Edison himself was stealing ideas from others. Not to mention the slave labour and free natural resources of a new continent that americans used while enforcing chinese exclusion act. Ip theft from china is western imagination.
As milton friedman said about this exact case that this a very hard thing to achieve both privately and via government.
Not having private property rights is more disaster than climate change at leads to authoratarian governments, widespread poverty and more harm to nature.
Sueing companies is fine but every single of those companies is eventually making profit by volunteerly offering some service to the individual.
Are we going to sue a blogger making money via adsense because google is using a data center powered by fossile fuel energy.
I'll buy that the private sector can't solve the tragedy of commons, but if governments can't, we're all lost. The fact that the system we currently exist in uses fossil fuels doesn't equal the right of those who extract it to reap unlimited profit, or to pollute others' environment no matter how gradually or secretly.
> I'll buy that the private sector can't solve the tragedy of commons, but if governments can't, we're all lost. The fact that the system we currently exist in uses fossil fuels doesn't equal the right of those who extract it to reap unlimited profit, or to pollute others' environment no matter how gradually or secretly.
This is a slippery slope to abuse and little more than lining the pockets of lawyers and the government.
Consider the next obvious lawsuit: Suing birth control manufacturers over estrogen pollution, which is in fact a giant problem.
First, entities should not be sued over things of which they had no knowledge at the time.
Second, such suits should be based on actual knowledge. The knowledge of the estrogen problem greatly exceeds that of the characteristics of anthropogenic global warming.
One of the major arguments against this particular attack on oil and coal companies is that those products have vastly benefited society and the average person. That is a very difficult position with which to argue.
> One of the major arguments against this particular attack on oil and coal companies is that those products have vastly benefited society and the average person. That is a very difficult position with which to argue.
This is well explained in the article. As soon as Oil Co. understood the cost of externalities in the business, it had a choice - to add the cost of neutralizing to the product (and possibly close the business) or to get sued.
Don't see any problem here.
What I do see is the problem with the judge - and maybe many judges.
"As soon as Oil Co. understood the cost of externalities in the business, it had a choice - to add the cost of neutralizing to the product (and possibly close the business) or to get sued."
Since fuel is taxed, how do you know that isn't enough to compensate for the externalities? I once looked up the estimated costs of global warming according to the National Resources Defense Council and it seemed that using their figures the full cost of gasoline is probably on the order of the price it goes for in Europe. So I think that while Americans aren't paying enough, the true cost is not very high in the overall scheme of things. Certainly not enough to drastically change society and put energy companies out of business.
F1 is a non immigrant visa. To get f1 visa student needs to convince visa officer that he will promptly return back to home country after completion of education and will not try to seek any immigrant intent visa.
In that sense every f1 student filing for h1b transfer of status in my opinion acting in bad faith. The case about already here makes no sense as many other visa categories loke r2 or h4 are not allowed to work despite having spent years in usa.
I think a high school drop out with 5 years of work experience coding can beat a masters from silicon valley university. In tech jobs degrees are in no way indicator of skill.
This is not comparing a person with 5 years if experience to a person without 5 years experience.
Instead, related to the H1B question, this is comparing the "average" person applying to the H1B program who has a bachelor's degree, and comparing that to the "average" person applying to the program with a master's degree.
It is not about perfect correlation. It is instead about imperfect correlation of the averages among these 2 groups.
Even in the worst case scenario of there being no correlation, it still benefits the US to give priority to masters students, as at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).
I don't see anything wrong with priorizing more money to US businesses, all else being equal.
> s at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).
I am not sure why it matters. Good chance the university is a visa mill and setup specifically for f1 to h1b transition like the recent DHS sting revealed. Such businesses needlessly muddle edu-sector and destroy capital on things that solely exist to bypass government red tape. It adds to economic inefficiency of the society.
Also, that is not the reason USCIS has given. "They spent money on USA business" is the criteria than the law should explicitly state that and everyone can then compete. My wife arrived on H4 and lost to H1B lottery twice. In that time she converted to F1 and then got her OPT is a small college. The degree was worthless and we spent $25K on her education. That enabled her to win H1B lottery in her third attempt in master's cap. Technically beneft to US society was significantly more if she had got her H1B in first attempt.
But that is not the point I am making. My central point is that USCIS policy clearly (I am not sure how much more clear it can get than that text) violates the law passed by Congress. USCIS at the very least need to provide credible evidence as to why this new system is better, why someone with US masters degree be automatically assumed to be higher skilled and based on what evidence and how it links to BAHA executive order whose pretext is being used for such changes. H1B visa is not meant for "high skilled" any ways. It is meant for specialized skill that is in short supply in USA. So there is a violation of far basic principles there too.
Yes. People with less education but few years of experience could be far more valuable than a masters degree holder from silicon valley university which is now shut down. Having a us masters degree is not correlated to higher skill in any way if we are not going to factor in university rankings.
It is very easy to validate claim. How many of the employers in bay area actually ask for masters or higher education for swe jobs ?
If it is a neutral move why waste taxpayer money and potential lawsuites for no benefit ?
My primary argument however is that the move is illegal and completely against the congressional intent.
