And I have worked with hundreds of far below average H1-Bs. In fact, I'd be happy to have stated I worked with a handful of average H1-Bs, but that's not happened. So what? It's anecdotal, until there's an overwhelming set of anecdotes about the lack of above average H1-Bs with almost 0 supporting that case.* I'm sure it happens, but it's an exception rather than the rule. And given that they are average, there's no reason you can't hire an average american to work instead. Until that is handled, there's no reason to bring in more H1-Bs.

* - note that it is still anecdotal until someone actually does a decent study to determine the actual reality.

The best of us compete well. The average to just below the best have challenges, and they are the ones being replaced by H1Bs and other modes of "ditching American workers", because sweatshop wages are what they are. It's hard to replace the artist, but easy to replace the brush cleaner. What those that are doing this are not seeing for the next quarters profit report is that by not training any of the average to above average people, they're significantly reducing the pool of those that potentially could become the best in the future.

My guess is they do exactly this, because if they didn't, there would be large numbers of reports of data corruption.

I guarantee you it doesn't cost double the cost of a pound of rice to ship rice, not even close. I can ship a 4000 pound vehicle overseas for $600, which works out to about $0.15 per pound, and is considerably more valuable and fragile and possibly larger than 4000 pounds of rice. So I call BS on that.

As long as people can live on less than 1/2 the wages in these areas, the US workforce will never be able to compete. For instance, a pound of rice or a loaf of bread costs less than $0.50. And when you consider that they're comparing equivalent lifestyles, not the average lifestyle in each area, that wage disparity grows even larger. Now, in a truly global economy, we (US folks) would buy up all this cheap rice instead of our very expensive rice. Why doesn't this happen? Because we're not in a global economy, obviously.

Having just started looking into this, it appears that the "cheaper better imports" are actuallyheavily subsidized. If you're going to complain about things, make sure to get the entire picture in there, especially when it's highly relevant to one of your main points.

They'll work at Starbucks, though. But yes, earlier on we took whatever we could get as a job. Parents weren't giving you a free ride (or mine didn't) and I worked from high school on. Paper routes, mowing grass and taking care of yards, etc. Working fast food. None of those jobs around me are done by your average teen.

I do, and subtracting 5 hours of facebook/twitter/starbuck's swilling cooler time from the "9" hours they're in the office....

It also saw long bread lines, sell your body for a day labor lines, and working for peanuts handouts in those government programs because peanuts were better than nothing. As for reforming wall street, I wish we'd not forgotten those lessons. We can all thank Reagan for starting the unravelling of those reforms in the 80s. I guess he "forgot" why they were needed.

Why do you think you deserve to be rich?

You and everyone that followed is correct, if you shoot, you should shoot to kill. I was still in the mindset of them killing this mentally ill guy with a knife. I should have left that sentence out.

And then the other 90% is actually writing the code and testing the integration. Anyone that thinks 80% of IT happens away from the code/editor isn't in development.

What's even better is one of those was a previously convicted terrorist, been jailed and released, and was actively tweeting/posting on *public* social media his intentions, and still "they managed to drive all the way to Texas and attempt to carry-out their plot." Exactly what in excess of what the FBI/NSA/CIA had do they need to "prevent terrorism"? I'd say this points out to the complete and utter uselessness of the entire concept of mass surveillance to prevent terrorism, so let's start there with dismantling this democracy killing concept.

And this is a clear violation of department policy and law everywhere I'm familiar with and should result in the immediate charging of the officer(s) involved. A person that runs away is not an imminent threat, and therefore there is no justification for use of force. The problem is that officers are often not charged, even with video evidence, far too often. Honestly, officers should shoot second, unless going into a known shooting situation, and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked. Furthermore, when there are options, such as a guy standing alone outside his house waving a knife, stay far enough away until enough backup comes to assist in taking the guy down. There's plenty of non-lethal means to incapacitate such a person. The preponderance of evidence of late is that too many cops are gun-happy or just aggressive thugs and continue their ways even after multiple incidents.

True, but my point was you better have something more than just "I think..."

Objection - speculation.

Sustained, jury will disregard prosecutor's last statement

IANAL