 8 and 10 USG of $5/gallon gas per hour.
However, is someone is capable of producing a "flying car" which can do all of that much cheaper, I'm sure a lot of people will find the time and money to earn their pilot's license.
Personally I don't have a pilots license because I don't have the money to waste on something that is of no economic benefit.
Well, I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford a pilot's license and I could not give a rat's ass about the economic benefit. There is nothing better than flying around in an airplane on a sunny day, at 1500ft above the Golden Gate bridge. And I will even go one step further: my first solo flight was the best day of my life. That includes losing my virginity and getting married. Check the continuous smile on this pilot's face during a first solo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....
Who cares about economic benefit. If you can ever afford it, go for it! If you can't afford the license, go take an introductory flight at your local flight school and at least enjoy it for a brief moment.
I'm not an English major, but that was not very obvious.
The backlog occurs as a result of the annual limit on the H1-B
Not true as there is no backlog. Applications that are filed outside of the annual limit, or not selected when a lottery is performed, are rejected. They are not delayed for processing in the next FY, and new applications for the same beneficiary will not get any preferential treatment.
C + D both assume employment and sponsorship by a US based company. That is a given - just like it is for a TN visa.
That is perhaps a given to you, but that is not what you wrote. Remember that you, as someone who as undergone the process of immigration, may understand all the steps and requirements, but some poor schmuck in India reading your post may think that he has a chance if he files his own H1-B paperwork. Yes, the naturalization forms may not be that difficult that you'd need an attorney, but that was not clear from your post...
Unlike many other countries there is no annual limit on the number of TN visas issued. Countries like India and China typically have 5-6 year backlogs (or longer) due to quotas.So as long as you're not looking for permanant residency you can get a TN and just keep renewing it.
If you want to be on the path for "permanent residency" then you need to get an H1-B visa. Which, of course, is more difficult to get. But once you get it, it's good for 6 years. It can only be renewed once. But having an H1-B is a direct path to citizenship. The hard part is getting the H1-B. After that, getting citizenship is easy. You don't even need an attorney. I did mine myself.
You need to get your facts straight.
A: There is no 5-6 year backlog for TN visas for India and China. India and Chinese nationals are not eligible as primary applicant for a TN visa.
B: You could be referring to H1-B visas, but then you would still be mistaken as there is no 5-6 year backlog for those either. H1-B visas are processed on a first-come first-serve basis until the annual limit is reached or when a high number of applications is received (all applications in the first week will usually be put in a lottery system). Unlucky applicants can try again next FY.
C: H1-B is not a direct path to citizenship. The path from H1-B to citizenship requires permanent residence, which requires a sponsoring employer.
D: I suspect you are not being truthful when you say "I did mine myself". That is very difficult, as you generally need an employer to sponsor your permanent residence (form I-140), and BTW, the same goes for your H1-B (form I-129). The only exceptions to the I-140 sponsoring requirements are people who have an extraordinary ability (EB1-A category). If you are able to file all the required paperwork yourself and get it approved, then you are truly extraordinary and I humbly bow to you.
E: It is the permanent residence part that has a huge backlogs, up to 8 years for certain countries.
The correct term for that is "software" these days. Like it or not, that's how it is.
If only software would be the focus of the Gnome foundation. I had a look to check if it would be worth donating some of my cash to. One of the ways to see if your money is spent well, is by looking at the financial statements of the charity you're considering to donate to. I found old statements on their page (http://www.gnome.org/foundation/reports/). Their last financial report goes back to 2011...
According to the financial data in their 2012 status report, 25 percent of their spending went to "Women's Outreach" ($106,741 out of $409,400). While I have no issues with programs helping women getting coding internships, I'm pretty sure the Gnome foundation would not be broke right now if they focused on their mission statement: "The GNOME Foundation will work to further the goal of the GNOME project: to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is completely free software. ", according to their website: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundat....
This looks like a self-inflicted wound, originating out of bad management and diversion from their core mission.
Don't shoot the company that is complying with government wishes. When the FBI knocks on a CEO's door and says "you need to do this and this", the CEO will have little choice but to comply. Yes, in theory he may refuse an order if it is not 100% a requirement per the law, but that will only make his own life difficult. Remember that it is the same government that hands out licenses for the CEO's business, and the same government that collects that CEO's taxes. The government can make life very, very difficult for the CEO, even while staying within the boundaries of the law (tax audits, anyone?).
When focusing on a single company, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. The problem is that the government has little regard for the end-user's privacy, and sacrifices civil liberties in the name of security. It is the government that needs a slap on the hand, not the company that has been "exposed" (but I do agree that morally, the company is on the wrong side in history).
It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!
When I put the sentence "the code running the sight was a mess" in MS Word, it does not show up as spelling error.
How do you call someone that speaks two languages? Bilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks three languages? Trilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks one language? American.
Moral of the story: stop complaining about people who learned English as a second language and be happy that they did.
There was no Tea Party in 2006 for Bush to appease. The Tea Party movement came into existence with Obama's election.
No matter how you try to spin it, your reference to the Tea Party is gratuitous and indefensible.
Well, let's see:
References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier
And this justifies a gratuitous dig at the Tea Party... why?
I'm not digging at the Tea Party. I'm asserting that the government is trying to keep them as a friend by introducing this obligation without calling it a tax.
So you're implying it would be better if the Tea Party didn't oppose NSA wiretapping and encouraged the government to raise additional taxes for the explicit purpose of violating our privacy? Or what?
What I'm implying is that the government first collects taxes from its citizens in order to provide "law enforcement" and "protection", and then taxes the internet access industry for exactly the same thing. Which of course, in the end, gets paid by the users.
In short, the government is collecting money twice from its own citizens, to illegally spy on the same citizens that it should be protecting against illegal activities.
So it basically comes down to an unfunded mandate probably passed down to the very customers the government is spying on.
No, this is basically the government outsourcing the cost of law enforcement to the private sector. Effectively, another form of taxing your local business. But since the TEA party doesn't like that, they called it something else.
The only one living in a bubble is this commie idiot named Erin McElroy. According to her own resume she has done nothing to contribute to society (sorry, I don't call "art" a meaningful contribution: "Grids and Birds and Such", my ass).
I wonder if she gets up in the morning and pees acid instead of urine. Google spends their cash on helping those less fortunate and she's still not happy. If course not, in her Marxist views, making a profit is bad. Go back to Mother Russia, Erin.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of incarceration is supposed to be reforming the prisoner,
Selective reasoning, and not always true.
Imprisonment has three purposes:
- rehabilitation
- protection of society
- the punishment aspect
The rehabilitation part of incarceration is the exact opposite of the seriousness of the crime: the more serious the crime, the bigger the parts of punishment and protection of society are. This means the rehabilitation will not be a huge part of the sentence. This is especially true in the case of life-without-parole, and in capital cases.
Let me give you an example:
Lisa Montgomery. This offender admitted to strangling a pregnant woman, then cutting the 8-month old fetus out of the womb, then strangling the victim again as she regained consciousness. Again, she admitted, and there is an ocean of evidence against her.
She received the death penalty, but let's say she would have received life without parole. Would that really be any different? Would there really be any aspect of rehabilitation? I don't think so.
On a side note, these are the type of cases that flip the balance in favor of capital punishment, in many peoples opinion. Is that justified? That's up to the voters, who can change laws. But as long as recent votes continue to support capital punishment, it is up to the proponents to come with arguments and get voters to change the law.
A good example of where I personally would not find the death penalty a good idea is the Sierra LaMar case, in Santa Clara county, CA. No body, only bits of DNA found in connection to the suspect. Prosecutors are going for the death penalty. Brr.
Successful people are those who fail and don't give up. The same is true for aeronautical design. If you don't fail a couple of times, you won't win either.
10gb ports for backhaul? What century are you in? We can now DWDM over 1,000 10gb links over a a single industry standard fiber and without signal regeneration or repeaters with about 700km ranges. Keep up with the tech.
Yes, read again. 10GB ports for backhaul. As you are saying yourself:
100gb and 400gb ports are now entering telcoms and 1tb is slated for next year.
Exactly right. So at this time, most equipment will be limited to multiple 10G links in a LAG-group. No matter how great your 1Tb DWDM device is, your layer 3 router (and by that I mean Cisco CRS or Juniper MX960) will still be limited to multiple 10G ports. And yes, I am aware that there are 100G ports, but they are not nearly as common as 10G ports. On top of that, Netflix telling Comcast via a Level 3 proxy to upgrade their 10G LAG to multiple 100G ports because Netflix wants to send their traffic to Comcast customers is exactly my point. I'm not arguing who is right or wrong, but I am saying that this is basically what is going on.
--
Sabri
JNCIE #261
Comcast was dropping traffic on the floor. Traffic that their customers had paid to receive. If Comcast is unhappy with the traffic patterns generated by their customers, they should not do business with those customers, or they should raise the price for them. Deliberately dropping paid-for traffic on the floor is exactly what a decent ISP never does.
Your statement is factually untrue. Comcast is not dropping traffic. Comcast does not have the capacity on their links with Level 3 to accept the traffic, so the traffic is being tail-dropped on the egress-queue of Level 3's equipment.
For providers and data demanded by Comcast customers. I also complain about that, but I'm not in a position to get quoted for it. Does that make it less valid a complaint? Keep in mind, every bit Netflix ever sent me was at my request. I am responsible for that traffic. Why is Comcast trying to charge someone else for my choice?
That is a very valid comment, from a consumer's point of view. The answer is not simple, but let me try and simplify it.
Consumer broadband connections are always oversubscribed. This means that for every 100Mbps customer, an ISP will have an X amount of actual bandwidth available. For example, an oversubscribtion rate of 1:25 means that for every 25 100Mbps subscribers, only one 100Mbps link will be provisioned. The reason for this is that building a network is ridiculously expensive, and this is the only way to make it affordable for consumers. Another reason is that very few consumers will actually use the bandwidth. For example, I have a 25Mbps link from Charter. If I look at my stats, I barely used 512kbps on average over a month. However, when I do actually download something, I see that my link is more than what I pay for; I usually get over 30Mbps.
Further down the road, that oversubscription becomes a bit blurred. Most large ISPs have big networks, with multiple entry and exit points. In short, there are two ways in which traffic flows from one network to another: via direct peering, or via a paid transit provider. Direct peering is most of the time handled at an Internet Exchange point. Members will all connect to each other, and peer whenever they come to an agreement. Transit is when I pay a third party to transport my packets to someone else. So, let's say I am Comcast, and I need to transport packets to and from AT&T. If I do not have a peering with AT&T, I will find someone who does. Let's say Level 3 Communications does have a peering agreement with AT&T. I can then pay Level 3 Communications to transport my traffic to AT&T. The path will then become: Comcast Level 3 AT&T.
In this example, interconnect 1 is paid, and interconnect 2 may be paid transit or free peering (from Comcast's perspective, that is irrelevant).
There will be many of these entry and exit points. Today, most of these interconnects are at 10 Gigabit Ethernet speeds. This does mean, that in a lot of cases. the aggregate bandwidth between two networks on the internet is 10Gb. Let's turn back to our example. In this case, it is actually reversed. Comcast has a peering agreement with Level 3, and Netflix pays Level 3 for transit traffic. So what ends up happening is:
Comcast Level 3 Netflix
While "peering" sounds free, it is in fact not. Peering requires network ports and backhaul capacity. If Comcast has 1 10G peering port with Level 3, they only need to haul back 10G to the rest of the network. If Comcast upgrades that to 10G, then not only do they need an additional 10G port, but also the capacity to transport that traffic further downstream. This is regardless of the rest of Comcast's network. They may have (and probably will) have hundreds of other 10G peering points elsewhere, with tons of capacity. That is useless here, since all of a sudden all traffic is centralized to 1 entry point.
Now, from Comcast's point of view, I totally understand their reluctance to invest significantly only to haul back the traffic of Netflix, which then makes a profit off of it. Is it the right thing to do? That's debatable. But to bluntly say that all of a sudden Comcast is the root of all evil, that's a bit too far.
It is Comcast creating the bottleneck and it is done deliberately.
Deep inside that article, hidden in the flood of useless words, is the real complaint:
These ISPs break the Internet by refusing to increase the size of their networks unless their tolls are paid
Ah, so that is the true complaint. Michael Mooney is not complaining about their bandwidth being throttled, or about Comcast not willing to peer with them. Michael Mooney is complaining that a business is not willing, or unable, to increase the size of their infrastructure, at a significant cost, to accommodate for OTT (over the top) providers such as Netflix and Youtube.
While it is most certainly valid for Comcast users to expect reasonable upgrades, it is most definitely not up to Level 3, Netflix or anyone else to dictate to Comcast whether or not to invest in a particular area.
You fail to realise just how much the small hobby equipment has caught up with it's military counterparts.
Yeah, and only if the owners of that gear would be responsible in using it. I nearly hit something flying at 3500ft over Palo Alto on a Bay Tour last week. I reported it to Norcal Approach, but there was not much they could do.
What angers me about that is that these idiots fly their toys in class B airspace without caring much about the people that are actually in the air. If I make a mistake, I die. If they make a mistake, I die.
The H class is the only dual-purpose visa the US provides, and is thus the only one that allows a foreign worker to apply while working in the US.
Well, Jim, I'd suggest you have a look at the L1 visa.
Foreign workers holding an L1-A visa are usually classified in EB1c when filing an I-140 and do not even need to apply for labor certification. And as a bonus, are usually eligible to file I-140 and I-485 in one go. My previous manager went from 0 to GC in less than 5 months, on his dual-intent L1 visa.
This was handled similarly to a flaw I discovered, and I think it makes sense. Facebook, for example, has about a billion users. If you have a colleague you trust at Facebook, informing that one colleague can protect Facebook's billion users.
Ah yes, the duckface pictures of a bunch of teens are way more important than, let's say, millions of tax returns.
I would love to do some recreational flying, but I can't afford to with a family and a mortgage and many expenses. And I couldn't justify it as an expensive hobby before then.
I totally understand. However, most flight schools will offer an introductory flight for about $150.
The point was simply that people don't fly because it isn't economically viable to do so. The number of pilot's licenses isn't an indication of people's ability to fly or their inclination to do so. It is an indication of the expense of flying which is partly the result of FAA regulations and the lack of efficient mass production of light aircraft.
Yes, you are 100% correct. The reason why flying is so expensive is because maintenance is so expensive. You can buy an aircraft for the price of a mid-size car (~$30k). However, every 100 hours and every year you'll need inspection. Every 2000 hours you'll need an engine overhaul (or a new engine). And then there is the fuel consumption: your average Cessna 172 (one of the most popular GA aircraft), slurps between 8 and 10 USG of $5/gallon gas per hour.
However, is someone is capable of producing a "flying car" which can do all of that much cheaper, I'm sure a lot of people will find the time and money to earn their pilot's license.
Personally I don't have a pilots license because I don't have the money to waste on something that is of no economic benefit.
Well, I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford a pilot's license and I could not give a rat's ass about the economic benefit. There is nothing better than flying around in an airplane on a sunny day, at 1500ft above the Golden Gate bridge. And I will even go one step further: my first solo flight was the best day of my life. That includes losing my virginity and getting married. Check the continuous smile on this pilot's face during a first solo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....
Who cares about economic benefit. If you can ever afford it, go for it! If you can't afford the license, go take an introductory flight at your local flight school and at least enjoy it for a brief moment.
I was referring to H1-B visas.
I'm not an English major, but that was not very obvious.
The backlog occurs as a result of the annual limit on the H1-B
Not true as there is no backlog. Applications that are filed outside of the annual limit, or not selected when a lottery is performed, are rejected. They are not delayed for processing in the next FY, and new applications for the same beneficiary will not get any preferential treatment.
C + D both assume employment and sponsorship by a US based company. That is a given - just like it is for a TN visa.
That is perhaps a given to you, but that is not what you wrote. Remember that you, as someone who as undergone the process of immigration, may understand all the steps and requirements, but some poor schmuck in India reading your post may think that he has a chance if he files his own H1-B paperwork. Yes, the naturalization forms may not be that difficult that you'd need an attorney, but that was not clear from your post...
Unlike many other countries there is no annual limit on the number of TN visas issued. Countries like India and China typically have 5-6 year backlogs (or longer) due to quotas.So as long as you're not looking for permanant residency you can get a TN and just keep renewing it. If you want to be on the path for "permanent residency" then you need to get an H1-B visa. Which, of course, is more difficult to get. But once you get it, it's good for 6 years. It can only be renewed once. But having an H1-B is a direct path to citizenship. The hard part is getting the H1-B. After that, getting citizenship is easy. You don't even need an attorney. I did mine myself.
You need to get your facts straight.
A: There is no 5-6 year backlog for TN visas for India and China. India and Chinese nationals are not eligible as primary applicant for a TN visa.
B: You could be referring to H1-B visas, but then you would still be mistaken as there is no 5-6 year backlog for those either. H1-B visas are processed on a first-come first-serve basis until the annual limit is reached or when a high number of applications is received (all applications in the first week will usually be put in a lottery system). Unlucky applicants can try again next FY.
C: H1-B is not a direct path to citizenship. The path from H1-B to citizenship requires permanent residence, which requires a sponsoring employer.
D: I suspect you are not being truthful when you say "I did mine myself". That is very difficult, as you generally need an employer to sponsor your permanent residence (form I-140), and BTW, the same goes for your H1-B (form I-129). The only exceptions to the I-140 sponsoring requirements are people who have an extraordinary ability (EB1-A category). If you are able to file all the required paperwork yourself and get it approved, then you are truly extraordinary and I humbly bow to you.
E: It is the permanent residence part that has a huge backlogs, up to 8 years for certain countries.
The correct term for that is "software" these days. Like it or not, that's how it is.
If only software would be the focus of the Gnome foundation. I had a look to check if it would be worth donating some of my cash to. One of the ways to see if your money is spent well, is by looking at the financial statements of the charity you're considering to donate to. I found old statements on their page (http://www.gnome.org/foundation/reports/). Their last financial report goes back to 2011...
According to the financial data in their 2012 status report, 25 percent of their spending went to "Women's Outreach" ($106,741 out of $409,400). While I have no issues with programs helping women getting coding internships, I'm pretty sure the Gnome foundation would not be broke right now if they focused on their mission statement: "The GNOME Foundation will work to further the goal of the GNOME project: to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is completely free software. ", according to their website: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundat....
This looks like a self-inflicted wound, originating out of bad management and diversion from their core mission.
...terrorism!
No, Lawful Intercept.
Don't shoot the company that is complying with government wishes. When the FBI knocks on a CEO's door and says "you need to do this and this", the CEO will have little choice but to comply. Yes, in theory he may refuse an order if it is not 100% a requirement per the law, but that will only make his own life difficult. Remember that it is the same government that hands out licenses for the CEO's business, and the same government that collects that CEO's taxes. The government can make life very, very difficult for the CEO, even while staying within the boundaries of the law (tax audits, anyone?).
When focusing on a single company, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. The problem is that the government has little regard for the end-user's privacy, and sacrifices civil liberties in the name of security. It is the government that needs a slap on the hand, not the company that has been "exposed" (but I do agree that morally, the company is on the wrong side in history).
It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!
Eye have a spelling chequer,
When I put the sentence "the code running the sight was a mess" in MS Word, it does not show up as spelling error.
How do you call someone that speaks two languages? Bilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks three languages? Trilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks one language? American.
Moral of the story: stop complaining about people who learned English as a second language and be happy that they did.
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...
I'd recommend you to include a link that explains why that particular case was dismissed (spoiler: the judge basically said: this is free speech).
There was no "TEA party" before 2008, period. Really, man up and admit that you were completely wrong.
At least I provide a reference to support my arguments. I suggest you take my example and do the same.
There was no Tea Party in 2006 for Bush to appease. The Tea Party movement came into existence with Obama's election. No matter how you try to spin it, your reference to the Tea Party is gratuitous and indefensible.
Well, let's see:
References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier
source
I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. "The Government" is currently in Democratic hands; they don't give a f*ck about annoying the Tea Party.
I think you have trouble reading. The law enacting this compliance tax was created in 2006. When Mr Bush was president. You know, the GOP one.
And this justifies a gratuitous dig at the Tea Party... why?
I'm not digging at the Tea Party. I'm asserting that the government is trying to keep them as a friend by introducing this obligation without calling it a tax.
So you're implying it would be better if the Tea Party didn't oppose NSA wiretapping and encouraged the government to raise additional taxes for the explicit purpose of violating our privacy? Or what?
What I'm implying is that the government first collects taxes from its citizens in order to provide "law enforcement" and "protection", and then taxes the internet access industry for exactly the same thing. Which of course, in the end, gets paid by the users.
In short, the government is collecting money twice from its own citizens, to illegally spy on the same citizens that it should be protecting against illegal activities.
So it basically comes down to an unfunded mandate probably passed down to the very customers the government is spying on.
No, this is basically the government outsourcing the cost of law enforcement to the private sector. Effectively, another form of taxing your local business. But since the TEA party doesn't like that, they called it something else.
I suggest that you're living in quite a bubble.
The only one living in a bubble is this commie idiot named Erin McElroy. According to her own resume she has done nothing to contribute to society (sorry, I don't call "art" a meaningful contribution: "Grids and Birds and Such", my ass).
I wonder if she gets up in the morning and pees acid instead of urine. Google spends their cash on helping those less fortunate and she's still not happy. If course not, in her Marxist views, making a profit is bad. Go back to Mother Russia, Erin.