Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:H1-B program die die die (Score 1) 284

Is the job located in a good area and your pay scale comparable to the cost of living? I've gotten a zillion job listings that are totally nuts... move to San Francisco for a 30% pay raise and a 400% cost of living increase - Yay! Err. No. Good people expect good things. I have no idea the position or pay your company is offering, but don't judge the whole market by your circumstances either.

Comment Re:H1-B program die die die (Score 1) 284

I imagine they would pay what it costs to get work done. They might even have to stop paying their CEOs $20M plus. Allowing companies to create indentured servants is just another way to funnel money from the bottom 99% to the top 1%. If pay scales get crazy, more people will study STEM and normal market processes of supply and demand will bring wages into an equilibrium. Short circuiting the market by bringing in cheap labor under false pretenses is what our gov't representatives are supposed to be protecting us from. Of course they've been bought out on both sides of the aisle and due to vote laziness (and craziness) have no reason to actually pay attention when rubber-stamping the laws they're given by their corporate overlords.

Comment H1-B program die die die (Score 3, Interesting) 284

If there really were a shortage of tech workers, which I don't believe for a moment, the H1-B program is still about indentured servants. They should speed up/open up proper permanent residencies for these people so they come in with all the same rights and expectations of the Americans they are currently displacing. Holding them hostage to one company, training them to work well with Americans and then sending them home to lead off-shored teams is so bad for American workers that it's ridiculous.

Comment Re:Let's start by repealing the 17th Amendment... (Score 1) 233

We have term limits. They go by the fancy name of elections. Sadly, for it to work you have to have an informed and active electorate. I don't support hard term limits for two reasons:

1) They barely care about the people they supposedly represent now. If they know they can only get a term or two, I think they'll care even less. The end result will be an endless parade of the same schmucks we have now who really have no reason to do anything other than what benefits them personally. These people are mostly turned out by a political grinder anyway. The supply of jackasses is pretty much unlimited, so making sure that in each election half the people there don't even have to pretend to be working for their constituents isn't helpful.

2) On the off chance that someone decent and caring does manage to get elected, I don't want them forced out by some blanket law and replaced by one of the aforementioned endless supply of jackasses just because people are too lazy to vote.

It's true what I read a while back that in most elections the real winner is "none of the above" since voter turnout is crap and we are essentially saying we don't like any of them enough to get off our asses and put them in office. We should set a quorum and each election has to be repeated until someone gets an actual majority of the total number of eligible voters in their district/state/country. If on a second try, you still don't get a quorum, all candidates must be replaced by new ones who get to try to motivate people.

At this point, having no-body in office would at least keep them from doing more harm than good.

Comment Re:Leave then (Score 1) 886

The old homophobic argument that somehow being homosexual is similar to being a pedophile. If you can't see the difference between consensual adult activity and taking advantage of a child then the deficiency is yours.

Not that it matters, but being homosexual is also considered to be 'what you are' by folks who study such things scientifically. And even if it was purely a choice, in as much as it's a choice that hurts no one and isn't illegal, public businesses should not discriminate based on it.

Now if a business owner wishes to declare their business closed to the public and open only to select customers based on the owner prejudices then I'm all for it. Make those conditions known up front and let it play out.

Comment Re:Not unambiguously bad (Score 5, Insightful) 318

There was an episode of ST:TOS on this point. Two planets had warring factions and they had managed to reduce it to basically a computer program that simulated attacks and decided who was killed by them. Those people were then supposed to show up to a center to be exterminated. The problem of course was that since there weren't all the hardships of war... famine, disease, destruction etc... it had gone on for ages. Kirk's solution of course was to destroy the computer so they'd either have to fight the old fashioned messy way or actually settle their differences.

Like many of those episodes I think it really did touch on the realities of the human mind. If war becomes too detached, too clean and simple then we will put much less effort into diplomacy. I'm not a pacifist, but I do think war should be a last option. And it should be messy and painful so that we'll try to find ways to end it.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 398

I think it says that the social policies were more about puritanism than science. When we make policy based on fear and ignorance instead of any actual evidence of harm then we're bound to have to change our minds as it becomes more and more obvious the policies are stupid. The sad thing is how invested we are in the war on drugs which has clearly made things worse rather than better. Making something forbidden often just makes it more desirable.

Comment Re:Time for men's liberation (Score 1) 369

All I'm saying is that women who are ambitious and career oriented will often forgo having children where men who are that way will look for a wife who isn't.

I'm sure there are many people who bust the stereotypes wide open, but generally speaking it will be assumed that the woman will put her kids first by actually taking off work to do whatever they need where men traditionally are considered to be "taking care of the kids" by working hard to bring home more money. Neither way is particularly fair or universal.

And I'm sure being left behind is no more fun for a man than a woman, but it's hardly a one sided issue. Plenty of women have been left with the kids when the husband seeks greener pastures.

Comment Re:Time for men's liberation (Score 1) 369

Apparently, only one out of every seven women never has children, so that's pretty good odds for you.

Things are changing, but for now, women bear the brunt of child rearing expectations. That means we are more likely to be expected to make career and life sacrifices in order to have a family. Managers will expect women with children to take off more time for things like doctor's appointments and will (perhaps unwittingly) take that into consideration when doling out promotions etc. Many women are more than happy to make these sacrifices in order to raise children, but a growing number are not so eager.

There are plenty of women who feel the same way you do about starting a family but I guess it doesn't matter since you've "quite literally given up on women." I'd have to say that sentiment wouldn't go very far towards your valuation as a potential father. Raising kids is hard work, sacrifice, expensive and life-long. If you can't even hack the process of finding the person who wants to try to do it with you, what does that say?

Plus, if you think the only difference between sex with another person and with a pie is the potential for children, then you're doing something wrong.

Comment Re:better than rushing steaming piles of shit. (Score 1) 180

He's doing a slow cash grab. The quality of the books went steadily downhill after the first few and then he split the storylines so that he wasn't even advancing the main plot for the major characters for an entire novel. The story lost so much momentum that I quit buying the books. So, no, not a quick cash grab, just a slow plot to split the story into so many convoluted and pointless books that it's not worth reading any more.

Comment Re:CA requires commercial licenses for pickup truc (Score 3) 216

IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways.

I'm pretty sure the real reason is to make more money from licensing people who are in turn making a profit from that license. The gov't could just issue a straight vehicle license and leave it up to the owner of a vehicle to get whatever training is required to operate it safely, but they don't because there's more money to be had from fees on commercial enterprises.

If Uber or Lyft drivers are getting paid to drive passengers around then they should have to follow the same rules as other commercial drivers. Maybe those rules should be changed. Maybe regulations on cab companies are unduly restrictive to limit competition and that should be fixed. But, I don't think a "cab" company that just happens to allow its passengers to find rides using the internet should get a pass on the rules that cab companies with proper dispatchers and fleets have to follow.

If the rules are useless or harmful, change the rules. Don't grant exemptions just because the internet is involved.

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus