Look, I don't like Hilary. I don't think this plan is anything more than an attempt to get votes. But your particular complaint about what would happen if the plan were carried out strikes me as misguided.
Foreign students who are here to get a degree ALREADY get to stay as long as they are working on a degree. The crunch comes when they graduate. They need to have a job lined up to stay in the country, and so companies have a lot of leverage in hiring and then how they treat them afterwards under the H1B program. The degree is already the argument the companies use to get them the H1B.
This whole dynamic is a large part of why they can be used to undercut salaries for permanent residents and citizens. It also creates unnecessary bad feelings toward the US by folks we should actually prefer to stay here rather than going back to somewhere else and help offshoring efforts. The plan seems to me a good solution to breaking this dynamic and reducing H1B abuse.
The only drawback I see, which does need a careful selection of institutions to minimize, is that some folks are justifiably unemployable despite somehow managing to obtain an advanced degree. We wind up with them as permanent residents and that costs something in public services. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs for uneducated illegal immigrants, but it is something. On the whole, I'd consider the tradeoff a good one.
For the accounting firms, it depends on how good of a quality and nature of the lie is in the books. The accounting firm can only comment on whether the records they receive are consistent and have a correct process based on their inputs. If the wrong stuff is far enough upstream of the books, there's a GIGO problem.
Of course, by the time you reach that point, you've got even more blame on Oracle because then the intent to deceive becomes a lot more clear, since somewhere along the line folks (like the whistleblower in question) who put in that data have to be told to make shit up. Whether the point at which they were making stuff up is at a point a good audit would catch, I don't know. I am not an accountant, nor do I have any special insight into Oracle's bookkeeping process.
I don't really buy the "we are a simulation" thing, but taking your logic to it's reasonable conclusion the simulation could well be run by a bearded man using the cloud. In which case the the major monotheistic religions have had it basically right for quite a while.
I know more people who have lost their healthcare as a result of Obamacare than who have gotten health care who did not have it before. Then again, I know more working class folks than non-working who can get the biggest subsidies.
That's just anecdotal of course.
Less anecdotal is that health care costs have risen considerably, and that even if one has insurance under Obamacare, the cost of getting sick is high (look at deductables and out-of-pocket maximums of the various tiers).
The only thing about the study that suggests that freewill is an illusion, is that despite the data suporting the opposite the published conclusion is that one has no free will, as if the author were fated to come to such a conclusion.
The data appears to show that when given time for the conscious mind to interfere, the choices made were indeed different than the automatic responses.
There is plenty of lithium on this planet. But that isn't the problem. As we have both said, the problem is the economics. The assumption in my comment, highlighted by the second half, is that since they are doing this as a business, they will stop scaling when they no longer see profit to be made by doing so. As long as there is profit in doing so, the total potential market size is a POSTIVE for the business case, not a negative.
The summary claims they are doubling what they did last year. If they keep investing in the infrastructure to keep scaling up each year, being at one millionth right now is only 20 years away from your estimate of what the US would need. Of course in practice the trick is to stop scaling up when there won't be people who want it or you business goes bust instead of being highly profitable at the end, but yes, this sort of infrastructure overhaul in 20 years is not only a rational timeline but pretty agressive in historical terms.
Since "Highly Liberal" is a subset of "Highly Repressive", the story title is somewhat repetitive.
The thing is, there is a tendency to think that a government that forces everyone to do things the way you think it should be done is not repressive. As long as one can do what one wants, one may be surprised and offended to discover others believe they are being oppressed.
Over and over again a movement starts to deal with real problems and then overshoots into creating other problems whether or not their methods are still consistent with fixing the original problem. And most of society smugly blames the people pointing out the other problems for the original problem at about the same time they accept that the original problem is a bad thing- because it lets them blame someone besides themselves.
Many will be annoyed that I'm picking "Liberal" specifically and not some other adjectives that lead to represssion here- I'm responding to the particular title. The principle, while it certainly fits here, is more general.
Sorry, I have just been frustrated lately with some folks who do exhibit a real gun phobia, and interpreted your statement to imply that if I was happy to hang out with folks with guns I was a gun nut.
Your general point is reasonable, and the point I should have expressed without implying you were a nut is that noone likes hanging out with a nut in general. I don't consider someone to be a nut just for exercising their right to open or concealed carry. Whether they have a gun is (for me) irrelevant to hanging out. I have had guests with guns without being bothered by it.
I had a restaurant like that back in grad school, and was happy with it as well. But the person I was responding to implied such a thing would turn them off- my point is that really good data mining would know that their preference would be to be treated as an unknown at each visit, while still providing a folks who were OK with it service tailored to their preferences.
There are plusses and minuses to human vs machine here, and generally I'd prefer the human. But a human has limited memory- and staff turnover and scheduling means you might not get the human that knows you. The machine could treat you as a regular even if you were traveling to a different city but going to a chain that knew about you. For some, that is creepy, for some that would feel comfortable. Sorting out which category folks fall into is important, unless you are willing to let the people sort themselves out of doing bussiness with you.
To put it another way, the machine can scale. The human approach works best for places like family restaurants. I prefer a good family restaurant to a chain anyway, but I am also obviously in the local minority from the relative number of chain restaurants to family restaurants near me.
Given that this is Comcast, I wouldn't be surprised if it was all of the above. "We quoted you 1Gb and we gave you 1Gb. Is it our fault you used it up in the first second? Don't worry, we'll be happy to sell you another. You do have a spare kidney, don't you?"
From the article: "The IEA singled out the Middle East as a region where fossil fuel subsidies are hampering renewables. It said 2 million barrels per day of oil are burned to generate power that could otherwise come from renewables, which would be competitive with unsubsidized oil."
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone a "dumb shit" when they are arguing over what the US govt is up to. You could redeem yourself by finding an article on the ways the US subsidizes the other energy sources if you like- that would be on topic and interesting instead of abusive.
I think that ideally, one would regulate and tax various methods exactly the right amount to normalize for externalities, and go from there. Figuring out the proper cost of the externalities is where it can get crazy of course, and where special interests get right back in the door.
Yes, your employer can get into your issued phone if they set it up correctly.
This is one reason why the current well publicized FBI/Apple court order debate is stupid- if the government hadn't screwed up, they wouldn't need Apple's help to get into the phone they had issued. Given that the government screws up something simple like this, why should we believe they won't screw up at safeguarding the special software they want.
Each party is stuck with a toxic candidate in part due to its own rules:
On the Republican side, they really want a way to get rid of Trump, but they chose to select most of their delegates by a reasonably democratic process.
On the Democrat side, they are stuck with Hillary because they decided to create enough superdelegates that they could override the democratic process.
If the parties had switched nominee selection processess, other than not being Trump I'm not sure who they would have picked, but for the Democrats we'd probably be seeing Sanders- or a lot of folks who didn't enter the race because of the superdelegates would have been there to consider.
Anyway, the whole thing leaves me looking at the third party candidates to decide who to vote for instead of Kang and Kodos
It's not that only 1 in 5 surveys may contain fraudulent data, it is that the fraud is only incompetent enough to be caught by this method in 1 in 5 surveys.
I admit I only read part but not all. That gets me beyond most posters so here we go..
Point is that if they have a conclusion that whether one knows if the code comes from a woman or not matters, two things seem necessary: - That they figure out who are actually women. As you say, you have to use sources outside the ones that the people deciding whether to accept the code were presumably using. If they didn't have seperate sources, there would not be the two groups to distinguish between. - That they figure out whether the people accepting the code believed them to be women. My assumption (wrong as another poster pointed out) is that in that sort of environment there would be no reason for the people accepting the code to know unless the person submitting the code somehow informed them.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, this is a business opportunity for Speedtest.net. They should start selling VPN
Look, I don't like Hilary. I don't think this plan is anything more than an attempt to get votes. But your particular complaint about what would happen if the plan were carried out strikes me as misguided.
Foreign students who are here to get a degree ALREADY get to stay as long as they are working on a degree. The crunch comes when they graduate. They need to have a job lined up to stay in the country, and so companies have a lot of leverage in hiring and then how they treat them afterwards under the H1B program. The degree is already the argument the companies use to get them the H1B.
This whole dynamic is a large part of why they can be used to undercut salaries for permanent residents and citizens. It also creates unnecessary bad feelings toward the US by folks we should actually prefer to stay here rather than going back to somewhere else and help offshoring efforts. The plan seems to me a good solution to breaking this dynamic and reducing H1B abuse.
The only drawback I see, which does need a careful selection of institutions to minimize, is that some folks are justifiably unemployable despite somehow managing to obtain an advanced degree. We wind up with them as permanent residents and that costs something in public services. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs for uneducated illegal immigrants, but it is something. On the whole, I'd consider the tradeoff a good one.
You are late to the party. c.f. Clinton and what the definition of "is" is
Oracle is certainly to blame.
For the accounting firms, it depends on how good of a quality and nature of the lie is in the books. The accounting firm can only comment on whether the records they receive are consistent and have a correct process based on their inputs. If the wrong stuff is far enough upstream of the books, there's a GIGO problem.
Of course, by the time you reach that point, you've got even more blame on Oracle because then the intent to deceive becomes a lot more clear, since somewhere along the line folks (like the whistleblower in question) who put in that data have to be told to make shit up. Whether the point at which they were making stuff up is at a point a good audit would catch, I don't know. I am not an accountant, nor do I have any special insight into Oracle's bookkeeping process.
The story would have been a lot more interesting.
I don't really buy the "we are a simulation" thing, but taking your logic to it's reasonable conclusion the simulation could well be run by a bearded man using the cloud. In which case the the major monotheistic religions have had it basically right for quite a while.
I know more people who have lost their healthcare as a result of Obamacare than who have gotten health care who did not have it before. Then again, I know more working class folks than non-working who can get the biggest subsidies.
That's just anecdotal of course.
Less anecdotal is that health care costs have risen considerably, and that even if one has insurance under Obamacare, the cost of getting sick is high (look at deductables and out-of-pocket maximums of the various tiers).
A distributed ranger is one what was left sitting on a railroad crossing until a freight train arrived.
I think the benefits to folks opening exchanges are exactly what you are quoting as drawbacks.
The only thing about the study that suggests that freewill is an illusion, is that despite the data suporting the opposite the published conclusion is that one has no free will, as if the author were fated to come to such a conclusion.
The data appears to show that when given time for the conscious mind to interfere, the choices made were indeed different than the automatic responses.
There is plenty of lithium on this planet. But that isn't the problem. As we have both said, the problem is the economics. The assumption in my comment, highlighted by the second half, is that since they are doing this as a business, they will stop scaling when they no longer see profit to be made by doing so. As long as there is profit in doing so, the total potential market size is a POSTIVE for the business case, not a negative.
The summary claims they are doubling what they did last year. If they keep investing in the infrastructure to keep scaling up each year, being at one millionth right now is only 20 years away from your estimate of what the US would need.
Of course in practice the trick is to stop scaling up when there won't be people who want it or you business goes bust instead of being highly profitable at the end, but yes, this sort of infrastructure overhaul in 20 years is not only a rational timeline but pretty agressive in historical terms.
Since "Highly Liberal" is a subset of "Highly Repressive", the story title is somewhat repetitive.
The thing is, there is a tendency to think that a government that forces everyone to do things the way you think it should be done is not repressive. As long as one can do what one wants, one may be surprised and offended to discover others believe they are being oppressed.
Over and over again a movement starts to deal with real problems and then overshoots into creating other problems whether or not their methods are still consistent with fixing the original problem. And most of society smugly blames the people pointing out the other problems for the original problem at about the same time they accept that the original problem is a bad thing- because it lets them blame someone besides themselves.
Many will be annoyed that I'm picking "Liberal" specifically and not some other adjectives that lead to represssion here- I'm responding to the particular title. The principle, while it certainly fits here, is more general.
Sorry, I have just been frustrated lately with some folks who do exhibit a real gun phobia, and interpreted your statement to imply that if I was happy to hang out with folks with guns I was a gun nut.
Your general point is reasonable, and the point I should have expressed without implying you were a nut is that noone likes hanging out with a nut in general. I don't consider someone to be a nut just for exercising their right to open or concealed carry. Whether they have a gun is (for me) irrelevant to hanging out. I have had guests with guns without being bothered by it.
I don't own a gun, but I'd rather hang out with gun owners than nuts with gun phobias.
I had a restaurant like that back in grad school, and was happy with it as well. But the person I was responding to implied such a thing would turn them off- my point is that really good data mining would know that their preference would be to be treated as an unknown at each visit, while still providing a folks who were OK with it service tailored to their preferences.
There are plusses and minuses to human vs machine here, and generally I'd prefer the human. But a human has limited memory- and staff turnover and scheduling means you might not get the human that knows you. The machine could treat you as a regular even if you were traveling to a different city but going to a chain that knew about you. For some, that is creepy, for some that would feel comfortable. Sorting out which category folks fall into is important, unless you are willing to let the people sort themselves out of doing bussiness with you.
To put it another way, the machine can scale. The human approach works best for places like family restaurants. I prefer a good family restaurant to a chain anyway, but I am also obviously in the local minority from the relative number of chain restaurants to family restaurants near me.
So hobos that hopped off passing boxcars can board, and hobos already on board can catch the next train?
The really smart places will know from their data mining NOT to have things waiting for folks who appear to not like being tracked.
Given that this is Comcast, I wouldn't be surprised if it was all of the above.
"We quoted you 1Gb and we gave you 1Gb. Is it our fault you used it up in the first second? Don't worry, we'll be happy to sell you another. You do have a spare kidney, don't you?"
From the article:
"The IEA singled out the Middle East as a region where fossil fuel subsidies are hampering renewables. It said 2 million barrels per day of oil are burned to generate power that could otherwise come from renewables, which would be competitive with unsubsidized oil."
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone a "dumb shit" when they are arguing over what the US govt is up to. You could redeem yourself by finding an article on the ways the US subsidizes the other energy sources if you like- that would be on topic and interesting instead of abusive.
I think that ideally, one would regulate and tax various methods exactly the right amount to normalize for externalities, and go from there. Figuring out the proper cost of the externalities is where it can get crazy of course, and where special interests get right back in the door.
Chesterton argued for democracy of the dead: http://www.chesterton.org/demo...
Yes, your employer can get into your issued phone if they set it up correctly.
This is one reason why the current well publicized FBI/Apple court order debate is stupid- if the government hadn't screwed up, they wouldn't need Apple's help to get into the phone they had issued. Given that the government screws up something simple like this, why should we believe they won't screw up at safeguarding the special software they want.
Each party is stuck with a toxic candidate in part due to its own rules:
On the Republican side, they really want a way to get rid of Trump, but they chose to select most of their delegates by a reasonably democratic process.
On the Democrat side, they are stuck with Hillary because they decided to create enough superdelegates that they could override the democratic process.
If the parties had switched nominee selection processess, other than not being Trump I'm not sure who they would have picked, but for the Democrats we'd probably be seeing Sanders- or a lot of folks who didn't enter the race because of the superdelegates would have been there to consider.
Anyway, the whole thing leaves me looking at the third party candidates to decide who to vote for instead of Kang and Kodos
It's not that only 1 in 5 surveys may contain fraudulent data, it is that the fraud is only incompetent enough to be caught by this method in 1 in 5 surveys.
I admit I only read part but not all. That gets me beyond most posters so here we go..
Point is that if they have a conclusion that whether one knows if the code comes from a woman or not matters, two things seem necessary:
- That they figure out who are actually women. As you say, you have to use sources outside the ones that the people deciding whether to accept the code were presumably using. If they didn't have seperate sources, there would not be the two groups to distinguish between.
- That they figure out whether the people accepting the code believed them to be women. My assumption (wrong as another poster pointed out) is that in that sort of environment there would be no reason for the people accepting the code to know unless the person submitting the code somehow informed them.