Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The title game (Score 1) 124

Do you own an IPhone? Why is that product made in China rather than the US? Oh right! The wages for factory workers in the US were to high so they off-shored all the manufacturing jobs to a cheaper labor force.

Well welcome to the same treatment.

It's not the "same treatment" at all. In the one case (outsourcing), unskilled jobs are moving overseas not due to government interference but due to global economic pressure. Leaving a country is a basic right, as long as someone else is willing to let you in.

In the other case (in-sourcing), government is actively bringing specific types of skilled people into the country, bypassing normal immigration law and targeting very specific industries thanks to lobbyists.

You aren't screaming to have all the manufacturing jobs brought back to give Americans those jobs again as that would raise the cost of that new phone you buy every year or the new TV or appliances you get so cheaply.

Are you serious? "Have them brought back"? Like this is some kind of two-bit dictatorship? People (and the jobs they create) are free to emigrate to any country that will let them in. Good luck trying to write a law which forces job creators to remain in the US. That is truly a dark path.

By contrast, immigration policy is supposed to be "fair". But programs like H1B are anything but.

Shut up and deal with it the way the rest of the country has had to. Crybaby whiners.

The "rest of the country" certainly hasn't faced competition from H1B visa workers, more than 95% of which target the software and IT industry.

But regardless, your sentiment is clear. You are more interested in taking others down a notch because of envy, rather than being genuinely interested in public policy fairness.

Comment Re:business models (Score 1) 124

If that were true then companies would not use H1B's in the first place. Since they are using H1B's then it means that the companies care where the programmer is located.

Precisely. Very few successful and reasonably large projects are staffed by ad-hoc collections of international programmers located around the world. While it can be done, the efficiency and throughput of such projects is usually quite low. Communication overhead is usually the crippling factor there.

Offshoring an entire project is much costlier to do, and frequently management is unwilling to cede control and simultaneously unwilling to relocate. Furthermore, the same pressures in the new local market that made you leave the former local market start to creep in. Bangalore salaries for competent programmers have increased about six-fold in the last 12 years or so. The cost savings from your expensive move might suddenly evaporate.

So, companies would MUCH prefer increasing staffing levels at their current locations, especially if they can lobby politicians to make it happen without driving up salaries!

Comment Re:The title game (Score 2) 124

Funny how that (different AC) got modded down to -1 for not fitting the groupthink here. People seem think supply and demand should apply to other people, but not to them.

Not so. Most of us are just asking for the same supply and demand rules to apply to software jobs as to any other job in the US, rather than being targeted disproportionately by H1B visa policy. If demand really does exceed supply as the software barons claim when lobbying politicians, then prices for labor should be increasing, which is how the labor supply works in every other sector of the economy. But if prices are stagnant or even declining, then claims of a shortage ring hollow.

Nobody owes you a job. If you don't like the salary being offered, then nobody is forcing you to take it. Move on. But software is a global industry. The work can generally be done anywhere,, by anyone. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to ensure that your business model is as profitable as you want it to be.

Of course no one owes anyone a job. But we're not talking about "global" software supply/demand and salaries here: we're talking very specifically about the situation inside the US, because we're evaluating a question of local public policy there only (i.e., the H1B visa quotas). Gaming the system via immigration policy to keep wages artificially low in a few specific categories should be revolting to any capitalist who claims to respect the market. If immigration limits are to be enforced, they should be enforced across the board, without special consideration to special interests.

Comment Straw man troll (Score 2, Informative) 403

This video shows an Airbus pilot switching off the flight computers then barrel rolling an A320:

Give me a break. This whole thing was taken in a simulator, which are *programmed* to behave how they think the airplanes will behave, using recorded data from test flights to help. Because they do not test the airframes in extreme attitudes (especially barrel rolls), they have little to no data with which to program the simulator, making demonstrations like this complete nonsense.

At 3:02 into the video you just posted, the pilot admits, "Not a maneuver you'd normally see in an airliner, and in fact you probably couldn't do it in a real airplane."

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. This video doesn't prove anything.

Any belief that Airbus pilots are somehow under the communist thumb and that square-jawed Boeing pilots would heave manfully at the controls and save the say is, um, 100% laughable.

LOL, this is the absolute definition of the straw man argument. The great-grandparent never made such a claim; just an apolitical observation that he was scared that computers fly the planes and not skilled pilots.

Stop trying to turn this engineering discussion into a US vs. Europe, Boeing vs. Airbus religious war. Your post is a troll, I'm afraid.

Comment Re:Parent offtopic (Score 1) 469

You are trolling and off topic. This thread is for the discussion of Intel's fine and you are trying to open a discussion of whether or not Microsoft's fine was just. That's off topic.

The grandparent is the one who brought up the Microsoft fine, using the argument that Microsoft is still non-compliant, and therefore the fine against against BOTH companies (yes, on-topic) was "not enough".

I was attempting to point out, using something called sarcasm, that this comparison of cases is specious. Intel was apparently paying companies to use their products exclusively. The EU has never claimed anything like this against Microsoft.

The other point is that anti-competition laws are written such that the burden of proof falls on the government to show that the consumer has been injured somehow. That's MISSING from this argument so far, or at least no one has reported how the Commission came to that conclusion. In that respect, this is similar to the recent EU case against Microsoft Internet Explorer.

On a side note, I'm sick and tired of "Microsoft mods" on Slashdot. Apparently conjuring Microsoft in an argument is fine as long as it's in a negative connotation. Otherwise it's a troll. Gotta love Slashdot, where apparently you're either with us, or against us!

Comment Re:Appeal the fine? (Score -1, Troll) 469

The action against Microsoft does not seem to have hindered Microsoft's behavior in the slightest and so even though tremendously more aggressive than the action against Microsoft in the U.S., it was clearly not enough.

What behavior are you referring to this time? Including a web browser with their OS?

How dare they do that! Need to teach them a lesson again. Perhaps more record fines will ensure that they learn: they need to cripple their products. See, that will be good for consumers. Because it's certainly impossible to install a different web browser on Windows...

Comment Re:Excuse Me But... (Score 1) 466

As for methane, who gives a shit? It's got a short shelf-life. Methane drops out of the atmosphere in a mere decade, as opposed to C02, which can hang around forever.

Apparently the IPCC and Kyoto disagree completely with you, possibly because methane gas is approximately 21 times more effective as a warming agent per unit than Co2, when measured over a 100-year period. If measured over a shorter period, its effects are even more pronounced.

So it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the methane byproducts of these goats are causing more harm than good, especially when considering that they are being marketed as a "green" solution to replace lawnmowers.

I have also heard arguments that debunk the "fact" that ruminants are so-called "carbon-neutral" animals. In many cases the plant matter consumed and converted to methane by ruminants would instead have decayed naturally (stored mostly in topsoil) or would not have been harvested in the first place (stored mostly in living plants). In the decay scenario, a portion is released as Co2 and methane by soil bacteria, but not nearly as much as is released by ruminants and ruminant manure. And when the amount is multiplied by the methane-Co2 adjustment factor of 21, it becomes clear that ruminants are clearly NOT carbon-neutral at all, and are in fact significant contributors to greenhouse gases over a 100-year period, when compared to NO domesticated ruminants.

As for Co2 byproducts of the goats, I concur that they are irrelevant to this debate.

Comment Re:kenneth (Score 3, Interesting) 420

Google does stuff for free when it suits them. If it might get in the way of advertisers or business partners (as is certainly the case here), they back down. Despite the legion of Slashdot fans who don't want to believe otherwise, Google is a business and frequently makes business decisions. Which is fine, as long as people see it for what it is.

What happened here is just that Google wasn't expecting such a huge surge in usage and had no other choice to disable for 3rd party clients for now.

It's a bit ironic that you start your post by blasting someone for reading between the lines, and then you proceed to do the same thing yourself. Unless you work at Google, you have no way to know why this decision was made.

But it's funny that you make it sound like Google is a helpless victim. How much traffic exactly pushed their feeble servers over the capacity limit only 11 days after this software became "popular"? How many iPhone users broke the camel's back?

The reality here is that Google made a policy decision, not a capacity decision. Especially since Google is one of the best in the business at scaling. This message should silence any doubt: "SMS_ERROR_10: Sorry we don't support free SMS messaging through this client. Visit for more info."

The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison