I heartily agree. At least the M$ft and Sony services will offer a decent number of free demos.
On the graphics issue, the problem is not that X360 games and PS3 games don't look better, it is the price for that not looking better. A last gen console costs about 100$. It costs an extra 150$ to get a Wii instead, compared with 300$ more, or even 500$ more for the others. It would be nice to see a cut price PS3 with the full feature set, but a max res of 720p or 480p. That low end version, I might have bought, at least if it was down around the 400$ price range. For what a decent 1080p set would cost me, I can buy a PC that will let me game in 2560x1600, and from two feet away, that LCD will look like a 100"+ screen at couch distances. Ever try getting a 1080p projector?
2). CP80 is about organization and choice. It empowers individuals. The current state of the Internet is the opposite. It makes choices for me--that's censorship.
No, CP80 is a statement that PORNOGRAPHY is sufficiently worse than all other forms of potentially objectionable content that PORNOGRAPHY, and only PORNOGRAPHY, must be segregated at the protocol level.
What's more, you already have the choice. When you go into a bookstore, or a gas station, chances are that they sell porn. But you aren't complaining about that, or demanding that all books with adult content be sold only in adult bookstores. Should the internet be less free than the real world? There is a lot of content on the Internet that is not healthy for or intended for a child. Sites that discuss drug use, murder, theft, etc.
The CP80 foundation is working on pornography, because extreme forms are harmful.
Are you implying that the others aren't harmful? I'm confused. My point was that this is not about choice, this is about attacking pornography. There is nothing in the architecture that they are proposing that makes it porn-centric, if it were a viable solution, it should be used to solve a multitude of problems at once. That would be up to the employer, who could just as easily allow access to the Open community. But it is his business. It is his decision to make.
Once again, this is not my point. My point is that somebody has to determine what goes where, and that somebody may well be untrustworthy, or so overly zealous that they render the system meaningless. As with COPA beforehand, if too much legitimate content gets shunted into the "porn" section, people won't be able to use the filter and it's meaningless. Adult-content/oriented games belong on the Open Community. Not a community where kids could stumble into it.
Right, but the whole concept of using ports to deliver this data makes it very difficult to have more than one type of traffic in the open community. I have an alternative proposal: how about, since the point of the internet is the free and open exchange of information, we have a "clean" port 80, and everything else can be open. Then those people who want to filter out all potentially objectionable content can be the ones who have to deal with the hassle of figuring out how to run IP with only one port. Laws, individual choice and enhanced Internet governance.
Yep. Right now, YOU have the choice to keep an eye on your kids, instill some respect for your rules on them, and be a decent parent. This is difficult, frustrating, and requires work. What you want is for the government to take on all the work, and all the responsibility. You already have the freedom, what you want is to trade away the parts of that freedom that you don't want, but you want to trade them away for everyone else. I call that tyranny. The CP80 solution uses Laws for countries that have the ability to adopt them and enforce them. It would also allow individuals--INDIVIDUALS--to choose to block IP adress ranges for countries that cannot enforce a standard or whose standard they don't agree with, and finally, it would use enhanced Internet Governance regulations to crack down on those who abuse the Internet.
The solution is global.
You can choose to block those address ranges now. Are your children not worth that time and effort?
As for internet governance, I agree, give me more of that. I am all in favor of internet governance, and decency regulation, and censorship. That's why I moved to China. Oh, wait, I didn't. As a matter of fact, I live in the land of the free. Why do so many people keep trying to get rid of those freedoms? What does that even mean, "ethical pornographers." If that makes people feel good about peddling smut, sure it's "ethical". But don't fool yourse, ethical != moral.
Ahh, here we come to the heart of your problem. You just hate porn. You hate the people who make it, and the people who distribute it, and the people who enjoy it. It's ok to hate. The problem comes when you try to force the rest of us to adapt the world to fit your hate.
"Read the solution. You aren't moving your site to a port, you only have to use the adult range of ports for "adult content". You could still have a sanitized port 80 site. And individual could choose to access both the "clean" ports and "adult" ports if he wanted to, or choose to block the "adult" ports.
Its about choice. "
I want the choice to censor violence in the internet. Oh, and dishonesty. Any website that presents speculation or opinion as fact should send that data on a separate port, so I can firewall it off easily. I don't my children exposed to lies and brutality on the internet. I also want all advertising to be transmitted on a separate port, to protect my children. Oh, and religious stuff. I don't want any websites forcing their religious views on me, thats harmful and should be filtered out. Particularly that horrid stuff about evolution.
Now all we need to do is require sites like Slashdot to make sure that comments are properly sorted, so that they get sent on the appropriate ports. Then, when I get mod points, I can mod people adult, and nobody reading from work will have to see them.
Skipping over the obvious implementation problems, like how much harder it will be when my network game with adult content, pornographic web-browsing, and clearing the porn-spam from my email all can all only be done on port, despite using very different protocols, how will this stop the people who will think it's hilarious to IM, email, or simply post pornographic content, just so you'll be surprised when the firewall doesn't catch it? If you don't think it will happen, go through the slashdot archives for links that point to goatse.
And if all of that doesn't bother you, than please refer to the various posts on here pointing out that the US doesn't rule the internet, so foreign sites wouldn't oblige, and port 80 still wouldn't be very clean.
PS: While there are doubtless many unethical pornographers, there at least as many ethical ones. If you think you can say anything half so nice about politicians, you're either ignorant, stupid, or using judging them according to scales so different that double standard seems scarcely adequate.
Well, there is the obvious problem of what constitutes 'adult' material. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned about porn as I would about graphic violence, advertising, and religious zealotry. That moves the majority of the internet into the adult section, and when you allow a few other people to name what they think of as offensive, the whole thing just gets moved, and it isn't a fix at all.
Let's say we split it up more, with a whole range of ports, one for sexually explicit, one for graphically violent, one for politically contentions, one for religious proseletyzing, etc. Now where does the heartfelt story of a how a a young girl was beaten by her adoptive parents, raped by a group of thugs, then taken in by the church fall? What about a sexual reply to an otherwise clean blog? Who decides? How do they enforce it, and how much time is spent just pigeonholing internet content for easy filtration?
I know, we can use automated software, and filter automatically. The offensive words and images will arrive in separate packets, on separate ports, from the rest of the content. That should be easy and simple to implement.
What if you p2p less than one album a year of new to you content. Mostly what I use p2p for is to format shift without having to find and rip my own CDs, or get book that I own in hardback in html, which is much easier to read while doing things on the computer. As for television, I follow all of three shows, and since the BBC has flatly and impolitely refused to make Top Gear available to the US market, and I buy the others on DVD once the opportunity arises, I don't think anyone is getting the shaft there either. As for games, well, when no demo is available, piracy is the only method I have of determining whether the game is stable, of adequate reliability, and contains the features advertised. After all, it's not like I can return a purchased game and get my money back, even if the multiplayer doesn't work at all.* I buy any game I play much, and there are quite a few I would never have expected to buy, as well as a few that are more than worth it.
* A friend just bought Battlestations: Midway, and we cracked it and tried to get an MP game going. No luck. So he tried to play on the internet. No luck. Apparently, it's a known issue, and they claim that a patch will be coming in a few months. Fortunately, he's content with the single player.
DRM is flawed because the content that is DRMed must be displayed, in full quality, in a non encrypted state, at some point in the chain, since that is the whole point of content.
First of all, I make a distinction between civil and criminal matters. Copyright is a civil matter, so I consider it to be one where the need to prevent violations carries a lot less weight, because there is a lot less widespread agreement as to exactly what those rights even entail.
All that is, however, in a sense secondary to my point, which is that allowing DRM that (more or less by definition allows some uses and restricts others) removes the prospect of debate as to whether those uses should be allowed. In a courtroom setting, one can claim the fair use defense, whereas DRM simply allows a use, or not. (This works both ways, if the DRM allows a newly discovered use, the company making it is SOL, whereas in a courtroom, they could make a reasonable case that that use should not be considered fair) Contrast that with, say, breaking and entering, or assault, where the rights of the parties are, in theory, much more clearly defined in law.
As for collections agencies, I'm of two minds about their acceptability. After all, they basically just buy debts, and make phone calls trying to collect. I am, however, opposed in principle to the way credit ratings currently work, because, again, there is little room for independently arbitrated disputation.
As to thinking that **AA is right, for going around suing people, I would say that should be, under the current (broadly accepted) concept of copyright, their only option. I think, however, that there are more problems with that conception of copyright than just DRM. But if the choice is between lawsuits and DRM, well, in a courtroom I can say "you have no proof that I copied it, even if I did copy it, you have no evidence that it wasn't fair use, and furthermore, your lawyers threatened me in an attempt to extort money from me." Against DRM, all I can say is "@#$@#$@# POS won't let me rip this movie to my laptop to watch with my wife on the plane. I bought the #@$@# thing, why can't I take it with me?" and if the swearing doesn't work, I have to circumvent the DRM.
What if the company goes under? What about when a use determined to be fair is found to be blocked by their DRM? Why not just require the library of congress to give the keys to whoever asks, whenever they ask, and if anybody abuses it, then sue them for violation of copyright, just like you would if a publisher was publishing without permission? Better yet, why not abandon the DRM, and just use the court system for all copyright violations, not just the ones that don't involve technology?
The problem with full legitimate usage is that it's so difficult to define. If the DRM scheme allows every usage that you, today, think is legitimate than there are thousands of people who might desire greater rights than you, but are feeling enforced, and dozens of content owners who would complain that you have far too many rights. Not to mention that, sometime in the future, there might be a right that nobody considered when the DRM was created, that the DRM might disagree with everyone else about the legitimacy of. If you accept DRM, you accept a freezing of the concept of legitimate use, and you sacrifice some of your right to have that concept decided in the courts.
Yes.
I bout my copy of *media* and I shouldn't be beholden to to any technological system, no matter how perfect, in that pursuit. It's a simple question, really: do we allow others to enforce their rights using methods above and beyond those provided by the system/society that everyone not in a state of rebellion accepts? DRM is a tool used by copyright holders to enforce their copyright. If we accept that as appropriate, then we imply that all sorts of other rights, that normally need to be enforced in a civil court, should be enforceable directly by the rights holders. If we need DRM, than copyrights have failed.
Given that the odds are fairly high that IP here makes between 10k and 100k USD/year, and given that Paris Hilton makes between 30 and 300 times more than that for the simple life alone, IP is obviously worth, in his own eyes, between 1/30 and 1/300 as much as Paris. Personally, I suspect he's worth more than that.
It could easily be argued that, since not committing any crimes is totally within your power to control, that parking ticket that the cop gave you because you didn't have any lunch money when he tried to beat you up for it is obviously entirely your fault, and your refusal to pay it, since you had no car, was also your fault, and you totally deserve the crappy credit that resulted. Not committing any crimes can be hard enough for rich white kids who like their cocaine at frat parties, when you're surrounded by corrupt cops, or just gangs waiting for a chance to beat you to death with two feet of plumbing, it can be damn near impossible to be alive and healthy at 18 with a clean record. Just saying.
What's more, Vista's DRM contains "tilt" checks, that can cause degradation of perfectly legitimate media, in response to power fluctuations or similarly minimal things.
Such companies cannot be strictly 'independent' since a corporation is, by definition, a legal entity, it must be created under the laws of some governing body. As for having an Indian subsidiary, which is incorporated in India, if it's predominantly owned out of America, it is still an American company, at least in perception.
It could certainly be argued that companies that wish to be perceived as American, should use American workers. Ultimately, I suspect, the whole question of what it means to buy American (or Japanese, or anything else) is going to be moot, because it will mean progressively less.
For example: Which is more American, a Honda Civic (made in Ohio, out of parts made in Japan and Ohio, but by a company whose ownership and infrastructure is Japanese) or a Ford Focus (made in Mexico, out of parts made mostly in Mexico, but by a company whose ownership and infrastructure is American)?
Basically, what it usually comes down to is that Americans are in favor of being employed, and thus opposed to companies that choose to employ foreigners over Americans, particularly when the good or service being produced is intended for American consumption. This is not xenophobia, it is basic self interest. Imagine your employer decides that your job could be done more cheaply by a homeless guy, if they spent a little bit of money training him. This will go over well with the homeless guy, because he has a decent job and some skills, and well with your company, which will save money, but it will piss you off, because you will be out of a job. (I realize that this example is very simplistic, but it makes the point).
Do Americans have some intrinsic right to have more or better jobs than Indians? Of course not. But does that mean that Americans will, or should, be happy when jobs that they would expect to go to Americans go to Indians in stead? Of course not.
It tends to be because American businesses would rather pay foreigners less, but continue to be "American" businesses. Consider Dell, namely, Dell Support. If they employ primarily Indians, but are incorporated in America, with the majority of their customers in America, than money is (slowly) flowing from American customers to Indian employees. (Granted, Dell's Indian employees are, by and large, paid crap, and most of the money goes to Dell's stockholders, but some still leaves, and unless there are Indian companies doing the same thing, more leaves than comes back). What's more, since most Americans want to have a job, and maybe even earn enough money to live on, own a house, have a couple kids, take a vacation once in a while, and save for retirement, they want companies to hire them for skilled, decent-paying jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
I heartily agree. At least the M$ft and Sony services will offer a decent number of free demos.
On the graphics issue, the problem is not that X360 games and PS3 games don't look better, it is the price for that not looking better. A last gen console costs about 100$. It costs an extra 150$ to get a Wii instead, compared with 300$ more, or even 500$ more for the others. It would be nice to see a cut price PS3 with the full feature set, but a max res of 720p or 480p. That low end version, I might have bought, at least if it was down around the 400$ price range. For what a decent 1080p set would cost me, I can buy a PC that will let me game in 2560x1600, and from two feet away, that LCD will look like a 100"+ screen at couch distances. Ever try getting a 1080p projector?
2). CP80 is about organization and choice. It empowers individuals. The current state of the Internet is the opposite. It makes choices for me--that's censorship.
No, CP80 is a statement that PORNOGRAPHY is sufficiently worse than all other forms of potentially objectionable content that PORNOGRAPHY, and only PORNOGRAPHY, must be segregated at the protocol level.
What's more, you already have the choice. When you go into a bookstore, or a gas station, chances are that they sell porn. But you aren't complaining about that, or demanding that all books with adult content be sold only in adult bookstores. Should the internet be less free than the real world?
There is a lot of content on the Internet that is not healthy for or intended for a child. Sites that discuss drug use, murder, theft, etc. The CP80 foundation is working on pornography, because extreme forms are harmful.
Are you implying that the others aren't harmful? I'm confused. My point was that this is not about choice, this is about attacking pornography. There is nothing in the architecture that they are proposing that makes it porn-centric, if it were a viable solution, it should be used to solve a multitude of problems at once.
That would be up to the employer, who could just as easily allow access to the Open community. But it is his business. It is his decision to make.
Once again, this is not my point. My point is that somebody has to determine what goes where, and that somebody may well be untrustworthy, or so overly zealous that they render the system meaningless. As with COPA beforehand, if too much legitimate content gets shunted into the "porn" section, people won't be able to use the filter and it's meaningless.
Adult-content/oriented games belong on the Open Community. Not a community where kids could stumble into it.
Right, but the whole concept of using ports to deliver this data makes it very difficult to have more than one type of traffic in the open community. I have an alternative proposal: how about, since the point of the internet is the free and open exchange of information, we have a "clean" port 80, and everything else can be open. Then those people who want to filter out all potentially objectionable content can be the ones who have to deal with the hassle of figuring out how to run IP with only one port.
Laws, individual choice and enhanced Internet governance.
Yep. Right now, YOU have the choice to keep an eye on your kids, instill some respect for your rules on them, and be a decent parent. This is difficult, frustrating, and requires work. What you want is for the government to take on all the work, and all the responsibility. You already have the freedom, what you want is to trade away the parts of that freedom that you don't want, but you want to trade them away for everyone else. I call that tyranny.
The CP80 solution uses Laws for countries that have the ability to adopt them and enforce them. It would also allow individuals--INDIVIDUALS--to choose to block IP adress ranges for countries that cannot enforce a standard or whose standard they don't agree with, and finally, it would use enhanced Internet Governance regulations to crack down on those who abuse the Internet. The solution is global.
You can choose to block those address ranges now. Are your children not worth that time and effort?
As for internet governance, I agree, give me more of that. I am all in favor of internet governance, and decency regulation, and censorship. That's why I moved to China. Oh, wait, I didn't. As a matter of fact, I live in the land of the free. Why do so many people keep trying to get rid of those freedoms?
What does that even mean, "ethical pornographers." If that makes people feel good about peddling smut, sure it's "ethical". But don't fool yourse, ethical != moral. Ahh, here we come to the heart of your problem. You just hate porn. You hate the people who make it, and the people who distribute it, and the people who enjoy it. It's ok to hate. The problem comes when you try to force the rest of us to adapt the world to fit your hate.
"Read the solution. You aren't moving your site to a port, you only have to use the adult range of ports for "adult content". You could still have a sanitized port 80 site. And individual could choose to access both the "clean" ports and "adult" ports if he wanted to, or choose to block the "adult" ports.
Its about choice. "
I want the choice to censor violence in the internet. Oh, and dishonesty. Any website that presents speculation or opinion as fact should send that data on a separate port, so I can firewall it off easily. I don't my children exposed to lies and brutality on the internet. I also want all advertising to be transmitted on a separate port, to protect my children. Oh, and religious stuff. I don't want any websites forcing their religious views on me, thats harmful and should be filtered out. Particularly that horrid stuff about evolution.
Now all we need to do is require sites like Slashdot to make sure that comments are properly sorted, so that they get sent on the appropriate ports. Then, when I get mod points, I can mod people adult, and nobody reading from work will have to see them.
Skipping over the obvious implementation problems, like how much harder it will be when my network game with adult content, pornographic web-browsing, and clearing the porn-spam from my email all can all only be done on port, despite using very different protocols, how will this stop the people who will think it's hilarious to IM, email, or simply post pornographic content, just so you'll be surprised when the firewall doesn't catch it? If you don't think it will happen, go through the slashdot archives for links that point to goatse.
And if all of that doesn't bother you, than please refer to the various posts on here pointing out that the US doesn't rule the internet, so foreign sites wouldn't oblige, and port 80 still wouldn't be very clean.
PS: While there are doubtless many unethical pornographers, there at least as many ethical ones. If you think you can say anything half so nice about politicians, you're either ignorant, stupid, or using judging them according to scales so different that double standard seems scarcely adequate.
Well, there is the obvious problem of what constitutes 'adult' material. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned about porn as I would about graphic violence, advertising, and religious zealotry. That moves the majority of the internet into the adult section, and when you allow a few other people to name what they think of as offensive, the whole thing just gets moved, and it isn't a fix at all. Let's say we split it up more, with a whole range of ports, one for sexually explicit, one for graphically violent, one for politically contentions, one for religious proseletyzing, etc. Now where does the heartfelt story of a how a a young girl was beaten by her adoptive parents, raped by a group of thugs, then taken in by the church fall? What about a sexual reply to an otherwise clean blog? Who decides? How do they enforce it, and how much time is spent just pigeonholing internet content for easy filtration? I know, we can use automated software, and filter automatically. The offensive words and images will arrive in separate packets, on separate ports, from the rest of the content. That should be easy and simple to implement.
What if you p2p less than one album a year of new to you content. Mostly what I use p2p for is to format shift without having to find and rip my own CDs, or get book that I own in hardback in html, which is much easier to read while doing things on the computer. As for television, I follow all of three shows, and since the BBC has flatly and impolitely refused to make Top Gear available to the US market, and I buy the others on DVD once the opportunity arises, I don't think anyone is getting the shaft there either. As for games, well, when no demo is available, piracy is the only method I have of determining whether the game is stable, of adequate reliability, and contains the features advertised. After all, it's not like I can return a purchased game and get my money back, even if the multiplayer doesn't work at all.* I buy any game I play much, and there are quite a few I would never have expected to buy, as well as a few that are more than worth it. * A friend just bought Battlestations: Midway, and we cracked it and tried to get an MP game going. No luck. So he tried to play on the internet. No luck. Apparently, it's a known issue, and they claim that a patch will be coming in a few months. Fortunately, he's content with the single player.
DRM is flawed because the content that is DRMed must be displayed, in full quality, in a non encrypted state, at some point in the chain, since that is the whole point of content.
First of all, I make a distinction between civil and criminal matters. Copyright is a civil matter, so I consider it to be one where the need to prevent violations carries a lot less weight, because there is a lot less widespread agreement as to exactly what those rights even entail. All that is, however, in a sense secondary to my point, which is that allowing DRM that (more or less by definition allows some uses and restricts others) removes the prospect of debate as to whether those uses should be allowed. In a courtroom setting, one can claim the fair use defense, whereas DRM simply allows a use, or not. (This works both ways, if the DRM allows a newly discovered use, the company making it is SOL, whereas in a courtroom, they could make a reasonable case that that use should not be considered fair) Contrast that with, say, breaking and entering, or assault, where the rights of the parties are, in theory, much more clearly defined in law. As for collections agencies, I'm of two minds about their acceptability. After all, they basically just buy debts, and make phone calls trying to collect. I am, however, opposed in principle to the way credit ratings currently work, because, again, there is little room for independently arbitrated disputation. As to thinking that **AA is right, for going around suing people, I would say that should be, under the current (broadly accepted) concept of copyright, their only option. I think, however, that there are more problems with that conception of copyright than just DRM. But if the choice is between lawsuits and DRM, well, in a courtroom I can say "you have no proof that I copied it, even if I did copy it, you have no evidence that it wasn't fair use, and furthermore, your lawyers threatened me in an attempt to extort money from me." Against DRM, all I can say is "@#$@#$@# POS won't let me rip this movie to my laptop to watch with my wife on the plane. I bought the #@$@# thing, why can't I take it with me?" and if the swearing doesn't work, I have to circumvent the DRM.
What if the company goes under? What about when a use determined to be fair is found to be blocked by their DRM? Why not just require the library of congress to give the keys to whoever asks, whenever they ask, and if anybody abuses it, then sue them for violation of copyright, just like you would if a publisher was publishing without permission? Better yet, why not abandon the DRM, and just use the court system for all copyright violations, not just the ones that don't involve technology?
The problem with full legitimate usage is that it's so difficult to define. If the DRM scheme allows every usage that you, today, think is legitimate than there are thousands of people who might desire greater rights than you, but are feeling enforced, and dozens of content owners who would complain that you have far too many rights. Not to mention that, sometime in the future, there might be a right that nobody considered when the DRM was created, that the DRM might disagree with everyone else about the legitimacy of. If you accept DRM, you accept a freezing of the concept of legitimate use, and you sacrifice some of your right to have that concept decided in the courts.
Yes. I bout my copy of *media* and I shouldn't be beholden to to any technological system, no matter how perfect, in that pursuit. It's a simple question, really: do we allow others to enforce their rights using methods above and beyond those provided by the system/society that everyone not in a state of rebellion accepts? DRM is a tool used by copyright holders to enforce their copyright. If we accept that as appropriate, then we imply that all sorts of other rights, that normally need to be enforced in a civil court, should be enforceable directly by the rights holders. If we need DRM, than copyrights have failed.
Given that the odds are fairly high that IP here makes between 10k and 100k USD/year, and given that Paris Hilton makes between 30 and 300 times more than that for the simple life alone, IP is obviously worth, in his own eyes, between 1/30 and 1/300 as much as Paris. Personally, I suspect he's worth more than that.
It could easily be argued that, since not committing any crimes is totally within your power to control, that parking ticket that the cop gave you because you didn't have any lunch money when he tried to beat you up for it is obviously entirely your fault, and your refusal to pay it, since you had no car, was also your fault, and you totally deserve the crappy credit that resulted. Not committing any crimes can be hard enough for rich white kids who like their cocaine at frat parties, when you're surrounded by corrupt cops, or just gangs waiting for a chance to beat you to death with two feet of plumbing, it can be damn near impossible to be alive and healthy at 18 with a clean record. Just saying.
What's more, Vista's DRM contains "tilt" checks, that can cause degradation of perfectly legitimate media, in response to power fluctuations or similarly minimal things.
Such companies cannot be strictly 'independent' since a corporation is, by definition, a legal entity, it must be created under the laws of some governing body. As for having an Indian subsidiary, which is incorporated in India, if it's predominantly owned out of America, it is still an American company, at least in perception. It could certainly be argued that companies that wish to be perceived as American, should use American workers. Ultimately, I suspect, the whole question of what it means to buy American (or Japanese, or anything else) is going to be moot, because it will mean progressively less. For example: Which is more American, a Honda Civic (made in Ohio, out of parts made in Japan and Ohio, but by a company whose ownership and infrastructure is Japanese) or a Ford Focus (made in Mexico, out of parts made mostly in Mexico, but by a company whose ownership and infrastructure is American)? Basically, what it usually comes down to is that Americans are in favor of being employed, and thus opposed to companies that choose to employ foreigners over Americans, particularly when the good or service being produced is intended for American consumption. This is not xenophobia, it is basic self interest. Imagine your employer decides that your job could be done more cheaply by a homeless guy, if they spent a little bit of money training him. This will go over well with the homeless guy, because he has a decent job and some skills, and well with your company, which will save money, but it will piss you off, because you will be out of a job. (I realize that this example is very simplistic, but it makes the point). Do Americans have some intrinsic right to have more or better jobs than Indians? Of course not. But does that mean that Americans will, or should, be happy when jobs that they would expect to go to Americans go to Indians in stead? Of course not.
It tends to be because American businesses would rather pay foreigners less, but continue to be "American" businesses. Consider Dell, namely, Dell Support. If they employ primarily Indians, but are incorporated in America, with the majority of their customers in America, than money is (slowly) flowing from American customers to Indian employees. (Granted, Dell's Indian employees are, by and large, paid crap, and most of the money goes to Dell's stockholders, but some still leaves, and unless there are Indian companies doing the same thing, more leaves than comes back). What's more, since most Americans want to have a job, and maybe even earn enough money to live on, own a house, have a couple kids, take a vacation once in a while, and save for retirement, they want companies to hire them for skilled, decent-paying jobs.