The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid. We are simply far too smart to do that kind of stupidity - not when we can so easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup (which we did do in Iran).
*looks at Iraq*
*laughs until the point of crying.*
There are not 545,000 IT job openings in this country.
not that i am disagreeing with the skepticism here, but do you have hard data establishing this to not be true? because all the griping here about the number not being realistic means bupkus without actual, hard data.
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
the devil is in the details:
The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.
Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)
this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.
Change "guns" to flowers and Customer type from "gun loving" to Gay and see if you have a change it attitude.
FedEx refused to ship flowers to a gay man
You see, there is NOTHING "immoral" or "illegal" about either flowers, gunsmithing equipment, being a gun lover or lover of men. In fact, there is nothing different here except POPULAR OPINION.
except you're adding unnecessarily to the hypothetical
"FedEx refuses to ship flowers." is DRASTICALLY different than "FedEx refuses to ship flowers to Alpha because of who Alpha is."
FedEx is refusing to ship a specific product, not refusing to deliver products to people because of their identity. The situations are entirely different.
It's an arm's race.
FYI, a great way to "defend" your computer is to not intentionally put it on the front-line.
by "not putting it on the front line", do you mean not going to websites? like, at all?
i mean, the article specifically notes adult websites here, but these sorts of drive-by installs and sideloading exploits occur on more mainstream sites, too. are you saying to simply not use the web?
I'm curious... At this point do we just expect everything to be 100% free? Or do we think money fairies give companies the capital to pay for bandwidth and processing power?
i'm curious...at this point should we accept malware as just a regular part of going to websites?
the question's rhetorical of course - until websites prevent malware from being distributed through their ad networks, i will block ALL ads to defend my computer.
LOL that's precious. Meanwhile, the H-1B employees I know - my personal friends
anecdotal, and secondhand hearsay at that. that is not factual in any way and doesn't help. again, facts are important.
You realize that this hypothetical other employer has exactly the same incentives and goals as the first one, right?
you realize that this still does not make H-1B employment "indentured servitude," right?
let's debate the pros and cons of policy, but let's debate them using actual facts, not just what people believe. too many people argue about US immigration without knowing even remotely how the immigration laws actually work.
So Verizon inject encrypted cookies that identify the user, then sell the decryption key to add companies, so they can track users. I'd be reviewing the terms and conditions of the internet service. Surely they don't allow tampering? People should shame Verizon publicly and leave them, but calls for net neutrality laws are misguided. Verizon makes money from this, so they should end up cheaper than competitors who don't do this. Customers are free to choose to have less privacy for a cheaper service. Regulation isn't needed.
the "market" does not correct for corrupt practices like these, despite every libertarian fantasy to the contrary.
you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?
Actually, no, that's not what I was claiming--sorry about being too brief. What happens, currently, is that the Indian body shops send them here for a degree, then bring them back to India, and then tell prospective clients that "x% of our programmers hold master's degrees from US colleges." So it's not US employers spending large sums of money in order to hire foreign nationals, it's foreign companies spending middling sums of money to find yet one more way to deceive clients about their capabilities and competence. Anyway, my point was that the mills are already here.
you're going to have to cite some sources, because this is a claim that beggars belief.
the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards [aacrao.org] in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.
And, if this no-cap on advanced degrees passes, just watch the next logical step unfold--legislation removing the accreditation standards. Bet on it
highly doubtful. this same removal of the cap on advanced degrees has been before Congress in various forms. the point of that legislation is to attract and keep highly educated foreign nationals in the U.S.
...except that's not what the law says. it's an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. institution. to qualify for the H-1B cap exemption...
The Indian body shops already have set up diploma mills in the US to rubber-stamp master's degrees.
you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?
the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission
