Would you willingly accept?" - Well, one obvious advantages is that we'd know that the type of police officers who still sign up for duty, knowing they'll be held to account, will be exactly the type of person we want as a police officer - someone who intends to behave ethically and not abuse their power. So not every officer would "willingly accept", but exactly the type who had planned to commit abuses would choose instead not to accept.
Obviously, there should be limits, like not having to wear it while off duty. But on the job? Of course.
No, the entire patent system needs to be thrown out. It's not just broken, it's not really ethical to allow forcibly banning second inventors from independently inventing.
This. By tying H1B's to an employer, they effectively become chattel for the employer for the duration of their H1B work - beholden to the company, they have no real negotiating power and this is what really drives wages down (or more accurately, prevents them rising).
Actually, "the law" does allow a certain H1B to green card path, so yes, it's "what the law says". And RTFA: The proposed rule... would - for the first time - allow work authorization for the spouses of H-1B workers who have begun the process of applying for a green card through their employers... this applies to H1Bs already applying for a green card.
Do you know that skilled programmers still continue to exist even if they don't migrate to the US? Which would you rather have, a skilled programmer competing with you in a globalized market inside the US getting paid ~$100K/yr and helping to create more local jobs (i.e. by spending his income in the local economy), or that same skilled programmer sitting in India still competing with you in a globalized market for your job, but at less than half the salary? Which do you think depresses your income more? And do you think that depresses your income more or less than the Apple wage fixing cartel that Steve Jobs had going for years?
You don't understand, these spouses are allowed to work already once the H1B has gone through a process to obtain a green card - so this is really just a relatively minor change to allow them to work 5 or 6 years earlier than they otherwise would have been able to. You talk as though these spouses don't currently exist and will come into existence once this change is made. This is a no-brainer, it makes no sense to legally force these people to be dependents on society; let them be productive and they don't have to leech anything from taxpayers, they can help grow the economy, and their productivity can be taxed. Slightly lower wages are a misleading concept when it also means cheaper goods and services in an economy.
Abuse victims often sort of 'model' their later relationships on childhood relationships in which they were abused. So someone abused as a child, may tend to choose abusive people into their lives, because that's the relationship pattern they've been conditioned to know. We help break out of this by understanding it better, educating more people on it, and having more empathy/sympathy and support for victims.
Some fun facts and figures:
* "A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners"
* "A University of Washington study recently found women were nearly twice as likely as men to perpetrate domestic violence in the past year"
* "Virtually all sociological data shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, that women use weapons more than men, and that 38% of injured victims are men. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes almost 200 of these studies"
* "A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced high rates of severe violence from female partners"
* "California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner"
* "A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an object thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention"
* "Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men"
Conclusion: Anyone who says men should stop "whining" about abuse is a dick and should STFU, and it's time we start taking this serious problem seriously.
Look at actual statistics and you'll discover that contrary to what the mainstream media is spoon-feeding you, women abuse men equally often. Open your eyes. Men often experience it worse, not just because of the stigma, but because there are no "men's shelters" to run to, and because society's view is "it's always the man's fault". Leaving isn't always easy when there are kids involved.
Often these men end their suffering other ways like committing suicide.
Stop perpetuating the common myth, and let's start caring equally for all victims of abuse.
It's retarded to assume that you can't make a product secure; there aren't "infinite" bugs, there are obviously a finite number of bugs in any piece of software, and anyone who thinks otherwise either has some strange mental illness or doesn't understand software.
But the reason bug bounties mostly don't work has nothing to do with the author's wiffle-waffle, it's just simple math and cost of labor. If I have the level of skills required to find security holes in a large piece of software like Windows or IE, chances are I can sell my labor at a minimum of $50/hour. To find a bug, I'm likely going to have to spend several days or weeks at it. If there's a $1000 bounty, that means I can spend at most 20 hours on the problem until I am literally losing money in opportunity costs. And hackers have to pay their mortgages and bills too. It's kind of insulting to think that an experienced security expert is going to labor away to find your bugs for you at well below market rates for that work if you had to pay someone to do it, as if a dog getting excited about a small treat, it's patronizing and insulting. If it would cost a company like MS $100,000/annum to have a security expert on their dev team to find those same bugs, then any 'bounty' has to START at well above those effective hourly rates.
It'll be liked any mass-produced variant, lower-quality but cheaper. It's probably some concoction of 30% HFCS combined with growth hormones and antibiotics. This is likely very comparable to how grass-fed beef is healthier for you (and the cow), but more expensive to farm.
Yeah Iknowright!??! It's just "intolerance" to be concerned that a major file-sharing service has on their board someone who openly advocates government surveillance and with strong connections to groups in charge of government surveillance. Damn those "intolerant" people.
Should slavery be allowed? I'm really not sure, what a vexing question.
Let's repose this question another way: Should the average (say) slashdot programmer be forced to keep working for an employer they don't want to work for, for years after they tried to leave? If not, then why would it be OK to force MS to do just that?
The only obligation MS has is to honor its contracts. When you bought XP so many years ago the conditions included some known support EOL, which has actually already been extended.
Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play
Why is it that whenever I see someone precede an argument with "OK, I'll play", it's never, ever followed by a properly rational argument free of logical fallacies?
It's almost as if the extra dose of smugness is a sort of psychological 'mask' of sorts to conceal the weak reasoning - an 'orange-sherbert'-like handwave given with the hope that if projecting arrogant over-confidence, readers will assume the point that follows carries the weight of a well-considered argument rather than actually analyzing it.
Firstly, you seem to believe that because you've seen some cyclists doing dangerous things, that all cyclists do dangerous things (tribal/collectivist fallacy of generalization). Secondly, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way whatsoever negates that car drivers often do, too. Third, even if it did, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way invalidates the argument that robot cars would still make roads safer for everyone, both cyclists and car occupants alike.
So you are honestly saying it's OK though, and a non-issue, that effectively this means anyone can order a police raid on anyone else simply by claiming some sort of 'suspicion' in the absence of probable cause? Basically you're saying that it's OK for government to search your home as long as they 'pinky promise' not to do anything in court with what they've seized unless they manage to come up with probable cause LATER.. I'm 99.9% sure that's not what the framers of the 4th Amendment had in mind..
Self-defense is a basic human right, it exists independently of the Constitution. You would have a right to bear arms even if the founders never existed and the Constitution never existed... it's a self-evident extension of the fact that you (a) have a right to defend your life against attack and (b) have a right to own things.
Of course you have a right to criticize a judge's decision, probably falls under the '1st Amendment'.. you don't have to be an appeals judge or be in his jurisdiction.. the words in your post are so glaringly obviously nonsensical I honestly cannot fathom how you got to +4.
You do realize that any reasonably non-crap programmer ALREADY basically competes with you no matter what country you live in. I know "out of sight out of mind" but programmers don't just disappear because they live in a different country, and the market is pretty well globalized. So you can either let programmers create jobs in another country or contribute to your own economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you willingly accept?" - Well, one obvious advantages is that we'd know that the type of police officers who still sign up for duty, knowing they'll be held to account, will be exactly the type of person we want as a police officer - someone who intends to behave ethically and not abuse their power. So not every officer would "willingly accept", but exactly the type who had planned to commit abuses would choose instead not to accept.
Obviously, there should be limits, like not having to wear it while off duty. But on the job? Of course.
No, the entire patent system needs to be thrown out. It's not just broken, it's not really ethical to allow forcibly banning second inventors from independently inventing.
Also, it's not an exaggeration to say the patent system is killing people. E.g.:
- http://archive.mises.org/15365/update-patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug/
- "Why Aren’t There More Cancer Vaccines? Blame America’s lousy patent system."
- A case to abolish patents - Two authors from the Federal Reserve lay bare the patent myths
Here we go, see how easy it is: http://immigrationroad.com/gre...
"And by not tying them to a specific job"
This. By tying H1B's to an employer, they effectively become chattel for the employer for the duration of their H1B work - beholden to the company, they have no real negotiating power and this is what really drives wages down (or more accurately, prevents them rising).
Actually, "the law" does allow a certain H1B to green card path, so yes, it's "what the law says". And RTFA: The proposed rule ... would - for the first time - allow work authorization for the spouses of H-1B workers who have begun the process of applying for a green card through their employers ... this applies to H1Bs already applying for a green card.
RTFA - this proposed applies only to H1Bs already applying for a green card
Do you know that skilled programmers still continue to exist even if they don't migrate to the US? Which would you rather have, a skilled programmer competing with you in a globalized market inside the US getting paid ~$100K/yr and helping to create more local jobs (i.e. by spending his income in the local economy), or that same skilled programmer sitting in India still competing with you in a globalized market for your job, but at less than half the salary? Which do you think depresses your income more? And do you think that depresses your income more or less than the Apple wage fixing cartel that Steve Jobs had going for years?
You don't understand, these spouses are allowed to work already once the H1B has gone through a process to obtain a green card - so this is really just a relatively minor change to allow them to work 5 or 6 years earlier than they otherwise would have been able to. You talk as though these spouses don't currently exist and will come into existence once this change is made. This is a no-brainer, it makes no sense to legally force these people to be dependents on society; let them be productive and they don't have to leech anything from taxpayers, they can help grow the economy, and their productivity can be taxed. Slightly lower wages are a misleading concept when it also means cheaper goods and services in an economy.
Slashdot used to be a community of some of the smartest people, sad how it's gone down
Abuse victims often sort of 'model' their later relationships on childhood relationships in which they were abused. So someone abused as a child, may tend to choose abusive people into their lives, because that's the relationship pattern they've been conditioned to know. We help break out of this by understanding it better, educating more people on it, and having more empathy/sympathy and support for victims.
* "A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners"
* "A University of Washington study recently found women were nearly twice as likely as men to perpetrate domestic violence in the past year"
* "Virtually all sociological data shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, that women use weapons more than men, and that 38% of injured victims are men. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes almost 200 of these studies"
* "A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced high rates of severe violence from female partners"
* "California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner"
* "A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an object thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention"
* "Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men"
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/male_abuse.htm
Conclusion: Anyone who says men should stop "whining" about abuse is a dick and should STFU, and it's time we start taking this serious problem seriously.
Look at actual statistics and you'll discover that contrary to what the mainstream media is spoon-feeding you, women abuse men equally often. Open your eyes. Men often experience it worse, not just because of the stigma, but because there are no "men's shelters" to run to, and because society's view is "it's always the man's fault". Leaving isn't always easy when there are kids involved. Often these men end their suffering other ways like committing suicide. Stop perpetuating the common myth, and let's start caring equally for all victims of abuse.
It's retarded to assume that you can't make a product secure; there aren't "infinite" bugs, there are obviously a finite number of bugs in any piece of software, and anyone who thinks otherwise either has some strange mental illness or doesn't understand software. But the reason bug bounties mostly don't work has nothing to do with the author's wiffle-waffle, it's just simple math and cost of labor. If I have the level of skills required to find security holes in a large piece of software like Windows or IE, chances are I can sell my labor at a minimum of $50/hour. To find a bug, I'm likely going to have to spend several days or weeks at it. If there's a $1000 bounty, that means I can spend at most 20 hours on the problem until I am literally losing money in opportunity costs. And hackers have to pay their mortgages and bills too. It's kind of insulting to think that an experienced security expert is going to labor away to find your bugs for you at well below market rates for that work if you had to pay someone to do it, as if a dog getting excited about a small treat, it's patronizing and insulting. If it would cost a company like MS $100,000/annum to have a security expert on their dev team to find those same bugs, then any 'bounty' has to START at well above those effective hourly rates.
I do raise fish, and you're an idiot: http://bellona.org/news/uncate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... Next time use Google before spouting your mouth off.
It'll be liked any mass-produced variant, lower-quality but cheaper. It's probably some concoction of 30% HFCS combined with growth hormones and antibiotics. This is likely very comparable to how grass-fed beef is healthier for you (and the cow), but more expensive to farm.
Yeah Iknowright!??! It's just "intolerance" to be concerned that a major file-sharing service has on their board someone who openly advocates government surveillance and with strong connections to groups in charge of government surveillance. Damn those "intolerant" people.
Should slavery be allowed? I'm really not sure, what a vexing question.
Let's repose this question another way: Should the average (say) slashdot programmer be forced to keep working for an employer they don't want to work for, for years after they tried to leave? If not, then why would it be OK to force MS to do just that?
The only obligation MS has is to honor its contracts. When you bought XP so many years ago the conditions included some known support EOL, which has actually already been extended.
Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play
Why is it that whenever I see someone precede an argument with "OK, I'll play", it's never, ever followed by a properly rational argument free of logical fallacies?
It's almost as if the extra dose of smugness is a sort of psychological 'mask' of sorts to conceal the weak reasoning - an 'orange-sherbert'-like handwave given with the hope that if projecting arrogant over-confidence, readers will assume the point that follows carries the weight of a well-considered argument rather than actually analyzing it.
Firstly, you seem to believe that because you've seen some cyclists doing dangerous things, that all cyclists do dangerous things (tribal/collectivist fallacy of generalization). Secondly, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way whatsoever negates that car drivers often do, too. Third, even if it did, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way invalidates the argument that robot cars would still make roads safer for everyone, both cyclists and car occupants alike.
So you are honestly saying it's OK though, and a non-issue, that effectively this means anyone can order a police raid on anyone else simply by claiming some sort of 'suspicion' in the absence of probable cause? Basically you're saying that it's OK for government to search your home as long as they 'pinky promise' not to do anything in court with what they've seized unless they manage to come up with probable cause LATER .. I'm 99.9% sure that's not what the framers of the 4th Amendment had in mind ..
Self-defense is a basic human right, it exists independently of the Constitution. You would have a right to bear arms even if the founders never existed and the Constitution never existed ... it's a self-evident extension of the fact that you (a) have a right to defend your life against attack and (b) have a right to own things.
Of course you have a right to criticize a judge's decision, probably falls under the '1st Amendment' .. you don't have to be an appeals judge or be in his jurisdiction .. the words in your post are so glaringly obviously nonsensical I honestly cannot fathom how you got to +4.
Build the retail outlet smack in the middle of an Ecuadorian embassy.
You should report that company, I'm all for immigration but that kind of deceitful fraudulent crap helps nobody.
You do realize that any reasonably non-crap programmer ALREADY basically competes with you no matter what country you live in. I know "out of sight out of mind" but programmers don't just disappear because they live in a different country, and the market is pretty well globalized. So you can either let programmers create jobs in another country or contribute to your own economy.
Get a job at a French McDonalds and then mug American tourists who have them.