Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 1) 516

Having worked for massive head hunter / recruitment firms to write software to parse an arbitrarily structured set of documents (in various forms) in the millions and while linking in to 3rd party applications that are still used through acquisitions and attempt to structure them, attempt to pull out critical information on a daily search basis, as well as generate repeatable ETL processes to import them in to a structure format (official company search application, repeatable imports while we customize the official search app with functionality demanded from our acquisitions) for easy search I concur with your comment.

Keyword searches get you so far, but until you start building a complete inventory of proximity terms (aka Lexical chaining), Levenshtein distance algorithms, term weightings when related terms are found for resolution as well past term analysis of the current text to determine what is more relevant, you are back to manual processes. Even the above requires lots of training of the system to become even halfway reliable and that still requires constant updates as the industry changes and as you encounter newly phrased terms, job descriptions etc.

Then add matching from multiple systems addressing information, education and past employment information, phone numbers, email addresses, professional associations to determine "Hey, Joe Blogs from these five systems from different companies that were acquired is the same guy!!! Sweet, let's combine the data and update our official system with any missing information."

Yeah, it isn't easy, it takes a lot of work... and the above barely scratches the surface. Now how the hell do you do searches of terms against emails looking for classified information that is not labeled correctly with out going through the above? Judgement call by a trained eye, or access to all classified material during her tenure, or hashed critical values from classified material used to compare and pull out "stuff to review".

While I worked there, I started to miss the simplicity of writing LOB applications ;-)


Comment Re:The skill they need to teach in IT school... (Score 1) 331

If you actually did some research you would find the $150k a year is in high cost of living markets. Having been involved in hiring in the Ohio area, the average is around 70K->85K. If you are lucky enough to be a Sr. Developer and Sr. Level Network experience like I, then I am able to earn quite a bit higher, but the hats I wear is significantly more.

Comment Re:Very Basic Income (Score 1) 618

Citizenship is not some automagical status that makes you a productive member of society

No, but citizenship is an automagical status granted by our Constitution, if you were a Citizen you would have known that. In the strictest interpretation of the Constitution only Citizens are entitled to the rights it grants.

Your assertion that the strict interpretation of the Constitution only citizens are afforded its rights and protections is actually incorrect. For over a a century the Supreme Court has asserted that immigrants that are not naturalized are defined as "persons" which is the only designation that matters to determine whether the Constitution applies. The Constitution only explicitly restricts the right to run for federal office and the right to vote to US Citizens, at no other point does it imply that un-naturalized immigrants are not afforded rights and protections.

The intention of the Framers to only explicitly state the limits of holding federal office and the ability to vote to citizens implies that no such qualification exists for the remaining rights. To quote James Madison:

"[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution,
as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually
conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are
not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution;
yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one
hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to
their protection and advantage"

Madison's views won out, which is why federal office, right to vote and qualification to hold the office of president is restricted. Everything else, a person who is here is afforded the same protections as those naturally born (as my son and are wife are) and those that have naturalized.


Comment Re:Remove Tesen (Score 1) 618

The attitude you display here, that there is nothing more to being American than making and spending money, is exactly the attitude which is leading this country to destruction.

Make American Tesen-less again.

Yeah, okay... since the topic is about a very basic income level I only replied in an economic context. You are a coward and not willing to reply with a registered account. America is not on a path to destruction, that reads as a typical ignorant Trump support comment...

So long coward, lets kick you out!

Comment Re:Very Basic Income (Score 2) 618

So you openly profess to being an "economic citizen", no?

So you openly profess to being too lazy to "go all the way" with the naturalization process, no?

Actual US citizens do the following:

You make an ASSumption and are to cowardly to reply with an actual account. No, I said I have not gotten around to naturalizing, it has nothing to do with laziness, it has got to do with not reserving money to pay for it (it is expensive), instead I direct that money towards paying down debt. Since my permanent residence card is up for renewal again in 2022, I will naturalize about 18 months before hand, which is actually the point where all my debt is virtually gone.

- vote in elections and other public matters (well, we should vote...)
- hold political office and other positions that require "citizenship" as a prerequisite
- serve jury duty (we generally hate it but we do it rather than go to jail for not doing it)

To your point "well you should vote". Yes indeed, the turn out rate for US Elections is pretty low, which makes most of you very bad citizens. I would vote if I were naturalized, but apparently most Americans do not hold that right important to them. I would gladly serve on a jury, I consider it a social responsibility.

- fight for this country as part of the military (if we don't defend it we lose it)

So I think you are here because it is "useful to you" ... but by your own statements you are not useful to the USA other than being a tax revenue source.

magic word: optimism

Your ignorance is showing; I had to sign up for Selective Service upon applying for permanent residence (which was a 2 year process to get interviewed). I would fight for this country if the need arises and many permanent residents have served in the US Military still do while not citizens. I am also highly qualified in the STEM field, which makes me educationally and productively useful too.

The only thing I cannot do is vote, hold a public office, serve on a jury or hold certain jobs. Seems to me that the majority of Americans fail to vote, try to get out of jury duty every chance they get, do not hold public office or work for the government, so by your logic you imply they are only economically useful or useful as cannon fodder (fight for our country).

Magic word: Idiocy.


Comment Re:Very Basic Income (Score 4, Informative) 618

How do permanent residents not have a buy in? We are not H1B's. I pay the same taxes as you, I pay in to SSI, I contribute to all local, state and federal taxes. I own a house here with my wife (who was born in the USA) and child. I own two cars. I hunt. I support local wildlife habitats. I am paying in to a 401K and IRA in addition to personal investments. I pay for goods and services here. I plan to retire here, I have just not gotten around to naturalizing. How is that not buying in?

Citizenship is not some automagical status that makes you a productive member of society; it yields you some additional advantages that permanent residents do not get (yet we pay for it too :)) Being a citizen does not imply you can never take your crap and go elsewhere, US citizens do it all the time, they live aboard, they give up their citizenship and just like citizens if I decide to move back to my country of birth I still have to file US income tax statements even if I have not earned in the fiscal year inside US borders of protectorates, the only way around that is renouncing my permanent residence just like a citizen would have to.

Welcome to the wonderful world of arbitrary designations :)

Comment Re:Very Basic Income (Score 5, Informative) 618

I am a green card holder and have been living here for almost 17 years, I pay same taxes as you, I pay in to SSI and I contribute a hell of a lot of money to the economy. I should just suck it up and naturalize, it is not like I cannot keep my current citizenship in addition to obtaining US. The difference between citizenship and permanent residence is that you have taxation with representation, I however do not, but it is within my power to resolve that.


Comment Re:technicality (Score 1) 101

I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.

We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.

One area of entrapment probably was met: This terrorist POS had limited ability to construct, plan and carry out such attack. One could argue that the FBI agents were able to provide the support (albeit in a very limited sting operation sort of way, i.e. the POS taking the lead) to push him along to carry out his plans.

1) The idea for the crime must have originated from the government agents and not from the accused person.
2) Government agents persuaded the person into committing the crime, as opposed to just giving him or her the opportunity to do so.
3) The person was not ready or willing to commit the crime before speaking to the government agents.

Three could apply here and while you think we have "We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment" looking at legal precedence/case law in the USA those rules seem to be more blurred than clear. In the case of this POS, they technically had him on a number of charges that would have given him a life sentence before they got to the fake bomb stage, hell even before the test run, we have put people in Gitmo for way less...

Comment Re:technicality (Score 1) 101

That's based on the fact that he willingly went along with the first guys to offer support.

It's not entrapment. It's a sting. There are very important differences, and you'll find the situation to be much less perplexing once you understand those differences.

I understand the difference; they already had him on numerous charges without playing the entire episode out to the point of placing a fake bomb. Yes sure, they offered multiple alternatives, prayer, made him aware there will be children and women present, no one is saying this terrorist aint a stinking pile of shit, but the FBI had him when they did the "practice run".

While technically waiting to make the arrest with the fake car bomb is not exactly entrapment, the sting operation could have concluded with the detonation or even construction of the "test" bomb. Actually, it probably could have concluded long before that with a conviction. Yes, I understand getting prosecution is harder than it sounds, but they have ample evidence prior to the fake bomb run, shit prior to the test run of his intention and activities. Also, what went wrong in this young mans head to push him this direction? Could have the perceived assistance of these agents, who to this idiot were willing accomplices (knowledgeable ones) that apparently supported his position?

Slashdot Top Deals

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_