Mutual destruction > economic stability . Don't let economists get into your head to much. Last time I checked the USSR and the USA didn't destroy each other in the 50's,60's,70's,and 80's because they didn't all want to die...not because they were worried about the common folk's 401k.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/boeings-new-missile-takes-down-electronics-without-touching-them-1C6663618

I'm under the impression the above technology could reset electronics in flight. What good is a nuclear warhead that doesn't know when to go off or is no longer armed?

If you turn that around though, what good is a ship that can't see because all their electronics are shut off. While it's certainly interesting to consider this conversation, I believe there are other technologies unknown to the public that both aid in defence and offence that seriously make any number consideration pointless.

You're forgetting the jobs that this imaginary person from India will need to create to produce the products and export them. You're also forgetting the very simple fact that whatever that product maybe...there is one less person in the US that knows how to produce it...and likewise one less person in the US that will know how to innovate the next variation of that product or to make any kind of influence on the market. If that product is sold internationally then how does that impact the GDP of a nation? This isn't just about who gets to tax who. This is about what country thrives and what country dies...and then it becomes about who makes global policies that everyone must follow. For citizens in the US, patriotism down a far enough line is ensuring that your values and beliefs are looked after on a global scale. Image a world where the only jobs available are to work for companies that operate out of other nations with far lower health standards...the options the US would have is to force their citizens to starve to death or lower our work and health standards to become in line with the new corporate owners of the country. Don't forget who really writes our laws...and ask yourself if the tables were truly turned internationally what kind of laws would the companies in other nations be willing to force down our throats to make things more profitable for them. How many companies would pull out of China if the government of China restricted pollution more?

Who cares right? You really aren't looking at the global scale of this happening over and over again countless times. You can call it patriotism but it's really short sited to believe it doesn't matter.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/payroll-system-works-h1b-visa-consultant-37547.html

http://www.cis.org/PayScale-H1BWages

They are not paid the same or taxed equally. See the above links.

a programmer working in India that does not have an outsourced job makes around about 8k USD per year. So if you could live like a king in your home country living with your family and friends vs living an average life in the US what would you choose? They ship the money back and pack in three to four people in just one apartment here in the states for a reason...it's not to afford a new car they all carpool in.

Most of us here also know many non h1b programmers that are very good at what they do but instead of coming out of college and starting a job in the field they are stuck in another unrelated field or worse stuck in retail...construction work...flipping burgers. I've heard all the stories. We sell to these kids to get a degree in CS and you'll find a job but instead they hit this wall of must have experience to get hired. When was the last time you saw an entry level position open up at your company? I can't even think of the last time mine had one. The h1b workers I work with are also great people and hard workers. Some are average, some are below, and a few are great just like anyone in the states. The question is why are we hiring them? Just so you can keep your new h1b friends while our sons and daughters can't get a job if their life depended on it...which it does...

Anyone coming from a first world country is not an accurate representation of how the H1B visa system is being used. See the links above. If a European graduate decided to up and move to the states you can bet his or her socioeconomic status is far above a huge majority of US college grads with a mountain of debt over their heads. It's like your taking someone that studied at MIT and comparing him with someone that studied at the local community college. I will admit there is a "problem" with our education system but that's hardly a discuss about h1b visas. My point is someone coming to the states from a 1st world country more than likely went to a better school and had a better background than most in Europe and the states.

Another think I would like to note: Companies no longer hire and train. They hire with experience. If you've ever noticed the contract companies you work with will team people from their company together. 1 teaches and trains the entry level guy that got hired on when the company he's now working for isn't accepting ANY entry level people or training anyone. So fresh new faces come in with zero experience and get trained...also get trained by myself. While we continually push away college grads from the states with the exact same experience...zero.

Yes, we are doing things the wrong way. Mainly because we're such a huge company and to even agree that we need more frameworks than the home grown JS or JQuery requires several extensive meetings, evaluations, considerations...and blah blah blah. By the time you're ready to start developing you'll either be burning money trying to decide what framework makes your code look the cutest or you'll be doing everything you can to meet your deadlines. What do you think the priority will be? And what does it say about a company when project XYZ used frameworks 1 and 2 while project ABC used frameworks 3 and 4? In large companies you don't make a lot of the decisions in what you write or what you write with. And you certainly don't get to just up and download anything you think will help you.

On the element ID thing. Of course it is low level but what makes more sense to you?
$('customerName').show();
or
$('textfield123').show();
Do I really need to explain that? I would think it would be rather obvious.

Right I forgot about that built in JavaScript command that gets all of a client's past transactions without needing to worry about any data structures or ajax request and then displays it on the screen allowing the user to sort by multiple columns, edit specific fields, resubmit that data back to the server, popup a jquery modal with dynamically asigned data....seriously dood are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me? Just because you can do something with a language doesn't mean you should.

In my most recent projects we did use Namespaces where we could. We also used JavaScripts bastardized version of OOP class syntax. Do you know how many developers in the company or on the project even understood that class syntax? Not many. Even the guy who wrote them (me myself and I) find them horrible to manage when dealing with even simple updates to POJOs in Java that then also must be reflected in the JavaScript class constructors. Poor design I'm sure you'll be claiming...but let's be clear...we had zero control over the gui requirements. There was no other alternative after considering alternatives for months...so don't pipe up claiming anyone that is a critic of JavaScript simply doesn't understand it. I understand it fine...and no JavaScript I've written or have seen written is as easily understood as any number of other languages when you get past just simple dhtml.

The point anyone against JavaScript will make is something I don't anything could disagree with. JavaScript was not designed to do the things we are doing with it today. That is the reason why it's so difficult to maintain JavaScript. If all we were doing with it was simple math or simple DOM changes then no sweat...

A thousand times this!!!

I work in a large company where we have a different GUI team that designs our screens. Increasingly over the past few years they have been building screens with more and more JavaScript requirements. Users seem to want to see everything dynamically loaded...page replaces are somehow evil and ugly...give me a fucking break already...if they had any idea how much more it costs them to build the screens they design they wouldn't be doing it.

Pretty screens == almost impossible to maintain code. It's as simple as that and until something better comes along than JavaScript it's going to be a nightmare for most of us to deal with production issues. What's worse is when not even id's of elements on the page make sense so you wind up with id's that make the JavaScript code look even more confusing. I've built some of the most complex systems at my company that are heavy in JavaScript. We did a great job according to everyone around. But I know there are some things we can never correct because of the language we are dealing with.

In all of the above scenarios you put forward it required another active influence in the local government. Regardless if it is criminal bribery, lack of proper environmental regulations, or legalized brutality towards civilians the point is it would not be possible if there was not already some form of corruption already in place in that 3rd world country. It is not as if these companies just got up one day and decided they would invade and kill civilians to make a point. Their motive was greed. Terrorists may claim their motive is freedom but it's far more likely their motives are more about staking a claim to power either global or local regardless of why their movement may have started....it is usually quickly forgotten from what I've seen in my limited view through US media.

My point is a corporation can not wilfully go into any governed state and decide to do as they wish. Their actions are sanctioned by the local corrupt government. Even though taking a stand against a corrupt government becomes more and more difficult with the influence of technology, it is still the responsibility of the people of a government to ensure their government listens to the people and does right by them. Surely you could even say the US government with bought laws in congress has its own problems.

A terrorist actively seeks out to murder and inflict great harm to a civilian population to try and deter the will of the people (which as we've seen will never ever work but only aims to polarize the world. Yet we've seen a few terrorist leaders attempt to appeal to the common civilian population of an enemy state because they realize once the people are united with the government in arms against them...no terrorist group can fight against hundreds of millions of people hell bent on their destruction). If you are to equate the active murder of civilians with that of collateral damage or that of the wake of a corporation's greed...then I'm afraid your moral code has been a bit to much open for discussion with college kids looking for a good paper to write...or maybe you're watching the wrong kind of media brainwashing?

The taking or harming of any life is wrong, period. To excuse a terrorist act as an eye for an eye or as some form of retribution is ignoring the entire grey area between what an evil corporation does and what a terrorist does. While I would never agree with any terrorist movement (because they have explored about zero other options and they are not attacking or dealing with their real issues but instead feeding pre-existing feelings of hatred for a grab at power...local multi state government reform is honestly what the focus should have been for them...but that's a bit more risky than pissing off the big oger in the corner) I would at least accept their actions if they kept all of their acts of violence towards valid targets. But then you have to ask yourself of what qualifies as a nation or a voice that should even be listened to.

As horrid as our planet is the point is there are a lot of ways for a terrorist organization to get what they want. The second they attack a civilian population they are immediately viewed by the entire world (rightly so) as a criminal organization that must be put to death. Maybe if they want it to be socially acceptable to kill people they should've started a corporation and bribed off some local government to allow them to pollute and kill off villages of civilians...hmm sounds like a bond movie or something.

I don't believe any civilian in the US is ignorant to the fact that corporations control their lives and the laws they must abide to. Government corruption is nothing new. Based on your sig I would assume you're well aware of the very large LEGAL movement to separate this connection. Anger, hate, and a lust for power are very different vices than greed. You should know the difference. They are both fools you can control with a few carrots in the right places...but one is a lot more destructive than the other. I know that statement maybe hard for you to see given that I'm assuming you're living in a 1st world country...but it wasn't to long ago that everyone on the planet were seconds away from their death all because of anger, hate, and a lust for power. Corporations are a problem but they are a far cry from last century's evil.

http://www.macrotrends.org/1334/us-dollar-index-gold-and-oil-historical-chart

From the same site. Five years isn't enough of a picture to suggest that gold and oil always has value while the dollar does not.

I've never agreed with Monsanto. However their actions are very similar to many other large corps such as MicroSoft. Contrast what Monsanto is doing to what SCO did to Linux or what the RIAA MPAA did to small time music downloaders. Extortion maybe a more appropriate word to use? Home grown or self made products have a long list of government regulations put there by large companies to hinder and prevent small businesses from entering into the market. The problem is a lot larger than Monsanto and is more related to what narcissistic corporate entities have turned into all in search of pleasing stock holders. But I still wouldn't call it terrorism...maybe capitalism and monopolistic greed??

I saw this image a few days ago comparing star war rebels with that of terrorists...maybe I'm just reacting to that. I think blurring that line between what real terrorism is brings validity to terrorist acts as just another aspect of life no less evil than that of large corporations. I think we should be clear that terrorism are violent acts or the suggestion of violence towards civilian populations. No matter how unsettling it maybe...legal court cases are never terrorist acts of violence. While what corporations do to 3rd world countries and 1st world country small businesses is unsettling, their acts are not designed to terrorize those that can not defend themselves. They are just blind fools following their only vice. Terrorists deserve a special place in hell (if you believe in that)...while board members and ceos might only deserve a summer home there. So don't get me wrong, I hate them too...but they are not terrorists.

What if believing that smoking weed has no bad side affects...is a false belief!?!?!!!!

Reeves

Ok, lay off the documentaries...seriously dood...

Maybe to clarify things you should repost what you wrote by replacing MBA with "the boss", because that's what the "young MBA is". You might not like the decisions but the point is they are in the lead for a reason. We have zero understanding of why "the boss" decided to bring in other thoughts on the subject. If it's anything like the company I work for "the boss" is trying to make sure everyone is on board with the plan so if shit hits the fan one guy doesn't get fired, just everyone gets bitched at instead. While it may seem like he's slowing things down, "the boss" might actually be saving both his job and this spec writing poster's job.

Anyone that trusts a 20 year old to manage a project with a 6 million dollar budget is insane. Just saying...