erroneus writes: This JapanToday story tells:A 17-year-old girl who has remained in a coma for over four years left Fukushima Prefecture for Osaka Wednesday on a school trip with her fellow classmates. She suffered head injuries during judo practice at her junior high school in 2003 and is now receiving home healthcare. This is the first time for her to fly on an airplane as she was not able to join her school trip during her junior high school years, said her mother.
erroneus writes: Listening to the news on the radio, I heard one thing that the terror suspects in the most recent threats in the UK have in common is they are all medical professionals from outside of the country. It is said, since the security screening for professionals entering their country is less intensive than for less critical professionals, that this was the means by which these suspected terror participants slipped through screening. (The investigative bodies are still trying to learn if the threats were organized prior to entry or recruited after entry to the UK.)
This made me think about current practices in the US. H1-B and similar programs are ab/used quite regularly by many companies operating in the US. Now, without going into whether this is good, bad or indifferent (we all have thoughts, ideas and opinions on the topic) it would be interesting to know how much background checking is actually done by the US immigration people prior to admitting them into the US and if the depth of screening differs for other forms of immigration to the US. I'm going to guess very little at this point but would be interested to hear corrections if I am wrong.
Whatever the case, it would seem that security checks should not be relaxed regardless of a person's skill-set or the urgency or critical nature of their need. As illustrated in the UK, even doctors could serve as a critical threat to a nation's security. So regardless of whether or not you have leanings for or against the present use or abuse of H1-B and similar programs, I think we should look to see some changes in how it's to be done.
erroneus writes: As I was catching up on some reading in my company's "library stall" I had selected this article in CIO magazine. It's doubtful that many will find too much in there that might surprise a typical slashdot reader, but that's not the value in this one I think. This experiment's summary gives one CIO's impressions on the current state of desktop operating systems. We know how things have been. We know a bit of how they are. In a comparison among WinXP, MacOSX and Linux (RHEL and FC), we can get a glimpse of what a real decision-maker sees in the present and maybe extrapolate some near-future possibilities. Further, we can get yet another reminder of where Linux development is lacking and consequently where development should be focused if anyone were interested in seeing Linux displace Windows.