SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-many-jobs-do-we-need-to-lose dept.
I came across the following ad on Indeed.com for a software position (copied directly from the ad, including errors):
Please read this job description carefully.
We are looking for solid C/C++ Engineer with valid h1b visa who are currently in US and willing to transfer his visa to our company for long term employment.No 3rd party.
Strong mathematical and analytical skills, in linear algebra, discrete mathematics and statistics. Have a strong knowledge of methods of dynamic programming.
Strong knowledge of parallel computing theory and tools like MPI or OpenMP.
In-depth knowledge of C/C++ language, strong knowledge of standard library and boost library and have a strong knowledge of template meta programming.
Have a solid experience with cross-compilation using gnu tools.
Development experience with Linux Red Hat, embedded Linux, Windows 7 using gnu tools like make, gcc, g++. Have experience with cross platform development and testing using Cmake.
Have a prove experience working with source control system Git, Cvs.
Have a strong knowledge of HPC and cluster's architecture.
Have a strong knowledge of scripting language like bash and python.
Strong object-oriented programming and design skills, like design patternsSalary: $85,000.00 /year
Required experience:
C/C++ experience ,Windows/Unix development: 8 years
Required education:Master's
Is it legal to limit a search to only H1B applicants? Do people see this often? Is it reasonable to expect a US applicant would be difficult to find? Or is it just no one would expect a US applicant to work for the mentioned salary in the Metro Boston area?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 22 2015, @02:11PM
Uh-huh. You are technically correct - and Hillary Clinton is technically in violation of laws that would put most people in prison for years. Let's just see how things play out, alright? No one is going to be fined, or spend any time in jail, for refusing to hire an American citizen. That has already been decided by the superjudicial cliques.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @02:24PM
Yeah, I have no idea where the Clinton thing is going. She may well get a slap on the wrist.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:35PM
Notice how once his persecution fantasy was proven false, he threw in that red herring about Clinton and then you swallowed it hook, line and sinker?
Runaway is a whiny little bitch who makes up lies in order to justify his bigotry and people are forever giving him the benefit of the doubt.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday August 22 2015, @03:40PM
Yeah, it's a red herring. Perfectly true.
"Ha! You claim to to care about the justice system and it's rules, but what about [politicized scandal]?" is always going to be vacuous. I was just trying to get the discussion back on course by not caring. I kinda failed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @06:07PM
Hillary Clinton is in violation of laws? That has yet to be proven. Seems like you're deflecting from the fact that you are very wrong by using a highly politically charged statement, commonly used by followers of Breitbart, The Drudge Report, and Fox News. Making up a controversy to deflect from bullshit is a skill you've honed well my friend.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @07:02PM
She's either in violation of laws or completely and utterly incompetent. Either way, that worthless corporatist fool should get out of the way of Bernie Sanders so the Democrat party can finally put forth a candidate that's at least slightly decent.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @03:18AM
Great comment, but one thing I'd add, is that it seems you hear all over that Clinton didn't violate any laws. That seems awfully presumptuous -- Are they really saying that intercepting official communications is not covered by that vast Federal code? I'm sure that buried in it somewhere is a rule making it illegal to intercept the physical mail destined for a public office, hoarding it at home, then destroying it later. I would be shocked if intercepting digital communications destined for that public office, hoarding them at home, and then destroying them later was not also illegal.
Just take a look at, in particular paragraph b, of the following statute. It was one of the things Ollie North was originally convicted on.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @03:19AM
oops, blockquote fail there at the end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @12:03PM
So again, she hasn't been proven to have violated laws. The impetus is on the sender not the receiver. As far as has been reported the emails that contained classified material were not marked properly, which would clear former Sec. Clinton of wrongdoing. Having a home server was not illegal until after her term and was a rule specifically created as a "gotcha" against Mrs. Clinton. If on the other hand they find that she did do something wrong, fine. As far as has been reported she's followed the legal advice she's been given and complied with the letter of the law. Just because she's guilty in the court of conservative American public opinion, doesn't mean that holds true in actual law. It's the same reason Pres. Reagan wasn't put in jail for treason, Pres G.W. Bush and VP Cheney aren't in jail for war crimes(which they admit to), and former Pres. Clinton isn't in jail for perjury(which..I mean..c'mon).
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 23 2015, @05:12PM
1: having a home server is beside the point.
2: I'm not convinced that was legal -- HRC was the only one of those DC scum who used private email, to actually use a private server. All the others used a third party server.
Mostly though, respond to this:
HRC had custody,
of an "other thing",
she willfully (meaning intentionally),
obliterated (deleted contents of) her server,
That's a fucking crime dickhead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:59AM
> willfully and unlawfully
Her argument is that everything she did, she did lawfully. All the other words in those statutes don't matter, the question is whether she could do them lawfully or not. She's stated that as head of the department of state it was within her authority to determine what records could be lawfully destroyed.
Whether you agree with her interpretation or not, the question of lawfulness is the key and it isn't addressed in the statutes you've quoted.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 24 2015, @04:14AM
So what you are saying is that destruction of documents sent to the SOS is legal.
How much you want to be that if some unknown started deleting official documents he had access to, he'd get prison time?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 22 2015, @08:14PM
Well, looks like we will need more "off-topic" mods, stat!