But there *is* such a thing as too illiterate to use one's own native language properly.

You, sir, probably wanted to use the adverb "too" which conveys the meaning of "to an excessive extent or degree" and the plural (capitalized, since it's a proper noun) Indians as opposed to the incorrectly spelled possessive "indian's".

Yes, I'm Indian, thank you.

As parent says, the article is utterly wrong. There are no per-country caps on H1B. The caps are on Green Cards (permanent residence) issued under certain categories, EB2 (Employment Based 2nd) being the most affected. The problem is that all countries, irrespective of their population, get a fixed ceiling of 7% of the total allocation of 140000 GCs issued per year. So, H1B workers from China and India have to wait at least 5 years, sometimes 10 years depending on the whims of USCIS, to get their Green Card. During that time, they have to continue being employed by the same company that originally filed the GC application, and in a materially similar position as at the time of filing. A major change in job description requires refiling. If you don't realize what that means, it makes those workers subservient to their employers. This has quite the opposite effect that you think it does - it doesn't help US workers any since these foreigners are already employed, but it gives the employers a position of power from which they can dictate terms on pay raises and promotions since they have the workers by the leash.

This is definitely hurting US tech companies because many excellent techies getting good salaries are leaving the US and setting up their own companies either in their home countries or in some other immigration-friendly country, Canada and Singapore being the top destinations. They would rather spend 2 years setting up their own company and getting permanent residence and a path to citizenship there than toil for 6+ years in fear with no certain timeline on when they'll become a permanent resident, much less a citizen of the US.

I myself am an example of a person who left the US after being there for 11 years. I was on H1B and making $120k/yr, so definitely not an underpaid worker. But I'm loathe to serve 6 years in a big corporation doing the same job day in and day out. So, I moved back to India, and I'm using my contacts in the industry to provide embedded software and hardware development services to small companies in the US. At the same time, I'm providing Industrial Automation consulting services to Indian companies and am currently working on a new data logging product for the South African market. So, the US lost the tax revenue it would have received. It lost a bunch of local jobs due to US companies outsourcing work to me in India. And it lost the new jobs I'd have created there if I'd continued building new products in the US.

So, you decide what works in US's national interests? Keeping people like me away from that country, or giving us an incentive to set up companies of our own? And if you claim that I'm a minority, that's an irrelevant argument. A very useful minority is still being alienated. I loved being in the US, and would happily go back if the immigration situation becomes easier and more deterministic. But I seriously don't see current US politics being conducive to ANYTHING that's of real value to the country.

Dish is going all out in taking on Directv. They recognize Directv is stronger than them, so they are value-adding to their core satellite programming. They introduced Blockbuster Streaming and Tailgater (http://www.dishnetwork.com/redirects/promotion/tailgater/default.aspx) at their 'Team Summit' in May. Both of them are essentially add-ons, but are meant to offer the oomph to sign on new customers or migrate existing satellite customers from Directv. Dish doesn't have that much of an incentive to sell either of those products to non-Dish customers. [Full disclosure: My company makes the Tailgater and the product is my design]

Sorry sir, but upper castes can also be beaten, murdered, extorted, systematically denied legal representation, et al. What matters is how well-connected you are. And that factor is as important pretty much anywhere in the world. Take the example of blacks and hispanics in the US, Uighurs and Tibetans in China, Romas in Europe, ethnic Africans (as opposed to ethnic Arabs) in Sudan, etc etc. I'm from a part of India where upper castes lived in fear of 'lower' castes for close to 15 years until 4 years ago when a change of government equalized power and brought back balance. Now, that province (Bihar) is making international headlines with fastest economic growth in India. Yours seems to be an intentionally under-informed opinion based on xenophobia. Most people around the world are good. Most people in positions of power are not. Do not treat one as the other.

This technology is only a subset of the prosthetic arm - 'Luke' - developed by Dean Kamen's company. The prosthetic arm is controlled directly by the user's brain as well and allows a lot more complexity compared to the hand shown here. Also, Luke is being built as a modular system where you only use the parts of the arm that you need - if you don't need the upper arm, you can use just the hand and lower arm, and so forth.
More details below:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/dean-kamens-rob/
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/dean-kamens-luke-arm-prosthesis-readies-for-clinical-trials/2
http://blog.ted.com/2008/02/dean_kamens_arm.php

PS: For those who can't place the name, Dean Kamen is the inventor of Segway, among other things.

That's the FUD propaganda. The more balanced perspective is it's the seeing stone anyone could use to see their future. But it was put to evil purposes instead by Sauron.
Technology by itself is not good or evil. It's how one uses it that makes it so. Remember that the Internet came out of a doom-and-gloom project to create a nuclear-war resistant communication network.

I don't completely agree with the observation. Yes, most people don't know about the 'runas' command, and I wouldn't have known either if I hadn't worked on the XP team. But I have been diligently using an unprivileged account on all my XP machines for regular work since 2001. If you right click on an executable, you can select 'Run As' and then choose which user you want to run the binary as. This doesn't work with .msi packages directly, so you need to start a command prompt and start the msi package from there. I still use these techniques without much problem.

But, as one of the replies to parent noted, many applications themselves are broken, and won't run as a non-admin user. One of the biggest offenders is Microsoft's own Windows Media Player. DRM schemes break down if you are not running as an admin user! Many graphics-intensive apps screw up for whatever reasons (I'm not very familiar with DirectX, but that seems to be the culprit there). Further, I know for a fact that most developers in MS stay logged in as admin, so most code doesn't get developed with a Unix-like user credentials model anyway. I don't know if that has changed in MS with Vista being the standard desktop OS there, but I highly doubt it.

One more particular thing MS did horribly wrong with Vista is ask the user for confirmation every time it blinks. It is a well understood by UI experts that such 'confirmations' are read only the first time - after that, saying 'yes' becomes a habit. 'sudo' is definitely a lot more mature (but still somewhat lacking) in that arena since it caches the state for some time.

The fact remains though, that MS tried something radically different and failed miserably with Vista. Probably proves the point that large corporations should stick to manufacturing, selling and incremental updates and leave innovation to smaller startups.

Maybe MS should buy out the Haiku dev team and have them build a new OS that is binary compatible with older MS platforms, but is better than their Windows code base.