Anchor babies are an urban legend. Having a child who is a citizen doesn't give the parents any right to stay in the US.
You're talking about the difference between theory and practice. In theory, no having a baby that's a US Citizen doesn't entitle anyone to stay here. In practice, no one wants to deport such people because a US Citizen, be definition, can't be deported and the no borders crowd will accuse them of breaking up families.
Try opening up to the possibility, however unlikely, that someone, somewhere, makes an important life decision without it having anything to do with you personally.
6 months after the OS is declared done, all of the developers will have anchor babies in the US and their replacements will determine that the code base is a mass of unintelligible crap.
"A Brooklyn father and his 7-year-old son made a homemade spacecraft that traveled into orbit -- and they have video to prove it." Orbit, really? Cool! Somebody contact NASA/ESA/FKA and tell them that you can now orbit the Earth while only travel 30 miles!
Have you ever jumped? One could consider that a low altitude orbit. You can orbit the earth and only travel a few mm.
I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years.
I'm into retrogaming. I have a Mac Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997. It's most likely going to be my last Mac. Just because something's old, doesn't make it useless.
I don't remember the version number, but it was the last version before they fucked the game up by adding like 12 different places where you could put armor on your body.
But they DO seem to sell your information, as long as the data format can be construed as "anonymous"
If it's been anonymous data that's been aggregated with the data of a few thousand other users, it's not really "your" information anymore.
It's one thing if someone sells "Bill Jones, 29 years old, 412-555-1212, 123 March Ave, Beverly Hills CA, 90210. Wachovia bank Saving account balance $40,000USD. Previous years spending on electronics $4000." and so on but it's completely different than "60% of people in the 25 - 35 age range spent more than $500 on electronics in the previous year"
I disagree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers. They were providing material support for the Japanese war machine. I grew up in Pittsburgh. If the Axis could have done it, they would have bombed Pittsburgh back to the stone age. It would have been a perfectly valid target. Without the raw materials of war, the enemy can't proceed.
The Japanese still try to act like victims, with regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They conveniently forget that Japan was working on atomic weapons and how many more Japanese and American would have died in a land invasion.
If (and it's a big if, I don't believe them) these people are telling the truth about something interfering with nuclear weapons from a nearby aircraft, why think aliens? Why not $STATE_ENEMY_OF_CHOICE?
I'm talking about companies selling stuff to customers.
Makes no difference. Economics is still economics.
For example, if an item costs $100 to manufacture (include researching, etc) and they sell it for $1000 it is wrong, even if lots of people want it, if it costs $100 people should pay $100 and no more.
If no one could sell anything for more than the cost to manufacture it, what would be the incentive to make it in the first place?
Paying more than it costs is only giving money to the company owners, and IMO that is just wrong.
Well yes. That's what companies exist for. Companies exist to provide profit to their shareholders. If there were no profit, there would be no companies. Now, before you start harping on what a good thing that would be, let me remind you of a few things. EVERY pharmaceutical breakthrough since my grandparents were born has been expensive, too expensive for any single person to afford to pay for it. Companies that are large enough to pay for medical research or build new fuel efficient cars or tasty beverages are why we have all of those things.
I'm not talking about specific regimes, I'm talking about the communist theory.
We don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a world where all of these theories are put into practice by imperfect human beings.
Also, how many people were exterminated by capitalist regimes during wars that only beneficiated the small elite?
One could argue that Capitalism leads to hunger and poverty in the third world and that poverty leads to untold deaths, and that is an arguable position. However, Capitalists have engaged in far less of the "lining people up and machine gunning them into a mass grave" kind extermination that the Communists.
Well, IMO it should, anyone trying to sell anything above its real value is wrong, is damaging the whole society and should be illegal, but that is a matter of opinion really.
How do we determine value? An item's value is determined by what people are willing to pay to get it. I'm into retro-computing. Look on Ebay. On one hand, a 15 year old Sparc might be worth $10, but if there are enough people who want that specific configuration it would be worth $200.
OMG, hope you are kidding...
I'm not.
Guess that the cold war and all the USA propagana against communism made you think like this.
Well, that and the ~40 million people that were exterminated by Communist regimes during the 20th century.
No, selling low-end products should not be illegal, selling the same product that has the same cost to manufacture as high-end or low-end and charging different prices for it should. Yes yes, it was advertised on the box and etc, but we shoudnt pay more just because a company wants more money...
It's a douche-bag move to be certain. I'll never buy one of these crippled chips, but it shouldn't be illegal to do something douchey.
I'm a communist, do you have any problems with that?
Well, I do. Being a communist means that you're either stupid or evil. Either you haven't paid attention to the past 100 years of human history or you have and actually want to bring about the kind of things that communism encourages.
Your argument also breaks down when you realize that interstates originally had speed limits at or above 70mph - limits which were then lowered to 55 and have only relatively recently been creeping back up.
You can often tell how old people are by the arguments they choose. Anyone who claims interstate speed limits were about safety isn't old enough to remember that they used to be much higher and the reason for the artificial limit of 55 was to conserve fuel during the 1970s when the US was subject to embargo.
ou also are in no position to be opining about the nature of double negatives either, because you clearly haven't studied any linguistics, yet you refuse to defer to my "opinion" on the matter in that case either.
I'm not arguing a linguistic point. I'm arguing a logic point.
So, you agree then, that the "do" is superfluous, because it is not necessary.
It's unnecessary for that particular subject-verb arrangement.
God, I knew you'd pull this shit.
Yet you still argued the point that you knew I'd dispute?
No, they don't "clearly" need education. They speak a perfectly grammatical language, they just don't hold up to your arbitrary decisions on how language should be spoken.
The logical meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the speaker's intent.
This simple negation is followed by nearly all of the Romance languages, French being the notable exception, that decided for arbitrary reasons, that one should say "pas" after the verb of a simple negative.
I have only a working knowledge of French, I am in no position to opine about the structure of the language. In this case, I'll defer to your opinion.
However, English chose to use circumlocution in this case, and transform "I believe in this." to "I do believe in this." before applying negation, "I do not believe in this."
That's a relatively recent convention. It's still perfectly valid, though perhaps not popular, to say "I believe not in this." The 'Do' is not necessary.
While it is literally translated: "Nobody never nowhere nothing did not do" Full of negation, the proper English meaning is a simple single negation.
Bad example, for your position. That's 5 negatives. Logically, 5 negatives is the same as 1.
Chaucer (you know, that world-wide well known English author?) used double negatives to mean a simple negation.
I'm aware of Chaucer's existence, I have never read his work.
Pink Floyd uses it in: "We don't need no education." and no one has difficulty understanding that this a simple negation.
I guess you're missing the irony of that statement. "We don't need no education.", when clearly they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Anchor babies are an urban legend. Having a child who is a citizen doesn't give the parents any right to stay in the US.
You're talking about the difference between theory and practice. In theory, no having a baby that's a US Citizen doesn't entitle anyone to stay here. In practice, no one wants to deport such people because a US Citizen, be definition, can't be deported and the no borders crowd will accuse them of breaking up families.
Try opening up to the possibility, however unlikely, that someone, somewhere, makes an important life decision without it having anything to do with you personally.
Try arguing against words that I actually say.
LK
Touché
6 months after the OS is declared done, all of the developers will have anchor babies in the US and their replacements will determine that the code base is a mass of unintelligible crap.
LK
"A Brooklyn father and his 7-year-old son made a homemade spacecraft that traveled into orbit -- and they have video to prove it." Orbit, really? Cool! Somebody contact NASA/ESA/FKA and tell them that you can now orbit the Earth while only travel 30 miles!
Have you ever jumped? One could consider that a low altitude orbit. You can orbit the earth and only travel a few mm.
LK
I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years.
I'm into retrogaming. I have a Mac Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997. It's most likely going to be my last Mac. Just because something's old, doesn't make it useless.
LK
You can't patent unaltered trees.
But you can patent a new business model based on them.
LK
I don't remember the version number, but it was the last version before they fucked the game up by adding like 12 different places where you could put armor on your body.
LK
My bad. I meant "I CALL Shenanigans. "
I can shenanigans.
ATMS are on the same damned network. Any ATM that you go to will be able to get your money.
Look Here. Credit unions have even been banding together to offer fee-free networks that most banks can't compare to.
LK
But they DO seem to sell your information, as long as the data format can be construed as "anonymous"
If it's been anonymous data that's been aggregated with the data of a few thousand other users, it's not really "your" information anymore.
It's one thing if someone sells "Bill Jones, 29 years old, 412-555-1212, 123 March Ave, Beverly Hills CA, 90210. Wachovia bank Saving account balance $40,000USD. Previous years spending on electronics $4000." and so on but it's completely different than "60% of people in the 25 - 35 age range spent more than $500 on electronics in the previous year"
LK
I disagree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers. They were providing material support for the Japanese war machine. I grew up in Pittsburgh. If the Axis could have done it, they would have bombed Pittsburgh back to the stone age. It would have been a perfectly valid target. Without the raw materials of war, the enemy can't proceed.
LK
The Japanese still try to act like victims, with regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They conveniently forget that Japan was working on atomic weapons and how many more Japanese and American would have died in a land invasion.
LK
If (and it's a big if, I don't believe them) these people are telling the truth about something interfering with nuclear weapons from a nearby aircraft, why think aliens? Why not $STATE_ENEMY_OF_CHOICE?
Maybe because they're not in denial.
LK
I'm talking about companies selling stuff to customers.
Makes no difference. Economics is still economics.
For example, if an item costs $100 to manufacture (include researching, etc) and they sell it for $1000 it is wrong, even if lots of people want it, if it costs $100 people should pay $100 and no more.
If no one could sell anything for more than the cost to manufacture it, what would be the incentive to make it in the first place?
Paying more than it costs is only giving money to the company owners, and IMO that is just wrong.
Well yes. That's what companies exist for. Companies exist to provide profit to their shareholders. If there were no profit, there would be no companies. Now, before you start harping on what a good thing that would be, let me remind you of a few things. EVERY pharmaceutical breakthrough since my grandparents were born has been expensive, too expensive for any single person to afford to pay for it. Companies that are large enough to pay for medical research or build new fuel efficient cars or tasty beverages are why we have all of those things.
I'm not talking about specific regimes, I'm talking about the communist theory.
We don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a world where all of these theories are put into practice by imperfect human beings.
Also, how many people were exterminated by capitalist regimes during wars that only beneficiated the small elite?
One could argue that Capitalism leads to hunger and poverty in the third world and that poverty leads to untold deaths, and that is an arguable position. However, Capitalists have engaged in far less of the "lining people up and machine gunning them into a mass grave" kind extermination that the Communists.
LK
Terrorists study engineering because the best way to take things apart is to learn how they were put together.
LK
Well, IMO it should, anyone trying to sell anything above its real value is wrong, is damaging the whole society and should be illegal, but that is a matter of opinion really.
How do we determine value? An item's value is determined by what people are willing to pay to get it. I'm into retro-computing. Look on Ebay. On one hand, a 15 year old Sparc might be worth $10, but if there are enough people who want that specific configuration it would be worth $200.
OMG, hope you are kidding...
I'm not.
Guess that the cold war and all the USA propagana against communism made you think like this.
Well, that and the ~40 million people that were exterminated by Communist regimes during the 20th century.
LK
No, selling low-end products should not be illegal, selling the same product that has the same cost to manufacture as high-end or low-end and charging different prices for it should. Yes yes, it was advertised on the box and etc, but we shoudnt pay more just because a company wants more money...
It's a douche-bag move to be certain. I'll never buy one of these crippled chips, but it shouldn't be illegal to do something douchey.
I'm a communist, do you have any problems with that?
Well, I do. Being a communist means that you're either stupid or evil. Either you haven't paid attention to the past 100 years of human history or you have and actually want to bring about the kind of things that communism encourages.
LK
What you're telling us is that there's a source for stem cells that does not require the destruction of a human embryo?
This administration will not find that acceptable.
LK
There are alternatives.
Your argument also breaks down when you realize that interstates originally had speed limits at or above 70mph - limits which were then lowered to 55 and have only relatively recently been creeping back up.
You can often tell how old people are by the arguments they choose. Anyone who claims interstate speed limits were about safety isn't old enough to remember that they used to be much higher and the reason for the artificial limit of 55 was to conserve fuel during the 1970s when the US was subject to embargo.
LK
You don't think that they haven't given the same access to the US and Israeli governments, do you?
LK
You're just being an argumentative asshole!
The one being argumentative is you. BTW, I can call names too, you cunt.
LK
ou also are in no position to be opining about the nature of double negatives either, because you clearly haven't studied any linguistics, yet you refuse to defer to my "opinion" on the matter in that case either.
I'm not arguing a linguistic point. I'm arguing a logic point.
So, you agree then, that the "do" is superfluous, because it is not necessary.
It's unnecessary for that particular subject-verb arrangement.
God, I knew you'd pull this shit.
Yet you still argued the point that you knew I'd dispute?
No, they don't "clearly" need education. They speak a perfectly grammatical language, they just don't hold up to your arbitrary decisions on how language should be spoken.
The logical meaning of the words is the exact opposite of the speaker's intent.
LK
This simple negation is followed by nearly all of the Romance languages, French being the notable exception, that decided for arbitrary reasons, that one should say "pas" after the verb of a simple negative.
I have only a working knowledge of French, I am in no position to opine about the structure of the language. In this case, I'll defer to your opinion.
However, English chose to use circumlocution in this case, and transform "I believe in this." to "I do believe in this." before applying negation, "I do not believe in this."
That's a relatively recent convention. It's still perfectly valid, though perhaps not popular, to say "I believe not in this." The 'Do' is not necessary.
While it is literally translated: "Nobody never nowhere nothing did not do" Full of negation, the proper English meaning is a simple single negation.
Bad example, for your position. That's 5 negatives. Logically, 5 negatives is the same as 1.
Chaucer (you know, that world-wide well known English author?) used double negatives to mean a simple negation.
I'm aware of Chaucer's existence, I have never read his work.
Pink Floyd uses it in: "We don't need no education." and no one has difficulty understanding that this a simple negation.
I guess you're missing the irony of that statement. "We don't need no education.", when clearly they do.
LK
Yes, clearly, my joke went over your head.
LK