Nice. But how about:

A software engineer writes tests.

You're correct that there was no jury but this was because he had admitted to the offense.

His lawyer would have warned about the possible consequences of this as that is part of their job.

We are a democracy in the UK. If the people don't like the law banning "incitement to racial hatred", we get rid of it.

The freedom of speech argument is bogus. I'm fairly sure that the US has laws against slander, libel, shouting "fire!" in a crowded subway when there is none, advertising medicine as cure for cancer when there is no evidence, etc etc.

I am not an English lawyer but wife is. She pointed out to me that England has a long history of civil peace (our last revolution was in the 1640s), a legal system that has been copied by many countries throughout the world and is the first choice for foreign companies and Russian oligarchs to have their cases heard. English law must be doing something right.

"These guys were sent to prison for encouraging rioting on Facebook ..."

Incitement to violence is a serious crime! How can you question democracy on the basis of a fair jury finding the accused guilty?

He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred by a jury of his peers.

And yes, we take that pretty seriously over here.

You quote the article that says Dharun Twittered: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight" but your interpretation is the defendant "was kicked out of his own room for the night" and the victim was "throwing his roommate out".

Forgive me if I think you're not the best person to interpret what was going on.

I'm not American but I am fairly sure that your First Amendment does not give you the right to watch your roommate indulging in a sexual encounter when he has asked for privacy. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Cringely couldn't predict a fart in a bathtub but boy! he wrote an entertaining book.

Seems that even Alan Greenspan agrees with you that H1Bs are a racket:

"But an additional contributor to inequality in America is our immigration law, which “protects” many high earners from skilled migrant competitors. The American H1B programme is in effect a subsidy for the wealthy, a policy that is anathema to the supporters of capitalism."

From yesterday's Financial Times (26 January 2012).

No, you did your maths wrong. $500 billion is 1/30th of the US's annual GDP (that is, about 3%).

From your own link:

GDP (official exchange rate):
$14.66 trillion (2010 est.)

"If we want to solve this problem, we must cut aid to areas which cannot sustain itself. I realize that's harsh, but creating a life does not entitle it to live."

Not only is that brutal but judging by trade deficits, it's countries like the US that are not sustainable.

Please bring your child here...

... or you could have two straight lines. Or you could have many curves with several localized maximum points. Or you could have...

You're really missing the point of the grandparent post.

And as for your puerile ad hominem attack that I must have gone to a government school, I schooled in Europe where we have some excellent government schools.

Good day to you.

Absolutely. And if you really feel that bad about the banks, then what greater pleasure than taking their money :-)

Writing software for banks is probably the only time you'll be paid well as an engineer.

I've worked at Goldmans for a few years and they treat their people well, they pay engineers good money and treat them with respect. Blankfein himself when called before the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission mentioned how much Goldman owed to its risk analysis system. Damn right. It's the best on the Street. That was an interesting piece of engineering for which their guys were rightly rewarded.

And on another note - why does everybody give Goldman shit? They didn't accept money from the Government (unless you count the TARP money that they were forced to accept and paid back at the first opportunity), like everybody else they lost money on the sub-prime market (although much less than their peers) and as for ethics? Well, they're at least no worse than anybody else. They're just slightly smarter.

Everybody likes a villain but real life is not a Bond movie.

Reminds me of when The Economist was predicting the doom of Google:

"Punters would be much wiser to read about Google’s IPO than to invest in it, if only to tell their children about a company they haven’t heard of because it no longer exists." - April 30 2004

"But Google has another disadvantage ... competition is fierce, not only with Yahoo!'s advertising arm, Overture, but with smaller players such as FindWhat.com and Kanoodle." - April 29 2004

"In trying to morph into an operating-system firm or online ad agency, Google is less a leader than a novice." - April 29 2004

These quote seem laughable a few years later but some people just don't seem to get it. Google isn't going away anytime soon.

The weird thing is why people keep saying it is.