"This is the Inspiration, the British steam powered car that is attempting to take the British and World land speed records (for steam vehicles). The car is constructed on a tubular steel chassis and holds four boilers which output a massive four megawatts."
Now, perhaps there was a edit adding that link, but there it is.
We are supposed to be smart enough to understand that our actions have consequences, just saying 'we have a biological imperative to fulfill' does not cut it.
I'm glad that one H1-B is as it is supposed to be.
I am sure you are quite talented, and the H1-B's I have worked with have been OK to good programmers. And they were all decent human beings who I was glad to have met. But, if the mark is supposed to be "unavailable skills", then the programmer I worked with at iFusion did not match. Nor did the one I worked at when I was working for Epic Solutions. There were a couple at one fair sized financial services organization that I will not name, and probably a few at another that I will likewise not name. At my current employer, I helped out one of our clients by interviewing the QA candidates they were looking to hire. One was on an H1-B, and he seemed like he knew his stuff, but he displayed no skills in resume or in the interview that were anything we could not find in other candidates ( I gave him a thumbs up, the client is small, and did not want the overhead of an H1-B sponsorship... ).
Now, please, dont assume that I hate H1-B's, or people from other parts of the world. I dont resent other countries raising their standards of living. What I dont care for is US politicians and US corporations playing games, saying one thing, then doing another. And that is what H1-B looks like on the political/economic/American front.
My sample size is not very large either, but I have yet to meet an H1B ( 3 companies now, and one interview ) where the work they were doing could not have been done by an American applicatant. So, my anecdotal evidence seems to confirm your notion that it is about the money.
What I find funny is the "you took it from us, give it back" notion. If we do that, will they give it back to the native peoples who they took it from?
I dont think they come here to pick fruit per se, they come here because economic conditions are better, and there are jobs that pay more. So, if the ag jobs go away, I would not expect immigration to stop or reverse. It might find a new equilibrium, and slow a bit.
"Think of it as evolution in action". A reader of "Oath of Fealty", perhaps?
I think things change if you only allow the candidate's campaign to run ads. And the candidate's campaign never sees the money, they direct those running the pool to disburse the candidate's allotment.
I would say it is better to try something, and I think we need some fairness in politics before we will see some fairness elsewhere.
What is the point of an election? I think it is for voters to make their votes drive political behaviour. Giving donations to candidates drowns this out, making it so that the people donating the money are the main influence on the election. I dont know of any way to keep the directed donations feature and keep the money from being such an influence. If you know of such a way, chime in, I am all ears.
I am more willing to accept that less money is spent on political campaigning than I am that the larger amount of money makes it so that voting is mostly ineffective in influencing candidate behaviour.
"Sue can't spend more than $1 mil on her campaign, but Jim, a wealthy oil tycoon really wants her to win, and so he personally finances a $30 million TV ad campaign saying all sorts of bad things about Bob."
How about this: No political advertising unless the money comes out of that shared pool, under the direction of one of the candidates.
I understand that you want your money to help your candidate.
But I think that works at too much a cross purpose to making it so that votes are what candidates respond to when legislating.
Anonymous contribution might well reduce the role money plays in politics, but I dont think it will be enough. And, assuming it did reduce the effect "enough", I would argue that corporations ( and to some extent wealthy individuals ) would sharply reduce the contributions that they would make. After all, that *is* why they are, by and large, making the contributions for in the first place. And that is making it so that our voices are not heard.
I am still ofthe opinion that we will need to suck it up and do without contributions directly to candidates. Having said that, I understand it has a snowballs chance, as it would have to pass the very people it would be reducing in influence.
I see. So instead of one large pool, there would be separate pools by candidate. I dont see anything that stops a contributor from claiming ( correctly or not ) that they donated to a candidate's campaign, nor any natural check on negotiating deals beforehand ( "I'll donate to your fund, here is what I want" ). Yes, it is mixed, but the "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more" factor is still there. Putting it into the FEC does sound like a good idea, as it would put a check attempting to make contributions illegally, as long as the FEC distributed the money directly, not thru the candidates hands.
If people abided by this, that might work. What I would be afraid of in your scheme would be back channel communications of "it was me that sent the check for $1020304.05, and here is the legislation that I want enacted". Then, later, both the donor and the candidate are "no, we never spoke about this". No notes to prove the communication happened, no witnesses, no proof, no case, no court dates, no convictions. And then, illegal means nothing. Just like the "there is no proof that the lost emails in the RNC system were governmental in nature". Well, of course there is no proof, the emails were the proof, and they are missing. As long as everyone stands on that story, there is nothing.
I would expect that having the donation follow the number of votes would tend toward reinforcing the incumbent. Do you find that to be the case? Do they have a method for parties tht have never been up for election before to gain access to donations?
"Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign"
This always seems to come up.
You can always envision that your money went to the guy/gal/hermaphrodite that you did like ( or that you hated least ). And if you cant get past that, then what about the other guys "free speech"? Or is money and economic backing going to continue to be the main input?
And I would propose that there be no "private route", as it seems that when private party "X" donates money, they expect influence with the candidates.
And as long as the bizarre conditions apply to everyone, who cares?
I would say that the money never goes to the candidate, they request something be done with there allotment, and the money is transfered from the pool to the publication directly. And if you offer candidate 1 space in your publication at a given price, you *have* to offer that price to everyone. And the items must be printed together, no putting your favorite on page 1, and the one you dont like on page 2.
Why is this so hard? There is no real speech issue here, except that the "small guy" is not heard from. Or do you like that GE has more say over how our "republican government with democratic traditions" is run?
Slashdot Mirror
"The problem in broadband ISPs is that the FCC's wants there to be one provider per broadband technology"
That is an interesting take on things, and explains why broadband over power lines keeps
coming back up again and again.
"WTF? Why 9.1 kg? "
Maybe that is what the N tyres they ground up ended up weighing?
The first link:
"This is the Inspiration, the British steam powered car that is attempting to take the British and World land speed records (for steam vehicles). The car is constructed on a tubular steel chassis and holds four boilers which output a massive four megawatts."
Now, perhaps there was a edit adding that link,
but there it is.
I dont buy that it is the *only* reason.
I am sure it is the main reason. But only?
University != trade school.
Pollution?
We are supposed to be smart enough to understand that our
actions have consequences, just saying 'we have a biological
imperative to fulfill' does not cut it.
I thought Mars needed Women?
Well, then we can just change the mass. Easy, no?
True enough.
You know, I did not see the title of your missive the first time around.
Funny, I am in CA also. San Diego, in fact. Where are you?
I'm glad that one H1-B is as it is supposed to be.
I am sure you are quite talented, and the H1-B's I have worked
with have been OK to good programmers. And they were all
decent human beings who I was glad to have met. But, if the
mark is supposed to be "unavailable skills", then the programmer
I worked with at iFusion did not match. Nor did the one I
worked at when I was working for Epic Solutions.
There were a couple at one fair sized financial services organization
that I will not name, and probably a few at another that I
will likewise not name. At my current employer, I helped
out one of our clients by interviewing the QA candidates they
were looking to hire. One was on an H1-B, and he seemed like
he knew his stuff, but he displayed no skills in resume or in
the interview that were anything we could not find in other
candidates ( I gave him a thumbs up, the client is small, and
did not want the overhead of an H1-B sponsorship... ).
Now, please, dont assume that I hate H1-B's, or people from other
parts of the world. I dont resent other countries raising their
standards of living. What I dont care for is US politicians
and US corporations playing games, saying one thing, then doing
another. And that is what H1-B looks like on the
political/economic/American front.
David
My sample size is not very large either, but I have yet to meet an H1B
( 3 companies now, and one interview ) where the work they were doing
could not have been done by an American applicatant. So, my anecdotal
evidence seems to confirm your notion that it is about the money.
What I find funny is the "you took it from us, give it back"
notion. If we do that, will they give it back to the
native peoples who they took it from?
I dont think they come here to pick fruit per se,
they come here because economic conditions are better,
and there are jobs that pay more. So, if the
ag jobs go away, I would not expect immigration
to stop or reverse. It might find a new equilibrium,
and slow a bit.
"Think of it as evolution in action". A reader of
"Oath of Fealty", perhaps?
Change your name, Dr Suess!
I think you are correct. I would rather have those problems than the
ones we have now, I guess.
I think things change if you only allow the candidate's campaign to
run ads. And the candidate's campaign never sees the money, they
direct those running the pool to disburse the candidate's allotment.
I would say it is better to try something, and I think we need some
fairness in politics before we will see some fairness elsewhere.
What is the point of an election? I think it is for voters to make
their votes drive political behaviour. Giving donations to candidates
drowns this out, making it so that the people donating the money are
the main influence on the election. I dont know of any way to keep
the directed donations feature and keep the money from being such an
influence. If you know of such a way, chime in, I am all ears.
I am more willing to accept that less money is spent on political
campaigning than I am that the larger amount of money makes it so
that voting is mostly ineffective in influencing candidate behaviour.
That assumes that Bob is allowed to run such an ad. I would disallow it.
No advertising for political purposes unless it came from the shared pool.
"Sue can't spend more than $1 mil on her campaign, but Jim, a wealthy oil tycoon really wants her to win, and so he personally finances a $30 million TV ad campaign saying all sorts of bad things about Bob."
How about this: No political advertising unless the money comes out of
that shared pool, under the direction of one of the candidates.
I understand that you want your money to help your candidate.
But I think that works at too much a cross purpose to making
it so that votes are what candidates respond to when legislating.
Anonymous contribution might well reduce the role money plays in
politics, but I dont think it will be enough. And, assuming
it did reduce the effect "enough", I would argue that corporations
( and to some extent wealthy individuals ) would sharply reduce
the contributions that they would make. After all, that *is*
why they are, by and large, making the contributions for in the
first place. And that is making it so that our voices are not
heard.
I am still ofthe opinion that we will need to suck it up and do
without contributions directly to candidates. Having said that,
I understand it has a snowballs chance, as it would have to pass
the very people it would be reducing in influence.
I see. So instead of one large pool, there would be separate pools
by candidate. I dont see anything that stops a contributor from
claiming ( correctly or not ) that they donated to a candidate's campaign,
nor any natural check on negotiating deals beforehand ( "I'll donate
to your fund, here is what I want" ). Yes, it is mixed, but the
"wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more" factor is still there.
Putting it into the FEC does sound like a good idea, as it would put
a check attempting to make contributions illegally, as long as the
FEC distributed the money directly, not thru the candidates hands.
If people abided by this, that might work. What I would be afraid of
in your scheme would be back channel communications of "it was me that
sent the check for $1020304.05, and here is the legislation that I want
enacted". Then, later, both the donor and the candidate are "no, we
never spoke about this". No notes to prove the communication happened,
no witnesses, no proof, no case, no court dates, no convictions. And
then, illegal means nothing. Just like the "there is no proof that the
lost emails in the RNC system were governmental in nature". Well, of
course there is no proof, the emails were the proof, and they are missing.
As long as everyone stands on that story, there is nothing.
I would expect that having the donation follow the number of votes
would tend toward reinforcing the incumbent. Do you find that to be
the case? Do they have a method for parties tht have never been up
for election before to gain access to donations?
"Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign"
This always seems to come up.
You can always envision that your money went to the guy/gal/hermaphrodite that you
did like ( or that you hated least ). And if you cant get past that, then what
about the other guys "free speech"? Or is money and economic backing going to
continue to be the main input?
And I would propose that there be no "private route", as it seems that when private
party "X" donates money, they expect influence with the candidates.
And as long as the bizarre conditions apply to everyone, who cares?
I would say that the money never goes to the candidate, they request something be
done with there allotment, and the money is transfered from the pool to the
publication directly. And if you offer candidate 1 space in your publication at a
given price, you *have* to offer that price to everyone. And the items must be
printed together, no putting your favorite on page 1, and the one you dont like
on page 2.
Why is this so hard? There is no real speech issue here, except that the "small guy" is
not heard from. Or do you like that GE has more say over how our "republican government
with democratic traditions" is run?