our educational system is still probably the best at producing software engineers

First, the tech industry is not just software engineers.

Second, while the current US educational system is very good at producing people who can drive good design, it's not so great at producing people who can implement it. The raw technical chops, especially with respect to understanding of advanced mathematics, is a rarity here in the US compared to (e.g.) much of the EU.

This has been proposed before, but perhaps not strongly enough or from an important enough source, which is too bad because it solves practically all of our worries.

The premise is simple: the tech industry doesn't have enough good workers because our education system is not well suited to producing the necessary skill sets. Therefore, allow qualified talent to come in and fill that gap. Tax employers based on their salaries (for this to work, salaries must be lower rather than having the same salaries with extra deductions). The collected taxes would be directed to improve our educational systems (K-12 as well as public universities) so that this problem goes away. In time, it won't be worthwhile for an employer to consider this type of talent acquisition because qualified US citizens would be more readily available and would cost less (due to not requiring this proposed tax).

(Sorry if I got some of that terminology wrong; I'm not in HR nor do I deal with immigration paperwork.)

You cant find a citation because it isn't true.

Nissan sells 5,000,000 cars per year and made US$3 billion in profit last FY. Nissan makes good cars that sell well, pretty much the antithesis of American car corporations, so they're quite safe.

Yes, you are currently correct, but I'm talking about before the Leaf was released.

The story was that they had invested all of their research into batteries and then made a major play to be the first to market for plug-ins (be they electric vehicles or hybrids). The Leaf uses their advanced batteries and serves as a demonstration of a very basic electric car (the Leaf started as merely a Versa converted to be an EV). With the Leaf's success, Nissan is on its way to having the same kind of dominance in hybrid/electric car batteries that Toyota has in regenerative braking (which is leased by many competitors).

Warren, in the event you're reading the comments (and at a threshold low enough to see this...),

Can you speak more to why you listed so many cookbooks? I can understand René Redzepi's Work In Progress because, as Amazon notes, "it includes a personal journal written by René himself over a full year in which he explores creativity, innovation, and the meaning and challenges of success," but are all of the books on cuisine in the same light? Or are you an avid amateur chef? You've definitely given me something to seek out the next time I go to Iceland.

"Prius" is Latin for "before" while "Mirai" is Japanese for "Future." Kind of sets a bold statement; an old language for hybrids and a new language (Japanese roughly dates back to the 8th century) for the purported future of cars ... which still has yet to be determined.

Contrast this with Nissan, another Japanese automobile manufacturer, which has invested so deeply into battery technology that if the Leaf were to fail, it's quite likely that they'd become a battery company. (A while back, I read (or watched?) a really compelling article/documentary on Nissan's battery research. It concluded that Nissan was gambling so heavily on both its own future with the Leaf and the future of automobiles as being electric that the company would likely stop making cars if the Leaf were to fail. Sorry I can't find a good citation to that.)

The presumption that Hydrogen Fuel Cells will be the "next" car fuel (after either gas or after electric) is still quite a strong one. I've seen it painted (iirc, by the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?) as something the oil companies latched onto because it competed with electric cars (which are ready now) and because hydrogen fuel cell cars are still quite a distant future prospect.

Rejected by Science after in-depth review

This paper has not been peer reviewed. Read with that in mind (peer review is academic currency).

(That said, it doesn't get much more prestigious than Science. It's merely too early to bring this to bear. Perhaps it will eventually get accepted, reviewed, and then published. Only at that point can it be considered good research.)

When writing within a popular series (e.g. X-Men or Hellblazer), there are certain hard limits in what liberties you can take. As a mundane example, you can't kill characters without planning out a large arc that builds up to it and/or quickly bringing them back, all with editorial approval from up on high.

What would you write within a popular series if only you could get permission to do it?

This works.

Dashcam video clears NJ man:

It's hard to find somebody that says X11 doesn't suck. I am definitely not that person.

My point was that he says forking sucks, he gave an example where (unbeknownst to him?) forking was certainly the best option, then he went on to talk about how forked Linux distributions have made the world a better place. He seems to conclude that forking is great and that he "loves" it.

(Also, I misspelled his name. Sorry, Bryan. I guess my post had room for improvement ... meaning it sucked.)

OpenSSL doesn't listen to bug reports. They don't even accept offered patches to known bugs. It's this spirit of non-cooperation that caused the forking into LibreSSL. See the 30 day prospectus (/. coverage) from the LibreSSL project lead, which details all of the problems. Brian even says forking is ultimately a benefit, and that he "loves that they're doing it."

It seems to be that his definition of "sucks" is "has room for improvement" ... Everything has room for improvement, so apparently everything sucks.