I'd go so far as to make the salary truly representative of the "essential" skills they cannot find. 100K employees are a dime a dozen. My personal opinion is, that while 100K goes a long way towards removing the downward salary pressure, it doesn't actually address the essential skills need which by definition should be higher. $130-150K minimum might not be unreasonable, especially in the tech industry. Will foreign based outsourcers disappear? Not entirely, but they would shrink at a rate that will be more shocking than their rise.
I can see it now - "Sir, that $2M project we hired Wipro to do, they've come back at $5M, and the cheapest other estimates are coming in at $7M. Our old dev team estimated $3M. Maybe we can hire them back?"
So, here's the question: Emergency services rush to a crash site, you're lying there injured with no wallet or id. Do they:
A) Leave you there to die
B) Or take you in to a hospital and save your life
That's the simplest scenario - which do you advocate? If it's A, then what happens if you do have insurance? If it's B, who pays if you are not insured and have no means to pay?
The appendix's contribution to the body's white blood cell and antibody production reaches its peak when you are about 20 or 30 years old, then production falls off sharply. By age 60, the appendix serves very little active purpose....
I think for many, this sentence is probably more important than any other, depending upon if and when you had your appendix removed. Without supporting studies, the most you can surmise is that removal before 20 is bad compared to having one, and after 30 the effects rapidly become less noticeable. At 60, it is irrelevant.
Poverty aside, the most people who attend a traditional college live on campus anyways.
I don't know where you get that idea. Of the 3 universities I seriously considered, none had sufficient on-campus housing for even half the enrolled students.
The disadvantage is in that people need a 1 time cipher source that's shared between them. There's a lot more overhead but they are virtually uncrackable by any means. I didn't say this was to protect your purchase of Adele songs or the like from Amazon from government inspection.
I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists.
Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15%
So you're saying we'll finally be able to get in Louvre?
This is exactly the major difference. These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control than are being the target of something like a terror attack.
So you have total control over that 18 wheeler that falls off the bridge above you? Or the fact that you have male breast cancer and it wasn't caught until it spread to your lymph nodes? Or that appendicitis that crept up rapidly and burst in a 3 hour window? Or that lightning bolt that nailed you in the middle of the crowd in the stadium? Or the tree that fell on you sleeping in your tent? Or that during birth, you damaged an artery and bleed out?
What rights exactly did Obama trample? I believe they were thrown under the bus by Cheney/Bush long before Obama got anywhere close to the white house.
I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.
It will probably be a net 10,000,000 job loss for the US.
You're an optimist! I'd say this is well more than 200K jobs lost. (Because we can all pull numbers out of our...) But seriously, 99% of these jobs would be gone within 10 years anyways, so does it matter if it's amazon or automation that takes them?
But he's right even if he's giving the wrong implication. Billions of babies have died for your stem cells to have evolved into a human being. Given the current world population, at least 8B more will die, should the world end today.
The question you should be asking than is, "should normal users have control over thier updates", MS's answer to that is no, because they never run them. If you feel that you, as an advanced user, should be given control over your updates, buy the correct version of Windows, the one designed for more advanced users, Windows 10 Pro.
You get no meaningful control under Win10 Pro either. It's lip service at best. You will still be upgraded, with or without your consent.
No one is losing control of their updates but the people who never controlled them in the first place. If you have issues with MS taking steps towards security that they were constantly slammed for in the past, then what is your solution to the problem? How would you handle the majority of users that never run security updates and therefore have zombie PCs and IOT devices participating in botnets?
Actually, I could support "forced updates" if that avenue was solely used for necessary security updates for things that were actually on my machine, which only fixed the actual bugs and didn't change behavior nor added anything new to the system. MS has consistently been unwilling to offer such a real security patch set, instead always leveraging updates to add and change things. It's only gotten worse with Win10.
If anyone is not contributing to the conversation, it is MS with their monologue of "all your PC belong to us".
Had a stint as an Oracle DBA for a while, promoted to team lead/manager, did big Enterprise (managed a labor accounting system for 1/2 million people)....
If those statements above are related to a single job... shivers... you have my sympathies.
A sense of humor and exercising it is free, otherwise you have to don orange and jump on tweeter;)
Question answered by reading the thread. You responded to someone complaining about a walled garden, not about control of the OS. Did you not read what you replied to above? You are the one who seems to be derailing the thread, I pointed that out to you, as MS doesn't have a walled garden, they allow you to run whatever you want on your PC.
If you don't have control of your OS (which you do on your phones at least as far as upgrades go) then you are in a worse position than a walled garden. If you don't see the much graver implications there, you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
I love Marketing. You would too if only you tried it. Advertising Agencies have pool tables, free beer, bring your dog to work days... When was the last time you worked in an I.T. department with these perks?
You obviously chose the correct career, you're a natural.
What does that have to do with walled garden policies of Apple and Google which prevent you from running whatever apps you want? Forced updates is nothing new, Google does that as well, and I would assume that Apple does as well, but I don't use them.
What does that have to do with the question posed? That of not being in control of your OS. FYI - MS forces new code on you regardless of your desires, you will get new features, removed functions, bug fixes, and yes, security fixes.
To address your question, I run what I want on both my iOS and Android devices. Granted, I'm a dev on both, but hey, not everyone gets to code their cars either....
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point - if it's an essential need, there's no reason for the H1B to be unemployed and needing another job.
I'd go so far as to make the salary truly representative of the "essential" skills they cannot find. 100K employees are a dime a dozen. My personal opinion is, that while 100K goes a long way towards removing the downward salary pressure, it doesn't actually address the essential skills need which by definition should be higher. $130-150K minimum might not be unreasonable, especially in the tech industry. Will foreign based outsourcers disappear? Not entirely, but they would shrink at a rate that will be more shocking than their rise.
I can see it now - "Sir, that $2M project we hired Wipro to do, they've come back at $5M, and the cheapest other estimates are coming in at $7M. Our old dev team estimated $3M. Maybe we can hire them back?"
That's entirely against the premise of H1Bs. H1Bs are to fill an essential need, not go job hopping in the US.
There would seriously be some cursing and yelling on the cockpit tape if a battery caught fire like those Samsung phones - just look at the videos.
You might need to change your nick...
Citation, please...
Do a little research on how LDDS started It wasn't because the cable they paid for was expensive.
That's the simplest scenario - which do you advocate? If it's A, then what happens if you do have insurance? If it's B, who pays if you are not insured and have no means to pay?
The appendix's contribution to the body's white blood cell and antibody production reaches its peak when you are about 20 or 30 years old, then production falls off sharply. By age 60, the appendix serves very little active purpose. ...
I think for many, this sentence is probably more important than any other, depending upon if and when you had your appendix removed. Without supporting studies, the most you can surmise is that removal before 20 is bad compared to having one, and after 30 the effects rapidly become less noticeable. At 60, it is irrelevant.
Poverty aside, the most people who attend a traditional college live on campus anyways.
I don't know where you get that idea. Of the 3 universities I seriously considered, none had sufficient on-campus housing for even half the enrolled students.
The disadvantage is in that people need a 1 time cipher source that's shared between them. There's a lot more overhead but they are virtually uncrackable by any means. I didn't say this was to protect your purchase of Adele songs or the like from Amazon from government inspection.
And he helped increase all this spying which, as you might remember, is now going into Trump's hands.
He, along with Congress, actually decreased it from its unregulated heyday under Bush/Cheney.
Congress voted for it, and who controls congress? Now I'll grant you that Obama could at least symbolically have vetoed it, and should have, IMNSHO.
Terribly. It is essentially a good resolution doubling solution.
And just remember, there are still codes unbreakable by even quantum computers.
I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists.
Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15%
So you're saying we'll finally be able to get in Louvre?
This is exactly the major difference. These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control than are being the target of something like a terror attack.
So you have total control over that 18 wheeler that falls off the bridge above you? Or the fact that you have male breast cancer and it wasn't caught until it spread to your lymph nodes? Or that appendicitis that crept up rapidly and burst in a 3 hour window? Or that lightning bolt that nailed you in the middle of the crowd in the stadium? Or the tree that fell on you sleeping in your tent? Or that during birth, you damaged an artery and bleed out?
I'm amazed at your level of control.
What rights exactly did Obama trample? I believe they were thrown under the bus by Cheney/Bush long before Obama got anywhere close to the white house.
I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.
It will probably be a net 10,000,000 job loss for the US.
You're an optimist! I'd say this is well more than 200K jobs lost. (Because we can all pull numbers out of our ...) But seriously, 99% of these jobs would be gone within 10 years anyways, so does it matter if it's amazon or automation that takes them?
But he's right even if he's giving the wrong implication. Billions of babies have died for your stem cells to have evolved into a human being. Given the current world population, at least 8B more will die, should the world end today.
if you're lumping Muslim extremists in with Christians
Hate to break it to you, all current major religions were started by bronze age goat herders.
The question you should be asking than is, "should normal users have control over thier updates", MS's answer to that is no, because they never run them. If you feel that you, as an advanced user, should be given control over your updates, buy the correct version of Windows, the one designed for more advanced users, Windows 10 Pro.
You get no meaningful control under Win10 Pro either. It's lip service at best. You will still be upgraded, with or without your consent.
No one is losing control of their updates but the people who never controlled them in the first place. If you have issues with MS taking steps towards security that they were constantly slammed for in the past, then what is your solution to the problem? How would you handle the majority of users that never run security updates and therefore have zombie PCs and IOT devices participating in botnets?
Actually, I could support "forced updates" if that avenue was solely used for necessary security updates for things that were actually on my machine, which only fixed the actual bugs and didn't change behavior nor added anything new to the system. MS has consistently been unwilling to offer such a real security patch set, instead always leveraging updates to add and change things. It's only gotten worse with Win10.
If anyone is not contributing to the conversation, it is MS with their monologue of "all your PC belong to us".
Had a stint as an Oracle DBA for a while, promoted to team lead/manager, did big Enterprise (managed a labor accounting system for 1/2 million people)....
If those statements above are related to a single job... shivers... you have my sympathies.
A sense of humor and exercising it is free, otherwise you have to don orange and jump on tweeter ;)
Question answered by reading the thread. You responded to someone complaining about a walled garden, not about control of the OS. Did you not read what you replied to above? You are the one who seems to be derailing the thread, I pointed that out to you, as MS doesn't have a walled garden, they allow you to run whatever you want on your PC.
If you don't have control of your OS (which you do on your phones at least as far as upgrades go) then you are in a worse position than a walled garden. If you don't see the much graver implications there, you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
I love Marketing. You would too if only you tried it. Advertising Agencies have pool tables, free beer, bring your dog to work days... When was the last time you worked in an I.T. department with these perks?
You obviously chose the correct career, you're a natural.
What does that have to do with walled garden policies of Apple and Google which prevent you from running whatever apps you want? Forced updates is nothing new, Google does that as well, and I would assume that Apple does as well, but I don't use them.
What does that have to do with the question posed? That of not being in control of your OS. FYI - MS forces new code on you regardless of your desires, you will get new features, removed functions, bug fixes, and yes, security fixes.
To address your question, I run what I want on both my iOS and Android devices. Granted, I'm a dev on both, but hey, not everyone gets to code their cars either....
The orange one says "WRONG!!!!" with a little ok formed on both hands.