want a job ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nikkels Jul 31, 2007 5:05 AM EDT |
What this story tells me is that if your IQ is a little lower than standard, you always can get a job at the US customs |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2007 5:11 AM EDT |
It's getting to the point that no software developer or researcher in their right mind is going to want to travel to the US. :( |
| number6x Jul 31, 2007 5:38 AM EDT |
So why do the corporations keep asking for more H1B visas? :) |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2007 7:07 AM EDT |
>So why do the corporations keep asking for more H1B visas? Because Corporate Executives who believe fiercely in the market when it comes to their own compensation don't want to pay anybody else 1 dime more than they absolutely have to. |
| Abe Jul 31, 2007 7:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:So why do the corporations keep asking for more H1B visas?Primarily what Dino said, plus the logistics of outsourcing overseas didn't work well enough. Thus, bring the help on site. Whether it is more cost effective or not, I am not sure. |
| number6x Jul 31, 2007 8:23 AM EDT |
Abe, I can testify to the high cost of trying to outsource major project development in IT. The last two contracts I had were both spent cleaning up after disastrous failures. Both of these clients had been sold projects by major IT consulting firms with promises of low cost resulting from an almost entirely outsourced development team. After the projects had gone far beyond their original time and budget, the axe was finally dropped. Small teams were built on sight to salvage what could be, but in both cases we quickly determined that there was little that was useful. In one case a small team of twelve wrote a new system from scratch in less than six months for less than a tenth of what had been paid for the outsourced project. The client was amazed at the quality of our code, while I thought it was some of the worst stuff I had ever produced. Time did not allow for beauty. We got things to work and made sure we didn't brake anything. I believe large complex projects can be outsourced successfully, but in order to do so you will have to add quite a bit of project management at home to ensure the project stays on track. That management will probably have to work third shift to match the hours of the outsourced development team, and then liason with the normal shift management. Outsourcing major IT projects will probably always add extra time due to the difficulty in getting feedback quickly. It can be done, but it will probably cost more to do it. For me, outsourcing is the new Arthur Andersen. I used to get a lot of work cleaning up after the old #1 consulting company and getting things to work after they were kicked off projects. Failed outsourcing seems to be filling the void left by Andersen's demise. Corporate decision making is usually so incredibly wrong headed I'm amazed that the system works as well as it does. |
| gus3 Jul 31, 2007 9:06 AM EDT |
If the situation were turned around, and a US software engineer/researcher were denied entry into Germany to teach at a conference full of less-than-aboveboard hackers, what would you say then? |
| tuxchick Jul 31, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
gus3, this particular case sounds really stupid, and the reasons for denying Mr. Flake entry quite lame. |
| Abe Jul 31, 2007 9:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Corporate decision making is usually so incredibly wrong headed I'm amazed that the system works as well as it does. Tell me about it. Most outsourcing projects are justified using smoke and mirrors. People in the decisions making positions have no idea. When things go wrong, they usually are safe since they have someone to point fingers at. It is amazing how much time, money and internal talent gets wasted when companies outsource. |
| gus3 Jul 31, 2007 10:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:this particular case sounds really stupid, and the reasons for denying Mr. Flake entry quite lame.I agree as far as that goes, but that isn't why I ask. |
| tuxchick Jul 31, 2007 10:38 AM EDT |
gus3, oh sorry :) I would still call it lame :) What's your take on it? |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2007 4:11 PM EDT |
> ...at a conference full of less-than-aboveboard hackers, what would you say then? Did you miss the section where he noted that many of the attendees were government employees? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 31, 2007 5:38 PM EDT |
What F/OSS development demonstrates is that remote collaboration does work, but not in an environment of traditional "micro" management and control. The promise of telecommuting has been there for two decades, with the needed infrastructure getting better and more "real-time" all the while. But that promise, as noted in such interesting tales as _David's Sling_ by Marc Stiegler (cannot recommend highly enough) http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/marc-stiegler/davids-sli... has not come to pass. Management wants people in cubicles, and otherwise how do you pay someone for contributions when a single line may fix what was broken by 10,000 lines of tight code? Which was worth more? What is the most sickening about this story from what I know of reality, the "hackers" who come in to talk about it are the ones to worry about _least_. But if I go into detail about the failings of centralized planning that this exemplifies, y'all will just be able to say "Bob's an anarchist, ignore him." |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2007 6:12 PM EDT |
> But if I go into detail about the failings of centralized planning that this exemplifies, y'all will just be able to say "Bob's an anarchist, ignore him." Oh, we don't need that excuse, Bob. :) Seriously, I agree. |
| tuxchick Jul 31, 2007 6:14 PM EDT |
jdixon, with which part? |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2007 6:28 PM EDT |
> ...with which part? The desires of management and the failings of centralized planning. |
| gus3 Jul 31, 2007 10:42 PM EDT |
TC:Quoting:What's your take on it?My first thought is simply to wonder how much of the reaction stems from reflexive anti-Americanism. That's why I asked the question. Frankly, if I were one of the Customs officers, and I found out this guy was going to a conference called "Black Hat" with this kind of printed material, I'd be highly suspicious, too. But the general reaction to this incident that I've seen has been along the lines of, "lousy incompetent US government, WTF can't they mess up just by looking at it, blah blah blah..." Yet this particular subset of the Executive branch of the government was carrying out its duties ordered by Congress, according to the US Constitution (Art. I, section 8). I don't blame Herr Flake for the net result. If anything, I think it was a failure on the part of the Blackhat organizers to make sure their contractor could abide by the applicable laws. Given the precipice that Blackhat sits on, they should be vigilant as to the legality of their official activities. It's kind of surprising that their legal eagles missed the H1B requirement for their contractors. So, TC, that's my take. Now, I'm curious: what's your take on my take? |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 2:45 AM EDT |
> It's kind of surprising that their legal eagles missed the H1B requirement for their contractors. He had always been allowed in before. Enforcing a policy which has never been enforced before is called selective enforcement. It's not generally accepted as a valid practice by US government officials. It's may even be grounds for invalidating the particular law or policy, though that's for a court to determine. It's been almost 6 years since 9/11/2001. Locking down the system immediately following the attacks would have made sense. Changing the rules of the game 6 years later in an arbitrary manner does not. The principle of equal and consistent application of the law is a very important one. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 3:56 AM EDT |
>He had always been allowed in before. Enforcing a policy which has never been enforced before is called selective enforcement. No it's not. Enforcing a policy that has never been enforced before is called getting off your butt and doing your job. Selective enforcement is picking and choosing when, where, and, most importantly, against whom you will enforce the policy against. >The principle of equal and consistent application of the law is a very important one. The principle is important, but the practice will always be imperfect. If nothing else, you will have individual variation. Some people do their jobs better than others. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
> No it's not. Enforcing a policy that has never been enforced before is called getting off your butt and doing your job. > Selective enforcement is picking and choosing when, where, and, most importantly, against whom you will enforce the policy against. I fail to see a significant difference between the two, but it's probably a lawyer thing. > ...but the practice will always be imperfect. Well, we can agree about that. We are dealing with people here, and both knowledge and interpretations will vary. Given the number of times he's done this in the past though, I suspect this interpretation is the one that's incorrect, not the former ones. Unless the rules have been changed from higher up since the last conference, of course. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
>I fail to see a significant difference between the two, but it's probably a lawyer thing. Oh please. Would you take that same position if we were talking about, say, health inspections for a city's restaurants? Should a new mayor be forced to let rats and roaches crawl kitchens with inoperative refrigerators because her predecessor staffed the health department with nephews and the slacker children of political contributors. Methinks it's not a lawyer thing so much as a stubborn blind spot thing. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 6:59 AM EDT |
> Would you take that same position if we were talking about, say, health inspections for a city's restaurants? Yep. > Should a new mayor be forced to let rats and roaches crawl kitchens with inoperative refrigerators because her predecessor staffed the health department with nephews and the slacker children of political contributors. That's a case of the rules changing from above, which I've already noted is a valid reason for employees to change their behavior. There's no indication that was the case here. Regarding selective enforcement, however: There was a case in Virginia where a court threw out a law which had not been enforced in something like 30 years when some local authorities tried to start enforcing it. The judge stated that he was doing so on the basis of selective enforcement, so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision. This was over 20 years ago, and not being a lawyer and only having the remembered newspaper reports to rely on, I may be misunderstanding or misremembering things. > Methinks it's not a lawyer thing so much as a stubborn blind spot thing. Possibly, but if so it's a true blind spot, which by definition I can't see. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
>That's a case of the rules changing from above, It is no such thing. Rules identical, determination to enforce them different. > so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision. Big deal. One decision in one state. That is why we have appeals courts and a Supreme Court -- including at state levels. Judges screw up all the time. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 8:25 AM EDT |
> It is no such thing. Technically correct, as it's the official interpretation that's changing, not the rule. However, it's a difference which makes no difference. > Rules identical, determination to enforce them different. Which is by definition selective enforcement. One time they're not enforced, the next time they are, at the selection of the enforcer. However, we're not going to agree, so I'll drop the matter. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
>However, we're not going to agree, so I'll drop the matter. So... does not going to agree mean what most people would take it to mean, or do you have some special definition? |
| gus3 Aug 01, 2007 8:45 AM EDT |
Regarding "selective enforcement": We don't know how many other people were denied entry that day. We also don't know on what basis the Customs officer pulled Flake aside. Flake may have actually done something to raise their suspicions. The one time I was pulled aside for extra screening, the reason behind it was very simple: my ticket had been purchased the day before. I was heading for an on-site tech support visit, the customer had encountered a nasty problem, and I was dispatched immediately to help. A spoiled college brat in front of me decided he was going to "fight the power" by making sure everyone within earshot knew what he thought of the security screeners. Yup, he got pulled aside too, and he was standing right next to me for the extra pat-down. All the while he played "victim," trying to show how aware he was of his "rights." When our screeners were away at some machinery, checking out swab samples from our carry-on luggage, I told him in a low voice, "If I miss my flight because of you, it'll take five security guards to pull me off of you. Got it?" He got it. I made a point of thanking the screeners for doing their patience putting up with cranky people. But they sure didn't have to put up with any more crap from Mr. Frat Brat. So now you understand why I'm a bit defensive of the Customs officials. We in the net-o-sphere weren't there, and we don't know why Flake got pulled aside in the first place. It may have been for a more valid reason than we know. It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
> ... does not going to agree mean what most people would take it to mean, I'm not most people, so I have no way of knowing. I think you will agree that I am usually a "reasonable" person though. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
>I think you will agree that I am usually a "reasonable" person though. More often than not. This, I think, is the occasional "not". |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
> ...and we don't know why Flake got pulled aside in the first place. It may have been for a more valid reason than we know. Possibly. As you said, we don't know. > It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics. Which it can be reasonably argued they did not do in this case. It can also be argued that based on current interpretation of the rules they did. Without knowing the rules in detail and knowing their current interpretation, we can't know. The outcome, however, is not a desirable one for anyone involved. Flake is denied entry and Customs gets bad publicity. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
> This, I think, is the occasional "not". My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino. That probably explains most of the difference in our opinion. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 01, 2007 2:18 PM EDT |
> Without knowing the rules in detail and knowing their current interpretation, we can't know. I'm sorry, those rules are classified. You may not see them. Asking for them is grounds for detaining and questioning. Demanding them will get you arrested on the spot. > My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino. More obvious words were never said. My reason for not laughing in the TSA agent's faces as they go through their pointless make-work: If you annoy a small man, he will make you miserable. Frighten a small man, he will _kill_ you. There are lots of frightened, small men in government. That's why crossing government officials will get you punished quickly and in a degree far out of proportion with the supposed "crime". Wouldn't it be nice to live with the rule of law? http://www.jpfo.org/smith-wouldntitbenicept1.htm |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 6:55 PM EDT |
>More obvious words were never said. You know nothing about my patience with bureaucracy. What does your willingness to make such a confident assertion from a position of complete ignorance say? |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 01, 2007 7:02 PM EDT |
> What does your willingness to make such a confident assertion from a position of complete ignorance say? That you have been consistant in your statements over time. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 7:39 PM EDT |
>That you have been consistant in your statements over time. Hmmm. I guess the same rationale would lead you to conclude that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh. However consistent may statements may be, they certainly can't indicate any patience with bureaucracy. Methinks you have let your opinion of me fill in all the facts you don't have. Good way to be wrong. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 7:47 PM EDT |
> Methinks you have let your opinion of me fill in all the facts you don't have. Good way to be wrong. Yes, but patience in one aspect of life usually translates into patience in others. You've definitely shown more patience than I have in your time on LXer, so it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Incorrect possibly; but reasonable. I at least, intended that as a compliment, not a detraction. > ...that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh. Nah, you probably prefer bourbon and you're definitely a Tigger person. :) |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 8:18 PM EDT |
>Yes, but patience in one aspect of life usually translates into patience in others. I'm not so sure about that. I'm somewhat patient with my children, but cannot stand to wait in line and will get up and leave a restaurant when the service is slow. It is a common mistake to confuse resignedness for patience. Sometimes things are as they are. You can fret or you can get on with your life. It is also a common mistake to confuse "I want it now" for impatience. It can be, but, often as not, it's little more than a temper tantrum. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 02, 2007 12:09 AM EDT |
> However consistent may statements may be, they certainly can't indicate any patience with bureaucracy. Each time an element of central planning comes up, you defend; apologize; explain it away. For example, when systemic abuses of voting is discussed, you defend it. And not just something like, "it's the best we've got". No, it's "this has evolved over hundreds (thousands?) of years to make being ruled as acceptable as possible" and "she was doing the job she was hired to do" (paraphrased from memory, and funny thing I don't disagree with either of these statements if they had been made alone.) In this thread, systemic abuse of people who have done no harm, the corruption and arbitrary nature of bureaucratic enforcement, prompt you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job." (direct quote, see above) I did not mean to suggest that you have patience for _yourself_ being inconvenience by bureaucracy. Your written "tone" would suggest the opposite in fact. No, what you have is a very high tolerance for the abuses of bureaucracy on other people, because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency. This is not "confus[ing] resignedness for patience", because you do not write merely resigning yourself to it. You defend it. Actively. Consistently. The specific reason that the TSA fails in the one task it's been given is because the cost of its actions are not reflected upon those who do the acting. With the TSA, if something goes wrong their budget will be raised and more incompetent fools hired to do even more incompetent fooling. This is what happened _last_ time they failed at their job, and the time before that, etc etc etc. By doing a bad job, they are _rewarded_. This is the incentive problem that makes government bureaucracies always the worst way to accomplish any task. If airline security were an issue between the airlines, airports and their passengers, a balance of cost verses benefit will be reached that is unique to each airline. As you say, you will get up and walk out if service is bad, but none of us can do so with the TSA because the TSA has no competition to reward for having better service. Isn't this why enforced "monopolies" are decried in every other field of human endeavor, even software? Why is government immune to the same monopolistic abuse we see in everything else? It isn't, and that is why I will always argue the need to abolish government monopoly control where ever it is found. |
| gus3 Aug 02, 2007 1:30 AM EDT |
I must say, this is one of the most well-mannered "flamewars" I've ever seen on the 'net. (Yes, I'm using the term loosely.) Are you two Brits or something? |
| jdixon Aug 02, 2007 2:47 AM EDT |
> "she was doing the job she was hired to do" Actually, that one was me. :) > and bureaucratic inefficiency. Even I, with my very limited tolerance for bureaucracy, recognize that bureaucratic inefficiency can be a good thing. It limits the amount of damage they can do. Now, if only we had a Busab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage), things might be workable. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2007 3:12 AM EDT |
>For example, when systemic abuses of voting is discussed, you defend it. I have never defended systematic abuses of voting. On the other hand I do not call an individual corrupt because she does her job. If you're going to make a statement, you need to get your facts straight. > you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job. Come on, now, Bob. This is a matter of simple of understanding what arbitrary means. Read what I wrote, not what your prejudices tell you I must mean. Sounds like you like you government -- including services even a libertarian would concede are required -- to keep off its butt and stay lazy. Personally, I would agree up to a point, but I do like the fire trucks to leave post haste and I do want the police dispatchers doing their jobs, etc. >because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency. If I consistently do that, you should be able to come up with a real example, not "getting off your butt and doing your job". |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!