Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 2 declined, 0 accepted (2 total, 0.00% accepted)

Microsoft

+ - What would Gates say under oath about H1B pay?

Submitted by gr8scot
gr8scot (1172435) writes "Bill Gates claims, again, that he can't find good help in the United States labor market and that the H1B 'program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers.' Jon Stokes of Ars Technica has unfortunately (for Bill) done his homework, and caught him in a lie about the salaries of his H1B workers: 'Salaries for these jobs at Microsoft start at about $100,000 a year.' In light of his direct appeal to our elected representatives in the Washington Post article, 'I urge them' to invite William Gates III to a televised chat, preferably under oath, to present a detailed account of exactly how the national problem of high-tech jobs with no skilled American applicants has affected his company. From Gates' Op-Ed in the Washington Post:

Last year, reform on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple with those important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the H-1B visa program that allow American businesses to hire foreign-born scientists and engineers when they can't find the homegrown talent they need. This program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees the same high levels — levels that exceed the government's prevailing wage.
He asked for the attention of Congress, and I hope they listen very carefully to what he tells them. I also hope they, and all of Microsoft's customers, will note the 'disconnect' between what he tells them in this context and what his marketing department tries to tell us all about their wonderful conferencing and collaboration software. That he needs foreign workers in this country but his software does what he says it does cannot both be true."
Space

+ - Pentagon: US spy satellite to hit Earth by March->

Submitted by gr8scot
gr8scot (1172435) writes "It probably won't do any harm, but it is certainly expensive. 'Hydrazine is harmful to the human central nervous system and can be fatal in big doses. However, it breaks down quickly in heat and ultra-violet light, the French security agency Ineris said in a report. Specialists cited in the New York Times said the hydrazine would burn off if the fuel tank breaks, as is likely, when re-entering the atmosphere.' And, among all those other satellites, why isn't there one for maintenance, or at least with a grappling hook to put the broken ones in a stable, unpowered orbit until repairs can be done? Article: 'The United States has a thick web of billion-dollar satellites monitoring the Earth, some including high-powered telescopes or radars, with the capability to zoom in and help launch precision strikes on enemy targets.' And, not one to zero in on the other satellites, when they become 'enemy targets'? Geniuses! I realize it's space, distances are great, and "thick web" is a relative term. '"Since we've been in the business of doing that, for 50 years or so, there have been more than 17,000 man-made objects that have re-entered the Earth atmosphere."' But, in light of the fact that 17,000 satellites — most of them owned and/or put there at the expense of the United States — have re-entered the atmosphere, I estimate that "web" is thick enough for maintenance to be as reasonable as putting them into orbit in the first place, for long-term cost efficiency alone."
Link to Original Source

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...