The H-1B visa issue rarely surfaces during presidential races, and that's what makes the entrance by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) into the 2016 presidential race so interesting.
... ...Sanders is very skeptical of the H-1B program, and has lambasted tech firms for hiring visa workers at the same time they're cutting staff. He's especially critical of the visa's use in offshore outsourcing.
... if only
* His assumptions were backed by solid, peer-reviewed research,
* Research into the bias or lack of bias in all-male research groups were done and we had solid evidence regarding the whether all-male groups had a bias requiring rejection of all papers on this topic by all-male research teams, and if so, that such papers were rejected.
Of course, neither one is the case. But if they were
Link to Original Source
In 1943, in the middle of the Second World War, America's book publishers took an audacious gamble. They decided to sell the armed forces cheap paperbacks, shipped to units scattered around the globe. Instead of printing only the books soldiers and sailors actually wanted to read, though, publishers decided to send them the best they had to offer. Over the next four years, publishers gave away 122,951,031 copies of their most valuable titles.
[follow title-link for the rest of the article]
If you are unethical and try to reproduce a given experiment 100 times and it reproduces 10 times, you can publish a paper saying "I reproduced this experiment 10 times successfully" and destroy the evidence of the other 90 trials. Find 2 or 3 "independent" shills to do the same type of fake "reproduction" over the course of a few months and people will just assume that the experiment is valid and stop trying to disprove it.
It works in reverse too:
If you are unethical and try to reproduce a given experiment 100 times and it reproduces 90 times, you can publish a paper saying "I tried and failed to reproduce this experiment 10 times" and destroy the evidence of the other 90 trials. Have a few "independent" shills repeat the sham "failure to reproduce" a few times and the original experiment will be discredited, probably along with the original research team and its institution.
If I'm a "wind/solar" or other non-24x7-generating company and I know what fraction of my customers have a several-hour-backup power supply, I can offer them lower rates in exchange for "turning them off" or even "buying electricity back from their batteries" in times of peak demand. This will let me offer services to more customers than I normally could handle.
I finally got the full texts of Nobots and Mars, Ho! to display well on a phone. My thanks to Google for showing me how, even if the way they present the information is more like trial and error, but it's actually easy once you jump through all their hoops. I'll make it easy.
Imagine what would happen if the most recent, well-tested update had a bug such that it would crash at a specific time.
By having different OSes and different applications serving up the same data, the odds of such a bug on both the main and backup devices happening simultaneously are greatly reduced.
I say "greatly reduced" instead of "eliminated" because different OSes may still use the same buggy source code (there's BSD- or similar-licensed code in many OSes and applications).
"Yes, but does it fly Linux?"
A "no radio" device that has reasonably current copies of everything plus paper (yes, paper) copies of updated pages would weigh less than a pound and would be usage as a backup.
For further redundancy the backup should use a completely different OS.
Something about if they have physical access means you won't have any security anyway
What does that have to do with anything? If someone on-site is compromised,
Actually, the grandparent has a point: Someone with physical access to the robot prior to the surgery could replace or reprogram the robot. Someone with physical access to a machine "inside" the hospital's network (or for that matter, the network of the hospital where the human driving the robot is at) might be able to remotely-control the robot in ways that someone "outside" the network wouldn't be able to do if there was a site-to-site secure VPN but no machine-to-machine secure communications channel. Like physical access to the robot itself, the physical access to the "on-LAN" equipment doesn't even have to be during the operation.
Which is worse for a patient with a condition that is typically not fatal and for which on-site surgery has a known risk of fatality:
* Sorry, you'll have to wait for a doctor who may never come
* We'll give you remote surgery but there's a chance someone will hack the system in a way that could kill you, plus there is still the normal risk you will never wake up from the anesthesia
You can't completely prevent your communication going down due to malice, accident, or acts of nature. When those fail you have to have a backup plan such as going into a failsafe mode.
BUT You can and must detect interference and either correct for it or treat it like a total communications failure. There is no excuse for being fooled into taking instructions from an unauthorized party (well, unless the instruction is "you think I'm hacking your communications but I'm really doing a side-channel attack to trick you into doing what you normally do when you lose communications, now obey me and do what you normally do when your communications are hosed, thank you.").
Ditch the corn syrup - it just isn't same as sucrose.
If it did, there wouldn't be a market for the occasionally-available "throwback" version that does have sucrose.