Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:It's Heartbreaking you're not in Jail (Score 1) 482

How about if instead of setting it at $100k, we instead link it to the 95th percentile of wages, currently, this works out to $95k, but it will fluctuate with inflation, whereas $100k will not.

http://whatsmypercent.com?inco...

Absolutely! I was thinking 90th percentile ($82k). But the important thing is that it's a high wage. Tying it to a percentile makes the law withstand the test of time. I would also make the law state that it must be 95th percentile of wages for the region (I haven't figured out how to specify region in detail yet). That way the Silicon Valley area would require even higher wages than the rest of the country.

I would also remove all quotas and limits based on education or area of focus. If you can find a job making more than 90% of US residents (not just citizens, the law should be recursive), come on over!

Comment Re:It's Heartbreaking you're not in Jail (Score 1) 482

The fix is rather simple really. Minimum salary for H1-B visas is $100k/yr.

If you have a magic wand, what are you doing wasting your time posting on Slashdot? Why aren't you out there reshaping the world the way you'd like it to be?

I'm too smart for politics. :)

What you think would happen by passing a law like this is probably quite different than what would really happen. Think of the $15 minimum wage and things like fast food kiosks, mom & pop corner stores shutting down while Walmart grows bigger, etc.

The purpose of the H1-B program is to allow workers to immigrate if the demand is high for their skills, but the supply is low. Basic economics says those jobs should pay a high wage (supply and demand). Therefore, my proposal will do exactly as it is intended. Any other type of law will have unintended consequences. These jobs will not be automated, because by definition, they can't be.

I suspect the H1-B laws are written the way they are because it protects one type of high paid worker from being replaced by talent from overseas. That high paid worker is called the CEO.

Comment Re:It's Heartbreaking you're not in Jail (Score 3, Interesting) 482

It's heartbreaking that this is news. I also don't like it, and I also don't have a plan to fix it, but you don't see me quoted in the news.

The fix is rather simple really. Minimum salary for H1-B visas is $100k/yr. The way it is now, companies have to pay a "prevailing wage" that is very easy to manipulate. Just using a blanket, but high wage simplifies the process and makes it harder to cheat.

I admit, the $100k number I chose is rather arbitrary. I suppose a more precise statistical method could be used (e.g. poverty threshold x4, or greater than 90% of individual income). Additionally, there should be adjustment factors based on location (California and New York must pay more).

Comment Re:Environmental impacts? (Score 1) 321

Your conclusion is invalid - "radiation workers" don't receive a very low threshold dose, they receive a massive one in a very short time.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Please read the article I linked.

Typically, passengers flying from London to Chicago could expect to be exposed to around 4.8mrem, and those travelling from Washington DC to Los Angeles would be exposed to close to 2mrem. This compares to an airport body scanner which delivers around 0.1mrem and a chest X-ray that can vary between 2mrem and 10mrem.

Keep in mind, X-ray technicians leave the room when a person gets an X-ray. I suspect a common "massive dose" would be a CT scan, which is many X-rays taken at once. According to the article I linked, that's good for ~800mrem.

Comment Re:Environmental impacts? (Score 1) 321

More blatant ignorance from the Beeb. The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation. Then there is the 'possible' increase in prostate cancer in pilots....didn't even consider the lifestyle of pilots. I sometimes wonder if these authors even stop to think about what they are spewing. There are studies that link prolonged sitting of truck drivers to prostate cancer, but instead lets assume a cancer that has historically no tie to ionizing radiation might be due to the small amount of exposure from air travel. SMFH.

The author notes that specifically in TFA.

However the charity Cancer Research UK says this may be related to other lifestyle factors such as the pilots spending more time sunbathing than the average person.

I would like to see a comparison between airline pilots and truck drivers though. Both have to meet similar physical health requirements (yes, truck drivers are required to get physicals.), have similar duties, but one is exposed to more radiation.

Comment Re:Environmental impacts? (Score 1) 321

In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population.

It should, perhaps, be noted that "radiation workers" have legal limits to their exposure that are extremely low. Lower, in some cases, than what some "normal" workers are exposed to. For example, coal miners are exposed to more occupational radiation than a nuclear power plant worker would be legally allowed to get.

Please read the article I linked. It addresses that issue specifically.

Comment Re:And I'm just sitting here running Bitdefender (Score 1) 104

Avast and AVG's free products are both dedicated to the notion that they can harass and annoy you into giving them money. Does that work on people?

In my experience, AVG is far more annoying than Avast. Especially on their mobile products. The AVG Android app is so terrible, I would say it's malware (adware specifically) itself.

Comment Re:All but for one fatal flaw (Score 1) 165

Generally - I think a well functioning society would see the wealthiest person earn roughly twice what the poorest person earns.

Ben And Jerry's used to use a 5 to 1 ratio. I've heard others use a 7 to 1. But most companies are just ridiculous. CEO's don't add much value. Most of them are simply asserting their power over the employees by paying themselves that much money.

The greatest example of libertarian hypocrisy is that every libertarian I have ever met opposed anti-trust laws and supported right-to-work laws and didn't even REALIZE that philosophically they regulate exactly the same thing: what type of exclusive supplier arrangements are acceptable.

I have only recently come to this realization myself. But you're right. If companies can't form a cartel to manipulate a market, why should union's be allowed to? And vice versa. The answer is power. How do you measure power? How do you make sure the union and management are on equal ground during a negotiation?

I believe there are companies that take unfair advantage of their employees (Walmart, PetSmart). However, there are some unions that take advantage of corporations (GM, Hostess). There needs to be a balance.

My personal belief is market regulation is acceptable only to monetize some externality for businesses. (e.g. a carbon tax to combat climate change) Businesses should be responsible for keeping those externality costs down, because that's what businesses are good at.

Comment Re:All but for one fatal flaw (Score 1) 165

A very well written comment. However, I have one objection.

free market fundamentalists who think inequality, no matter how severe, is the proper state of the world

Those that believe that don't understand free market economics. True free market economists believe the free market provides equality. They believe that people are paid fairly based on their contribution to society. i.e. Poor people don't contribute as much as rich people. However, in reality that is not the case, and rich people manipulate the system for their further financial gain.

The example of free market economics in action that I like to use is US trade with China. Allowing (more or less) free trade with China has allowed the poor of China to find gainful employment and move into the middle class. However, this was at the expense of the US middle class. Although, it can be argued that the US middle class was far wealthier than the Chinese poor to begin with. Unfortunately, the wealthy saw the greatest benefit from this transaction due the reason I mentioned above.

My point is, equality is a two way street. To make everyone equal, some "rich" people become poorer, and some poor people become richer. It doesn't matter how you go about it, socialism, or free market capitalism. The end result is the same.

Comment Samsung Smart TV (Score 1) 226

I made the mistake of buying a Samsung smart TV based on the recommendation from Consumer Reports. It works fine as a TV, but the SmartHub feature is terrible. Some of it's "features" are:
  • UI Lag
  • Daily updates that display a popup message in the middle of the screen while watching TV. "SmartHub has updated. Would you like to open SmartHub now?"
  • Some days, its WiFi driver crashes and it's a PITA to get it back up and running. (Hint: don't change the settings while the driver has crashed, this will only make the issue worse. Just unplug the TV and plug it in again.)
  • System Crashes
  • Spotty support from app developers

Slashdot Top Deals

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...