Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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 Re:talent! (Score 1) 512

Companies use H1B and L1 visas as a method of bringing in cheap foreign labor.

First they post a job with outrageously high requirements for a lowball salary.

The only local workers who can do it are currently employed (often at the same company) for better money, so they won't take it.

The company "can't find" any local talent, so they bring in a foreign worker on an L1 or H1B visa who doesn't meet the job requirements either - but will do the job they actually wanted done, for an even lower salary.

Comment H1B and L1 visas are both being abused (Score 5, Informative) 353

The standard procedure for companies when they want to do this is to first post a job opening with outrageously high skill and experience requirements, and a sub par salary.

Any American workers who are qualified for the position are generally already employed at the same or better wages, in positions with lower requirements - so few if any apply. If a qualified worker does apply, it is a win for the company - they've just hired an overqualified worker for 1/2 to 2/3 of the salary such a position should command.

In the more common case that no workers apply who meet the qualifications set, the company applies for an L1 or H1B visa on the basis that it "cannot find qualified American workers". They then bring in foreign workers who do not meet the original requirements, for even lower salaries.

Comment Re:Profit & Lies (Score 4, Insightful) 730

The folks from Rumblefish are trying to do damage control - which at this point, any reasonable company would do.

It is possible that the "reviews" were done by an automated system on their side, which would be bad.

It is also possible that the "reviews" were done by a lazy human on their side who if there is any justice in the world, is in the process of being fired.

If the former case is true, it was a bad business model by the company which is now coming back to bite them.

If the latter case is true, then the company representatives posting here may just be decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Either way, I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt. If the bogus infringement notices continue after this, we can break out the pitchforks and torches - otherwise it can be counted as a lesson learned.

Comment Re:Peh. (Score 1) 754

The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.

Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.

The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?

Oops. My mistake.

For that day, how about this instead:


Or this:


Or this:


That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.

The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.

Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer. ...and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?

The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.

Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.

The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.

So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?

Comment Re:Peh. (Score 1) 754

Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world

Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was...

...on the 22nd of July. Five months ago.

The most recent incident of Islamic terrorism was today:



...and yesterday:


...and the day before:


...and the day before that:


There were probably more, but that was just a cursory search. I could go back further - but the point is the word "common" in my statement. By far the vast majority of attacks are committed by islamic terrorists. Do other terrorists exist? Sure. ...but they're not committing attacks every day.

Comment George Orwell had it wrong (Score 1) 186

While there is a certain amount of (justified) paranoia that the government would use digitizing records as an opportunity to engage in revisionist history, I have to say that despite a desire to do so, the odds are against the government being able to pull it off.

In order for something like 1984's Ministry of Truth to function, the government would have to be far, far more competent and efficient than is ever to be likely.

Comment Re:Peh. (Score 5, Insightful) 754

You assume that the terrorists are not willing to kill half the planet to accomplish their goals, even if half their own people die in the process. They've already proven repeatedly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of their own people to commit terrorist acts.

If half the world population were to die off (in equal percentages everywhere), countries like the US, UK and Germany would be vastly more affected in terms of productivity, influence, and ability to project military power than countries like Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan.

The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.

Comment Re:Peh. (Score 2) 754

Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world, and almost uniformly use their religion as the justification for their acts (as opposed to terrorists who happen to be of other faiths, who do so rarely). They also have a history of being willing to sacrifice their own lives to accomplish their goals. Even if they believed that they would themselves die in the process, and that muslims would be killed in equal percentages to westerners, they would still likely use it, on the (correct) theory that 50% casualties would be far more damaging to industrialized nations than to their own.

All that said, it really doesn't matter what sort of terrorists get a contagious, airborne bioweapon if they are willing to use it.

Comment Possible to do after the fact (Score 2) 358

Once they've sold their knowledge, they can be identified, sometimes.

Keeping the knowledge from spreading isn't possible - eventually it will become commonplace. The challenge is making the raw materials and weapons grade nuclear material out of the hands of those who would misuse it.

A similar problem exists with bioweapons - eventually the knowledge to make them will become commonly available. The differences there are that raw materials for bioweapons are far easier to obtain, the equipment needed is far less expensive than for nukes, and the potential damage of bioweapons is far worse.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_