Some of this is more driven by inherit-in-the-system abuses--I don't consider corps to be responsible for the parts that are the result of government bureaucracy, at least not parts they didn't expressly pay for and then both sides are equally at fault.

It might be better to set it up so it's prevailing wage to the worker, plus the visa itself is not as strongly conditional on the job--so anybody brought over on one will have some time to find an alternate job if fired, and can be hired away. As some people have noted, sometimes the problem is most of what you've got locally is not the right fit for the job--and scholarships won't help if the problem is that the schools pump out people whose qualifications are simply not what anybody needs.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of what sort of skill set(s) somebody with a particular IT degree could be expected to have--and not the on-paper ones, but rather the "If we sit them down and tell them to do foo, they successfully do foo in n minutes" objectively tested ones.

Why assume that the potential employers are wrong without checking? I'm not saying they are right, just that this sounds like assuming there is no gas leak because you don't like the guy who says he thinks he smells gas: It's easy enough to check, and probably more harmful in the long term not to.

That depends, really, on if it's actually recording and if it's known to be. If it's recording, then it becomes evidence for a criminal case, moving things out of civil court and also making the shell game riskier as that likely courts prosecution under RICO or the local equivalent.

The person may be more likely to be vulnerable, but the risks go up, especially as a larger payoff is likely to also increase the odds of those recordings being checked.

Depends on what you need--if you need that sugar hitting your system quickly, fruit juice is ideal, which is why first aid for somebody who is either hypoglycemic or suspected of being so (since it's hard to tell hypo- from hyperglycemia without a glucose meter & you're actually better off with the latter) is to give them fruit juice.

One of the best rules I've run across is that once somebody says "Foo is not good for you," and is not talking about a definite poison (and sometimes even then, see selenium) to disregard them entirely from that point on.

That only applies when you're dealing with basically an ISO Standard nutrient processing system on a lab-made nutrient slurry--basically, lab mice on lab block.

Basically, gut bacteria are actually a pretty essential part of processing nutrients, and in some cases the actual source of much of them. Certain types of problems basically will leave you incapable of properly processing parts--for example, with my aunt certain kinds of foods are now pretty much processed directly into fats, and the body is quite capable of taking part of those 3000 Calories' worth of warm-blooded flesh and using that to sustain it when the 2000 Calories of the food intake is being mostly stored. (And yes, the capitalization matters: nutrition uses the kilocalorie, actually, and in a confusing fit of non-standard metric renders it Calorie instead. Either way, the amount of error due to rounding introduced into the values is left as an exercise for the reader.)

This can, however, be caused by things like a food intolerance or a metabolic dysfunction, and one of the basic tests to see if the person's obesity is a symptom is to, well, cut the caloric intake while maintaining the same levels of activity and see if weight loss happens. The wide range of things it's a symptom of--from things as amazingly cheap & easy to treat such as thyroid disease to those essential to catch early like cancer--are such that failing to check the cause is like...well...failing to check to see if the computer's problem is that it's not turned on.

Given that I've had teachers in public school who had trouble with things like basic math and got angry if you bothered to wake up to go "Wait what?" at statements like 'Snakes don't have bones' (Actual quote!), I'd not be surprised if a high school drop out could do better...

(No offense to any good teachers here, I ran into quite a few, but...I also know there was a problem for years in my hometown with students realizing that the last two years of high school were pretty much time-wasting if you were reasonably intelligent and opting to drop out, get a GED, and go to college. This was solved...by introducing a program that lets you skip the first two steps--and attend college classes for free.)

I'd suggest checking into the local public schools, too--mine turned out to be pretty lousy when it came to somebody with neurological disabilities and high IQ (apparently the latter was supposed to make you magically perfectly capable and well-behaved), apparently quite bad about dealing with interstudent violence (on the bright side I got really good at peeling the homicidal classmate off of me!), and about the only explanation I have for how some of my teachers tried to manage socialization is that a) they thought I was a transboy (agender actually) and b) they did not learn a damn thing about social psychology ever.

There are definite perks to homeschooling (or, as somebody else mentioned, Montessori)--there's a decent body of evidence suggesting we really need to dump the study-by-the-clock rules and go instead off of as-long-as-material-takes methodology. Personal experience with an offbeat teacher did suggest that worked--especially as the school still insisted we stick around the full time so we ended up just spending a surprising amount of our extra time watching movies...and I'd started out rather behind that year, as that was the grade after I had a teacher with a personal vendetta against me that was bad enough the school violated rules to assure me she was gone.

Have a list. Give a time period to narrow things down, but this covers the studios that failed so badly to continue to fund further films that they flat-out disappeared. This list isn't complete for the qualifications you give, however. Some, such as RKO, had valuable enough remains that they continue to exist but no longer fund further films.

I'm very glad to hear of a bicyclist who actually bothers knowing the local laws--I grew up in a town where bikes actually are banned from sidewalks because of local cyclists having developed the lovely habit of running down pedestrians. (Well, at least trying to run down. I had to move very quickly on occasion as a small child because of adults confusing the sidewalk for a bike lane.)

Part of why it has the calming effect--probably on pedestrians as well as motorists--is that it lowers the odds of you intentionally pulling some of the hijinks cyclists will occasionally do on the road, intentionally causing problems with the flow of traffic. I have known too many who make very clear their refusal to grasp that some people really cannot get around by bikes--and some have made religious fundamentalists seem mild when it came to their sanctimonious attitudes towards those who don't use bikes to get around.

Also... I've also had to honk at a few cyclists--typically, I am willing to presume a cyclist didn't mean to suddenly come out of my blind spot, especially when I notice a camera, but still, sometimes they do and I'd like think that they'd want to know...and the same goes sometimes for ones whom I at least had seen coming up beside me but did not see signal before moving in front of me. Which actually raises a question--does a camera make it easier to adjust and improve your cycling habits to be safer? I suspect that some problems are more easily spotted by reviewing the footage later.

Some cats are more trainable than others. My family's last cat was not trainable for anything but when food was about to be given him, but thankfully also not able to get on counters or tables what with having acrophobia. Clicker training is the only kind that might have worked, but that's not particularly useful when you want to train an animal to not do things.

My family had a cat that was...well... As far as anybody could tell, he actively tried to track out litter, having tried all of the tricks mentioned. He's been dead several years, and we've still not cleaned it all up. High sides and a covered box were both no-goes: He took both as personal affronts and objected the way he objected to everything--by refusing to use it. He even contrived to spray urine against the wall, which we dealt with by taping up plastic tarps. He actually let us know he was ready to be put to sleep via cat exhaust everywhere.

Wow, I remember back when I was young and naive and hadn't been taught the rule of thumb that if it came out of a body and didn't come out of yours, it's a hazardous material. Wait, no, I was taught about toxoplasmosis as a small child, so I was never innocent about cat feces.

As a well-educated cat owner, I will spend money on something if it means I never have to come into direct contact with cat feces. At least with a baby, the odds are pretty good that the bacterial burden will be rather close to mine. That said, I'd still suggest washing hands before and after & using gloves if the kid or you are unlucky enough to be sick, and point out that probably the safest choice for dealing with diapers are disposable diapers that can be incinerated and the ashes used to enrich the soil. (And, really, I'd want a baby bidet: just wash the poor baby's ass clean.)

Supplements are basically unregulated, so doing your own research is a must--stick the name of what is in the supplement into PubMed and check over MedlinePlus, as the first is meant to be used by researchers (jargon-heavy but the bleeding edge will be listed there) and the latter is meant to educate the general public. Make sure you go into the advanced search on PubMed and set it to only look at either keywords or the title and abstract, though; that'll keep the results close to what you want.

That said, an annoyingly significant percentage of people do believe that magic pills without side effects exist--many people may not even realize this, with it only showing through their behavior. ("Let's Mix Meds & Booze" is a classic.)

Either infrequent high doses or frequent low doses seem to be relatively safe, as far as I can tell; it's typically the best way to bet, at least. Somebody who is popping the high dose regularly, without having checked with a doctor, does need to see one--and if they're doing it for jet lag, consider one of the alternates such as timed light exposure/avoidance outlined in this article or elsewhere. (I have no idea if they can be used with other sleep disorders, though I would certainly hope somebody's at least checked!)

If that was the case, we wouldn't have Black Supremacists and the various problems within the Gay & Lesbian community with accepting trans, bisexuals, and asexuals, and that's only a few examples I can remember off the top of my head & provide citations for...

I went and poked around medical journal databases. MedlinePlus has little, though it confirms the dosage recommendations, while a bit of work via PubMed located this study which I think may be the correct citation. Its PubMed listing seems to indicate that it's not the sole possibility, though, as do its references.

Presumably it's talking about a BAC, but it's bad practice to not be explicit, even with a dimensionless ratio. After all, this possible dimensionless ratio might be not be based on the ratio of alcohol to blood but blood to alcohol...which poses an entirely different problem.