It's a value proposition. On one side you have a mostly adequate talent willing to work for cheap, but is encumbered by being a contract employee residing in a foreign country, with possibly a language gap. On the other side you have a mostly adequate to adequate talent only willing to work for a locally competitive wage, residing locally and no language gap. Not all managers look at all facets of this proposition, at least initially, but more than ever they are. The question simply becomes one of which proposition is more effective/economical. If what you have to offer makes the other proposition ambiguous, even more attractive, do something about it.

Don't be a fool. The most qualified are the ones that should be hired. If the local talent pool is inadequate, then we need to look at correcting this.

College might not guarantee a job, but how much harder is it for those applying for jobs where a college degree is a prerequisite? Yes, college is expensive. For certain career paths, even more so. However, the investment in a college degree or vocational training appropriate to the career path of choice almost always has ROI. High-school graduates relying upon on-the-job training are at a severe disadvantage both in terms of their career options but also in hiring competition with their peers for whom have post-secondary education.

RTFA. Requirements with his job rule out satellite. Having personally had a stint in sh*thole rural Wisconsin I can tell you, satellite is a pretty absurd option and really just an act of desperation. He presently uses a Verizon powered hotspot but keeps hitting the 30GB cap even though he borrows a local Starbucks wi-fi for downloading. He did attempt to explore building out the 2500' but Comcast wouldn't consider it. Microwave line of site providers are not in range. Washington law bars municipal providers from retail.

What about that arm bearing one?

Maybe they should starting printing them in front of state capitols...

Given the present environment on Capitol Hill, I think it would be news if they launched at all. At the end of the day, I think that of the successes NASA will have had, it will be best known for their incubation of commercial launch and infrastructure services. Not the Moon, not Mars, not earth sciences, ..., but rather their work wresting control of the rockets upon which crew and cargo are sent heavenward as well as their habitation from Congress and the MIC.

Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?

That is a nice idea--for the customer. However, this anti-capitalistic idea doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially in the US. Neither is it routinely and commonly practiced nor is it enforced. In practice a business first serves its shareholders, the scraps and trimmings go to the customers.

That was the EU not the US. To my knowledge the only major FTC action against Microsoft was United States vs. Microsoft which ended with a settlement to disclose their APIs. That case however, presumed Microsoft to be a monopoly and was prosecuted accordingly. It is a bit harder to argue that Google is a monopoly. They have plenty of competitors both large and small in both their aggregate services as well as individual services.

I think you need to work on your abstraction skills. "Search" is a product just as much as a "PC" is a product.

The FTC is seeming to suggest that it would be more proper for the Apple store to introduce customers looking to buy an office PC to Microsoft offerings first because they have a larger market share. Or Verizon to show plans from TMobile ahead of their own because they're more economical.

Just because Google happens to offer services that incorporate non-Google offerings doesn't mean they don't have a right to serve their own interests. If I'm using Google I expect to be shown Google offerings. If I'm using Travelocity I expect to be shown Travelocity services. It's nice that they incorporate their competitors offerings as an option but I certainly don't expect them to say, "we suck, why not check out this offer from Expedia".

You have a position you're trying to defend and logic and rational thinking might be the last thing on your mind. I get it. However, for your own benefit you might want to re-evaluate the latest crop of notebooks. I'm sure there are some crap ones, always are. There are also some very good ones. Not everyone plays the non-sense games such as Dell wherein you have to bust your wallet to get away from certain junk components, or certain unreasonably low specs. Asus' G751 series is such an example. It can run for hours under full CPU + GPU load with little demonstration of the fact. The case is as cool as at idle, a quiet, warm stream of air flows out the back. Performance is as I said peer with my development workstation.

This is also for a student, in case you missed it. Portable and inexpensive is key. What makes you think this student is willing/able to tether their notebook to a "big iron" back at home. Campus IT doesn't always take kindly to nor facilitate personal servers. You're also advocating two purchases which kind of defeats the point of inexpensive.

PC components are getting small enough, efficient enough and often equivalent/identical between laptop and desktop such that that advise is becoming somewhat dated. In most respects the $1800 Asus gaming notebook I recently bought is equal to the $2000, development workstation I built a year ago but with one key difference. I can take my notebook with me.

Link to entry level. You can choose an upgraded version with SSD, or save some money and add your own. Either way, it's a solid system, ample power, excellent cooling. Web browsing and basic office software will get about 4 hours on the battery, under full (gaming, presumably physics sim) load you'll get just under two hours.

Except there aren't. There are incentive for NOT hiring them. Nobody wants the liability, it doesn't matter what the profession. Nobody wants to be in the same room with a criminal. They want them locked up and never exposed to such elements.