Comment Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? (Score 3, Informative) 125
Protip: News Corp is a US Corporation.
Protip: News Corp is a US Corporation.
There are no alternate web browsers for iOS. There are alternate shells around the engine of Safari,
So by this logic, PaleMoon is not an alternate browser since it's merely just an alternate shell around Gecko? And current Opera is also not an alternate browser because it's just Chrome with a different shell, too, right? Please do tell.
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.
We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.”
You must have purposefully picked some expensive i5 CPU and expensive mobo to hit that price. You can get an i7-4770, an ASUS Z87-A and 8 GB of RAM for just under $450.
Well the bureaucrats who are likely regulating this are probably overworked and understaffed. So it's unlikely they can effectively regulate it.
H1b visas should be pared down to a couple of thousand superstars for whom NO replacement can be found (i.e. truly unique talents).. saying you don't want to pay an engineer or scientist in the US 75k a year doesn't cut it.
And in the cases of these truly unique people they should be required to pay at market or above wages and benefits. Because if those engineers/scientists/etc. were truly as vital to these companies as claimed then they can more than afford to pay all of that versus having vital positions being unfilled. That would eliminate all of this abuse of the system to drive down wages.
(2) eliminate the restriction and let the H1-B workers compete without restriction. I would be happy with the second option, but I don't think most of the complainers would agree.
Why wouldn't they agree? Having to actually pay equivalent or higher wages to their American couterparts would all but eliminate most of the H1-B imports and outsourcing in general. The whole point of H1-B/outsourcing hires is to depress wages and benefits, not actually because they can't find qualified people (outside of extremely rare cases). Clearly if these IT workers at Disney are being used to train their replacements then they clearly were not incompetents who couldn't do their job.
Why should this be illegal?
Because what Disney and other companies are doing in situations like this clearly violate the regulations around H1-Bs. H1-Bs by law are not supposed to be used to displace American workers or to drive down wages. They are only supposed to be used when NO ONE has the skills needed for the job. Clearly if these IT workers can train their replacements they have the skills to do their job. But since most of Congress are basically the mouthpieces of the rich and wealthy they won't do shit to stop this.
Congress should have required companies to have to pay above well-above market rates to use H1-Bs if they really are as vital as these companies claim. That would have eliminated the clear abuses of the system that we routinely see from these companies.
Or you know, you could just put a condom on and forget about whole "dying" story.
Ignoring numerous people like Arthur Ashe and Isaac Asimov who got AIDS via blood transfusion, right?
Sure, he's allowed to throw all the shit at the wall he wants to see what sticks. I'm simply being amused at him both trying to claim to not have run the site during this period but then also try to claim credit for actions he supposedly couldn't have been responsible for.
But wasn't the defense claiming that Mark Karpeles was running the site at this point? Why should that get Ulbricht leniency if he wasn't running the site at that point? Does this mean his defense has finally given up on that ridiculous conspiracy theory?
I apologize. I don't keep up on the latest lingo for douche beards.
Yeah can't forget the chin-strap beard.
read *and handle* a BOM, that is.
Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari