Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Computer searches alter that which is searched? (Score 1) 462

If a computer search alters the state/contents of a machine, how would it be legal? e.g.: a naive software-based search of files, that alters metadata on files? Or: disassembling a device that wasn't designed to be disassembled, in order to clone the HD?

If border officials order a user to boot-up and enable the same access the traveler would have: What if there's software on the machine, that is *designed* to alter file contents when they are viewed? (The precise reason doesn't matter, but: what if the uncorrupted state of these files, or hardware, are important for one reason or another? say, to enable a security audit, by the traveler's employer?)

So (perhaps unlike other personal effects or "papers"), a computer search is not necessarily a passive process -- it's an ACTIVE one, that can (likely?) lead to damage, destruction, or complete loss.

Comment Re:She would not be granted an Indian work visa (Score 1) 684

Such reciprocity should be made part of the H1-B visa program:

1.) Oh, the originating country does not allow Americans to work there, under the same or better conditions? BAM! No H1-B visas for you.

1-a.) If no U.S. government agency will maintain a list? The U.S. worker just needs to prove they were statutorily barred working in the country that originated any H1B visa the company sponsored.

2.) For ANY violation of the H1-B visa conditions, make the sponsoring company subject to triple damages, paid to any U.S. worker that was passed-over, in favor of an H1-B.

Comment Re:Basis for discrimination (Score 1) 684

Ultimately, the companies that hire Infosys should pay for this outrageous behavior. What other strategy will yield the fastest end to this degradation of American workers? ...or even, put a stop to the entire H1B visa abomination? Here's a list of Infosys Clients.

Pick one at random. How about: Kellogg's? (They have such a homey, "All-American" brand image, don't they?)

Make them pay: Shame them, give them bad publicity, DESTROY THEIR BRAND -- do anything legal & necessary to make them drop Infosys as a vendor, permanently.

Comment Re:Basis for discrimination (Score 4, Interesting) 684

BTW, I don't think Infosys are the only ones who may do this. I recently did a phone screening for a *temporary* web-development job w/ Sapient. AFAICT, I gave detailed, accurate answers to nearly every technical question asked of me. And several of the questions were extremely remedial: ("What is the 'http' part of a URL called?" "Name some other protocols that a browser can use...") -- and worse: the interviewer tried correct me with his own, WRONG answers. Anyway, because of this thread, I did a little searching, and came across this WSJ article about Sapient:

Sapient hired about 2,000 staff in India last year too. The Boston-based company has 65% of its total workforce of more than 10,100 based in India.

"About 35% of our people are hired locally [in markets the company operates]," Mr. Endow said. "That's a very healthy mix."

However: Sapient has only about 1,500 US employees, and at least one-third to one-half of those are here b/c of visa sponsorship. (Consider that an H1-B lasts for 3 years -- extendable up to 6 -- and 2013 isn't even over, yet.) So:

  1. Are companies like Sapient just going through the motions to make it *look* like they're trying to fill some position with a U.S. worker -- as some sort of legal workaround? -- when their actual goal is to import yet another H1-B, all along?
  2. Does any U.S. government agency keep an accurate, publicly-accessible record of all accepted/denied H1B requests? ...including the name of the company, with the date, location, and public-job posting for the position they were allegedly trying to fill?

Comment Re:NK has nukes. Period. (Score 1) 322

Radionuclides were detected in 2013, and 2006.

North Korea may have taken extra precautions to prevent their tests from releasing radionuclides, in order to conceal the nature of their fission devices (Pu-239 vs U-235, or possibly other isotopes) -- and thus, conceal & protect the supply chain for their fissile material.

Furthermore, don't let the low explosive yields fool you: NK is likely testing the compact trigger for full-blown, fission-fusion-fission thermonuclear devices -- whose explosive yield could be up to several hundred kilotons.

Comment Re:Oh, stop acting surprised, Iran (Score 1) 289

> Couldn't possibly be that.

Are you kidding? The United States initially helped Saddam Hussein invade Iran, in a decade-long conflict that eventually claimed a million Iranian lives. The U.S. and other European powers even helped the Iraq use WMDs against Iran. And, get this: when Iraq attacked Iranian forces with chemical weapons, Iran did not retaliate in kind, despite possessing the technical capacity to do so. On top of all that, Saudi Arabian leaders claim they could acquire nuclear weapons in mere weeks. (regardless of the conditions under which they claim they would do so, the Saudi acknowledgement of their capability, is, itself, a nuclear threat -- on top of the threat already posed by other regional actors, who posses nuclear weapons.)

Now, you don't think *these* are plausible reasons for why Iran might want to develop a latent nuclear capability?
(note that "latent capability" is different from "fully functioning and deployed weapons.")

> History repeats itself.

Exactly, but not the way you describe. That repeating pattern is more like colonialism -- with its concomitant historical pattern of racism and white supremacy -- and not, as you claim, Antisemitism. Those tin-pot dictatorships that are (or were) all over the region? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Hosni Mubarek, etc...? They are *overwhelmingly* propped-up by European powers and/or the United States. Make no mistake: the Saudi regime is *brutal.* ( it can be argued that basic freedoms are far more curtailed in Saudi Arabia, than in Iran.) Heck, Saudi Arabia essentially operates a eugenics program, designed to breed more "Al-Saud" family members. Such policies are not in the interests of most Saudi citizens, and, in fact: they are robbing the people blind. But these policies are in the interests of the Al-Sauds, and their colonial benefactors.

Also, the entire settler/colonist process in Israel, itself, is far more akin to classic, race-based colonialism, than it is akin to resistance to racism (which includes: resistance to Antisemitism). You can even ignore the treatment of Palestinians to make this case:

  1. 1.) Israel helped the Apartheid South African government acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Israel did this, despite the fact that the South African state was maintaining preparedness for a genocidal war of annihilation against Blacks, eg: they even went so far as to research the creation of bioweapons that would selectively-kill Blacks in the "race-war" that their leaders imagined could happen.
  2. 2.) Israel helped supply arms, training, and logistics to the Ladino/White Guatemalan regime, in the 1980s to 90's. It is widely acknowledged that this regime committed outright genocide against indigenous Mayans, during that county's civil war. Some estimates say that at least 200,000 Mayans were murdered or disappeared. Logistics included a computerized "passbook" system, that was used to limit the movements of Mayan Indians, in their own country. A similar system was supplied to South Africa, enabling the Apartheid regime to limit the movements of Blacks.

Now, before you claim "Israel (or other western powers) would never use nuclear weapons, first" -- consider the above two points: Israel has already helped other countries commit, or potentially commit, genocide. Not to mention: the United States, and many of the European powers active in the region, already have their *own* relatively recent history of mass-murder and genocide.

So, who should be trusted? Who will keep the peace? Iranian leaders -- regardless of how un-democratic they are -- have made the calculation that they cannot rely on the peaceful "good intentions" of these other countries. Problem is: based on historical fact, their calculations are probably correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier