TexDBoy
09-10 03:30 PM
ya ... at least one issue will be closed by them ... hopefully they discuss our bill today ...
wallpaper Boston Bruins Hockey Classic
vinod_gvk
09-26 11:58 AM
They Changed and uploaded it around 12.15PM
thirdworldman
02-16 08:50 PM
I tend to sterr away from nurbs and use polygons exclusively...most 3d packages now (max, maya, xsi, lightwave, etc.) have really improved upon polygonal modeling, having added features such as subdivision surfaces (or sub'd's). This is great for any type of model, whether it be architectural or organic. Some people argue that Sub D's have rendered nurbs obsolete (no pun intended). I personally use XSI, but this is a new standard modeling method that can be applied to almost any program. Google the term, and see if there are any good tuts out there for your program.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
2011 Boston Bruins
trueguy
04-06 05:55 PM
Do you know the POE?
more...
msgrewal81
02-19 12:11 AM
If you are lazy enough to contact your representative and Obama, you should not complain for not getting your voice heard. Each and every email matter. Also contact Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] on her website. contact all. It wont take 5 minutes.
Dear (Congressman/woman, Pres. Obama):
Recently an immigration bill was presented in the congress. The HR 264 is embarrassing for legal immigrants.
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
2) HR 264 says "continuous presence of 5 years". Of course illegal immigrants can't leave the country and they will fulfill this requirement, but legal immigrants can leave country so might have left country for even 3 or 4 months in last 5-6 years to visit home country or any other reason including business. Although brief discontinuity is said to be okay but what if some legal immigrant leave country to be his/her parents for 2 months in last 5 years? So, this continuous presence rule is tailor cut to include illegal immigrants and exclude legal immigrants.
Is this what law abiding get when they follow rules? I request you to make sure that legal immigrants are ahead of illegals in every way. An illegal should not be awarded for being in US for 5 years while a legal, law abiding, tax paying legal immigrant is offered nothing for being in US for 3 or 4 years.
Kind regards
(Your name)
https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_save
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Now click on the links above and copy paste this stuff there. IT IS IMPORTANT....
Dear (Congressman/woman, Pres. Obama):
Recently an immigration bill was presented in the congress. The HR 264 is embarrassing for legal immigrants.
1) People who are illegal here for more than 5 years will get green card/path to citizenship but people who are legally here for 4 years and 11 months gets nothing.
2) HR 264 says "continuous presence of 5 years". Of course illegal immigrants can't leave the country and they will fulfill this requirement, but legal immigrants can leave country so might have left country for even 3 or 4 months in last 5-6 years to visit home country or any other reason including business. Although brief discontinuity is said to be okay but what if some legal immigrant leave country to be his/her parents for 2 months in last 5 years? So, this continuous presence rule is tailor cut to include illegal immigrants and exclude legal immigrants.
Is this what law abiding get when they follow rules? I request you to make sure that legal immigrants are ahead of illegals in every way. An illegal should not be awarded for being in US for 5 years while a legal, law abiding, tax paying legal immigrant is offered nothing for being in US for 3 or 4 years.
Kind regards
(Your name)
https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_save
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Now click on the links above and copy paste this stuff there. IT IS IMPORTANT....
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
more...
we_can
01-03 11:06 PM
Posted on immigration.about.com
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-immigration&tid=13888
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-immigration&tid=13888
2010 Reebok Boston Bruins #30 Tim
redgreen
08-10 08:38 PM
So according to this interpretation EB1 also will be retrogressed till everybody from previous years gets gc !
more...
coopheal
07-02 07:03 AM
Doing more than what IV suggest is good. If you personally take responsibility and make the online petition a success, great... and best luck.
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
hair Boston Bruins Hat: New Era
Ramba
07-14 06:01 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
more...
gimme_GC2006
05-15 10:01 AM
Any Idea about the following MBA Distance Leaning Courses from India
1.SCDL-Symbiosis center for distance learning
2.IGNOU - ndira Gandhi National Open University
3.ICFA
4.NMIMS - Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies
Or any other institutes from India with reasonable fee structure.
jD, I dont think desi unversities went online yet..but if you are here, why dont you think of doing an American or European MBA? ;)
1.SCDL-Symbiosis center for distance learning
2.IGNOU - ndira Gandhi National Open University
3.ICFA
4.NMIMS - Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies
Or any other institutes from India with reasonable fee structure.
jD, I dont think desi unversities went online yet..but if you are here, why dont you think of doing an American or European MBA? ;)
hot JANUARY 31, 2011 Tampa
ramus
07-03 08:41 PM
Thanks for your contribution..
In all 400$ to date.
In all 400$ to date.
more...
house Reebok Boston Bruins #37
pcs
11-11 05:45 PM
Pl reply, if you want to join me...
we will plan, find the money and execute it....
we will plan, find the money and execute it....
tattoo BOSTON BRUINS
BharatPremi
04-08 08:50 AM
HI BharatPremi,
Thanks for your response.
are the cases with 'Received Regional Office' status should be counted as Certified cases?.
Regards,
Alex
I think, No. FInal really certified labor has "certified" status only.
Thanks for your response.
are the cases with 'Received Regional Office' status should be counted as Certified cases?.
Regards,
Alex
I think, No. FInal really certified labor has "certified" status only.
more...
pictures in the Boston Bruins logo
alterego
09-10 06:15 PM
Actually even the Brits. have a rule in their immigration process stating that if you have spent a total of 10 yrs in that country, that alone is a basis for a PR card there. Citizenship is another 1 yr after that(there is currently some debate about making it 2 mainly over spousal PR cards). This rule is based on the premise that if you have been part of the society for that length of time then you have contributed sufficiently to warrant peership. So by this score, many of those who posted that they have been here since earlier than 1999 would have been eligible even absent the employers assistance.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
dresses 6 May 2011 . Boston Bruins
ilikekilo
08-15 06:18 PM
I think its not going to budge after this for 3 months or so, till they calculate all the applications received and do the math. Hopefully it will move forwards then, however (less likely) it can move backwards too ( I have seen strangest patterns with the bulletins)
i agree with u on this
i agree with u on this
more...
makeup Boston Bruins #30 Tim Thomas
delax
07-19 08:55 PM
We need a realistic estimate of how many applications are pending with PD in 2004, which really seems like the bottleneck. Another thing to bear in mind is the conversion from EB3->EB2. That is also going to hinder the movement of EB2. There are a lot of people trying to use that route.
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
girlfriend NHL Jerseys BOSTON BRUINS 17
vin13
11-12 05:35 PM
VIN13
Appreciate your effort. I will send these letters to my congressman and senator. I will ask my friends who are citizens also to do the same.
What else you want us to do?
Thanks.
Best would be to meet your lawmakers. It is not too hard to get an appointment. You may be able to meet the lawmaker's aide. Just explain the situation and ask for their help to resolve.
A big help would be for someone to post contact details for some of the officials (USCIS, DOS, Ombudsman). We would be able to pass this information to the senator's aides or fax/mail the letter directly.
Thanks
Appreciate your effort. I will send these letters to my congressman and senator. I will ask my friends who are citizens also to do the same.
What else you want us to do?
Thanks.
Best would be to meet your lawmakers. It is not too hard to get an appointment. You may be able to meet the lawmaker's aide. Just explain the situation and ask for their help to resolve.
A big help would be for someone to post contact details for some of the officials (USCIS, DOS, Ombudsman). We would be able to pass this information to the senator's aides or fax/mail the letter directly.
Thanks
hairstyles Boston Bruins #17 Milan Lucic
pappu
07-02 05:18 PM
Thanks Ramus. Yes this is important for us in order to proceed with our action plan for protest against this insane visa bulletin. We need everyone's help and contributions.
rghangrekar
02-20 04:05 PM
Congrats to Eb2 dudes.....hopefully EB3 will not fall very behind. I am hoping Eb3 keeps moving and gathers pace...
caydee
04-22 01:04 AM
Quite a few number of ppl from IV attended and i do hear that some good things are going on in the background, esp with the Congressman's Guiterrez's office...Hopefully something good will happen for all of us out this....
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
Post a Comment