There will always be a need to have engineers right here doing the work. That's because the engineers who actually live here know this market and write better software for this market than someone living half a world away. The only question is: who will do the work here? Americans or foreigners?
Reducing the workforce by reducing the number of H1-Bs will not make these companies leave the US. No, that'll make these companies pay more for the fewer amount of workers.
We're screwing ourselves in the long term by using H1-Bs. That shows domestic college students that CS is not a good career path, reducing the number going into CS, and increasing our reliance on foreign labor. Further, those H1-Bs then learn all about our industry and practices, making it far easier for them to return home and companies to offshore our work. The H1-B program enables offshoring.
The point is not to have you compete for jobs, but for the companies to compete to have you.
There will always be a need to have engineers right here doing the work. That's because the engineers who actually live here know this market and write better software for this market than someone living half a world away. The only question is: who will do the work? Americans or foreigners?
Reducing the workforce by reducing the number of H1-Bs will not make these companies leave the US. No, that'll make these companies pay more for the fewer amount of workers.
We're screwing ourselves in the long term by using H1-Bs. That shows domestic college students that CS is not a good career path, reducing the number going into CS, and increasing our reliance on foreign labor. Further, those H1-Bs then learn all about our industry and practices, making it far easier for them to return home and companies to offshore our work. The H1-B program enables offshoring.
The solution is to make salaries in IT go up. When that happens, people will become interested in CS and flock to it, just like during the IT boom. Granted, that will attract people who otherwise wouldn't and probably shouldn't go into CS, but that will also attract the truly intelligent who would now rather become a doctor or a lawyer because they get paid so much more. The end result either way is more domestic IT workers.
How do we make IT salaries increase? Simple. Decrease the supply of IT workers in the short-term. That means DECREASING the number of H1-B workers, not increasing them. Fewer workers available means that companies have to bid up the few available workers left. More bidding means higher salaries for IT people.
What does INCREASING the number of H1-B workers mean? That means companies have more people to pick and choose from. That means companies can pay less for their workers because they don't have to bid up. That means US college students become less interested in CS and IT. That's because they see jobs going to foreigners and the few jobs that don't go to foreigners pay poorly. That means we as a nation become more dependent on H1-B labor. That means we don't fix our problem.
(Incidentally, companies want to increase the number of women going into IT for the same reason they want to increase the number of H1-Bs. The economic logic is exactly the same.)
That money figure must be the economic estimate for computer repair shops milking users for the cost of removing spyware because US broadband companies don't configure hardware firewalls with their broadband connections.
No, this is incorrect. We can look at the acculumated differences over the millenia and see changes in the human population, long after the time when fire was apparently discovered.
There are still evolutionary pressures today. There are always large numbers of grown adults who do not have and will never have children. None of these people will contribute their genes to the next generation and therefore are evolutionary dead ends.
Homosexuals are one example of this group. That probably explains their low numbers compared to the rest of the population.
Nuns and priests also come to mind, which removed the extremely pious from the population since the beginning of the Catholic Church. I wager this did have an affect of changing Europe from the overly-religious dark ages to it's general modern day hostility towards religion. It will be interesting to see if this becomes reversed due to the Catholic Church's current position on birth control.
And also, there's the case of the American blacks who as a group went through hundreds of years at the mercy of slave owners who understood and practised the concept of breeding. The horrible conditions these people lived through are alone enough to ensure that only the strongest and most healthy survived. And today, we still see the result of that practise in the sheer domination of American black people in almost all areas of athletics.
People who succeed in the face of adversity and serious obstacles are much stronger people than those raised with a silver spoon in their mouths. You need to look no further than America's two biggest dynasties the Kennedy's and the Bush's to see the deficiencies that develop in generations raised on a silver spoon.
Japan of 1966 is not the same as the China of today. One was a democracy, the other a communist state. One had roughly 100 million people, the other 1.3 billion people. One country actually listened to the US and implemented our suggested financial and governmental changes, the other certainly does not listen to the US and is not interested in implementing any of the changes we suggest.
The point I'm making is that China, the world's second-largest economy, is currently kicking the US's ass when it comes to trade. China is certainly not a free market. And with the way things are going, China will overtake the US as the largest economy of the world. That pokes a hole in the free traders' absolutist philosophy regarding the way economies should operate.
Things will continue along this path until the free-traders acknowledge the problems with their philosophy:
Freely trading with protectionist countries such as China is not good economically. Giving these countries free and unfettered access to our markets while they limit our access to their markets provides those countries no incentive to change.
Freely trading with countries that can not afford our goods and services is not good economically. They can not buy our goods and services, so this trade is only one-way, further increasing our trade deficit and draining our money.
Offshoring jobs to other countries means lowering our standard of living, which is not good economically.
We do not need to close our borders from all foreign goods. We can have fair trade treaties with third world countries. And free trade deals are perfectly fine with other first world countries which have protections for workers and the environment and who pay employees wages comparable to those in the US.
Let's see, China is still far more "protectionist" than the US, but our current balance of trade greatly favors them. In fact, the US and it's "free" market runs a negative trade imbalance with most of our trading partners, and has done so for each of the last 30 years during the time of the "free" market fad. On the other hand, China and it's "protectionist" market has become the world's manufacturer of choice. While China effectively hands us our ass economically, people like you continue to falsely espouse all the benefits of a "free" market.
With China currently raking in the dough by selling to a completely open US, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their "protectionism". If the economic leaders in the US were truly smart, they would not continue to lecture China for what they "should" do and actually learn to do what the Chinese are doing.
The theories of the "free" market as they have been implemented in the US are an abject failure when applied to the real world.
I don't particularly care. I'm not arguing for or against those. You obviously missed my actual point for my bringing that up, which is that police agencies do not want anyone who committed a crime at all, whether they were captured, convicted, or not.
Were charges filed? Dropped? Was he found guilty? Sleeping with a 14-year old isn't always statutory rape - your local laws may differ.
I believe the age difference was enough to call it statutory rape. The local police called up the military police in California since it happened on the Army post. The girl had moved at that point and I believe they had difficultly contacting her. Also at that point, the crime had happened 10 years previously. So, I believe they dropped the prosecution, probably due to the statute of limitations.
That didn't stop the police agency from blackballing him from applying to any other police agency.
Cops are government officials, not regular citizens. There are exceptions to certain laws so they can perform their duties. This is the same as giving IT workers super-user status. Of course, this is beside the topic of discussion, which is hiring practises.
Police agencies don't hire law-breakers because they have to enforce the law. IT departments should not hire black-hat hackers because they have to enforce IT policies.
Exactly. Law enforcement has asked the same question since the time of the first criminal and the first sheriff: Can you trust a former crook to enforce the law?
In law enforcement, they came to the conclusion long ago that the answer is no. Besides all the other qualifications for a police officer, they can't have a criminal record. In fact, they are required to pass a 300-question polygraph to make sure that they haven't committed any crimes in which they haven't gotten caught. Further, if a candidate fails a polygraph, the police can investigate and decide to press charges or just blackball you from any chance you have at getting a job with any other police agency.
That happened to one of my friends who applied for a police officer position here. His offense? As a 18-year-old high school senior, he dated and had sex with a 14-year-old female freshman. It was completely consensual, but the police investigated him for statutory rape. Because of that, he was blackballed, he would never become a policeman, and his 2 years of police academy were completely wasted.
Police know that if you've broken the law once, even if you weren't caught, then you're likely to break the law again. OR, like the case of my friend, you're not likely to enforce the laws that you broke. (In his case, the statutory rape law.)
It's the same thing with these black-hat hackers. I wouldn't trust them in top positions in security related IT jobs or in less-sensitive general business jobs.
Read and comment all you like. But bitching about this topic is complete idiocy and I certainly have the right to state that opinion.
I don't go to the BBC website and bitch that all the content is targetted for people in the UK. You shouldn't come here and bitch that some of the content is targetted for Americans.
I didn't see any references to shotguns, hunting, opossum, mobile homes, pickup trucks, mullets, confederate flags, professional wrestling, country music, or the like. So, your claim of "redneck" is specious, at best.
I just saw Americans talking to other Americans, then foreigners like you butting in.
Let's see, this was a quote from an American press release obviously intended for an American audience. It was picked up on Slashdot, an American website run by Americans for Americans.
As much as you people in other countries want to globalize everything American, we Americans don't necessarily agree. So please go piss off. Or, if you're not English, go do whatever to yourself as you say it in your own country.
For instance, amphibians and many fish species have much more sophisticated retinas that we mammalians do. Despite this level of sophistication, they are able to fix their retinas when damaged which is something that we humans have either forgotten how to do or lost the machinery required through evolution.
Don't forget that we did not diverge from modern fish. Fish today are just as modern as us.
We diverged from a common ancestor. It's quite likely that common ancestor did not have this adaptation.
Yes, I can look down on you, because you ARE beneath me.
You already wrote, "I've used many a code that wasn't my own". You say, "Hard work pays off in the long run", but then you never did the hard work. Not that it matters. Cheating is cheating, whether you're the one "doing the work" or doing the copying. But, you'll never realize that because of your compromised morals.
Going to school isn't about getting a degree, it's about getting an education. People like you just getting their piece of paper don't know shit. That's why people like you should not be bargained with, but expelled with the greatest disdain. You make the rest of us, who actually earned our degrees, look bad.
The problem, however, is that the state's schools often struggle with enormous bureaucracies and a population that includes high numbers of children of both legal and illegal migrants, which have their own unique set of difficulties as they can move at odd points in the school year, making it difficult to keep them up to par.
As an Army brat who did move on a regular basis at odd points in the school year, I'd call BS on that statement. My education was perfectly fine, as well as those of my fellow Army brats.
No, the difficulties with the children of legal and illegal migrants stems from the fact that many of them have problems speaking English.
Actually, we would have had Mr Gore when 9/11 happened. And yes, we would have been better off with Gore.
Gore knew the threat posed by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and actually took it seriously. Those missile strikes targetting Al Qaeda in 1998 occurred while Gore was VP. Of course, the damned conservatives back then called that a "Wag the Dog" scenario and were more concerned on focusing on who Bill Clinton was having sex with rather than dealing with the terrorists. Bush and the damned conservatives did not take Al Qaeda seriously until the Twin Towers were in flames.
Gore could just as easily as Bush lead us into Afganistan to take out Bin Laden. However, Gore would not have been distracted in his hunt for Bin Laden by starting a war with Iraq, a country with NO ties to the 9/11 terrorists and NO threat to the US. Because of this illegitimate invasion of Iraq, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists now have a recruiting and training center which did NOT exist prior to 9/11. You can thank Bush for that.
As for your comments regarding Kerry, they are completely laughable. Yes, I would prefer a decorated war veteran who has actually seen combat leading our military rather than a chickenshit chickenhawk who had daddy pull some strings to hide him in Alabama when the real fighting was going on.
Bush is the most incompetent president we've had in recent times. We'd have been far better off with just about anyone else.
Having actually lived in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Missouri, each for multiple years, I can tell you with certainty that Texas is definitely part of the South.
No, this isn't as unimportant as a 4th grade spelling bee. This is the presidency we're talking about here.
Bush didn't win the first election. A bunch of activist judges handed it to him, acting against Florida state law.
The entire article was about the fact that Bush didn't win his second election either. But of course, I'm sure you didn't actually read the article before posting a comment on the article.
Camping is cheap, but it's not cheating. Any decent game will be designed with the idea of alleviating that problem.
Someone playing really well is different from someone outright cheating. To use a previous example, it's the difference between playing a chess grandmaster and playing some no-talent cheater just switching the pieces around.
Your idea of fun by taunting and agitating people sounds sociopathic. Do you have an obsession with fire? Do you enjoy harming animals? Did you have a longer than usual period of bedwetting? If you answered yes to two of those questions, that indicates a very strong tendency towards sociopathy.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't thought this through.
There will always be a need to have engineers right here doing the work. That's because the engineers who actually live here know this market and write better software for this market than someone living half a world away. The only question is: who will do the work here? Americans or foreigners?
Reducing the workforce by reducing the number of H1-Bs will not make these companies leave the US. No, that'll make these companies pay more for the fewer amount of workers.
We're screwing ourselves in the long term by using H1-Bs. That shows domestic college students that CS is not a good career path, reducing the number going into CS, and increasing our reliance on foreign labor. Further, those H1-Bs then learn all about our industry and practices, making it far easier for them to return home and companies to offshore our work. The H1-B program enables offshoring.
You lost the entire point completely.
The point is not to have you compete for jobs, but for the companies to compete to have you.
There will always be a need to have engineers right here doing the work. That's because the engineers who actually live here know this market and write better software for this market than someone living half a world away. The only question is: who will do the work? Americans or foreigners?
Reducing the workforce by reducing the number of H1-Bs will not make these companies leave the US. No, that'll make these companies pay more for the fewer amount of workers.
We're screwing ourselves in the long term by using H1-Bs. That shows domestic college students that CS is not a good career path, reducing the number going into CS, and increasing our reliance on foreign labor. Further, those H1-Bs then learn all about our industry and practices, making it far easier for them to return home and companies to offshore our work. The H1-B program enables offshoring.
The solution is to make salaries in IT go up. When that happens, people will become interested in CS and flock to it, just like during the IT boom. Granted, that will attract people who otherwise wouldn't and probably shouldn't go into CS, but that will also attract the truly intelligent who would now rather become a doctor or a lawyer because they get paid so much more. The end result either way is more domestic IT workers.
How do we make IT salaries increase? Simple. Decrease the supply of IT workers in the short-term. That means DECREASING the number of H1-B workers, not increasing them. Fewer workers available means that companies have to bid up the few available workers left. More bidding means higher salaries for IT people.
What does INCREASING the number of H1-B workers mean? That means companies have more people to pick and choose from. That means companies can pay less for their workers because they don't have to bid up. That means US college students become less interested in CS and IT. That's because they see jobs going to foreigners and the few jobs that don't go to foreigners pay poorly. That means we as a nation become more dependent on H1-B labor. That means we don't fix our problem.
(Incidentally, companies want to increase the number of women going into IT for the same reason they want to increase the number of H1-Bs. The economic logic is exactly the same.)
That money figure must be the economic estimate for computer repair shops milking users for the cost of removing spyware because US broadband companies don't configure hardware firewalls with their broadband connections.
That's straight from the article. Take it up with RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer.
No, this is incorrect. We can look at the acculumated differences over the millenia and see changes in the human population, long after the time when fire was apparently discovered.
There are still evolutionary pressures today. There are always large numbers of grown adults who do not have and will never have children. None of these people will contribute their genes to the next generation and therefore are evolutionary dead ends.
Homosexuals are one example of this group. That probably explains their low numbers compared to the rest of the population.
Nuns and priests also come to mind, which removed the extremely pious from the population since the beginning of the Catholic Church. I wager this did have an affect of changing Europe from the overly-religious dark ages to it's general modern day hostility towards religion. It will be interesting to see if this becomes reversed due to the Catholic Church's current position on birth control.
And also, there's the case of the American blacks who as a group went through hundreds of years at the mercy of slave owners who understood and practised the concept of breeding. The horrible conditions these people lived through are alone enough to ensure that only the strongest and most healthy survived. And today, we still see the result of that practise in the sheer domination of American black people in almost all areas of athletics.
People who succeed in the face of adversity and serious obstacles are much stronger people than those raised with a silver spoon in their mouths. You need to look no further than America's two biggest dynasties the Kennedy's and the Bush's to see the deficiencies that develop in generations raised on a silver spoon.
Or Paris Hilton vs Mr Hilton.
Japan of 1966 is not the same as the China of today. One was a democracy, the other a communist state. One had roughly 100 million people, the other 1.3 billion people. One country actually listened to the US and implemented our suggested financial and governmental changes, the other certainly does not listen to the US and is not interested in implementing any of the changes we suggest.
So, in essence, your post is complete drivel.
Things will continue along this path until the free-traders acknowledge the problems with their philosophy:
- Freely trading with protectionist countries such as China is not good economically. Giving these countries free and unfettered access to our markets while they limit our access to their markets provides those countries no incentive to change.
- Freely trading with countries that can not afford our goods and services is not good economically. They can not buy our goods and services, so this trade is only one-way, further increasing our trade deficit and draining our money.
- Offshoring jobs to other countries means lowering our standard of living, which is not good economically.
We do not need to close our borders from all foreign goods. We can have fair trade treaties with third world countries. And free trade deals are perfectly fine with other first world countries which have protections for workers and the environment and who pay employees wages comparable to those in the US.Let's see, China is still far more "protectionist" than the US, but our current balance of trade greatly favors them. In fact, the US and it's "free" market runs a negative trade imbalance with most of our trading partners, and has done so for each of the last 30 years during the time of the "free" market fad. On the other hand, China and it's "protectionist" market has become the world's manufacturer of choice. While China effectively hands us our ass economically, people like you continue to falsely espouse all the benefits of a "free" market.
With China currently raking in the dough by selling to a completely open US, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their "protectionism". If the economic leaders in the US were truly smart, they would not continue to lecture China for what they "should" do and actually learn to do what the Chinese are doing.
The theories of the "free" market as they have been implemented in the US are an abject failure when applied to the real world.
You do know that polygraphs are a fraud, right?
I don't particularly care. I'm not arguing for or against those. You obviously missed my actual point for my bringing that up, which is that police agencies do not want anyone who committed a crime at all, whether they were captured, convicted, or not.
Were charges filed? Dropped? Was he found guilty? Sleeping with a 14-year old isn't always statutory rape - your local laws may differ.
I believe the age difference was enough to call it statutory rape. The local police called up the military police in California since it happened on the Army post. The girl had moved at that point and I believe they had difficultly contacting her. Also at that point, the crime had happened 10 years previously. So, I believe they dropped the prosecution, probably due to the statute of limitations.
That didn't stop the police agency from blackballing him from applying to any other police agency.
Cops are government officials, not regular citizens. There are exceptions to certain laws so they can perform their duties. This is the same as giving IT workers super-user status. Of course, this is beside the topic of discussion, which is hiring practises.
Police agencies don't hire law-breakers because they have to enforce the law. IT departments should not hire black-hat hackers because they have to enforce IT policies.
Exactly. Law enforcement has asked the same question since the time of the first criminal and the first sheriff: Can you trust a former crook to enforce the law?
In law enforcement, they came to the conclusion long ago that the answer is no . Besides all the other qualifications for a police officer, they can't have a criminal record. In fact, they are required to pass a 300-question polygraph to make sure that they haven't committed any crimes in which they haven't gotten caught. Further, if a candidate fails a polygraph, the police can investigate and decide to press charges or just blackball you from any chance you have at getting a job with any other police agency.
That happened to one of my friends who applied for a police officer position here. His offense? As a 18-year-old high school senior, he dated and had sex with a 14-year-old female freshman. It was completely consensual, but the police investigated him for statutory rape. Because of that, he was blackballed, he would never become a policeman, and his 2 years of police academy were completely wasted.
Police know that if you've broken the law once, even if you weren't caught, then you're likely to break the law again. OR, like the case of my friend, you're not likely to enforce the laws that you broke. (In his case, the statutory rape law.)
It's the same thing with these black-hat hackers. I wouldn't trust them in top positions in security related IT jobs or in less-sensitive general business jobs.
Until the US taxes British tea and claims control of all of England despite the protests of the local population, then I don't think it's the same.
Read and comment all you like. But bitching about this topic is complete idiocy and I certainly have the right to state that opinion.
I don't go to the BBC website and bitch that all the content is targetted for people in the UK. You shouldn't come here and bitch that some of the content is targetted for Americans.
I didn't see any references to shotguns, hunting, opossum, mobile homes, pickup trucks, mullets, confederate flags, professional wrestling, country music, or the like. So, your claim of "redneck" is specious, at best.
I just saw Americans talking to other Americans, then foreigners like you butting in.
http://www.brainatlas.org/aba/
http://www.brain-map.org/welcome.do
Let's see, this was a quote from an American press release obviously intended for an American audience. It was picked up on Slashdot, an American website run by Americans for Americans.
As much as you people in other countries want to globalize everything American, we Americans don't necessarily agree. So please go piss off. Or, if you're not English, go do whatever to yourself as you say it in your own country.
For instance, amphibians and many fish species have much more sophisticated retinas that we mammalians do. Despite this level of sophistication, they are able to fix their retinas when damaged which is something that we humans have either forgotten how to do or lost the machinery required through evolution.
Don't forget that we did not diverge from modern fish. Fish today are just as modern as us.
We diverged from a common ancestor. It's quite likely that common ancestor did not have this adaptation.
Yes, I can look down on you, because you ARE beneath me.
You already wrote, "I've used many a code that wasn't my own". You say, "Hard work pays off in the long run", but then you never did the hard work. Not that it matters. Cheating is cheating, whether you're the one "doing the work" or doing the copying. But, you'll never realize that because of your compromised morals.
Going to school isn't about getting a degree, it's about getting an education. People like you just getting their piece of paper don't know shit. That's why people like you should not be bargained with, but expelled with the greatest disdain. You make the rest of us, who actually earned our degrees, look bad.
The problem, however, is that the state's schools often struggle with enormous bureaucracies and a population that includes high numbers of children of both legal and illegal migrants, which have their own unique set of difficulties as they can move at odd points in the school year, making it difficult to keep them up to par.
As an Army brat who did move on a regular basis at odd points in the school year, I'd call BS on that statement. My education was perfectly fine, as well as those of my fellow Army brats.
No, the difficulties with the children of legal and illegal migrants stems from the fact that many of them have problems speaking English.
Actually, we would have had Mr Gore when 9/11 happened. And yes, we would have been better off with Gore.
Gore knew the threat posed by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and actually took it seriously. Those missile strikes targetting Al Qaeda in 1998 occurred while Gore was VP. Of course, the damned conservatives back then called that a "Wag the Dog" scenario and were more concerned on focusing on who Bill Clinton was having sex with rather than dealing with the terrorists. Bush and the damned conservatives did not take Al Qaeda seriously until the Twin Towers were in flames.
Gore could just as easily as Bush lead us into Afganistan to take out Bin Laden. However, Gore would not have been distracted in his hunt for Bin Laden by starting a war with Iraq, a country with NO ties to the 9/11 terrorists and NO threat to the US. Because of this illegitimate invasion of Iraq, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists now have a recruiting and training center which did NOT exist prior to 9/11. You can thank Bush for that.
As for your comments regarding Kerry, they are completely laughable. Yes, I would prefer a decorated war veteran who has actually seen combat leading our military rather than a chickenshit chickenhawk who had daddy pull some strings to hide him in Alabama when the real fighting was going on.
Bush is the most incompetent president we've had in recent times. We'd have been far better off with just about anyone else.
Having actually lived in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Missouri, each for multiple years, I can tell you with certainty that Texas is definitely part of the South.
No, this isn't as unimportant as a 4th grade spelling bee. This is the presidency we're talking about here.
Bush didn't win the first election. A bunch of activist judges handed it to him, acting against Florida state law.
The entire article was about the fact that Bush didn't win his second election either. But of course, I'm sure you didn't actually read the article before posting a comment on the article.
Camping is cheap, but it's not cheating. Any decent game will be designed with the idea of alleviating that problem.
Someone playing really well is different from someone outright cheating. To use a previous example, it's the difference between playing a chess grandmaster and playing some no-talent cheater just switching the pieces around.
Your idea of fun by taunting and agitating people sounds sociopathic. Do you have an obsession with fire? Do you enjoy harming animals? Did you have a longer than usual period of bedwetting? If you answered yes to two of those questions, that indicates a very strong tendency towards sociopathy.