H1-B postings at our company range into the six figure range. I'm sure some places pay shit wages to H1-B, but that is not a universal trait of the system.

I'm not a fan of H1-B, mind you, but I think there are scenarios where they may be useful. I would prefer that these people got to be citizens.

We used to let them stay because we didn't promise them that we'd give them benefits and they could have the opportunity to sink or swim. As someone else said, in the Wild West, you made your money or you died in grinding poverty or on church charity. The other method was banding together as a community to help each other out.

Now, everyone gets more and more entitlement benefits, so having someone come into the country actually costs everyone an increasing amount of money and there is no incentive to work the problems out for themselves. So, now we send them home because we can't afford our own population, let alone more people who may or may not be able to support themselves.

I don't think he's lying. Don't assume that.

IT isn't a monolithic field. There are certain skillsets that you really need to look for in some cases and you can't find them. In others, you have a lot of people to choose from, or you are big enough that you can expend the time to have new hires learn on the job.

In a smaller company, you need experience because every head count is precious. I can't hire someone out of college or who has a completely different skillset because I'm not some line manager who gets 6 head count and 5 contractor count on my team, I'm the trainer, the architect, and the executive sponsor.

In a bigger company, you can hire a lot of people and you have a training budget that you can make good use of because you don't need every worker on your project every single day they are here. Consequently, we can't hire someone who needs to come up to speed, but we do make up for that by paying well and offering the chance to make a difference to the business, as opposed to being a code monkey.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were paid shills here, but I would be surprised if they contributed even to even 2% of the conversations that someone has suggested that there is a shill involved in. Mostly, you are dealing with legitimate users who have different experiences than you do.

In any case, for the most part, accusations of paid comments are pointless. If the shill has an argument, attack the argument. Being a paid commenter doesn't make your arguments any more or less valid. If they are wrong, their money can't force them to be right. And if they are right, then being paid doesn't invalidate their argument.

Relative sizing aside, the 401k may not be the largest asset, but it IS the asset that they can use for liquidity when they get old. They can't just sell their house, nor is a new or second mortgage a good idea.

It is entirely legitimate to not want to wipe out the savings of the middle class just so you can get at the rich people. The rich people may lose a bigger absolute number, but the middle class will lose out proportionately.

Yes, but this isn't in public. The fact that they had easily learned the password and were regularly using it isn't the same as it being "in public".

I don't think this should be a felony, but just because I leave my front door unlocked and slightly ajar doesn't give you permission to enter it.

On the other hand, I don't know why schools are so quick to call the cops for something like this. Kids must do something at this level of annoying multiple times a day, every day. If they called the cops for every one of those, we'd have to move the classes to prison.

Here's the thing. There shouldn't be squabbling over the backbone. You pay for the bits that you consume or create that traverse the backbone. It doesn't matter what those bits are. ISPs should charge a price per bit.

What should not be happening is the bits being read and handled differently based on the content. The only conceivable reason to do so would be QoS for certain protocols and if you want those bits treated differently, by protocol, then you pay for those type of bits to get priority on a protocol basis. However, that doesn't mean they need to care if I am looking at YouTube or reading a Slashdot summary or taking a Skype call. They should base their price per bit on what it takes to upgrade their backbone to support all those bits and make their profit. Their peering arrangements should count bits passed and charge, get credit or limit access based on an agreement of how many bits are passed. That's it.

If the ISPs want to use their existing backbones to jump start other services, like Pay per View, then fine, but charge for that service separately. If you want to encourage use of your service, then build in an honest fee for data that has to traverse peering points, again, on a per bit rate. That makes it so that the customer has an incentive to use your local service, while allowing them to select others without having to inspect content.

Resolved for the full set of use cases:

s/the (corporations|lazy people) do/everyone does/gi;

I am not in favor of the death penalty, but I don't care if he feels happy when he gets executed. At that point he'll briefly be happy-ish, and then he'll be rotting meat that we at least don't need to pay for anymore.

As for the afterlife, we all know he's not going to get any virgins when he dies. The best he can hope for is that he doesn't end up in eternal torment. Allah or not, what he did doesn't fit the idea of the Holy Warrior as even mainstream Islam would define it. He's an extremist who is using his purported faith as an excuse for whatever feelings of alienation he has. Those feelings were preyed upon by the terrorist groups, but ultimately, he's responsible for himself.

It's like Christians who went on Crusades who believed that a God who let himself be hung on a cross would actually want them to go slaughter people over some kingdom. It's just bad behavior draped in a convenient excuse.

The only reason to keep him alive is that he is able to perhaps redeem himself in some small way so he does have the chance to look at what he did and reject it. While unlikely, *that* sort of turnaround might actually have a chance to help someone else by showing that he got over his delusions and he no longer believes he was righteous.

More importantly, it is so we know that we aren't the sort of people who think that killing people more actually makes anything better.

Then someone failed to properly screen the candidate for the job to begin with. You need to figure that sort of thing out before the offer, not during.

As I told someone who I was negotiating with on a salary once:

"When I walk in that door, I work for you and this company, but right now, I am here on my own behalf and I need to look out for myself and my family."

Just because you negotiate doesn't mean you're a team-killing egomaniac. You're looking out for yourself and yours, which no one is going to do for you but yourself. When you do join the team, then you also look out for the company and the team. I don't think that's an unfair position to take. If you're going to be the best team player, you don't want to walk in that door every day feeling like you got a raw deal or it will affect you and your work.

Maybe, but Reddit doesn't strike me as the sort of place with pay bands in that sense. I suppose they could fabricate a new title, and suggest it makes more money, but you can only go so far with that.

Of course, I can see managers trying that, but I presume that her directive would mean that any alteration of the offer, other than the equity alterations suggested, would be rejected at HR. As a manager, you have to have your opening approved, including title, before you can even interview people. HR also drafts the offer letter and approves the terms. Negotiations can cause the title or the pay to change, but I'm guessing that unless she's not sincere about this, she's not permitting title changes with different compensation after the offer.

Here's the thing. I probably make more than some people due to negotiations, but I probably make less than others based on the same. Honestly, unless I am truly getting screwed, as long as my needs are met, I don't care if someone makes more than I do. There are also some people out there who have families or child support payments or a sick mother or something who would benefit from the extra money and lobbied to get it.

A woman needs to do only do one thing. After researching the salary she feels is fair for the position, she decides if she is comfortable with it or not. If she is, then stick to that number come hell or high water. She's not in a competition to figure out who makes more than her, she should be just trying to live her life successfully. If she wants a Mercedes to drive around in and she needs X amount to get it, then she needs to ask for X.

While I understand that it seems unfair that women may make less because they don't negotiate, negotiation is nothing more than knowing your real number and being willing to walk away if they can't give it to you. You can point blank tell someone your actual number and tell them that if they can make it, you will start. If they can't, then this is her first, best, and final offer. If an adult woman can't figure that number out for herself and stick to it, then no "no negotiation" policy is ever going to help her.

Brainwashed follower was about the only defense he had after his actions.

I'm not entirely sure that he has any good choices now. Being executed might be just as good as the million years he's going to be in prison. I suppose I wouldn't pick execution, but holy shit, what a shitty life he has in front of him now, either way.

Good. He earned his shitty future. I'm just sorry that incarcerating him will have almost no effect on the people who will be doing the same sort of thing in the future. People as stupid as he is don't let "consequences" get in their way when they really want to fuck other people over.

Honestly, the guillotine did fuckall for France and continued to produce fools who thought that Red Revolution is how things got done all the way up to the Communists. The development of a middle class in the Third Estate was the most valuable thing for France in general. You could have maintained a peaceful transition over a longer period of time and dispensed with the rivers of blood.

For every radical action, you got an equal and opposite reactionary action in response. The history of the French Revolution represents a story of a bunch of people killing each other to get to a place that you could have reached without any of that crap if the hyperbole had been toned down.

France was always going to end up either a republic or a constitutional monarchy because the value of a absolutist monarchy was at an end. Equal blame goes to both the King and the revolutionaries for the way that it actually went down.

Well, yes and no.

English is not an easy language to learn and has a lot of irregular uses, but it is much easier for adult second language learners to learn than say, Chinese.

It would be difficult to say English is "superior", but it is better than some for certain specific requirements.

English is also backed up by Latin, which still survives in certain applications and is a complete language with some more regularity.

Theoretically, it can be small and unsophisticated.

Realistically, it will be triple redundant and expensive. Just like everything else on an airplane is, with good reason.

Well, I mean it's only the Marlboro Man and some ads for liquor. There's nothing all that strange about those. Kids were seeing those all the time in the glory days of the 1950s.