As far as I can tell, the developer calling it quits is just about KDE, not open source desktops in general. I never really warmed up to KDE, both because it was mainly written in C++ and because it seemed unnecessary complex from a user's point of view.
Illegal immigrants typically make poverty-level incomes and wouldn't be paying income taxes if they were native citizens. They do, however, pay sales tax, property tax (as a portion of their rent), fuel taxes, etc. It's not a free ride.
That doesn't change the fact that they haven't paid a dime at the time they cross the border, yet they immediately receive the benefits of the infrastructure and environment paid for by US tax payers. And since, as you point out, they tend to pay below average taxes, they are ultimately supported for a couple of generations by the US middle class.
I'm sorry, but the characterization as "a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have" just isn't right. Just because I may choose to invite you over to my home to watch a PBS educational program on my large screen TV doesn't mean you have a right to break in and squat in my house to do the same. And just because I invite you over doesn't mean that I have room for you and a dozen of your closest friends.
This law means that eveyone has to carry their papers,
Let's say you look a little like #1 on the FBI's ten most wanted list. Police stop you and ask you to identify yourself. If you can credibly identify yourself, you can go on your merry way. If you can't, they'll detain you until they figure out who you really are. If they have reason to believe you might be dangerous (a good bet if you look like #1 on the ten most wanted list), yes, they can strip search and anally probe you while they hold you. If it later turns out you're an innocent citizen, you can go. If you're not a citizen, however, you've broken the law by not carrying identification even if you're otherwise innocent.
It's worked that way since long before the Arizona law. That's why it's always been a good idea to carry identification even though there is no legal requirement.
I've literally never, in my entire life, heard any self-described "liberal" say this. Never. You're setting up a false dichotomy so you can make it look the problem is being caused by both sides.
Well, whether you have heard it "literally", the fact is that the current non-enforcement of immigration laws amounts to that policy.
My problem is with any law that allows me to be taken into custody for not proving my identity on demand while I'm on US soil.
If police have reasonable suspicion that you violated the law, they need to determine your identity. If you can't provide satisfactory ID, they can detain you. That's already the law and has nothing to do with immigration. Policing couldn't function otherwise.
In Arizona I am presumed guilty of violating the law. Forgive me if I'm not amused.
Arizona law doesn't do that. Stop inventing straw men.
Dismissing concerns about "those poor little brown people" is a giant "screw you" to everyone who's ever emigrated to America.
And tolerating illegal immigration is also a giant "screw you" to everyone who has ever immigrated to the US and actually gone through the lengthy and complicated process that entails.
So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have.
Trouble is: they didn't pay for creating that infrastructure, and neither did their parents. When the US allows immigrants to come, we decide how much of our property we share, and that's a deal usually based on costs and benefits. When people enter the country illegally, they effectively just take what they want.
And that conflict is getting worse, as the US government is providing more and more services to residents and the US is turning more into a European-style welfare state, making it increasingly attractive for economically disadvantaged to come here.
It's just that I stopped feeling the need to tell other people how to live
Unfortunately, "telling people how to live" is a common fault of both parties, so Democrats are no alternative. Become an independent and look at elections as picking the lesser of two evils.
Someone who "steps over the line" to get education, work, infrastructure, etc. after not paying taxes in the country is, effectively, stealing a lot of money from others. Why do you think that is any better than robbing a bank for the same amount of money?
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Microsoft's research deparment is infamous for buying up the best; locking them away in a guilded cage and making sure they never deliver something to the real world
In different words, Microsoft is spending money on research, as opposed to products.
Microsoft typically picks people, like those that started Haskell, who have had very deep theoretical insights and are very close to delivering those to the real world. Their existing research gets blocked and they go off on a tangent.
Is that the latest conspiracy theory in the Haskell community for why it is failing? Wow, that's just funny.
Red ochre is non-toxic. And engine oil really isn't acutely toxic (it's not much different from petroleum jelly), but it is loaded with mutagens, heavy metals, carcinogens, and teratogens. Those won't cause the cows to fall over and die, but they will go into the milk and meat and increase the risk of cancer and birth defects in humans who consume those products.
I would argue that we are still screwing with nature and creating something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally
We've been screwing with plants in this way for millennia. Almost every plant and animal you eat has been screwed with this way. Without it, humanity wouldn't have survived.
Excessive CEO salaries are primarily harmful to the companies that pay them; the "real economy" reacts by buying cheaper products (say, from China).
These salaries only become harmful if they are coupled with government-granted monopolies that destroy market mechanisms, as they do for example for ICANN (goverment license to fiddle with the Internet), and Apple/Microsoft (patents).
For all their faults and inability to create decent software, Microsoft actually spends a lot of money on research. Apple, however, doesn't; Apple just "steals" other people's ideas and inventions (according to Steve Jobs himself).
Given that elected officials are responsible for those conditions and for stoking the anger, maybe not allowing them to bring a security detail would encourage them to change their rhetoric.
No, as your cited article correctly notes, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep arms as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. It says nothing about using them, or using them against criminals.
Since the Constitution says nothing about that, you retain those rights.
These "X does/does not have free speech" statements are people trying to obfuscate their political agendas.
Do computers have "free speech"? No, of course not. But the people owning those computers do. So, when Google's search engine puts out text, that is effectively speech generated on behalf of the company. The computer is no more like "Frankenstein's creation" than a spokesperson speaking on behalf of the corporation.
Now, does the company have free speech? No, of course not; the company is just a legal construct by which people pool their money and have some legal protections. However, the company's owners do, and when they voluntarily pool their resources (through buying shares), they, as a group, still retain the individual's right to free speech. That's what "corporations are people" means.
Note that there is no obvious right to free speech for organizations that you are an involuntary member of: if you are forced to join by law, the organization cannot claim to speak on your or anybody else's behalf. Such organizations may still speak as organizations, but there is nothing limiting the ability of the government to curtail their speech.
Some political groups would love nothing more than to be able to restrict the ability of groups of people to engage in free speech. Don't let them by obfuscating the issue. Whether you speak by stepping up on a box, with a loudspeaker, with a computer, or by putting your money into an organization that represents your interests, ultimately it is _your_ free speech rights that are at stake.
Dropping minimum wage will lower wages but keep prices high. Reason? Companies are greedy and will retain as high of a profit margin as they can.
I think that's a general phenomenon: government intervention often has immediate and visible effects, while market-based effects are invisible and take a while.
What we should do instead is gradually lower the minimum wage to give the labour market time to adjust.
I think we can simply wait for the minimum wage to inflate away; same effect, and politically much simpler.
Every single other political view in the entire world gets lumped together under "socialism".
Well, the major political categories I'm aware of are: fascists, conservatives, libertarians, democratic socialists, and communists. So, among the democratic political categories, once you take away conservatives and libertarians, democratic socialists is all that's left. Can you name and define any other major political category? I'm not aware of any.
Why does that label bother you? Large parts of the US Democratic party embrace pretty much the same policies as those embraced by European socialist parties.
Do you really think that asking for a reasonable salary is the same thing as a communist revolution? Really?
You can ask all you want, and if you're worth it, the company will give it to you. Where it turns socialist is when the government starts determining how much your labor is worth.
And the problem with government interventions like that isn't that companies or rich capitalists lose money; nobody gives a damn about them. The problem is that they hurt the people they are intended to help. In the short term, minimum wages may look like a good idea, but the system adapts, with companies moving production overseas or firing workers and re-hiring them as contractors. If a worker isn't worth $8/hour, you can pass as many laws as you want to, nobody is going to pay him $8/hour.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, the developer calling it quits is just about KDE, not open source desktops in general. I never really warmed up to KDE, both because it was mainly written in C++ and because it seemed unnecessary complex from a user's point of view.
That doesn't change the fact that they haven't paid a dime at the time they cross the border, yet they immediately receive the benefits of the infrastructure and environment paid for by US tax payers. And since, as you point out, they tend to pay below average taxes, they are ultimately supported for a couple of generations by the US middle class.
I'm sorry, but the characterization as "a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have" just isn't right. Just because I may choose to invite you over to my home to watch a PBS educational program on my large screen TV doesn't mean you have a right to break in and squat in my house to do the same. And just because I invite you over doesn't mean that I have room for you and a dozen of your closest friends.
Let's say you look a little like #1 on the FBI's ten most wanted list. Police stop you and ask you to identify yourself. If you can credibly identify yourself, you can go on your merry way. If you can't, they'll detain you until they figure out who you really are. If they have reason to believe you might be dangerous (a good bet if you look like #1 on the ten most wanted list), yes, they can strip search and anally probe you while they hold you. If it later turns out you're an innocent citizen, you can go. If you're not a citizen, however, you've broken the law by not carrying identification even if you're otherwise innocent.
It's worked that way since long before the Arizona law. That's why it's always been a good idea to carry identification even though there is no legal requirement.
Well, whether you have heard it "literally", the fact is that the current non-enforcement of immigration laws amounts to that policy.
If police have reasonable suspicion that you violated the law, they need to determine your identity. If you can't provide satisfactory ID, they can detain you. That's already the law and has nothing to do with immigration. Policing couldn't function otherwise.
Arizona law doesn't do that. Stop inventing straw men.
And tolerating illegal immigration is also a giant "screw you" to everyone who has ever immigrated to the US and actually gone through the lengthy and complicated process that entails.
Trouble is: they didn't pay for creating that infrastructure, and neither did their parents. When the US allows immigrants to come, we decide how much of our property we share, and that's a deal usually based on costs and benefits. When people enter the country illegally, they effectively just take what they want.
And that conflict is getting worse, as the US government is providing more and more services to residents and the US is turning more into a European-style welfare state, making it increasingly attractive for economically disadvantaged to come here.
Unfortunately, "telling people how to live" is a common fault of both parties, so Democrats are no alternative. Become an independent and look at elections as picking the lesser of two evils.
Someone who "steps over the line" to get education, work, infrastructure, etc. after not paying taxes in the country is, effectively, stealing a lot of money from others. Why do you think that is any better than robbing a bank for the same amount of money?
If you're not a US citizen, you must carry your immigration documents at all times. That's been the law long before Arizona passed its law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1304
In different words, Microsoft is spending money on research, as opposed to products.
Is that the latest conspiracy theory in the Haskell community for why it is failing? Wow, that's just funny.
Being able to take responsibility for yourself and not to do anything stupid is not the same as "leadership".
Red ochre is non-toxic. And engine oil really isn't acutely toxic (it's not much different from petroleum jelly), but it is loaded with mutagens, heavy metals, carcinogens, and teratogens. Those won't cause the cows to fall over and die, but they will go into the milk and meat and increase the risk of cancer and birth defects in humans who consume those products.
We've been screwing with plants in this way for millennia. Almost every plant and animal you eat has been screwed with this way. Without it, humanity wouldn't have survived.
You'd be amazed by all the completely natural plants that cattle will eat and that will kill them.
Excessive CEO salaries are primarily harmful to the companies that pay them; the "real economy" reacts by buying cheaper products (say, from China).
These salaries only become harmful if they are coupled with government-granted monopolies that destroy market mechanisms, as they do for example for ICANN (goverment license to fiddle with the Internet), and Apple/Microsoft (patents).
For all their faults and inability to create decent software, Microsoft actually spends a lot of money on research. Apple, however, doesn't; Apple just "steals" other people's ideas and inventions (according to Steve Jobs himself).
It wouldn't be "proprietary" if it actually were required to be freely licensed.
I can't find this provision. What mechanism prevents the majority party from simply declaring all opposing seats vacant?
Given that elected officials are responsible for those conditions and for stoking the anger, maybe not allowing them to bring a security detail would encourage them to change their rhetoric.
Seems to me we have been experimenting with "headless government" pretty frequently for the past two centuries.
Since the Constitution says nothing about that, you retain those rights.
Quite right. And since employees may speak on behalf of the corporation and its owners, so may computers.
These "X does/does not have free speech" statements are people trying to obfuscate their political agendas.
Do computers have "free speech"? No, of course not. But the people owning those computers do. So, when Google's search engine puts out text, that is effectively speech generated on behalf of the company. The computer is no more like "Frankenstein's creation" than a spokesperson speaking on behalf of the corporation.
Now, does the company have free speech? No, of course not; the company is just a legal construct by which people pool their money and have some legal protections. However, the company's owners do, and when they voluntarily pool their resources (through buying shares), they, as a group, still retain the individual's right to free speech. That's what "corporations are people" means.
Note that there is no obvious right to free speech for organizations that you are an involuntary member of: if you are forced to join by law, the organization cannot claim to speak on your or anybody else's behalf. Such organizations may still speak as organizations, but there is nothing limiting the ability of the government to curtail their speech.
Some political groups would love nothing more than to be able to restrict the ability of groups of people to engage in free speech. Don't let them by obfuscating the issue. Whether you speak by stepping up on a box, with a loudspeaker, with a computer, or by putting your money into an organization that represents your interests, ultimately it is _your_ free speech rights that are at stake.
I think that's a general phenomenon: government intervention often has immediate and visible effects, while market-based effects are invisible and take a while.
I think we can simply wait for the minimum wage to inflate away; same effect, and politically much simpler.
Well, the major political categories I'm aware of are: fascists, conservatives, libertarians, democratic socialists, and communists. So, among the democratic political categories, once you take away conservatives and libertarians, democratic socialists is all that's left. Can you name and define any other major political category? I'm not aware of any.
Why does that label bother you? Large parts of the US Democratic party embrace pretty much the same policies as those embraced by European socialist parties.
You can ask all you want, and if you're worth it, the company will give it to you. Where it turns socialist is when the government starts determining how much your labor is worth.
And the problem with government interventions like that isn't that companies or rich capitalists lose money; nobody gives a damn about them. The problem is that they hurt the people they are intended to help. In the short term, minimum wages may look like a good idea, but the system adapts, with companies moving production overseas or firing workers and re-hiring them as contractors. If a worker isn't worth $8/hour, you can pass as many laws as you want to, nobody is going to pay him $8/hour.