What that (and almost all other discussions on H* visas) is missing is the implicit "... [there were no American citizens who could perform those jobs] at the (low?) wages we want to pay for those jobs" -- offer $1,500/day for those jobs and "poof", no labor shortage!

So you believe they literally sold 10,000 units for a total of $100 million, i.e. at a price of $10k each ?

...discovered that her own driving data had been shared with data brokers working with the insurance industry, despite not being enrolled in the program. GM has since discontinued the Smart Driver product and stopped sharing data with LexisNexis and Verisk

Can we safely replace "sharing" with "selling" ?

Just for context here are some that NJ has done:

• Get your head out of your app.
• Nice car, did it come with a turn signal?
• Hocus Pocus, drive with focus.
• Slow Down, This Ain’t Thunder Road.

If anything they might make me think a bit about the message, v. just tuning out on something like "Maintain a safe following distance":

Chaffing & Winnowing is interesting in this regard -- towards the end of the article the author adds:

I note that it is possible for a stream of packets to contain more than one subsequence of ``wheat'' packets, in addition to the chaff packets. Each wheat subsequence would be recognized separately using a different authentication key. One interesting consequence of this is that if law enforcement were to demand to see an authentication key so it could identify the wheat, the sender could yield up one such key that identifies a wheat subsequence containing an innocuous message as the wheat, and leaving everything else as ``chaff''. The real message would still be buried in the chaff. This is reminiscent of the technique of ``deniable encryption'' proposed by Canetti et al. (1997).

Does anybody know the legal reasoning that compels defendants to provide blood or DNA, but doesn't compel them to type a password into a device?

The "compelled to reveal password" situation does have the twist where you can claim "I don't know the password" -- I vaguely remember some cases over the years where people have been held in contempt (or the equivalent) until the revealed their password. What if they truly do not know it? Life in prison?

In any case, I found the comparison to "standing in a lineup" to be the poorest of the analogies.

Another alternative:"father begins laying the foundation for wrongful death suit defense" (for when Mr. McCarthy's estate sues).

Or the cover from Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy.

The obvious way to prevent terrorism within airports is to have the TSA set up a check point outside the airport and create the large queue there.

You might as well just redefine "within airports" to mean "the area within the TSA checkpoint radius" -- that way the whole Security Theater apparatus continues on, and you don't even have to set up any new checkpoints.

And you can always fall back to CBC Radio 3 for some music!

http://music.cbc.ca/#!/radio3

What makes it worse to me is that since they know how many flights are scheduled, they pretty much know exactly how many people will be passing through particular security gates (and at about what time, for that matter). Knowing that you think they could staff the checkpoints appropriately -- even without access to actual ticketing information, historical load factors should allow for very good guesses.

Maybe change it so the H-1B visas are awarded based on annual salary?

In other words, issue the visas for the jobs that will pay the most. My guess is a transparent market like that would quickly get rid of wage disparities (though how to combat the lobbying effort+money that supports the status quo is the next obvious question).

Rightly or wrongly, doctors and lawyers have well-established blocks that effectivly bar outside competition.

Not sure what the context of this thread is at this point, actually, but my point (if any) is that the "rule of law" has been superseded by a hard-to-pin-down power ceded to the President:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

But, to take your argument, what's to stop a President from somehow deciding that your mortgage fraud "substantially supported al-Qaeda"? Remember, there's no judicial review, no jury review, no recourse to habeas corpus, etc, just whatever the President wants to do, for as long as he wants to do it.

I'm really not paranoid, but to respond to that along the lines of "well, I trust that they'll never do that (to me?)" is to admit that the "government of laws, not men" is a thing of the past.