punjabi
08-08 07:44 PM
for this magnificent video!!
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
wallpaper Selena Gomez and Justin
logiclife
04-07 01:06 PM
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don’t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
Macaca
12-28 07:39 PM
All India Radia (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/All-India-Radia/articleshow/7179711.cms) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
Far from subverting democracy lobbyists help to promote it
Niira Radia should be given the Padma Shrimati next year. As each new tranche of the leaked tapes of Radiagate are made public it becomes increasingly clear that, far from sabotaging India's democracy, the lobbyist was actually furthering its cause.
Though Radia's method of operation - which reportedly involves large-scale hawala transactions - was often dubious, there is nothing wrong with her broad strategy to influence public policy by inducing media people and other opinion makers to get A Raja the telecom portfolio. That his appointment - at least partly engineered by Radia - led to the 2G scam is another matter.
Lobbying - or what is often called public advocacy - is a perfectly legitimate, and indeed necessary, component of any democracy. In the US, for example, it is considered to be a high-profile and respectable profession made use of by everyone who would like to have a say in the framing of official policy. New Delhi has often employed US lobbyists to try and influence Washington's policies vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, among other things. In the US, there are accredited lobbyists for all manner of issues and individuals, from the right to bear arms to candidates for Senate seats.
If looked at in its broadest sense, what does lobbying boil down to? Nothing more, or less, than trying to get people to see your, or your client's view. All public relations exercises - be they for business interests or causes like animal welfare or AIDS prevention - are examples of lobbying: they are attempts to get the members of the public to change their ways of thought and action in particular spheres of interest or concern.
Similarly, all forms of advertising - and no media product, including this newspaper, could remain economically viable were it not for advertisements - are lobbying by another name. Advertisements try to persuade you to buy a particular product or service. A successful ad, a lobbying exercise that has worked, is one that makes the maximum amount of money for the advertiser, the client of the lobbyist, in this case the advertising agency. The most successful ads - the ones that have been most persuasive in changing public behaviour and thinking - are annually honoured by receiving awards given by the industry.
All politics, and not just at election time, is nothing but lobbying in its most blatant form. In a democracy, it is expected of all political parties to shape or transform public policy through competitive lobbying of the electorate via election manifestos and professed agendas. The voter is seduced, persuaded, bribed by all sorts of promised inducements, often in the form of cash subsidies or tax breaks, to support this or that party or candidate. There is the Election Commission to see there is no hanky-panky or rigging at the time of polling. But no Election Commission can compel a political party or candidate to make good on election promises - i.e., bribes in one form or another - once the balloting is over.
If politics is unadulterated lobbying, and it is, so is the media. All reporters and commentators - in the press, or on TV or radio, even those considered too insignificant to have been approached by Radia - try to shape public opinion, and through that try to influence official policy by having public pressure put on it, according to their own views, opinions and interests, or those of the organisations that employ them.
Indeed, democracy with all its components - media, market and elective politics - is a vast enterprise in lobbying, a never-ending argument between competing interest groups to change public policy to suit their own ends.
Radia's only fault was getting caught. But for having forced us, however unwittingly, to take a long hard look at our democracy and what it really means, she needs a commendation. Padma Shrimati? Heck, make her Woman of the Year. She deserves it. Or rather, we deserve her.
An inconvenient truth (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Masquerader/entry/an-inconvenient-truth) By Anoop Kohli | Times of India
Far from subverting democracy lobbyists help to promote it
Niira Radia should be given the Padma Shrimati next year. As each new tranche of the leaked tapes of Radiagate are made public it becomes increasingly clear that, far from sabotaging India's democracy, the lobbyist was actually furthering its cause.
Though Radia's method of operation - which reportedly involves large-scale hawala transactions - was often dubious, there is nothing wrong with her broad strategy to influence public policy by inducing media people and other opinion makers to get A Raja the telecom portfolio. That his appointment - at least partly engineered by Radia - led to the 2G scam is another matter.
Lobbying - or what is often called public advocacy - is a perfectly legitimate, and indeed necessary, component of any democracy. In the US, for example, it is considered to be a high-profile and respectable profession made use of by everyone who would like to have a say in the framing of official policy. New Delhi has often employed US lobbyists to try and influence Washington's policies vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, among other things. In the US, there are accredited lobbyists for all manner of issues and individuals, from the right to bear arms to candidates for Senate seats.
If looked at in its broadest sense, what does lobbying boil down to? Nothing more, or less, than trying to get people to see your, or your client's view. All public relations exercises - be they for business interests or causes like animal welfare or AIDS prevention - are examples of lobbying: they are attempts to get the members of the public to change their ways of thought and action in particular spheres of interest or concern.
Similarly, all forms of advertising - and no media product, including this newspaper, could remain economically viable were it not for advertisements - are lobbying by another name. Advertisements try to persuade you to buy a particular product or service. A successful ad, a lobbying exercise that has worked, is one that makes the maximum amount of money for the advertiser, the client of the lobbyist, in this case the advertising agency. The most successful ads - the ones that have been most persuasive in changing public behaviour and thinking - are annually honoured by receiving awards given by the industry.
All politics, and not just at election time, is nothing but lobbying in its most blatant form. In a democracy, it is expected of all political parties to shape or transform public policy through competitive lobbying of the electorate via election manifestos and professed agendas. The voter is seduced, persuaded, bribed by all sorts of promised inducements, often in the form of cash subsidies or tax breaks, to support this or that party or candidate. There is the Election Commission to see there is no hanky-panky or rigging at the time of polling. But no Election Commission can compel a political party or candidate to make good on election promises - i.e., bribes in one form or another - once the balloting is over.
If politics is unadulterated lobbying, and it is, so is the media. All reporters and commentators - in the press, or on TV or radio, even those considered too insignificant to have been approached by Radia - try to shape public opinion, and through that try to influence official policy by having public pressure put on it, according to their own views, opinions and interests, or those of the organisations that employ them.
Indeed, democracy with all its components - media, market and elective politics - is a vast enterprise in lobbying, a never-ending argument between competing interest groups to change public policy to suit their own ends.
Radia's only fault was getting caught. But for having forced us, however unwittingly, to take a long hard look at our democracy and what it really means, she needs a commendation. Padma Shrimati? Heck, make her Woman of the Year. She deserves it. Or rather, we deserve her.
An inconvenient truth (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Masquerader/entry/an-inconvenient-truth) By Anoop Kohli | Times of India
2011 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Macaca
02-13 09:38 AM
10 Reasons to Lobby for your cause (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
more...
nojoke
05-03 09:38 PM
You think buying and selling a home a joke. You look on an average for 3-5 month to buy a home and one fine day u woke up and interest rate is high u plan to sell. This may be even possible only when u have bought house for pure investment.
Once you move to ur first house with ur family. you will not sell ur house until u r forced to because of job/other extreme factors.
Location is most important that any thing. It is very very localized. do u think manhattan house price went down..in fact it went up. Similarly DC metro area is relatively stronger compare to mid west.
A bit of luck is always there in every single thing. Predicting bottom/peak is always challenge.
One funny thing..people are planning how to sell before they even look for house to buy. lol..
What are you talking about? I said to buy house when it is cheaper. If interest rates go up, then the house price will sure come down. If I buy low, I will be able to sell without a loss. I said it is better to buy a house cheaper at higher interest rate than paying 1/2 million at a lower interest rate. Got it?
So Manhattan prices are rising and it is ok to buy else where? You are kidding.
Yes real estate is localized. But this time it not if you area is falling down in price, but it is by how much. Some areas fall more than others. The prices will continue to fall in 99% of the place. Please stop quoting Manhattan. How many here live in Manhattan?
Oh, predicting in this economy is easy. The housing will crash. No question about that. Only question is by how much. The lying liars(NAR) has just said that there is going to be a correction of 24% this year for california. If they are saying this, then you know it will go down by more than 40%.
Did you watch today's program in CNN(housing meltdown). They said that this is a ponzi scheme. It is unsustainable. It is bound to fall.
You seem to be living in your own dream world. Stop denying the fact. Go look around and read news. Just hoping for prices not falling is not going to stop the crash.
I am not trying to talk about selling before buying. I am telling you to buy at a lower price so that you don't loose when you are forced to sell. Even otherwise it is always a good idea to buy low. Don't you look for bargain for your clothing. You don't sell them, but you still try to get at a good price. If you are doing this for buying clothes, why are you guys so eager to throw your money away when it comes to housing.:confused:
Before throwing the sarcasm at others, learn about the economy and where we are in housing and where it is heading. You are just playing 'I don't hear any bad news, I don't see bad news...la la la la and everything is wonderful'. Look into all the links I posted and tell me why you are confident that house prices won't fall.
Once you move to ur first house with ur family. you will not sell ur house until u r forced to because of job/other extreme factors.
Location is most important that any thing. It is very very localized. do u think manhattan house price went down..in fact it went up. Similarly DC metro area is relatively stronger compare to mid west.
A bit of luck is always there in every single thing. Predicting bottom/peak is always challenge.
One funny thing..people are planning how to sell before they even look for house to buy. lol..
What are you talking about? I said to buy house when it is cheaper. If interest rates go up, then the house price will sure come down. If I buy low, I will be able to sell without a loss. I said it is better to buy a house cheaper at higher interest rate than paying 1/2 million at a lower interest rate. Got it?
So Manhattan prices are rising and it is ok to buy else where? You are kidding.
Yes real estate is localized. But this time it not if you area is falling down in price, but it is by how much. Some areas fall more than others. The prices will continue to fall in 99% of the place. Please stop quoting Manhattan. How many here live in Manhattan?
Oh, predicting in this economy is easy. The housing will crash. No question about that. Only question is by how much. The lying liars(NAR) has just said that there is going to be a correction of 24% this year for california. If they are saying this, then you know it will go down by more than 40%.
Did you watch today's program in CNN(housing meltdown). They said that this is a ponzi scheme. It is unsustainable. It is bound to fall.
You seem to be living in your own dream world. Stop denying the fact. Go look around and read news. Just hoping for prices not falling is not going to stop the crash.
I am not trying to talk about selling before buying. I am telling you to buy at a lower price so that you don't loose when you are forced to sell. Even otherwise it is always a good idea to buy low. Don't you look for bargain for your clothing. You don't sell them, but you still try to get at a good price. If you are doing this for buying clothes, why are you guys so eager to throw your money away when it comes to housing.:confused:
Before throwing the sarcasm at others, learn about the economy and where we are in housing and where it is heading. You are just playing 'I don't hear any bad news, I don't see bad news...la la la la and everything is wonderful'. Look into all the links I posted and tell me why you are confident that house prices won't fall.
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
delax
07-13 12:33 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Again - want to continue a healthy debate, but as per the law, EB2 is more skilled than an EB3 and therefore gets precedence regardless of the date. If we split up the spill over 75/25 between EB2 and EB3 then what answer do we have to the more skilled EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because a less skilled EB3 took the number based on an arbitrary split up (75/25) and because the EB3 has an earlier PD. Does it meet the meritocracy test which is the intent of the law.
I may sound plain and harsh but thats the categorization as per existing law not my personal opinion.
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Again - want to continue a healthy debate, but as per the law, EB2 is more skilled than an EB3 and therefore gets precedence regardless of the date. If we split up the spill over 75/25 between EB2 and EB3 then what answer do we have to the more skilled EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because a less skilled EB3 took the number based on an arbitrary split up (75/25) and because the EB3 has an earlier PD. Does it meet the meritocracy test which is the intent of the law.
I may sound plain and harsh but thats the categorization as per existing law not my personal opinion.
2010 Justin Bieber amp; Selena
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
validIV
06-25 03:10 PM
This thread, according to the OP, was about long term prospects about buying a home. If you look at it in this context, especially to all the renters here, consider this:
If you are renting for 30 years, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with nothing.
If you own your home and instead use that rent money to pay for your home, and in most cases a little extra more money, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with your own house. Even if the value of the home goes to ZERO which is literally impossible, in the end you wind up with a home.
30 years is a long time and anything could happen. History has shown us that economies fluctuate and will continue to do so whether we buy a house or not. The question for you is which of those 2 situations above do you want to be in after 30 years.
For those who want to wind up with a home consider looking at auctions. There was a huge auction hosted by REDC here in NY that almost sold all of its properties on the first day:
Foreclosure Home & Properties: Foreclosed Homes, Condo Repos, Repossession, Real Estate Sale (http://www.auction.com/)
before you consider buying in your neighborhood, please look at the inventory first. Some homes are sold for cash only, but some can be financed. I attended the NYC auction and it was crazy. They have upcoming auctions on most US states and you can also attend the auction online.
If you are renting for 30 years, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with nothing.
If you own your home and instead use that rent money to pay for your home, and in most cases a little extra more money, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with your own house. Even if the value of the home goes to ZERO which is literally impossible, in the end you wind up with a home.
30 years is a long time and anything could happen. History has shown us that economies fluctuate and will continue to do so whether we buy a house or not. The question for you is which of those 2 situations above do you want to be in after 30 years.
For those who want to wind up with a home consider looking at auctions. There was a huge auction hosted by REDC here in NY that almost sold all of its properties on the first day:
Foreclosure Home & Properties: Foreclosed Homes, Condo Repos, Repossession, Real Estate Sale (http://www.auction.com/)
before you consider buying in your neighborhood, please look at the inventory first. Some homes are sold for cash only, but some can be financed. I attended the NYC auction and it was crazy. They have upcoming auctions on most US states and you can also attend the auction online.
hair Justin-Bieber-Selena-Gomez-
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:17 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
more...
dealsnet
01-08 03:24 PM
Refugee_new is a moron. He send me 5 profane message. He started the tread and he abusing the people responded in his tread. What he achived??
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just copied and pasted the coward Refugee_New's msg to me. I'll be careful about 'quoting others' also!
Did you consider banning him?
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just copied and pasted the coward Refugee_New's msg to me. I'll be careful about 'quoting others' also!
Did you consider banning him?
hot justin bieber selena gomez
Gravitation
03-25 08:27 AM
Ok, so everytime I see a rent vs buy discussion I see apartment living compared with living in a house. This may not apply to a lot of other places but here's how it goes in SF Bay Area:
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
more...
house Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez Go
damialok
03-31 01:50 PM
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
tattoo justin bieber and selena gomez
senthil1
04-09 12:02 PM
Why do you need to hire other person if Joe is fit f
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
There is a difference between displacing an American and hiring the best talent - if I have a job opening, I interview 10 candidates and I want to select the best.
Given the current bill, I have to wait for months to hire this candidate if this candidate happens to lack GC/citizenship. This affects my business and group productivity. Every time I wait for months to get a candidate, it affects my business.
So, what this bill is trying to imply - "hey, do not bother hiring the best talent - why don't you hire Joe, a GC holder, he can do the job fairly well even though he is not as bright as Mary, the person you really want to hire"
I feel a sense of disrespect in your voice for folks who do not have higher education (e.g., MS/PhD) - I have a M.S. but I know of a bunch of folks who are much brighter than me and have a bachelors degree. Infact, if I am not mistaken, Bill Gates still does not have a degree, so in your eyes, is he not useful/accomplished?
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
There is a difference between displacing an American and hiring the best talent - if I have a job opening, I interview 10 candidates and I want to select the best.
Given the current bill, I have to wait for months to hire this candidate if this candidate happens to lack GC/citizenship. This affects my business and group productivity. Every time I wait for months to get a candidate, it affects my business.
So, what this bill is trying to imply - "hey, do not bother hiring the best talent - why don't you hire Joe, a GC holder, he can do the job fairly well even though he is not as bright as Mary, the person you really want to hire"
I feel a sense of disrespect in your voice for folks who do not have higher education (e.g., MS/PhD) - I have a M.S. but I know of a bunch of folks who are much brighter than me and have a bachelors degree. Infact, if I am not mistaken, Bill Gates still does not have a degree, so in your eyes, is he not useful/accomplished?
more...
pictures Selena Gomez justin bieber
gapala
12-20 08:54 AM
Science keeps evolving as we learn new things. Something that evolves, learn and change is alive. Religion never changes and its "guardians" do not want it to change. Something that never evolve, change even after learning new things is dead. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science even when the two compete with each other in the same sphere to answer different questions of mankind. You seems to suggest that it is bad and wrong for science to continue to get better and evolve?
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
It seems there is misunderstanding. Being in the field of science, I believe science and religion are complimentary to each other rather than competitive as you suggested. I guess you are comparing with what folks "Preach" as religion from books, that is taken out of context. I am not blaming science rather providing a perspective as it is still evolving and we know very little at this moment though it seems a lot :) be it in space research or in human anatomy. Process of birth or process of death :)
Are you suggesting that all organized religions are bad? I guess not. Science spectrum, not at the academic level, but at the professional arena believe that knowledge already exist, call it religious or spritual or something else and that is why we "research" which leads to development. Its very suggestive and not original. Re-search for something that exist but not available point in time. it is not brand new. Just to quote, There is a research project on process of birth, the description of process of birth already exist in the scriptures. I am not naming any here. you can google it if you are interested. Its clearly describe embryogenesis, week by week growth etc. We do not believe anything which is not proven by science right? We could see things through only after the invention of radium further development into X-RAY and Ultrasound technologies and commercial use in 1900's. Descriptions of the past and what we see matches except the language :). Lot of the things of past are yet to be proven by science. You know what is interesting? Descriptions are in the phylosophical book not even a medical book.
To your point, Not only science, everything changes and evolve at the core including you and me. In life science, researchers look at you and me as composition of chemicals which reacts constantly and changes happens every moment. There are few things that does not change.. that is why they are called truth. They stood the test of time such as Earth is not flat :).
We both agree on point that organized religion is not the only way but that does not mean that, its a bad thing, exception of extremism.
Now, not even a single cell in yours and my body remains same after 7 years.. what that means is you are a completely new model after 7 years. Science provided more insight and new pespective into the religion and I do not think the values instilled in us by parents and their parents such as Health, Hygiene, Home, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. are dead. You also have to take into consideration, the circumstances of the past and level of technological development.
We have gotten a new perspective due to research and development in science. Now do not mis quote me comparing with "book religion" that people preach. I am not at all talking about that at all though that is not a bad thing as well other than people who would pervert it in wrong way to create chaos in the world.
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
It seems there is misunderstanding. Being in the field of science, I believe science and religion are complimentary to each other rather than competitive as you suggested. I guess you are comparing with what folks "Preach" as religion from books, that is taken out of context. I am not blaming science rather providing a perspective as it is still evolving and we know very little at this moment though it seems a lot :) be it in space research or in human anatomy. Process of birth or process of death :)
Are you suggesting that all organized religions are bad? I guess not. Science spectrum, not at the academic level, but at the professional arena believe that knowledge already exist, call it religious or spritual or something else and that is why we "research" which leads to development. Its very suggestive and not original. Re-search for something that exist but not available point in time. it is not brand new. Just to quote, There is a research project on process of birth, the description of process of birth already exist in the scriptures. I am not naming any here. you can google it if you are interested. Its clearly describe embryogenesis, week by week growth etc. We do not believe anything which is not proven by science right? We could see things through only after the invention of radium further development into X-RAY and Ultrasound technologies and commercial use in 1900's. Descriptions of the past and what we see matches except the language :). Lot of the things of past are yet to be proven by science. You know what is interesting? Descriptions are in the phylosophical book not even a medical book.
To your point, Not only science, everything changes and evolve at the core including you and me. In life science, researchers look at you and me as composition of chemicals which reacts constantly and changes happens every moment. There are few things that does not change.. that is why they are called truth. They stood the test of time such as Earth is not flat :).
We both agree on point that organized religion is not the only way but that does not mean that, its a bad thing, exception of extremism.
Now, not even a single cell in yours and my body remains same after 7 years.. what that means is you are a completely new model after 7 years. Science provided more insight and new pespective into the religion and I do not think the values instilled in us by parents and their parents such as Health, Hygiene, Home, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. are dead. You also have to take into consideration, the circumstances of the past and level of technological development.
We have gotten a new perspective due to research and development in science. Now do not mis quote me comparing with "book religion" that people preach. I am not at all talking about that at all though that is not a bad thing as well other than people who would pervert it in wrong way to create chaos in the world.
dresses hair justin bieber selena
SunnySurya
08-05 04:08 PM
You seem to be a rational person. You points are compelling and thats why we need to take some legal opinion on it.
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
more...
makeup Spotted: Justin Bieber and
alien2006
05-24 10:05 AM
He is just using this to play illegals vs legals. If you watch his lousy program, he is constantly ranting that this CIR bill will increase immigration by 100 million plus in the next few years. Some time back he also said that the CIR is a covert operation to increase H1Bs and legal immigration, not just about illegal immigrants. You can tune out what Lou says, he's doing what he can to improve his ratings.
girlfriend 2010 Justin Bieber amp; Selena
Macaca
12-27 06:34 PM
Scamsters dictionary (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Scamsters-dictionary/articleshow/7173788.cms) By Dilip Bobb | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
hairstyles Justin Bieber amp; Selena
Beemar
12-27 01:19 PM
LOL. and we know the kinda quality to expect :-)
Oh yeah. Quality is a major problem with chinese goods. Pakistanis thought a got a great deal in price, but it might turn out be a lemon nuke. :)
Oh yeah. Quality is a major problem with chinese goods. Pakistanis thought a got a great deal in price, but it might turn out be a lemon nuke. :)
DSJ
05-16 08:26 AM
Cool down.....
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
No this is not correct. If consultancy companies are not there we could find a permanent job. I do not think if H1b is banned for consulting H1b numbers will be reduced so much. H1b rotation will be reduced. But still TCS, Infosys will survive as they have lot of other options like L1 and B1.But US persons will make more money in consulting as there is no restriction for them. So impact is minimal for US companies and also H1B persons. impact will be severe for bodyshoppers. Also current H1b people will not be impacted as most of them will file I 485 as Skil bill be passed. But H1b abuse will be minimised.
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
No this is not correct. If consultancy companies are not there we could find a permanent job. I do not think if H1b is banned for consulting H1b numbers will be reduced so much. H1b rotation will be reduced. But still TCS, Infosys will survive as they have lot of other options like L1 and B1.But US persons will make more money in consulting as there is no restriction for them. So impact is minimal for US companies and also H1B persons. impact will be severe for bodyshoppers. Also current H1b people will not be impacted as most of them will file I 485 as Skil bill be passed. But H1b abuse will be minimised.
nogc_noproblem
08-07 02:06 PM
Instructions: Just read the sentence straight through quickly without really thinking about it.
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment