Imagine making the call to your HOA: "do you mind if I install a primary and secondary radar system on the rooftop of the apartment building? Yeah, I need that for work. Ok, thanks, bye"

You're conveniently omitting the fact that oil on the public land has not already been paid by the taxpayer.

In your world, the taxpayer pays twice for procuring the technology. First for the development, then for the licensing.

Funded by the taxpayer already.

Now if companies are paying the NSA to get access to their research, they're paying twice: once as a taxpayer, and now as a "customer".

If the technology can be declassified, the information should be public property, as its research was funded by the taxpayer.

Apply water to burned area.

No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).

The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.

Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.

This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.

Yes, a theoretical expert. I've worked with PhDs in a hands-on environment. They were completely and utterly useless to get things done.

Great thinkers, and excellent in solving complex theoretical problems. But nothing usable in a hands-on world of coding, linux administration or network configuration.

As weird as it may sound, this may help. You write yourself:

Advertising a PhD may come across as advertising that you think you're good. You may not mean it that way, but it will most certainly be received like that. I've performed many technical interviews and when I prepare myself for a candidate, I go over their resume (their ad). If the candidate advertises knowledge of a specific topic, he or she better know it.

The rejections you got may not have been because you didn't know a specific answer to a very technical question. Nobody knows everything. You may have been rejected because of the answer that you gave, and let me explain.

When I interview, I will make sure there is one topic with a couple of questions that I don't expect you to know from the top of your head. I will get online and get the answers if needed. I will ask the question (if we get to it) and see the response. If you get the answer right: well done, you will have my vote. If you don't then this is where the psychology comes in. I'll be looking for you to be honest. Don't make up answers, don't come up with a bullshit reply. If I get bullshit, no matter how good you were, you will fail the interview. If you bullshit me, you'll bullshit a customer, manager or anyone else when you're in the hot seat.

Don't underestimate the importance of attitude and honesty in an interview.

I fled one of those countries. If you'r old enough to know what TANSTAAFL means, this is your classic example. Your "Free" education, "Free" healthcare and the Social Security State are being funded by who? An anonymous philanthropist? No they're not. They're being funded by you, the taxpayer.

Which (in my former home country) was achieved by a 52% income tax and a 21% sales tax. So that's 73% in total, going straight to Mother Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H State, who will make sure it gets spent on Revolutionary things like bailing out Greece, redistributing my hard-earned cash to people who refuse to work, Eastern European thugs coming to pickpocket and pay the master thieves of the EU.

See, you even agree with me. Basically Canada should be returned to the Russians to be part of the new Soviet Ukrain Canadian Union. American companies are NOT socialist. So get your commie ass back to Russia or stop whining.

No I'm not. I was forced out of San Jose because of the high housing prices. I'm not even going to try Palo Alto, Menlo Park or San Francisco. I'm way south of the Bay. Definitely not elite, even though I'd like to think of myself as someone skilled in network engineering.

You could not be further from the truth. I encourage anyone, from the janitor to the security guards, to take an interest in computer science and network engineering. I remind them that I never took any classes that are relevant to my job. If I can do it, they can do it. So can everyone else who is interested. I got to where I am today because I threw Windows 95 from my PC and installed Linux. That led me down a path of systems administrator, network administrator to the JNCIE that I am today. My formal education did nothing whatsoever to get me here. Nothing 31337 about that.

The God that created the Big Fart of course...

Actually, I kind of have to agree with you here. Yesterday I had a friend over who worked in the same team as I did for a large vendor of telecommunications equipment. For years (at least 5), there was one guy who was completely and utterly useless, did not perform and could not even complete the most basic tasks by himself. I always thought he had some compromising images of his boss or something similar that prevented him from being fired.

Turns out the guy was hired by a startup recently. I thought that would be unimaginable, but then I realized that I was mistaken. He is very well-spoken, has a nice personality and if you don't have to work with him, he is generally a good guy to have a beer with. It's just that he is useless as a tech worker IMHO. Oh, and if you read this: no offense :)

At least he has the cajones to admit his mistakes, with his username, COWARD.

In the specific case of Facebook, it is not about driving wages down. Facebook pays decent wages, even for Silicon Valley standards. It is about not increasing wages.

What Facebook et al need is a way to ensure that they'll be able to fill their positions without creating too much of a jobseekers market so they won't be forced to lure employees away from the competition. All those sign-on bonuses, recruiter fees and salary increases (usually roughly 10% if you jump ship) will add up quickly.

Truth of the matter is, in the SF Bay Area, it is hard to be unemployed if you're a properly skilled tech worker, citizen, green-card holder or otherwise. That doesn't mean I condone the way that the H1-B program often is being abused today. I've seen abuse, and we'll always see that. But this is only made possible due to the ridiculous limits on permanent resident visas vs the amount of H1-B visas, as I pointed out in this comment.:

Rknpgyl gung. "Rapelcgrq" qbrf abg nyjnlf zrna "Frpherq".

Space exploration may prove the only way for our species to survive an ELE.