The way it typically works is that the employee is already in the country doing a job, and the employer sponsors that employee for permanent residency. They advertise the job the employee is doing as a part of a Labor Certification process (i.e. proving they couldn't find someone locally who was qualified). They also need to show the wages the company is paying the employee is fair. Companies like FB don't pay people lower just because of their residency status (I've worked in the past as a managerial role in a Fortune 10 company, and I've reviewed employee compensations) - every job has bands, and compensation is determined by performance.

That being said, I've been through the hiring and immigration circus with a Fortune 10 company. People claiming there are plenty of qualified Americans waiting to do those jobs and are just being undercut on price have no idea what it is like to try and hire: there were months where my team had open headcount for signal processing work, and we would have gladly paid a mid six-figure salary ($300k) for someone who had skills and some experience. We had to interview tons of of "I used machine learning on kaggle, pay me now" candidates (of all immigration statuses). I've interviewed domestic candidates who would get stumped on basic Fourier transform and filtering questions. At the end, we found a decent candidate who recently graduated with doctoral degree from a mid-level state school, and the company sponsored her permanent residency. Not the ideal candidate we wanted, but that's what was out there.

On the immigration side, I've had to jump through hoops to prove I was deserving of the "blessing" of being in this country. It wasn't enough that I had lower six-figure paying job at that time (~180k), or had a doctoral degree, or had patents and papers. I also had to prove that I was not carrying pathogens (after having lived in the country for a decade), had academics across the world (who only knew me through my work) attest to the importance of my research, and had to support my case with a mountain load of documentation down to every address I stayed in this country over the past 10 years. All of this, and I was "lucky" to get my permanent residency almost four years after I applied.

So yeah, whine about how many jobs undeserving foreigners are "stealing" from Americans instead of applying to the hundreds of open positions in any Fortune 10 company right now.

Wherever you want! That's the beauty of all these mergers. Soon there will just be different brand names all under one umbrella corporation. Similar to car rentals. That way they can trick customers in to thinking there is choice, when really they just suck for different market segments.

And if you think this is monopolistic, think again. By carving up the marketplace, they will and won't compete at the same time!

From the paper:

While I've definitely encountered these situations, these are some of the best learning experiences. In fact, the whole task of problem solving is why you should be in this field. If you wanted an easy job with simple step by step procedures that will always work, find a different field. If you want to just write an algorithm and not deal with implementation quirks, go in to a more theoretical area.

In fact, the whole list is a whine fest about anything that anyone in any job has to deal with: "If you remove my idiot coworkers, remove deadlines, and everything I do just works perfectly, I'd be happy."

While I agree with the idea that any science conducted should be available to the public that pays for it, it seems like the current proposal is a stepping stone to (a) Allow lay persons (or even entire industries with paid "scientists") to challenge the results, and (b) delay the process of making new regulations by requiring the agency to jump through hoops (both in responsible releasing of confidential data, and providing enough evidence to justify their conclusions).

Science isn't a democracy, and this proposal will only make it harder for any regulations to be implemented. Even with a majority of scientists on one side of the fence, lawmakers are fighting environmental regulations tooth and nail. So this clearly isn't about improving regulations through good science, it is about creating more noise that allows a politician to justify their (pre-selected) bad position on scientific issues. I can just see a politician saying that he read 100 facebook posts by citizen-scientists disproving the EPA experts' conclusions, and that is why a ban on setting up oil refineries in national parks should be repealed.

(a) I never said listen to me, I said listen to the experts yourself.
(b) I gave you the data, you lazy child - its the very first line of my previous message. Since you clearly have no inclination to gain knowledge (or you would have at least looked at the data, and responded with data), I'll leave it at that.

On the subject of experts: an expert on international trade doesn't have anything to do with housing bubbles. And even if experts are sometimes incorrect, at least they have a framework and approach that can be verified, improved (this is crucial and is why I don't listen to ideologists), and are held accountable to. Your argument is "Expert X got something wrong, so I have no reason to listen to them about anything, but will instead follow a man (Trump) who started a Mortgage company just before the crash. Because I'm blue-collar and know that street smarts is better than all them expert talk."

The only valid point you made is that I should move on. To any who later come upon this thread, there is enough information (including data) for them to form an educated view (if they are so inclined).

Here you go: Economy of the US; also, models (if they have a good track record) are certainly valuable. Any time anyone makes a prediction, they have a model. Those with the most disdain for models are often arguing from ideology instead.

Define prosperity - certainly there are problems, but overall the years after 1962 have been great. While the gap between productivity and wages has increased, there are reasons that have nothing to do with trade. I repeat, US exports and manufacturing are at an all time high (Google it); manufacturing employment, however, is not doing so well.

Debt financed growth has been a valid strategy to get out of slumps and recession. No one is saying that debt isn't a problem. But most policy experts (of which neither of us are) disagree that massive tax cuts and austerity aren't the way to fix it. Trade wars aren't the way to fix it. These policy experts (all over the political spectrum) have much better historical records (of their predictions and work) than the current crop of Trump advisors - and they have unequivocally rejected his trade/economic/budget plans. Now, you can certainly claim that Trump's advisors are actually smarter than the other policy experts, but this is not backed up by their track record - Stephen Moore being a prime example.

Let's focus on jobs: the issue that "blue collar" cares about. Are they the steel plants, coal plants, and car manufacturing jobs of years gone by? Most of those jobs are gone because of automation, not because of immigrant labor. In fact, US manufacturing output is higher than ever (Google it), but the jobs in manufacturing is at an all time low.

Or perhaps it is the Foxconn type sweatshop labor that he'll bring back. Will Americans work for the same price (or risk this being automated as well)? Or maybe Trump will impose a tariff on all good manufactured outside the US? Other countries will then place a huge tariff on US goods. Or companies manufacture US consumables in US (welcome to your $2000 iPhone), while other countries get them from operations in China. And this tariff other countries place on US goods? It causes a contraction because domestic (within US) demand cannot rise enough to make up for the fact that US exports are no longer competitive in international markets. Unemployment in the US goes up, which causes people to consume less, which causes further contraction

Perhaps they are new jobs in fracking and oil (or other infrastructure projects)? Good. Infrastructure projects, while temporary, do boost the economy. Except Obama has been trying to get infrastructure projects for a long time, and Congress refuses to play ball (and fracking might not be the best industry anyway). Trump and Congress will likely pay for those by cutting other projects of course, and depending on where that is, we might have bigger problems. Trump's whole budget proposal was flawed (based on the non-partisan CBO, but who really cares what they think).

This isn't about feels - the people who are against trade wars includes prominent conservative Economists. They know that barriers to free trade are bad; the Donald, of course, has a good brain and doesn't need experts contradicting him. Which is why he goes for crony advisors.

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "Give Trump a chance", and "let's judge him when he gets to office" by people who voted against him, but are practical enough to want a good leader.

However, this seems to be a pattern with Trump - using donors or people who already agree with him in key positions and advisors. His economic team consists of big donors, and discredited hacks like Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow (this is non-partisan; even economic advisors of previous republicans presidents don't agree with Moore). He takes an climate-change skeptic (Myron Ebell) to lead the EPA transition.

Yet, I haven't heard a peep from most people who supported Trump about this. The "blue collar" crowd who supported him was about people sick of "Establishment politics", and instead wanted someone "looking out for the working class". Trump's isolationist and trade-war leaning policies, and embrace of supply-side economics have a proven record of hurting workers. Together with clear cronyism (to be fair, this was obvious before the election), I'm surprised that the "blue collar" crowd isn't even slightly upset.

Trump's supporters seem to still be in the post-game high - "Our team won!"; are they going to hold him to his (crazy) campaign promises? Are they going to expect him to loosen libel laws, build a wall, bring back sweatshop factory jobs? A co-worker remarked "Trump's victory speech was a step towards healing", instead of realizing that the stirred up crazy is still out there; he doesn't get credit for not being as crazy enough to follow through on his campaign promises.

Now you have a populist who will bring back the minimum wage (while such a thing exists) manufacturing jobs from China (great going Peter Navarro - and if you voted for Trump but have no idea who this is, you are part of the problem), at least until automation kicks you to the curb. "Blue-collar" workers have (best case) staved away their downward decline for a few years, while destroying any hope of a transition to a decent health care system and safety nets that they'll need in the coming decades.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

Good, bad, or ugly, is it time to admit that business can't really continue without Patents/Accounting/Negotiations/Advertising/Sales/1000 other things?
When will patent law/banking/economics/marketing of these become formal curriculum in schools? That's about the time when IT should become a part of the formal curriculum as well.

High school shouldn't be about training for a job that only a fraction of the students will eventually do. If businesses can't survive without IT, then they hire people who are specially trained in IT - a HS course won't be train people enough to solve any hard IT problems anyway.

Not trolling here, but I've been wondering why there is so much hate for System-D, when this is for open source projects?

Whenever someone says (on slashdot) that they don't like the features of an open source project, he gets a bunch of comments along the lines of "It's open source - just add the features you want or fork it and make your version. That's what is so great about open source".

What is different in this case? Clearly, lot of people don't like SystemD. Why are they complaining about it? If you don't like it, aren't you free to fork projects and make your own Debian derivative (for example) that is free of System-D?

I'm honestly curious why SystemD has this much power to break the "fork it, open source rules" argument.

This article is mixing three issues, all of which should concern any online retailer.

The first is counterfeit or fake goods - a customer buys a product, but instead gets an item that doesn't match what they ordered. This is clearly fraud, and makes it difficult to trust online purchases. This doesn't seemed to have happened here. Most customers must have known they were buying the product from someone else, not the "original".

The second is that the signal to noise ratio drops very low because a lot of vendors flood the marketplace (perhaps automatically) with products that are supposed to grab the top spot (due to low price, for example). The product might not even exist - say I print a t-shirt when someone makes an order, but I can digitally generate a million t-shirt slogans and create a million different t-shirts to show up on search. This isn't fraud - I know exactly what I'm getting, but the marketplace experience as a whole is terrible.

The third is gaming the review system. I tend to read the content of the reviews carefully (I don't trust the rating system as much) to gain information, rather than checking the ratings. In this case, it seems as if the "inferior" product had a lot of fake reviews. If true buyers were returning the product in large numbers, however, Amazon might even pull the product.

I do agree that it isn't the merchant's job to track down fraud/fakers (which this particular example is not); Amazon should be careful that they don't become the next ebay or craigslist.

Slashdot editors, however, will continue to ignore all rules of grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and continue their decades-long campaign to commit atrocities against the English language.

To be fair, the Amazon employee was a Prime Now customer and had gotten so used to getting what he wanted in two hours that pumping drinks in to a girl all night in a bar (let alone the traditional three-dates before sex route) was just too damn slow.