You are missing something: MS (actually the tech sector as a whole) is what's driving that flood of immigrant labor. By hiring foreigners, whose cost of living is lower, they can cut labor costs and suppress market pay rates. Since domestic workers have to compete with foreign workers, they either are forced out of their jobs or have to take significant pay cuts. Really, the reason MS prefers Canada's immigrant labor policy is because it is easier to get guest worker visas for their foriegn employees. In the US, there is a very low cap on the number of visas which are granted each year (or so say the industry execs). To get a green card (so the worker can stay longer) also includes the requirement that no qualified American workers be available to fill the position in question (it is kind of disturbing that this requirement is not set on temporary visa applicants). As much as the companies complain that there aren't any qualified workers available, there are. If they really tried, they could easily find competent foreign workers; in fact, companies have to work hard not to find qualified domestic workers. The main reason companies don't want the Americans to be considered "qualified" is because they'd have to pay them a salary to match those qualifications (rather than a salary to match a foreigner's lower cost of living), but it's not like American developers are demanding six-figure salaries these days.
So, in summary:
The trouble they run into is not finding immigrant workers -- it's getting the immigrant workers over here
To get immigrant workers, companies often have to show that no domestic workers are available (or at least claim as much)
Since there are domestic workers, tech companies work hard to avoid finding them
This barrier to wage suppression is a frustration for tech companies
Maybe it's actually better if you don't. A real tech expert would know that his testimony is not true, and he would be lying to the court. A non-expert could take a guess and give something intuitive but false as his honest "professional" opinion.
1. They weren't advertising it as free MPAA approved movie downloads so that "getting it from the MPAA" argument is almost completely garbage
Yeah, anyone who's been downloading from there was pretty clearly going for illegal downloads. Even if it were a criminal investigation, you wouldn't really be able to claim entrapment. OTOH, I could imagine some people going there now that it's known that the MPAA is behind it.
So right there "getting" is pretty much destroyed because "download our download speedup software so you can download the bootleg movies we have faster" doesn't invalidate "oh, we forgot to tell you we have no bootleg movies for download".
Ok, so you are sueing the MPAA for fraud because they set up a site that offered illegal movie downloads
I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't realize getting them from the MPAA didn't make it legal.
If the MPAA is offering movies for download, it doesn't have much to complain about if people accept that offer and try to hold them to it.
So when a manager replaces a developer, the developer becomes unemployed, and the manager still has a job. OTOH, it's the other way around when a developer replaces a manager: it's the developer who becomes unemployed, while the manager keeps his job. Er... wait....
Okay, people keep saying this... but when I report my "drug sales" net income (after amortizing my.45 and deducting bribes), won't they just turn that right around and charge you with a crime, implicitly requiring you to waive the fifth?
Report it as coming from something else. You might create a front organization for your drug trafficking operations that looks like a legitimate business and funnels money through all kinds of weird processes (labelled as seemingly legitimate expenses, charitable donations, etc.) to make it hard to trace it back to the drug sale. You could also report it as a gift/bonus if you're the nominal leader or a salary if you're not (of course, at some point there will be either records which don't match each other or records which don't match reality -- type A is probably more dangerous than type B). Money laundering can get rather complicated, but it makes your income look legit on paper, even if "everyone knows" it's not.
Re: the situation you describe
I'm not sure exactly why, but I'm rather disturbed by the idea of a private entity printing legal tender. In this case, it sounds like the EDs are backed by USDs, so I'm not sure if that really qualifies as printing money, but I imagine that if virtual currency were ruled non-taxable, the IRS would say that the EDs are simply electronic representations of real currency, much like existing banking systems, which have used bank-backed checks for ages and now also use electronic money transfers -- in both cases, no real greenbacks ever change hands. I guess the line is drawn when the virtual currency is backed by real money.
OK, he is saying your voice isn't as important as a corporates voice and then goes to describe how this isn't democracy or whatever.
Less important in moral considerations or less important in predicting what is going to end up happening?
I am trying to say don't give up because that mean they win by default and that makes you worth less then them or even your former self. I am not trying to call him a loser rather say anyone giving up is a loser.
Some battles are hard enough that your resources are better spent elsewhere.
I don't see how you could be worth more for not doing what you know is right.
In this case, it's more that he's not doing something he knows is wrong. That certainly doesn't make him a saint, but it puts him above the Exxon devil.
If you are right and have the law to back you up, the size of a wallet or the legal team won't do a damn thing for them.
Do you really believe courts are infallible?
I'm intending the "worth" "less" meaning as in not worth as much.
Yes, I know. I'm still saying you put words in his mouth so that you could describe him as a general loser.
I do, in fact, speak English, and I know the difference between "worth less" and "worthless." You said he thinks of himself as worth less. I said he may very well think of himself as worth more.
If you give up at the size of the other guys wallet, your valued yourself ans being worth less on that basis.
"Worth less"? No, he assessed himself as less capable of influencing society at large. At the same time, I imagine he also considers himself to be more personable, less destructive, and generally more ethical (and thus more worthy of respect).
Even in sdoftware - or pharmaceutical companies where one would assume that a lot is spent for research the R&D budget is usual ~18% (which varies, of course) while sales and marketing usually eats away approx. half of the costs.
And look what that gets us: bombardment with ads for "new" (i.e. already on the market for a few years) pills for all kinds of conditions most of us don't have and even fewer of us can properly diagnose.
Wal-Mart may well negotiate a deal with a manufacturer that lets Wal-Mart (and only Wal-Mart) undercut the manufacturer's price floor. Wal-Mart is a large enough chunk of the retail segment to do that.
Eventually, your data will have to run through some middleman's wires. It's practically inevitable unless your data is going to someone with the same ISP in the same town. That middleman is going to sell his bandwidth to your ISP so they can send data to my ISP. I believe the term "common carrier" is what I'm looking for here.
I think the term you want is actually "peering agreement." The term "common carrier" refers to restrictions and privileges of a carrier regarding whatever they carry.
Looking over the errata sheet, it seems the behavior when these bugs are tripped is not actually fully known. In most cases it's just "unpredictable behavior." De Raadt and the OpenBSD people generally treat "unpredictable behavior" as a possible security hole without first producing a proof-of-concept exploit (regardless of whether it turns out to actually be exploitable).
Slashdot Mirror
So, in summary:
Maybe it's actually better if you don't. A real tech expert would know that his testimony is not true, and he would be lying to the court. A non-expert could take a guess and give something intuitive but false as his honest "professional" opinion.
Actually, that might be ruled misrepresentation.
If the MPAA is offering movies for download, it doesn't have much to complain about if people accept that offer and try to hold them to it.
FWIW, people sometimes manage to negotiate a lower price by offering to pay it all up front.
How carefully?
So when a manager replaces a developer, the developer becomes unemployed, and the manager still has a job. OTOH, it's the other way around when a developer replaces a manager: it's the developer who becomes unemployed, while the manager keeps his job. Er... wait....
Since EDs are backed by real USDs, a person could, without too much trouble, live without ever cashing out.
Re: the situation you describe
I'm not sure exactly why, but I'm rather disturbed by the idea of a private entity printing legal tender. In this case, it sounds like the EDs are backed by USDs, so I'm not sure if that really qualifies as printing money, but I imagine that if virtual currency were ruled non-taxable, the IRS would say that the EDs are simply electronic representations of real currency, much like existing banking systems, which have used bank-backed checks for ages and now also use electronic money transfers -- in both cases, no real greenbacks ever change hands. I guess the line is drawn when the virtual currency is backed by real money.
Good to have that pointed out early. Really, this isn't much different from any other tax: real money changes hands, and the government takes a cut.
Some battles are hard enough that your resources are better spent elsewhere.
In this case, it's more that he's not doing something he knows is wrong. That certainly doesn't make him a saint, but it puts him above the Exxon devil.
It's the social engineering analogue of brute force.
Yes, I know. I'm still saying you put words in his mouth so that you could describe him as a general loser.
I do, in fact, speak English, and I know the difference between "worth less" and "worthless." You said he thinks of himself as worth less. I said he may very well think of himself as worth more.
Hey, the last thing we need is another secession attempt!
I assume they have some plan for making her show that her rootkit really is on one of them after the guess is made.
Wal-Mart may well negotiate a deal with a manufacturer that lets Wal-Mart (and only Wal-Mart) undercut the manufacturer's price floor. Wal-Mart is a large enough chunk of the retail segment to do that.
Looking over the errata sheet, it seems the behavior when these bugs are tripped is not actually fully known. In most cases it's just "unpredictable behavior." De Raadt and the OpenBSD people generally treat "unpredictable behavior" as a possible security hole without first producing a proof-of-concept exploit (regardless of whether it turns out to actually be exploitable).