I don't see that a state funded school should be allowed by the taxpayers of that state to promote the hiring of foreign people over US citizens either...that's not what my tax dollars should be going for...
State funded colleges and universities have a different tuition amount for international students--where I went it was double that of resident tuition. In addition, international students don't qualify for most scholarships and financial aid. Colleges and universities lobby for less restrictive immigration laws for international students because they are a good source of revenue.
I am not sure about F-1, but H-1 workers pay both social security and medicare/medicaid taxes without any promise of benefiting from them eventually.
It is known that these disasters will happen. They are not a maybe or a could be like global warming, or what ever danger President Bush thinks he is fighting in Iraq. These disasters will happen, it is only a question of time. The question is how much time? We know that universe will keep expanding and eventually the sun will burn out. Should the federal gov't plan for that?
Don't you think a society can choose to be cooperative without the mandate of the law? Imagine there was no ADA and that the parent poster's opinion was in fact very popular then what would your course of action be? You can't get a law passed to mandate accessibility because being in a democracy, the popular opinion would hold. In a free society, you'd be able to start an organization (think Salvation Army, think Red Cross, think all the private charitable organizations) and start a movement to educate people and get donations from like minded people to help out people with disabilities. Imagine that your organization grows to become really large with significant amount of donations from people who are willing to help.
Which society is more cooperative? Where people are willing and free to help, or the one where they are forced to be generous by law?
The rules of good style (and taste) are often the same rules to make the site accessible. So you're saying businesses should be forced by law to use "rules of good style". How about laws forcing movie studios to have a good plot and an interesting storyline in their movies? Or should I sue Slashdot because most posters claim to be litertarians (see the/. poll on the best president for nerds), but don't understand the first thing about what that means?
If a German company chooses to not interview a Polish immigrant, they are losing potentially good talent. If a company chooses to not serve a segment of the market because of race they lose business. Discrimination based on race is a defeatist and self-destructive policy as it is, even without laws. I don't endorse any race based discrimination, only that the collective social mindset doesn't have to be necessarily expressed through laws for everything. Free market offers that channel.
a white people only restaurant is not financially feasible today. would you eat there? Human consciousness does rise with time, and laws that seemed necessary at some point, were merely a reflection of that consciousness. If there weren't a law to prohibit them, white-people-only restarant would still go out of business.
Do you think stores would build wheelchair ramps just to make a few extra dollars from the few people with wheelchairs who shop in their stores? No, they will not if it's not profitable. And they shouldn't have to. Consider this: If you were concerned that a particular store should build wheelchair ramps, you can choose to not shop there, and let them know the reason. If enough people are concerned about people with disabilities, and do the same, there would arise a profit motive to build that ramp. This form of consumer activism already happens in cases where buying things made in China, or through child labor are boycotted. You should be lauded for your altruistic and kind concerns towards people with disabilities, but it's impractical to regulate accessilibity with laws.
Businesses are forced by stockholders to show profit. Thats the 'force' you're talking about! Microsoft doesn't force PC manufacturers to bundle anything. It just happens so that the demand for a Windows PC is just enough to make it very attractive for a PC company to sign that deal with Microsoft. Companies work for money. Don't expect them to release welfare PCs bundled with Linux for the good of the society. The main point is that nobody is forcing you to buy a Windows PC. And no one is preventing you from setting up shop that sells PCs bundled with alternatives. Creating a regulation in the OS business to end Windows monopoly is silly. It's like the language monopoly. Majority of the American market speaks/reads/writes English, so books written in other languages don't have a 'fair chance.' So what do we do? Put a cap on publishers to sell not more than an arbitrary number of copies of a given book in a given language? Windows has flaws, the English language has flaws. I wish people start realizing that monopolies are not automatically bad.
We can treat languages as technologies because they are products of human mind. The extinctions of many world languages can be thought of as people migrating to a more compatible global standard in communications technology.
... up until the first half of the Modern Age, the copying was considered by EVERYONE, from writers to actors, from musicians to singers, from inventors to manufacturers, as an obvious right Up until the modern age, slavery was considered an obvious right. I agree that too much copyright regulation is bad, and understand your libertarin views. But our reason for going copyright-free should be based on substantive reasons, and not on the fact that it was always like that. Modern age has its own demands. Up until the beginning of 20th century, people didn't need passports and visas to travel because there was a natural filter to immigration. It was time consuming and expensive to travel. Similarly, copying work in previous times had a natural filter--imagine those scribes going at it like crazy. In the digital age, it's just too easy to copy.
From Amazon MP3 frequently asked questions:
"Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy."
That is so silly. It would have been really simple for them to let us download again whatever song we have purchased.
Crappy lesser channels devalue the whole package, and makes the package less marketable. Instead of a lawsuit or asking for more regulation, why not let market forces work for consumers. I would watch more TV if I could watch every show on demand. And it appears that there are a lot of people who would do the same. iTunes and YouTube are services exploiting that market. If networks don't like that then they'd be the eventual losers, with or without a lawsuit.
When I used to smoke, I thought it'd be easier to quit if I did not have a pack full of 20 cigarettes everytime I had a craving. I wanted the option of buying one cigarette at a time. There are tons of other products and services which are only available packaged with something, and it's fair to let the producers decide on their own how much marketable those packages are.
Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. Why would the crowd need to rise? I am sure you'd agree that he has rights by law, regardless of whether the crowd endorses or not
Having faith in something frees you from doubt and worry in regards to that thing. And ultimately if you seek to lead an enlightened life, you need to rid yourself of such worries and doubts once free of all worries and doubts, you'd find yourself also free of any motivation to figure out as yet unexplained natural phenomena. Most notable philosophers and scientists have led stressed out lives full of worries about uncertainties, and therefore were motivated to resolve these uncertainties. An skeptic is sometimes driven to frustration and worries. A skeptic is not happy, but is driven to gain more knowledge. A believer, on the other hand, is complacent, and happy without needing to know any more.
Maybe it's a dumb question. How does a radio (wireless) device interfere with cable (non-wireless) channels. The white space is unused spectrum in the air, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see that a state funded school should be allowed by the taxpayers of that state to promote the hiring of foreign people over US citizens either...that's not what my tax dollars should be going for...
State funded colleges and universities have a different tuition amount for international students--where I went it was double that of resident tuition. In addition, international students don't qualify for most scholarships and financial aid. Colleges and universities lobby for less restrictive immigration laws for international students because they are a good source of revenue. I am not sure about F-1, but H-1 workers pay both social security and medicare/medicaid taxes without any promise of benefiting from them eventually.
Don't you think a society can choose to be cooperative without the mandate of the law? Imagine there was no ADA and that the parent poster's opinion was in fact very popular then what would your course of action be? You can't get a law passed to mandate accessibility because being in a democracy, the popular opinion would hold. In a free society, you'd be able to start an organization (think Salvation Army, think Red Cross, think all the private charitable organizations) and start a movement to educate people and get donations from like minded people to help out people with disabilities. Imagine that your organization grows to become really large with significant amount of donations from people who are willing to help. Which society is more cooperative? Where people are willing and free to help, or the one where they are forced to be generous by law?
If a German company chooses to not interview a Polish immigrant, they are losing potentially good talent. If a company chooses to not serve a segment of the market because of race they lose business. Discrimination based on race is a defeatist and self-destructive policy as it is, even without laws. I don't endorse any race based discrimination, only that the collective social mindset doesn't have to be necessarily expressed through laws for everything. Free market offers that channel.
a white people only restaurant is not financially feasible today. would you eat there? Human consciousness does rise with time, and laws that seemed necessary at some point, were merely a reflection of that consciousness. If there weren't a law to prohibit them, white-people-only restarant would still go out of business.
Businesses are forced by stockholders to show profit. Thats the 'force' you're talking about! Microsoft doesn't force PC manufacturers to bundle anything. It just happens so that the demand for a Windows PC is just enough to make it very attractive for a PC company to sign that deal with Microsoft. Companies work for money. Don't expect them to release welfare PCs bundled with Linux for the good of the society. The main point is that nobody is forcing you to buy a Windows PC. And no one is preventing you from setting up shop that sells PCs bundled with alternatives. Creating a regulation in the OS business to end Windows monopoly is silly. It's like the language monopoly. Majority of the American market speaks/reads/writes English, so books written in other languages don't have a 'fair chance.' So what do we do? Put a cap on publishers to sell not more than an arbitrary number of copies of a given book in a given language? Windows has flaws, the English language has flaws. I wish people start realizing that monopolies are not automatically bad.
We can treat languages as technologies because they are products of human mind. The extinctions of many world languages can be thought of as people migrating to a more compatible global standard in communications technology.
... up until the first half of the Modern Age, the copying was considered by EVERYONE, from writers to actors, from musicians to singers, from inventors to manufacturers, as an obvious right Up until the modern age, slavery was considered an obvious right. I agree that too much copyright regulation is bad, and understand your libertarin views. But our reason for going copyright-free should be based on substantive reasons, and not on the fact that it was always like that. Modern age has its own demands. Up until the beginning of 20th century, people didn't need passports and visas to travel because there was a natural filter to immigration. It was time consuming and expensive to travel. Similarly, copying work in previous times had a natural filter--imagine those scribes going at it like crazy. In the digital age, it's just too easy to copy.From Amazon MP3 frequently asked questions: "Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy." That is so silly. It would have been really simple for them to let us download again whatever song we have purchased.
Crappy lesser channels devalue the whole package, and makes the package less marketable. Instead of a lawsuit or asking for more regulation, why not let market forces work for consumers. I would watch more TV if I could watch every show on demand. And it appears that there are a lot of people who would do the same. iTunes and YouTube are services exploiting that market. If networks don't like that then they'd be the eventual losers, with or without a lawsuit.
When I used to smoke, I thought it'd be easier to quit if I did not have a pack full of 20 cigarettes everytime I had a craving. I wanted the option of buying one cigarette at a time. There are tons of other products and services which are only available packaged with something, and it's fair to let the producers decide on their own how much marketable those packages are.
Maybe it's a dumb question. How does a radio (wireless) device interfere with cable (non-wireless) channels. The white space is unused spectrum in the air, isn't it?
"top secret data ...subject to full disclosure"
it's not about money, it's about technology.. it'd take free satellite/cable any day..
I did a search on the indicated terms.. for the following searches google's ad was NOT the top ad:
intranet
blog
photo sharing
restaurants
dining
books (amazon's ad comes before google)