Correct, until it is repealed (unlikely) or struck down by the Supreme Court it is still the law. This could be a good case to take to the Supreme Court since it highlights the impact of changing technology on the law and could clarify what is required when presented with such a writ.

I doubt the "didn't hurt myself or anyone else" argument is a basis for drawing the conclusion it was a reasonable and prudent action. The court even said that a ticket for reckless driving could still be issued without a set speed limit so it pretty much dismissed the "didn't hurt myself or anyone else" argument as well. The key is if you do not know what the law determines is legal in such a case you can't be help accountable if someone else (a cop) has a different viewpoint of what is legal since there are no defined boundary between legal and illegal.

Per TFA, what the Montana Supreme Court said was you can't give someone a ticket for speeding based on "reasonable and proper" since no one could determine what was legal and that allowing a cop to decide was not legal. They didn't impose a limit rather they said in absence of a clear limit you could not charge someone with speeding since they had no way to know of sure wether or not they were complying with the law.

You are generally safe at 10 over on US Interstates. Most cops won't bother you of that except where a local jurisdiction has control over a short portion and uses it for revenue enhancement. In addition, there are usually plenty of drivers doing 15 or more over that are much better targets anyway so as long a you are flowing with traffic you are pretty safe form being pulled over.

Many laws in the US already have this provision, for example buying cigarettes or alcohol for minors is against the law; and so in many clear and obvious situations the law already addresses them. The problem is what is "clear and obvious?" You open the door for situations where someone does something perfectly legal but because some one else doesn't like it they wind up being charged with a crime; and it could wind up limiting you from doing something perfectly legal in another jurisdiction but "clearly and obviously" against the law in another. For example, abortion laws vary state to state and what is perfectly legal in one isn't in another. So if person A leaves Jurisdiction X to go to Y and gets a procedure that is legal in Y but not in X can they be tried under the "clear and obvious" rule in X once they return since they clearly broke X's law. Granted, that is an extreme example but could hold for less inflammatory issues as well.

The problem with that is what one constituency considers violating their rights is perfectly acceptable to another; there would be no reasonable way to enforce such a law. The only possible way would be for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality and then go after individual legislators; a situation I would find to be a cure worse than the disease.

Game companies do it because they depend on people playing the game stop make money, hence the need for a semblance of fairness.

While that may sound like a good idea it has a lot of bad implications. Laws need to clearly delineate what is and isn't legal. Part of the court's job is to clarify laws through precenets.If they don't, you would be abel to charge people with violating the intent even if they didn't do what was delineated in the law. It wouldn't just be serious crimes, either where conspiracy laws exits already; you could be charged for breaking the intent of minor ones as well.

If you can be charged with breaking the intent how would you know what is legal? In the end a simple disagreement could cost you your job whether or not your position is correct.

From TFA, these drones passed within a few feet of a/c during critical phases of the flight. Having something zoom by while you are landing or taking off increases the pucker factor and it's irrelevant wether or not the thing is controlled. The drone pilots, if found, need to be heavily fines and serve some time to let them and others know thi isn't just some minor thing but a serious matter that endangers people's lives.

Remember: When we do it it's good and when *they* do it it's bad. Been that way since the first man noticed another living in the cave next door.

And the US wants everyone to keep all the information and let the NSA have access to it no matter where it resides.

Indeed, if the gap really exists, then there would be a very good pay to be had for some lucky few that choose the right education. On the whole, I think that is not the case.
So pay close attention where calls of 'too little people trained in X' come from, usually it is someone who will profit from a surplus of them.

If you are judging the state of the industry by the level of your not so random sampling of a few job applicants, then there might be something wrong with your judgement.

btw, I'd answer 'object' and 'I try to no have to by using the right tools/language'.

That's the whole point. If I truly pay you a market wage you have little incentive to leave; however if I pay below market wage all I become is a labor pool for other companies. As a result, I would first try to fill jobs with local labor and if there is a shortage than use a visa program to fill them. Since there is a lower supply than demand i will pay a premium for that labor if I really need it; a true free market solution.

As the OP, i can say I my end game is not to reduce the number of H1B's available but to ensure H1B's actually get a competitive salary with other workers by eliminating restrictions on their job mobility. If employers had to pay the cost of an H1B plus a competitive wage, which they claim to do today, it would be more economically viable to hire someone with the requisite skills that doesn't need to be sponsored since you would avoid all the extra costs; and do not run the risk of, after paying those costs, of losing the employee and having to pay for replacement. Right now, the indentured nature of the H1B means wages are lower because employees have no bargaining power; something that is easy to fix but requires more political will than exists in Washington.

As for a truly open market where anyone can move anywhere; yes that is a nice Utopian dream but like unicorns does not exist. So, we have to deal with the labor market as it is, not what we might like it to be and fix the real world problems that are fixable.

All of the tech industries behavior point to a desire to keep wages lower than what they would pay in an open market. Whether it's expanding H1B's or agreeing not to poach the goal is the same not driving up the cost of talent. Thus we have a "shortage" of tech workers so we must import more rathe than we have an abundant supply at higher wages so lets hire them. I am not surprise at the GAO report. What needs to be done is make H1B visas portable so after say 6 month to a year the holder was free to switch jobs. That would end abuses quickly and all of a sudden the "shortage" would disappear when it becomes more costly to get and keep an H1B then hire a local.