> a biotech company such as Gilead or Genentech would not construct a multiple-choice test and hire the top scorers
Who would be idiotic enough to select *any* skilled professional based upon a multiple-choice test?
I think you're implying that the USA missed out on this contract because its bribe was lower?
I'm not seeing much evidence of anything except pure commercial self-interest, here, I'm afraid.
Somehow, I doubt that the NSA would dob in US companies for corrupt behaviour, so I don't think your point makes terribly much sense.
Just because they *can* does not make it *good*
Censorship by Wikipedia may not be illegal, but it is extremely disappointing.
This analogy is appalling.
For a start, I think you would be justified if someone nicks your stuff, and it is definitely illegal.
However, information is *not* property, and nobody has actually stolen anything.
Sorry, I lost you at "communism is evil".
You're an idiot.
The people publishing the forbidden link are pro-civil-liberties, not anti-abortion.
They chose the anti-abortion link because it is both political and gory, and hence could be expected to be censored by ACMA.
Yes, but websites are all about the *content*, not the HTML!
Who cares how long the HTML took to write?
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan
