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).

Yeah, how could the Slashdot editors confuse Iran and Iraq? One is an oil-rich country who's government was toppled by Britain and America and the other is... oh, wait...

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.

Two points don't make a curve.

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.