Larry Wall, Linus, Alan Cox, to name but a high profile few are reasonably paid to write GPL software. This trend will increase because the demand for GPL software will increase!
Larry Wall isn't paid to write Perl. He's paid to sell Perl books.
Does anyone even know exactly what Linus is doing at Transmeta? Is it just working on Linux, or is their other stuff involved? Transmeta's "code-morphing" software is certainly not "free" by any stretch of the imagination...
Even disregarding all that, I still have one big nit though: these are all "high profile" guys, as you stated. There are very, very few "low profile" people being paid to write free software. It makes me wonder if the companies that do hire free software coders are just doing it for PR reasons. If that's the case, then there's a serious problem.
You make the mistake of assuming a zero-sum game. There are parameter values that will end up with a net *loss* of freedom for all.
I can see how what I said could be interpreted in that way, but that's not what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. I never said all freedoms were equal. I'm simply stating that in general, someone typically needs to give up a freedom for others to get a freedom. I would much rather live in a world where we didn't have the freedom to kill whoever we didn't like, rather than one where we don't have that freedom, for example. Freedom from being killed is "better than" freedom to kill. This is subjective though (but I think most would agree on this particular instance...).
"Free software" is certainly one of these situations where freedoms are exchanged for others. Developers do have to give up certain freedoms, the ability to control their creations, in order for users to have the freedoms the FSF desires. Is this a good thing? It can be argued either way:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - this is what the FSF believes. All developers should gladly sacrifice themselves to the radiation of a faulty warp core.
But then again, who is more greedy, the person who wants something in exchange for their work, or the person who wants something for nothing? Should we cater to the more greedy, or the less greedy?
Once again, remember that I'm not saying that free software is bad, or shouldn't exist. I just think that it should be up to the creator to decide how their creations are used, certainly in terms of things like distribution and source code availability.
Your distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source" makes no sense. GPLed code is "licensed by contract" (the GPL) while the Open Source Definition explicitely states that Open Sourec is freely redistributable -- in fact, it's the first requirement.
The distinction between Open Source and Free Software is an artificial one created by RMS, because he doesn't like others stealing his thunder. "Open Source" is actually a more accurate term, since "free software" actually takes away just as many freedoms as it gives.
RMS wants to live in a world of information freedom. He creates information that he gives away for free, and encourages others to do so.
When was the last time RMS actually wrote some code?
That's not psychosis, either. That's a pure form of a particular ideal. RMS is to be commended for his consistency and truth.
If you pay more attention, you'll see that RMS is anything but consistent. Unless you think saying that developers should just be happy to write code, and not even demand credit is consistent with demanding that Linux be called "GNU/Linux"...
RMS does not want to force you to disclose all your secrets and to write only free software.
No, he's not going to force you. He'll just tell everyone you're an evil immoral person. Ok.
He hopes to convince you that freedom is ultimately the better choice for everyone.
What about the freedom to release my code without source? What about my freedom to actually make a profit ofgf of my hard work? What about my freedom to actually get a straight answer to these sorts of questions rather than half-truths like "you can sell free software". (ignoring the fact that you can't actually make a profit, unless you're a charitable organization funded by a major university...)
That is what Stallman wishes would happen, and that is why he insists on using GNU/Linux.
That's debatable. Many believe it's actually about RMS taking credit. His actions have often been more consistent with pumping up his ego than actually promoting "freedom". (For example, his "Han Solo" comment at Linux World in San Jose last year) And his doublespeak is rather disturbing as well.
Besides, pre-pending GNU onto Linux isn't necessary for people to learn about GNU. Anyone who uses Linux for more than a little while will eventually run into the dreaded paragraph in a man page:
This documentation is no longer being maintained and may be inaccurate or incomplete. The Texinfo documentation is now the authoritative source.
Once a person sees that, they'll realize what GNU is: an organization bent on forcing people to use the worst hypertext system ever devised by man(?).
Actually, if you read the phiosophy section of the GNU website, and then look at how RMS behaves in public, you'll see that it's painfully obvious that this "conspiracy" is true. RMS is a control freak and an egomaniac.
No, RMS wants us to have what was taken away. Freedom is the opposite of domination. Do I need to repeat that?
It sounds like you have a very simplistic view of the world. Freedom isn't an absolute. For every freedom someone has, there is a freedom someone has lost. In a "fair" system, it generally boils down to each individual has freedoms by sacrificing others.
For example. I don't have the freedom to go into your house and eat your food without your permission. But I don't mind this, because I also have the freedom from you coming into my house and eating my food without my permission.
Supposedly* RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to get the source code to, well, to any software that's available; people should be able to distribute the source, as well as any derivatives, (like compiled binaries) without even getting the permission of the original devloper. They can also modify this as well.
(* I say "supposedly", because many of his actions dealing with GCC and Emacs haven't been as "free" as they could have been...)
Those are the freedoms RMS wants us to have, but you have to realize that if we accept these freedoms, we have to give other freedoms away. For example, developers can't reasonably expect to be able to sell their software. The only people who can really make any profit off of software are the packagers, and the "value adders" (support sellers, T-shirt sellers, etc.). Is that a reasonable trade-off? Many of us don't think so.
I also think it's funny that you say "RMS wants us to have what was taken away". I assume you're talking about copyright here. In a "natural state", you can copy any data you want, but copyrights prohibit this. In that sense, you're partially correct.
However, RMS also wants developers to be prevented from releasing code without source. In that respect, he's taking away something that was there naturally. (Think about it: If I write a program, and release it without source, have I taken anything away from you? Nope.)
Personally, I think free software is great. But I think it should be the choice of the developer. Developers shouldn't be pressured into developing free software by being told that it's immoral. Having the source, and being able to distribute the code without having to pay royalties is merely a (very nice) feature. Software which doesn't have that feature isn't any more immoral than a text editor without a scripting language. Sure, I'd prefer a text editor with scripting support, but if I find a text editor that lacks this feature, I'm not going to accuse the developer of being immoral. That's infantile.
Likewise, I'd prefer a text editor that's "free software". That's a nice feature too. I'm not going to accuse the developers of "non-free" text editors of being immoral either. Their software simply lacks a feature that I desire. (For the record, I use VIM which is "free", and has scripting support - both features I desire.)
As computers got faster, the difference in execution time diminished to the point where everybody takes it for granted that they should write in a high level language.
Go read comp.lang.asm.x86 for a while. Not everyone takes it for granted that they should write in a high level language. That said, I agree with you. I think those "I'm going to write an MS Word clone in 100% x86 assembly" guys are kooks. As far as I'm concerned, assembly is only for the inner loop of a realtime system, certain device drivers and certain bits of platform-specific OS code.
At the same time, I think there are a few features about Java that make it less efficient than it needs to be. The whole "all object are on the heap" thing is really difficult for the JVM to optimize away, and impossible in most cases. The lack of generics plus the fact that the basic types aren't Objects makes containers exceedingly inefficient for things like integers, doubles, etc. The whole "magical Array class" nonsense is just a blatant hack to get around this a bit.
Despite that, I still think comes out ahead of C and C++ in most of the situations I have to deal with. If I didn't care about execution speed at all, I'd probably use Python for everything. (Python is pretty quick for some things. It really depends upon what you're doing, as with all things.)
There are already other meanings for the word "gimp". If there was a "media backlash" about the GIMP, then we should expect to also see one about crackers, since that's also a derogatory term. Or what about pet stores that sell frogs? (We all know how the French are, so I'm actually somewhat surprised that this hasn't happened.) Almost any term has a derogatory or perverse meaning to some group...
[OT] Re:What gives with the $ signs?
on
Grokking The Gimp
·
· Score: 1
$ is from vi.
No. You're probably thinking of the way VI temporarily replaces the last character of a "change" (as in using the 'c' command) to a $. It doesn't use that for wrapping long lines though. It just wraps them without any special characters. (Lines that wrap past the end of the display are replaced with a column of @ characters.)
Hmmm... I was playing StarCraft a couple of hours ago, and I keep hearing "Zerg sounds" now (no, it isn't my stomache grumbling). It's very irritating. Back when I was playing Terran, I would often hear SCV's and their "whirring" sound for an hour or two after playing.
I would guess he was referring to the fact that some corporations wouldn't like employees opening an encrypted "tunnel" to the outside world, which would allow them to easily send out large quantities of confidential information.
I want to write a program that takes O(1/n) time. The more inputs, the faster it runs.
That's impossible, because any non-trivial Turing machine will have a constant lower bound on how long it will take to execute because it will always perform at least one state transition. Therefore it'll be O(1) + O(something else). If that O(something else) is less than or equal to O(1), then it reduces to O(1). Hence the best you can ever get would be O(1).
For instance, a poster posted a program that factored numbers in linear time. But the catch was that it took polynomial (or whatever) time to compile the program....
So, always count the time to compile as well as the time to run.
Compilation time is a constant. It might be a really big constant, but it doesn't grow with the size of the problem. A constant plus linear is still linear:
O(1) + O(n) == O(n)
The only case where compilation time isn't constant would be a solution to a problem where you're generating code for each instance of the problem, and the size of the code varies with the problem size. That's pretty unusual though.
Now a sub-linear time algorithm is what we're really waiting for.
What do you mean by "sub-linear"? If you mean what I think you mean, there's log(n). For example, binary search is faster (for large enough n) than linear search.
These segments are pushed through an error-correction code, expanding the N bits into 8 N/4 length segments. (any 4 of the 8 shares are sufficient to reconstruct the orginal block)
In any case, reducing the painfullness of the process (of getting to a green card) will result in the increase of people applying to the program.
The second problem is a bigger one: companies would be hesitant to support H1B visas. Why should they when, as far as they know, they are going to be used as just a way to get into the country, a temporary stop to jump to someplace else.
The first problem is solved by the second: people only get H1Bs by having a job lined up. If less companies are willing to hire H1Bs, there won't be an increased demand from the INS's point of view. There would actually be fewer applications.
I don't think the second problem is is actually a problem at all. If companies are less willing to hire foreign workers, that's better for American workers, because corporations would have a greater incentive to hire Americans. The only people who will be annoyed by this are the corporations, and the foreign workers would want to get an H1B, but aren't able to find an American company willing to hire them.
Yeah, well, it's not like it's hard to find a computer-related job anywhere in the States. Options are mostly given out in Silicon Valley, but for straight salary you can get work anywhere.
It isn't hard to find a computer related job in Canada either, the cost of living is a hell of a lot lower, the standard of living is higher and the chances of getting gunned down in the street is significantly lower. It's much easier to immigrate to Canada as well. If you're just going for straight salary, you might as well go to Canada.
So what are you saying? Or you are just bitching for bitching sake?
Do you have reading comprehension problems, or do you just like to pretend you completely miss the point? Go back and look at my earlier post. See where it says:
"If H1B workers and greencard applicants could switch jobs anywhere near as easily as American workers, I guarantee that the H1B quotas wouldn't even be reached the following year. High tech companies would start hiring Americans first, and only hiring H1B workers when they needed to. Is't that the way it should be?"
If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I never suggested eliminating the quotas, or even raising them. What I suggested was removing the job-transfer restrictions on people with H1B's. In particular, I don't think H1B holder should have to wait 3 months to switch jobs, nor should greencard applications be nullified if one switches companies.
If people with H1B's could easily switch jobs, then companies would have less of an incentive to hire people with H1Bs. This, in turn, means more American will get hired, which is good for American workers. It also means that it's very unlikely that the H1B quota won't be reached (so there won't be a need to raise it yet again). Finally, the H1B workers will have a lot more freedom.
As you said, you can't make everyone happy. The people who won't be happy are the companies who now have to pay bit more for American workers, and deal with the fact that they don't have any indentured servants anymore. Also, those people who would get H1Bs in the current system but won't with the new system would be upset as well. (these would typically be the less skilled people, I would imagine) My point is that American workers shouldn't be blaming the H1B employees. They should be blaming the corporations and the INS for making the situation so bad, when there is a simple solution that would help the American workers. (who are the voters, after all... isn't the US supposed to be a democracy?)
I doubt it very much. INS is a secondary factor, Silicon Valley still has more jobs and higher pay.
Sillicon valley is getting worse though. The rent and housing prices are astronomically high. It's getting to the point where the amount of money you get to keep after paying taxes, food, and rent in Silicon valley is less than it would be in Vancouver even if you were only making half as much in Vancouver. And the stock shake-up hasn't helped the job situation in the valley all that much. Most people want options, but when stocks are falling, options are worthless.
Perhaps market forces will balance things out. It could take a while though. The stocks dropped quite a few months ago, but housing prices are still on the rise.
If I decide to switch jobs, it's a simple process of the other company filing a petition on my behalf - one which is always granted. It's just a month or so of delay.
No, it's three months of delay. And if you're applying for a greencard, you'll have to start over. Given the 6-year time limit on your H1B, and the 4-5 year wait on getting a greencard, good luck on getting all that done in time...
I'd love to have a way to record some TV onto DVD-R, CD-R, JAZ, or even good old tape backup.
I think Jaz wouldn't work. While Jaz drives have "near hard drive speed" when it comes to reading, they're almost as slow as floppies when it comes to writing. DVD-R and CD-R would be kind of neat, especially if it recorded in a format that could be used by DVD/VCD players.
Slashdot Mirror
Larry Wall, Linus, Alan Cox, to name but a high profile few are reasonably paid to write GPL software. This trend will increase because the demand for GPL software will increase!
Larry Wall isn't paid to write Perl. He's paid to sell Perl books.
Does anyone even know exactly what Linus is doing at Transmeta? Is it just working on Linux, or is their other stuff involved? Transmeta's "code-morphing" software is certainly not "free" by any stretch of the imagination...
Even disregarding all that, I still have one big nit though: these are all "high profile" guys, as you stated. There are very, very few "low profile" people being paid to write free software. It makes me wonder if the companies that do hire free software coders are just doing it for PR reasons. If that's the case, then there's a serious problem.
You make the mistake of assuming a zero-sum game. There are parameter values that will end up with a net *loss* of freedom for all.
I can see how what I said could be interpreted in that way, but that's not what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. I never said all freedoms were equal. I'm simply stating that in general, someone typically needs to give up a freedom for others to get a freedom. I would much rather live in a world where we didn't have the freedom to kill whoever we didn't like, rather than one where we don't have that freedom, for example. Freedom from being killed is "better than" freedom to kill. This is subjective though (but I think most would agree on this particular instance...).
"Free software" is certainly one of these situations where freedoms are exchanged for others. Developers do have to give up certain freedoms, the ability to control their creations, in order for users to have the freedoms the FSF desires. Is this a good thing? It can be argued either way:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - this is what the FSF believes. All developers should gladly sacrifice themselves to the radiation of a faulty warp core.
But then again, who is more greedy, the person who wants something in exchange for their work, or the person who wants something for nothing? Should we cater to the more greedy, or the less greedy?
Once again, remember that I'm not saying that free software is bad, or shouldn't exist. I just think that it should be up to the creator to decide how their creations are used, certainly in terms of things like distribution and source code availability.
Your distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source" makes no sense. GPLed code is "licensed by contract" (the GPL) while the Open Source Definition explicitely states that Open Sourec is freely redistributable -- in fact, it's the first requirement.
The distinction between Open Source and Free Software is an artificial one created by RMS, because he doesn't like others stealing his thunder. "Open Source" is actually a more accurate term, since "free software" actually takes away just as many freedoms as it gives.
RMS wants to live in a world of information freedom. He creates information that he gives away for free, and encourages others to do so.
When was the last time RMS actually wrote some code?
That's not psychosis, either. That's a pure form of a particular ideal. RMS is to be commended for his consistency and truth.
If you pay more attention, you'll see that RMS is anything but consistent. Unless you think saying that developers should just be happy to write code, and not even demand credit is consistent with demanding that Linux be called "GNU/Linux"...
RMS does not want to force you to disclose all your secrets and to write only free software.
No, he's not going to force you. He'll just tell everyone you're an evil immoral person. Ok.
He hopes to convince you that freedom is ultimately the better choice for everyone.
What about the freedom to release my code without source? What about my freedom to actually make a profit ofgf of my hard work? What about my freedom to actually get a straight answer to these sorts of questions rather than half-truths like "you can sell free software". (ignoring the fact that you can't actually make a profit, unless you're a charitable organization funded by a major university...)
That's debatable. Many believe it's actually about RMS taking credit. His actions have often been more consistent with pumping up his ego than actually promoting "freedom". (For example, his "Han Solo" comment at Linux World in San Jose last year) And his doublespeak is rather disturbing as well.
Besides, pre-pending GNU onto Linux isn't necessary for people to learn about GNU. Anyone who uses Linux for more than a little while will eventually run into the dreaded paragraph in a man page:Once a person sees that, they'll realize what GNU is: an organization bent on forcing people to use the worst hypertext system ever devised by man(?).
Nice conspiracy.
Actually, if you read the phiosophy section of the GNU website, and then look at how RMS behaves in public, you'll see that it's painfully obvious that this "conspiracy" is true. RMS is a control freak and an egomaniac.
No, RMS wants us to have what was taken away. Freedom is the opposite of domination. Do I need to repeat that?
It sounds like you have a very simplistic view of the world. Freedom isn't an absolute. For every freedom someone has, there is a freedom someone has lost. In a "fair" system, it generally boils down to each individual has freedoms by sacrificing others.
For example. I don't have the freedom to go into your house and eat your food without your permission. But I don't mind this, because I also have the freedom from you coming into my house and eating my food without my permission.
Supposedly* RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to get the source code to, well, to any software that's available; people should be able to distribute the source, as well as any derivatives, (like compiled binaries) without even getting the permission of the original devloper. They can also modify this as well.
(* I say "supposedly", because many of his actions dealing with GCC and Emacs haven't been as "free" as they could have been...)
Those are the freedoms RMS wants us to have, but you have to realize that if we accept these freedoms, we have to give other freedoms away. For example, developers can't reasonably expect to be able to sell their software. The only people who can really make any profit off of software are the packagers, and the "value adders" (support sellers, T-shirt sellers, etc.). Is that a reasonable trade-off? Many of us don't think so.
I also think it's funny that you say "RMS wants us to have what was taken away". I assume you're talking about copyright here. In a "natural state", you can copy any data you want, but copyrights prohibit this. In that sense, you're partially correct.
However, RMS also wants developers to be prevented from releasing code without source. In that respect, he's taking away something that was there naturally. (Think about it: If I write a program, and release it without source, have I taken anything away from you? Nope.)
Personally, I think free software is great. But I think it should be the choice of the developer. Developers shouldn't be pressured into developing free software by being told that it's immoral. Having the source, and being able to distribute the code without having to pay royalties is merely a (very nice) feature. Software which doesn't have that feature isn't any more immoral than a text editor without a scripting language. Sure, I'd prefer a text editor with scripting support, but if I find a text editor that lacks this feature, I'm not going to accuse the developer of being immoral. That's infantile.
Likewise, I'd prefer a text editor that's "free software". That's a nice feature too. I'm not going to accuse the developers of "non-free" text editors of being immoral either. Their software simply lacks a feature that I desire. (For the record, I use VIM which is "free", and has scripting support - both features I desire.)
As computers got faster, the difference in execution time diminished to the point where everybody takes it for granted that they should write in a high level language.
Go read comp.lang.asm.x86 for a while. Not everyone takes it for granted that they should write in a high level language. That said, I agree with you. I think those "I'm going to write an MS Word clone in 100% x86 assembly" guys are kooks. As far as I'm concerned, assembly is only for the inner loop of a realtime system, certain device drivers and certain bits of platform-specific OS code.
At the same time, I think there are a few features about Java that make it less efficient than it needs to be. The whole "all object are on the heap" thing is really difficult for the JVM to optimize away, and impossible in most cases. The lack of generics plus the fact that the basic types aren't Objects makes containers exceedingly inefficient for things like integers, doubles, etc. The whole "magical Array class" nonsense is just a blatant hack to get around this a bit.
Despite that, I still think comes out ahead of C and C++ in most of the situations I have to deal with. If I didn't care about execution speed at all, I'd probably use Python for everything. (Python is pretty quick for some things. It really depends upon what you're doing, as with all things.)
If Java could be natively compiled...
You might be interested in this page.
There are already other meanings for the word "gimp". If there was a "media backlash" about the GIMP, then we should expect to also see one about crackers, since that's also a derogatory term. Or what about pet stores that sell frogs? (We all know how the French are, so I'm actually somewhat surprised that this hasn't happened.) Almost any term has a derogatory or perverse meaning to some group...
$ is from vi.
No. You're probably thinking of the way VI temporarily replaces the last character of a "change" (as in using the 'c' command) to a $. It doesn't use that for wrapping long lines though. It just wraps them without any special characters. (Lines that wrap past the end of the display are replaced with a column of @ characters.)
And before that, by Chuang Tzu.
Hmmm... I was playing StarCraft a couple of hours ago, and I keep hearing "Zerg sounds" now (no, it isn't my stomache grumbling). It's very irritating. Back when I was playing Terran, I would often hear SCV's and their "whirring" sound for an hour or two after playing.
I would guess he was referring to the fact that some corporations wouldn't like employees opening an encrypted "tunnel" to the outside world, which would allow them to easily send out large quantities of confidential information.
I want to write a program that takes O(1/n) time. The more inputs, the faster it runs.
;-)
That's impossible, because any non-trivial Turing machine will have a constant lower bound on how long it will take to execute because it will always perform at least one state transition. Therefore it'll be O(1) + O(something else). If that O(something else) is less than or equal to O(1), then it reduces to O(1). Hence the best you can ever get would be O(1).
Oh, you were kidding, weren't you?
He did say at least, implying at the time the article was posted or some indeterminate time before that.
For instance, a poster posted a program that factored numbers in linear time. But the catch was that it took polynomial (or whatever) time to compile the program ....
So, always count the time to compile as well as the time to run.
Compilation time is a constant. It might be a really big constant, but it doesn't grow with the size of the problem. A constant plus linear is still linear:
O(1) + O(n) == O(n)
The only case where compilation time isn't constant would be a solution to a problem where you're generating code for each instance of the problem, and the size of the code varies with the problem size. That's pretty unusual though.
Now a sub-linear time algorithm is what we're really waiting for.
What do you mean by "sub-linear"? If you mean what I think you mean, there's log(n). For example, binary search is faster (for large enough n) than linear search.
These segments are pushed through an error-correction code, expanding the N bits into 8 N/4 length segments. (any 4 of the 8 shares are sufficient to reconstruct the orginal block)
How does that work?
The telemarketer heard this, and after she finished her script, she called me an unprintable name!!
She called you the artist formerly known as Prince?
...but I can't eat them anymore. They give me gas.
In any case, reducing the painfullness of the process (of getting to a green card) will result in the increase of people applying to the program.
The second problem is a bigger one: companies would be hesitant to support H1B visas. Why should they when, as far as they know, they are going to be used as just a way to get into the country, a temporary stop to jump to someplace else.
The first problem is solved by the second: people only get H1Bs by having a job lined up. If less companies are willing to hire H1Bs, there won't be an increased demand from the INS's point of view. There would actually be fewer applications.
I don't think the second problem is is actually a problem at all. If companies are less willing to hire foreign workers, that's better for American workers, because corporations would have a greater incentive to hire Americans. The only people who will be annoyed by this are the corporations, and the foreign workers would want to get an H1B, but aren't able to find an American company willing to hire them.
Yeah, well, it's not like it's hard to find a computer-related job anywhere in the States. Options are mostly given out in Silicon Valley, but for straight salary you can get work anywhere.
It isn't hard to find a computer related job in Canada either, the cost of living is a hell of a lot lower, the standard of living is higher and the chances of getting gunned down in the street is significantly lower. It's much easier to immigrate to Canada as well. If you're just going for straight salary, you might as well go to Canada.
Do you have reading comprehension problems, or do you just like to pretend you completely miss the point? Go back and look at my earlier post. See where it says:If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I never suggested eliminating the quotas, or even raising them. What I suggested was removing the job-transfer restrictions on people with H1B's. In particular, I don't think H1B holder should have to wait 3 months to switch jobs, nor should greencard applications be nullified if one switches companies.
If people with H1B's could easily switch jobs, then companies would have less of an incentive to hire people with H1Bs. This, in turn, means more American will get hired, which is good for American workers. It also means that it's very unlikely that the H1B quota won't be reached (so there won't be a need to raise it yet again). Finally, the H1B workers will have a lot more freedom.
As you said, you can't make everyone happy. The people who won't be happy are the companies who now have to pay bit more for American workers, and deal with the fact that they don't have any indentured servants anymore. Also, those people who would get H1Bs in the current system but won't with the new system would be upset as well. (these would typically be the less skilled people, I would imagine) My point is that American workers shouldn't be blaming the H1B employees. They should be blaming the corporations and the INS for making the situation so bad, when there is a simple solution that would help the American workers. (who are the voters, after all... isn't the US supposed to be a democracy?)
I doubt it very much. INS is a secondary factor, Silicon Valley still has more jobs and higher pay.
Sillicon valley is getting worse though. The rent and housing prices are astronomically high. It's getting to the point where the amount of money you get to keep after paying taxes, food, and rent in Silicon valley is less than it would be in Vancouver even if you were only making half as much in Vancouver. And the stock shake-up hasn't helped the job situation in the valley all that much. Most people want options, but when stocks are falling, options are worthless.
Perhaps market forces will balance things out. It could take a while though. The stocks dropped quite a few months ago, but housing prices are still on the rise.
If I decide to switch jobs, it's a simple process of the other company filing a petition on my behalf - one which is always granted. It's just a month or so of delay.
No, it's three months of delay. And if you're applying for a greencard, you'll have to start over. Given the 6-year time limit on your H1B, and the 4-5 year wait on getting a greencard, good luck on getting all that done in time...
I'd love to have a way to record some TV onto DVD-R, CD-R, JAZ, or even good old tape backup.
I think Jaz wouldn't work. While Jaz drives have "near hard drive speed" when it comes to reading, they're almost as slow as floppies when it comes to writing. DVD-R and CD-R would be kind of neat, especially if it recorded in a format that could be used by DVD/VCD players.
I think the key word is only. There's nothing wrong with it supporting Windows, but it's unfortunate that it doesn't support anything else.