It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.
It's too difficult to enforce and the 99% of abusers are making the other 1% look bad. So just shut it down. If you can't police it and you can't control it, then you can certainly shut it down. Then we will see the companies who REALLY can't find the talent they need in America and they will be willing to pay through the nose to get it. That is what is supposed to happen with a "shortage" of talent, prices go up. Not down.
Each year brings a fresh crop of computer science graduates into the industry, barely any of them having a clue about attacks like this. Many of them will make these mistakes and learn about defending against them the hard way.
Maybe a few schools teach about this now. Maybe a few companies will pair senior devs with new devs to transfer this knowledge on the job. Even so, there will be enough new programmers who don't know this, and enough companies who eschew senior talent as a cost-savings measure, that this vulnerability will continue to rear its ugly head.
It's not like they teach 'how to protect yourself from SQL injection' in school. In school, they teach people how to program in a clean room, where all data is 100% good and only one person at a time uses a system.
If there are actual slaves in existence (I'm guessing there are, I mean we have ISIS and we have dictators in Central and South America and Africa)
You don't have to go that far to find "actual slaves". You can find quite a few right there in the state of Texas.
Wow, that article certainly is biased. Those poor, honest, people forced to work as slaves in prison camps. I guess the fact that they committed a crime and were caught and convicted means nothing. They should have more rights than the people they killed, raped and murdered did.
I also find it ironic that an article about penal slavery actually reports the wages that they are paid. Slaves don't get wages. Except when we tongue in cheek speak of our own slave wages because we think we deserve more pay.
I'd be interested to know who actually chose to use the word "worker." Was it the author or the editor and what is their ideological proclivity?
Hard to say, but given that the word 'slaves' was already used previously in the sentence, best practice in English writing is not to use the word again, but to use another similar word.
How is it factually incorrect to call a slave a worker?
You might ask a slave that question. I'm sure he'd happily clarify the distinction.
If there are actual slaves in existence (I'm guessing there are, I mean we have ISIS and we have dictators in Central and South America and Africa), then I highly doubt that he would clarify the distinction, happily or otherwise.
But it's also clear and un-ambiguous from the actual wording that they are referring slaves.
I can't see how anyone could read it and not know that the 'workers' are slaves.
It's clear and unambiguous to an adult, who already knows about slavery and the slave trade. If you're a child, learning about it in school, you don't already know those things. You might wonder what portion of those workers were slaves, or why it was called the slave trade if it was just a migration of workers.
Give kids some credit. They are not dumb.
Kids are also learning in their English class to look for synonyms and not use the same word repetitively, especially in the same sentence. I would expect a professional wordsmithing company like Mcgraw-Hill to do the same, as indeed they have.
Well, while technically correct, there's a slight difference between "someone else is paying for it" and "everyone chipping in a bit" to pay for something everyone profits from but would be too expensive otherwise.
Why would it be too expensive otherwise? What monumental earth shattering improvements have we made that have taken college from being a $5,000 a year investment to being instead a $25,000 a year investment in the last 20 years? Instead of making everybody cough up to keep feeding the pig that has grown too large, why don't we instead figure out where all the money is going and stop the waste?
The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.
It would be easy to compete if they didn't have to obey the law. If the city would reimburse all of their sunk costs on Taxi medallions, remove the regulations which regulate the prices that taxis can charge and remove the insurance and inspection requirements, then taxis could easily compete with uber and due to their economies of scale, they could crush Uber. But unfortunately, Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
Okay, so you only have the right to refuse service to anybody who is a white male. That doesn't seem like it should be legal.
The trouble with money is it costs too much!