So, wait, the problem is that the wrong minorities are doing the jobs? This is complicated.
There are plenty of open developer jobs in the US. Heck, we have several on my team we can't fill. I strongly suspect people complaining about this either just don't make the cut, or don't want to move to where the jobs are.
It might depend on where you work. My manager stated publicly a couple years ago that he'll be concentrating on offshore contractors and H-1B applicants for all future hires for budgetary reasons. In those two years, partly do to regular churn, and partly due to people getting fed up and leaving, the racial characteristic of the department changed dramatically. So much so that the locals who are left are becoming concerned about their own future. Currently, people with visas and people remoting out of little towns east of Mumbai outnumber US citizens (of any race).
There is a legitimate problem, though, that a disproportionate number of degree holding blacks aren't working in their field. The CEO of McDonald's is an EE. He's not doing bad for himself these days but you have to wonder why he couldn't establish a career as an engineer.
Maybe he didn't want to?
I started out as a microwave engineer in military electronics. After several years I couldn't stand it anymore, learned me that there programming stuff and changed careers to IT. The engineer working next to me quit a year or so before I did. I hear he's fixing CB radios somewhere away from the madding crowd. It does happen, and by choice.
Does the article really mean to say "lack of diversity"? My company's IT department is a little over 80% east Indian, which although technically (probably) meets the definition of "lack of diversity", misses the usual colloquial definition of "too many white guys".
> Jackson spoke to press after meeting with Labor Secretary Tom Perez for a review of H-1B visas, arguing that data show Americans have the skills and should have first access to high-paying tech work.
I usually find myself disagreeing with Jackson, but he seems to be on the right track here. I'm really hoping his involvement doesn't muddy the issue.
And this is different from itunes in what way? I have an ipod wired into my truck's sound system. (It's a feature of the stereo.) The (older style) ipod has an internal hard drive that contains music ripped from three crates of CDs via itunes. How is this different?
And how is this not fair use? The user is presumably the same person who bought the cd. Does the AARC expect me to buy it twice? (I know, stupid question.)
My current company has a firewall for the incoming internet connection. (What sane company doesn't?) We also have individual firewalls on each PC but no individual firewall on any server. I'm not a network administrator -- it's a black box from my viewpoint, but I can rattle it and guess what's inside. The servers, I believe, are protected in two ways -- (1) to get out on the internet, you must go through a proxy, and the servers do not know how to do that. (2) traffic on the server subnets are blocked by the internet firewall, except for a few in a designated DMZ. We run into this all the time when applications have features that report back to vendor tech support, but are always blocked by the firewall. (In one case we had an application that would hang when it couldn't make an ftps connection with the vendor's tech support site -- who the heck uses ftps anymore? We stopped using that app.)
So to answer your question, a well designed network will have clients that can get to the outside through a proxy server, and servers that can't get to the outside at all, and servers that can cautiously get to the outside from the DMZ. The servers that are blocked from getting to the outside by the network don't necessarily have to have individual firewalls, and in fact, local firewalls can cause problems with some applications.
Now, if you're running the back end part of the system on a local PC that can also get out on the internet... whoo boy... that sounds dangerous.
It's definitely worth seeing. The dialog is pretty much word-for-word, and we all know the story. It's the performances and directing that really make the film.
It's like... all your favorite people in the world getting together at a garden house to do Shakespeare. Cozy and fun.
Reminds me of a reporter having a conversation with a 99%er at Occupy Wall Street. She was pushing for everyone to abandon technology (apparently this didn't include ipods) and go back to a strictly agrarian society. The reporter commented something to the effect that this would probably lead to mass urban starvation. Her retort was "well, people die".
I guess that's true. Personally I wondered whether she and her friends even knew anything about proper crop rotation, but then I realized that it really wouldn't matter, because someone better armed would come along and take everything from her little commune anyway. Well, you know, people die.
Time to remake Jurassic Park. And while he's at it, Speilberg can change all the guns to flashlights!
Nah, with all the T-Rexes looking like chickens it just won't be the same... although... just imagine the Kentucky fired drumsticks.
...but having the T-Rexes looking like chickens, and changing their roar to something less intimidating would fit well with changing all the guns to flashlights.
World's gonna end whether I pay or not, right? Then fuck it, I'm going to do the smart thing and give my money to that Asian guy who comes on my TV at about 2 AM every morning, and tells me that if I give him my money, he'll teach me to get as rich as he is.
I think he already did. People just aren't paying attention.
But that method is so passe... Now it's "your miserable existence is ruining the earth. Give me your money so I can fix it." Now that I write that, I realize that it's a very similar mechanism to that used by the megachurches.
Humans are bad. You should feel bad. And give me money so you can feel less bad. I promise I'll use whatever is left over after the upkeep of my seven mansions to save the earth. Mostly by preventing your employer from doing business.
People don't have to buy them, since it will come pre-installed on new machines.
Good point, but I seem to remember hearing that people aren't buying new machines at the rate they used to. The two factors seem to be (a) their current machines are fast enough for casual use, so there's no overriding reason to replace them, and (b) for content consumption, tablets and smart phones (areas where Microsoft doesn't play well) have become far more popular.
About the ECM, the story is that the F35 only has effective ECM in the same frequency range that it's own radar uses -- effectively limiting it to C band. It has stealth features, but they are largely negated by the heat put out by that huge engine. These two weaknesses sum up the "can't hide" part of the F35's deficiencies.
Mind you, I've been out of the war toys business for many years. I only know what I've read. But it's not promising.
What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?
I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.
...and apparently, it works about as well as you would expect of those types of solutions...
And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.
Not sure it'll see many dogfights in any case. I'm told that the F35 is the largest, heaviest fighter with an airframe that produces the most drag, that the US has ever produced, and the huge engine that makes it fly puts out a very clear heat signature without providing much range, speed or maneuverability. It's been described as "can't run, can't fight, can't hide", and missions assume that older fighters go ahead and clean up the resistance so the F35 can complete its mission unchallenged. So, I'd imagine that if the F35 finds itself in a dogfight, something has gone very wrong with the mission.
Slashdot Mirror
So, wait, the problem is that the wrong minorities are doing the jobs? This is complicated.
There are plenty of open developer jobs in the US. Heck, we have several on my team we can't fill. I strongly suspect people complaining about this either just don't make the cut, or don't want to move to where the jobs are.
It might depend on where you work. My manager stated publicly a couple years ago that he'll be concentrating on offshore contractors and H-1B applicants for all future hires for budgetary reasons. In those two years, partly do to regular churn, and partly due to people getting fed up and leaving, the racial characteristic of the department changed dramatically. So much so that the locals who are left are becoming concerned about their own future. Currently, people with visas and people remoting out of little towns east of Mumbai outnumber US citizens (of any race).
There is a legitimate problem, though, that a disproportionate number of degree holding blacks aren't working in their field. The CEO of McDonald's is an EE. He's not doing bad for himself these days but you have to wonder why he couldn't establish a career as an engineer.
Maybe he didn't want to?
I started out as a microwave engineer in military electronics. After several years I couldn't stand it anymore, learned me that there programming stuff and changed careers to IT. The engineer working next to me quit a year or so before I did. I hear he's fixing CB radios somewhere away from the madding crowd. It does happen, and by choice.
Does the article really mean to say "lack of diversity"? My company's IT department is a little over 80% east Indian, which although technically (probably) meets the definition of "lack of diversity", misses the usual colloquial definition of "too many white guys".
> Jackson spoke to press after meeting with Labor Secretary Tom Perez for a review of H-1B visas, arguing that data show Americans have the skills and should have first access to high-paying tech work.
I usually find myself disagreeing with Jackson, but he seems to be on the right track here. I'm really hoping his involvement doesn't muddy the issue.
And this is different from itunes in what way? I have an ipod wired into my truck's sound system. (It's a feature of the stereo.) The (older style) ipod has an internal hard drive that contains music ripped from three crates of CDs via itunes. How is this different?
And how is this not fair use? The user is presumably the same person who bought the cd. Does the AARC expect me to buy it twice? (I know, stupid question.)
My current company has a firewall for the incoming internet connection. (What sane company doesn't?) We also have individual firewalls on each PC but no individual firewall on any server. I'm not a network administrator -- it's a black box from my viewpoint, but I can rattle it and guess what's inside. The servers, I believe, are protected in two ways -- (1) to get out on the internet, you must go through a proxy, and the servers do not know how to do that. (2) traffic on the server subnets are blocked by the internet firewall, except for a few in a designated DMZ. We run into this all the time when applications have features that report back to vendor tech support, but are always blocked by the firewall. (In one case we had an application that would hang when it couldn't make an ftps connection with the vendor's tech support site -- who the heck uses ftps anymore? We stopped using that app.)
So to answer your question, a well designed network will have clients that can get to the outside through a proxy server, and servers that can't get to the outside at all, and servers that can cautiously get to the outside from the DMZ. The servers that are blocked from getting to the outside by the network don't necessarily have to have individual firewalls, and in fact, local firewalls can cause problems with some applications.
Now, if you're running the back end part of the system on a local PC that can also get out on the internet... whoo boy... that sounds dangerous.
> Yet to see Much Ado About Nothing, though.
It's definitely worth seeing. The dialog is pretty much word-for-word, and we all know the story. It's the performances and directing that really make the film.
It's like... all your favorite people in the world getting together at a garden house to do Shakespeare. Cozy and fun.
> ...when "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?"
Because it's not. Respectable, that is. And I could make arguments against "private", as they're a government enforced duopoly.
Right. The EPA laws are, after all, the golf course members telling the lower classes that they will need to lower their expectations again.
Reminds me of a reporter having a conversation with a 99%er at Occupy Wall Street. She was pushing for everyone to abandon technology (apparently this didn't include ipods) and go back to a strictly agrarian society. The reporter commented something to the effect that this would probably lead to mass urban starvation. Her retort was "well, people die".
I guess that's true. Personally I wondered whether she and her friends even knew anything about proper crop rotation, but then I realized that it really wouldn't matter, because someone better armed would come along and take everything from her little commune anyway. Well, you know, people die.
> "Give me your money or spend all eternity suffering in a (literal!) lake of fire."
But... isn't that also what the climate doomsayers are saying?
The next Jurassic Park could be a lot more interesting.
But probably won't be.
Time to remake Jurassic Park. And while he's at it, Speilberg can change all the guns to flashlights!
Nah, with all the T-Rexes looking like chickens it just won't be the same... although... just imagine the Kentucky fired drumsticks.
World's gonna end whether I pay or not, right? Then fuck it, I'm going to do the smart thing and give my money to that Asian guy who comes on my TV at about 2 AM every morning, and tells me that if I give him my money, he'll teach me to get as rich as he is.
I think he already did. People just aren't paying attention.
But that method is so passe... Now it's "your miserable existence is ruining the earth. Give me your money so I can fix it." Now that I write that, I realize that it's a very similar mechanism to that used by the megachurches.
I have gone first. My wife and have produced no offspring, and we will not produce any offspring. Your turn.
The flaw in this reasoning is contained in the answer "cool. More for us."
I think it's the act of becoming a human politician that starts the transformation to giant rat.
> If the problem is caused by people, then the solution is less people.
I agree. You first.
You guys sure about that? I'm pretty sure there's one sleeping a few cubes down from mine. At least, I hope that's a giant ground sloth...
I suspect that giant urban rats are starting to fill that niche.
"The world is coming to an end! Pay me money to find out how!"
Humans are bad and you should feel bad.
Humans are bad. You should feel bad. And give me money so you can feel less bad. I promise I'll use whatever is left over after the upkeep of my seven mansions to save the earth. Mostly by preventing your employer from doing business.
People don't have to buy them, since it will come pre-installed on new machines.
Good point, but I seem to remember hearing that people aren't buying new machines at the rate they used to. The two factors seem to be (a) their current machines are fast enough for casual use, so there's no overriding reason to replace them, and (b) for content consumption, tablets and smart phones (areas where Microsoft doesn't play well) have become far more popular.
About the ECM, the story is that the F35 only has effective ECM in the same frequency range that it's own radar uses -- effectively limiting it to C band. It has stealth features, but they are largely negated by the heat put out by that huge engine. These two weaknesses sum up the "can't hide" part of the F35's deficiencies.
Mind you, I've been out of the war toys business for many years. I only know what I've read. But it's not promising.
What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?
I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.
And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.
It's not bug-ridden, it's handy-capable.
Not sure it'll see many dogfights in any case. I'm told that the F35 is the largest, heaviest fighter with an airframe that produces the most drag, that the US has ever produced, and the huge engine that makes it fly puts out a very clear heat signature without providing much range, speed or maneuverability. It's been described as "can't run, can't fight, can't hide", and missions assume that older fighters go ahead and clean up the resistance so the F35 can complete its mission unchallenged. So, I'd imagine that if the F35 finds itself in a dogfight, something has gone very wrong with the mission.