Because if those kids are brown or black skinned, then we don't want to feed them. Tribe comes first and foremost. Always.

Because we don't want to give blacks, hispanics, Arabs and freeloaders the same benefits and privileges that middle-to-upper class White, South Asian, and East Asian Americans enjoy.

In my experience, harsh language is best tempered (and employed) by someone who uses it to judge the situation and provide correction, in such a manner as to insure it doesn't happen again. The language used gets as personal as it needs to, and no further. Ideally, no personal attacks would be used, just a critique of the work. And if that person who employed it happened to be in the wrong, they apologize. Does Linus acknowledge his own mistakes? And, if Linus goes over the line, does he acknowledge and apologize for it? If he does, then he'd be someone I'd want to work for--because I know that the occasional negative reinforcement would be beneficial and it's not personal. From what I understand, Steve Jobs was that way at Apple: a giant asshole, but capable of admitting when he was wrong, and backing his team to the fullest.

This is actually a very good piece of advice. Now that I'm in my late thirties and an established professional, I am shocked at how many of my peers don't know how to cook, clean, handle money, or their domestic affairs in general. These are invaluable skills to have, and form the basis for many good jobs.

Particularly west of the Mississippi and excluding Californians (Californians: like Floridans except less crazy)?

But there's a lot of people, especially on /., who refuse to acknowledge that, because it threatens their beliefs.

I get what you're saying, Curunir, but I have to agree with OP because the men and women making these decisions are looking at the business like a game. And in that perspective, American workers do cost too much. To illustrate this, I'm going to give anecdotal evidence based on experience.

I work with/for men and women who are VPs and product/program managers. Every single one of them has an MBA, and every single one of them knows the business aspect of our given technology field. They are all upper class white American Anglo-Saxon protestants who came from upper class/upper middle class families. They view our business as one big game--a very intricate, intriguing, and never-ending game. They take this game very seriously, and they pay attention to the technology and quality issues insofar as it advances the business. And business is all about profit, loss, and sustainability. Because they're all MBAs, they're all aware that every company and every business venture has a life cycle. If they happen to be employed for a company that's in the beginning half of its life-cycle, then they will make decisions that 1) grab maximum market share, 2) produce profit, and 3) reduce losses. Everything they do falls in those three criteria. If they determine that the company they are employed in has reached maturity and will start sliding towards dissolution, then they adjust their priorities to 1) Maximize profits, 2) cut costs, 3) Extend profitability. This turns their business into a cash cow that gets milked, taken over, disassembled, and outsourced. As such, they'll pay for American talent during the start-up phase, but once the business has reached maturity and maximum market share, that is when they lay off the American talent and get H1B's/talented college grads to come in for a third of the operating cost in terms of salary cap, to operate the business for as long as they can before the profits give out. It is how business works, and short of going very protectionist and starting trade wars, that will always be how it works. The worst is, if YOU were to be a business owner, you would have to fight against being seduced into that mindset.

Rachel? Battle Mountain? Ely? Or waaaaaaaaaaay out in the boonies?

If one has a strong currency, then one commands the privilege of the market. That means one would get first pick of new opportunities, new investments, and everyone wants to do business because of that strong currency. What you pointed out is the adverse consequence of having a strong currency--lots of buying power, but limited ability to actually generate new income. Strong currencies benefit the investor class and continues to give them privilege in the market--and to a degree, at the expense of everyone else.

This is the clearest, most coherent argument in favor of Swartz's side I've ever read. Now I better understand the context of why his suicide matters. The whole "blame the USDoJ" thing didn't quite make sense to me. Adding in the extreme difficulty of trying to get access to research journals due to paywalls and other "closed-shop" barrier tactics of the academic journal world plus MIT's reluctance to challenge that culture and stand up for Swartz--now that make sense and gives me context. I wish someone had phrased this point in such a succinct manner when it all first erupted.

That's what happens in a nation that believes in the prosperity gospel.

Come on, there's a better place for the MW--mounted in the mattress. Just drill a hole through the mattress and place the MW head up there, then run the power cord down beneath to a power strip. That way the cord from the watch doesn't interfere with sleeping or other bed-related activities. It's a win-win! No old-fashioned "removing of one's watch before bedtime"! No more "tangling up cords" or getting accidentally stink-shafted in the middle of the night by a used MW falling onto one's face. Practicality, my man, practicality! With a little forethought, one can be at the forefront of technology, get a good night's sleep, AND be sexually satisfied!

Nuclear Sharknados???? If that's the face of the Apocalypse, I'm in!

Yup, that one! People sure are complicated, aren't they?

What will you do when she gets assaulted in a place or situation she didn't expect to, from a person she never expected it of? Here's the thing with personal responsibility--while it's good to have and practice, everyone's got to let their guard down sometime. We all try to do so in safe environments and places--and the predators know that. It's the problem with blaming the victim--many times the victim is blameless precisely because the victim honestly thought he/she was SAFE, and with SAFE people. It's what predators count on. It's one thing for your wife to avoid the streets with the reported rapes, which is wise. But committed rapists (to use your example) don't sit on the same street corner in the same neighborhoods--they're always looking for prey in NEW environments. Prey that isn't expecting to be assaulted. Blaming the victim in that instance is like adding insult to injury--and that's what generally happens. It's also why women don't generally report rape or sexual assault--the amount of second-guessing by people who are unfamiliar with the situation, let alone the context and circumstances is staggering and destroys one's self esteem.