Remember, if something is free you aren't the customer, you are the product and so long as they're not pissing off their advertisers these companies can do anything that doesn't significantly reduce their user counts.
Espionage is not science. blah blah blah...
Espionage can be science!
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Pretty sure the job description for junior programmer that the DOL uses doesn't qualify for an H1B slot...
Then your company is breaking the law and you should report them. Companies are required to pay above the prevailing wage for the position and region. We paid both of our H1B workers well above average for our staff and when they worked out sponsored their green cards (and boy is that process a cluster!), we're the kind of employer that the program was actually designed for, we were looking for extremely rare talent sets and had advertised the positions for months before looking abroad. I have to say that I have much bigger problems with the screwups in the green card program than I do with the H1B system, permanently bringing smart people from abroad raises the GDP of the US and brings diversity to the country.
, doesn't make their assumed definition of a word correct. Its still wrong.
For a proscriptive language, you are right. For a descriptive language, like English, you are wrong. The collective wrong definition is the correct one, and the two hold-outs to the "pure" or "original" definition are wrong. That's how language works.
Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.
Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people. People who explain the law, as enforced, to you aren't "defending" it or asserting they think it's ok.
You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.
See the error in your logic?
Oddly, the permits that are being denied are for Bt rice and phytase corn, but they continue to support Bt corn, so environment or food safety doesn't seem like it would be an actual reason,
That's an assertion, but is it true? Bt [grain] produces poison. Perhaps the poison is still present in the edible rice, but not the edible corn? I don't know, but there may be other reasons, perhaps it's because corn is so low in production, and not a traditional crop with widespread domestic use, so it's not a "health issue"? Just because one is banned and the other not doesn't mean that safety must not be a reason.