What this says is that every rich person in this country is lying through their teeth about needing immigrants.

The Top doesn't want immigrants, they want visa workers. The difference is that an immigrant moves into a country, builds a life there and isn't affected by possible unemployment any more than anyone else, while a visa worker takes what his employer cares to give him and thanks him for it or gets evicted.

And yes, the Top does need visa workers, to drive down wages and working conditions. It's part of their War on the Middle Class, the same as most other things they do.

So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.

If you use terms like "crotch fruit" that's usually a sign that you felt your argument can't stand on its own and needed emotional appeal for the "har har look how tough my callousness makes me" -crowd. The interesting question, then, is why make said argument in the first place? Vested interests? Psychological problems? Trolling?

Also, drain cleaner usually comes in bottles with safety caps, presumably because manufacturers of dangerous chemicals think they might be held responsible for not taking reasonable precautions.

Robin Hood was a thief. You are only a wannabe thief, too cowardly to steal for yourself, insisting that the government do it for you.

These two claims are in direct contradiction with each other. If taxation is thieft, then Robin was a hero who took stolen property from thiefs and returned it to the rightful owners. If it's not, then why call it that?

The really problem wouldn't be that you simply want to side with the Sheriff of Nottingham and his modern-day counterparts, now would it?

I've only taken one for a lousy Circle K job that I never got, so I don't know if I failed it or if they just didn't want to give me the job. It was very weird too, involving meeting some guy in a motel room to take the test.

Did the test require you to strip? Because this sounds very much like the kind of test that requires stripping and testing rods.

The problem is that LEOs are always looking for "magic bullets" that will make it as easy as "its that guy" but the simple fact is none exist or are likely to ever be found.

Unless the wizard really did it.

Science is never about human experience.

A theory that doesn't ultimately accept its inputs and provide its outputs in terms of human experience is not only untestable, but also incomprehensible (by definition - you have no idea what it's talking about). Science is, at the end of the day, just systematic use of common sense and senses. It's entirely based on human experience and can never escape it.

It is embarrassing that over two millennia after the birth of Western civilisation ,we have degenerated to a point where we still believe that simple indicators can determine whether someone will steal, lie, or be just wonderful.

I wonder how much of that is actual faith and how much is simply being told you must determine whether a total stranger will steal, lie or be just wonderful. Impossible tasks incentivize ass-covering, and shifting the blame for wrong guesses is an effective method.

If this were happening in an open field where only the two sides of the fight were present, I can't see any difference between explosive and chemical attacks.

Scale. You need to shoot a lot of bullets or artillery shells to kill everyone in the field, but a cloud of poison does it fast and effective. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, which means using them will likely result in the conflict escalating - perhaps even to the point of spilling into the neighbouring countries. Clouds of poison gas don't care about national borders, after all.

It's the "gun in a fistfight" principle - it means things are going to get ugly(er).

But it really is a key underlying principle for why we have rules of war at all. I personally find the concept kind of odd.

Not at all silly. Wars are costly affairs even for winners, so it's in everyone's interest to keep them from getting out of control. World War I is an excellent example of how a regional game of one-upmanship snowballed into an utter worldwide fustercluck. Every time someone went a step farther, someone else responded with two, or another combatant joined the fight.

The ultimate purpose of the rules of war is to keep US and GB's Excellent Iraq Adventure from escalating into World War Part Three: Armageddon. People will cross the line of starting a war in the first place, so you'll need more of them and hope some remain unbroken. Defence in depth and all that. And if they also keep some people unlucky enough to get caught in the mess from getting gruesomely killed or maimed, that's a nice bonus.

Mine is a 24 letter memorable phrase with a single number inside it as well. Nobody on Earth can decrypt that and it's written down nowhere.

But useful details about it are written down right here on Slashdot. How many combinations of words add up to 24 or 23 letters, with or without spaces? A lot less than add up to a random amount.

This is the biggest threat to security: people like to brag about how smart they are, and as they do they give up information. Joe Hacker can follow you and learn more and more about your uber-secure password to speed up his brute-forcing, and any near-future botnet data mining Internet forums can do the same.

Maybe it's time to repurpose those old WWII propaganda posters about how security starts with STFU?

The problem is finding people with skill sets and costs aligned to what the business needs.

Businesses want everything for free, just like everyone else. Unlike everyone else, they're sociopaths, so they are absolutely ruthless in pursuing that goal.

This isn't some sort of emotional worship of business.

Really? If I complain I can't get a mansion at the cost of a doghouse, what will your response be? Yet when a business says it can't get the employees it wants for what it's willing to pay, that warrants a serious discussion about how to lower wages.

That's how trade worked before we invented currency.

No, that's how slavery worked: "work at the price I'm willing to pay (nothing) or I'll make you".

Since the human nature is a violent one, I don't think violent behavior is abnormal, only not accepted in most circumstances by our social standards.

And assuming we haven't all been brainwashed by aliens to remember a false history or something, our society is a product of our nature, as are the social mores that make violence unacceptable, so just what do you mean when you say our nature is violent? How would you even observe human nature apart from nurture?

In any case, as long as most people don't engage in violence most of the time, violence is abnormal, even if these people are boiling volcanoes of poo-flinging murderous rage underneath their calm exterior. We are talking about a behavior observing, not thought reading, robot.

Except the US federal reserve has been the biggest buyer of US treasuries for the last 5 years.

So... is there a huge national debt or not? Because you can't have it both ways.

There is no market in US government debt. The government is selling it to itself.

So there is not, in fact, a huge national debt, just some "creative" accounting?

Answering the question: What happens when a Treasury bond auction doesn't sell out. Answer: It doesn't, The federal reserve has infinite cash.

So the US can't, in fact, go bankrupt, having literally unlimited credit? But of course all that money entering the economy is causing a huge inflation... nope, it's hovering steady at around 2%.

It would be simpler to just rise taxes 2%, but I guess this weird virtual debt scheme works too, having basically the same effect.

This is the step before the 'treasury bubble' pops.

How, exactly speaking, will it pop? Will it run out of its "infinite cash"? Will the inflation rate suddenly skyrocket (and why would it)?

I'm sorry, but what you're saying just isn't adding up. Please elaborate.

And you might be amazed at how much of that is the fault of management.

Between ridiculous timelines, cutting budgets for QA, management who change their minds fairly often, and salespeople who promise the world -- there's often quite a disconnect between what people are saying and what's happening.

But that's always the case in every industry. There's no endavour whatsoever where someone didn't try to save money everywhere they could, usually causing far more costly problems in he process, but already having cashed in their bonus by the time that becomes apparent. Programmers get no extra consideration for working under the same pointy-haired handicap everyone else does.

From McDonald's to Wall Street, your biggest obstacle to doing good work is almost always whoever you report to.

OS localization has always been a VERY tough nut to crack, and no one does any adequate job.

And if you do it well, the reward is making it hard for your customers to Google for help.

The best solution would be to simply standardize on English. The chances are that the potential users of your program know it anyway, so why make things harder for them and you than they need to be? It's not like regional dialects can survive anyway in a world where the whole concept of a region is becoming meaningless, at least as far as communication is concerned.