HSBC is HongKong Shanghai Bank of Commerce. Headquartered in London, it is probably the sixth largest bank in the world by assets. This article is not originating from a policy think tank concerned about millennial wage earners saving enough for their retirement. This is a business that makes money by encouraging customers to leave cash not being spent on necessities with them. Its a lame, stupid marketing piece.
Millennials should not be overly concerned about copying traditional habits used to build a retirement nest egg. They should be worried about whether they can have a lucrative career in a field they choose, since computerization is going to be wiping out all sorts of occupations, from trucking and taxis, warehouse stocking, to medical doctors, lawyers, and financial/insurance analysts. You can't be considering taking on a 30 year mortgage, if your profession could be wiped out after 20 years, and its stupid to be worrying about developing a 401K portfolio if you're still buried in (stupid) student loan debt for the next decade (ha ha).
If millennials really want to plan for their long term future, thirty to forty years from now, they should consider whether they want to develop survivalist skills, or a firearm and ammo collection if they want to go out in a blaze of "glory". It doesn't seem productive to plan for a future based on assumptions that won't be true thirty years out.
Hate to say it, but people don't seem to realize that health care costs money, and it may even require not financially covering certain treatments, like organ transplants, rare diseases, and MRIs for diagnosis ass-covering. If the American public cannot concede to common sense, no form of nationalized health insurance program will be fiscally plausible.
I just hope Bannon is really on his way out rather than on route to greater mischief
Bannon's an isolationist nationalist, not an internationalist. He wouldn't be leading the US into Syria; more likely North Korea, in the overreaction way.
I have zero problem with Bush Sr.'s intervention. It was pretty astounding piece of statecraft. Letting Saddam Hussein control the largest, cheapest source of oil in the region would have been suicidally stupid.
That's the main problem with C++. It is incredibly hard to know what is happening behind the scenes (will this object allocate memory or not?), so one has to be very careful in performance-critical parts.
Its more difficult to know what's happening below the source code level, because C++ is conceptually more abstract than C. But ANSI C is an abstraction as well. Its not like the days of K&R C, where you knew what the parameter passing code looked like in assembler. And C++ being a higher level of code abstraction than C is a good thing. If you know how to code C++, you avoid all the problems with loose pointers, and memory leaks, and human implementation errors prevalent with C.
(will this object allocate memory or not?)
That is a horrible example. You always should know when an object allocates memory, because C++ doesn't intrinsically do automatic memory allocation and garbage collection. You have to write that in with constructors and destructors. Yes, the programmer may not do that properly, but it shouldn't be a problem to debug when it occurs.
And then using a C++ subset you know performs well, or just programming in C is the way to go.
If you're a mediocre programmer, you will be more likely to produce a working program in C, but it will be also more likely to contain bugs. That does not mean C is a "better" language for real-time system code than C++.
If you just want a program that runs well and you don't care about the last 30% of performance, you don't need to know as many details of C++,
Again, that is part of the B.S. about C++ being less efficient than C. I already brought up the example of the L4 microkernel. Many windowing and graphics libraries are written in C++, and they don't suffer from a 30% inefficiency compared to a library written in C. If you don't have a mastery of C++, then you're not going to write efficient code in C++; that is true for any language on that level.
If the infrastructure is in place I can certainly see using C++ in the kernel and device drivers.
Its already been done. At least one of the L4 microkernels (Fiasco?) is implemented in C++. You don't lose code efficiency doing it in C++, if you know what you're doing in C++.
You are dead wrong. I wish I had the points to downvote your post.
You are correct that its not worth learning assembly, in order to learn "modern" software development.
What makes learning assembly valuable is that it is the most barebone, lowest level set of instructions that a human can cobble together for a CPU to execute. Every other language involves cobbling together hundreds of CPU instructions which would be magnitudes more inefficient than expressing it in assembler. Because higher level languages are designed for humans to understand what they are instructing the CPU to do, in the desire to increase the output of human programmers, at the expense of actual execution efficiency.
By writing programs in assembler, particularly I/O routines, the human programmer learns how the CPU "thinks". And indirectly, learns to comprehend that all current computers are constructed to the same design specified by Turing back in the beginning. You come to realize that all CPUs work the same way, even though they have different sets of CPU instructions. They're all moving data from storage to memory, memory to register, simple ALU operations in the register, and moving it back to memory and eventually storage.
Most people cannot read a book, and magically implement code or concepts from scratch. They need to write programs, have those programs fail, and learn to figure out why they failed. That way, those programmers learn how to express what they want done to the machine. Learning assembler is learning how the CPU thinks, and how assembler instructions are building blocks to abstractions. Assembler programmers (and to a lesser extent C programmers) really do understand "what the machine is doing".
Yes, once you can master assembler for one CPU platform, you'll probably never need to learn to do it for a different CPU, and probably never need to write assembler again. You learn to code assembler to truly grasp how a set of chips operate to produce the simulacrum that is the personal computer.
What I'd like to see is them say, you want an up or down vote?
Politically, its a waste of time, but more "important", a waste of political capital. To hold a hearing for Garland at this point, is just making the Republican Senate acknowledge they made an egregious error in "stealing" a Supreme Court candidate. They were venal, partisan shitheads to do it in the first place; that isn't going to change anything with them making a meaningless gesture.
McConnell is this idiot, posturing, rationalizing tool that is willing to remove the 60 vote rule for SCotUS confirmations in order to successfully "steal" a SCJ for a generation. He just thinks its "important" that somehow "history" blames the Democrats for removing that rule, when it can only be done by a Senate Majority Leader at the beginning of a session. These are the same idiots that think the Confederacy was a noble cause that had nothing to do with perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So, eliminate the rule requiring a 60 senator majority to approve a SCotUS. The rule only has meaning when the Senate operates in a non-partisan manner in the "interest of the nation"; its obviously incapable of doing so at this point. And I agree, maintain a filibuster of the Gorsuch nomination indefinitely. At very least, that is a gesture where Republicans don't get "everything" they wanted from their SCJ theft. As long as retard McConnell isn't willing to go the nuclear option, the partisan Republicans can't "profit" from stealing a SCJ nomination. Look, with the way Trump and the Congress is operating, the Democrats could have a majority in the House by 2018, and a Senate majority by 2020. Then the Democratic Senate could restore the 60 vote majority rule after passing a censure motion on McConnell as long as he's Senator.
In other words, reasoning not aligned with the cult of globalism.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. The important point is that they aren't raised by parents or taught in primary school to independently evaluate that notion.
People know when they are being fucked over, even stupid ones.
Absolutely. But they (anyone really) still can be manipulated to take a course of action not in their interest.
You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
Nope, that's not how Jebus wants it. He's full of wrath and fury over those dead little fetuses, (not the birthed ones) and he want moral defectives^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Christians to fight for them! And he rewards his followers with good jobs, nice homes, SUVs, and wealth.
Solyndra went bankrupt because its initial business plan did not take into account the level of Chinese manufacture, subsidy, and eventual dumping (which also did not exist at the time Solyndra was a nascient enterprise in the planning stages).
The Chinese don't have a lot of natural gas, unlike the USA,
Any place where there are large coal deposits, there are exploitable natural gas deposits. The Chinese are also implementing an experimental MSR power plant, and provided its commercially feasible, will probably be the future model of nuclear reactors in China; not older, breeder reactor designs.
Bullshit. Letting a commercial company produce a reactor vulnerable to meltdown, allowing it to irradiate a populated region for hundreds of years, and then let the company declare itself bankrupt after that event is hardly cheap or cost effective.
Nuclear power is needed because wind power, solar power, and hydro power alone are insufficient to meet the world's demand for electricity.
Even if lefties don't like to admit it, the reality is that nuclear power is one of the most effective and efficient ways of generating large amounts of electrical power.
Bullshit. Nuclear power is economically unsustainable without direct government intervention and subsidy. The only thing notable about nuclear power is that it doesn't require utilizing "fossilized carbon" in order to produce its relatively large and "dangerous" power.
And mind you, I am actually a supporter of nuclear power subsidization by the federal gov't. But 1950's technology should not be propagated or even used to replace old nuclear reactors. There should be a working model for non-fissile (thorium) nuclear reactors which then can be propagated commercially, modern designs that make nuclear meltdowns near impossible, and a sustainable program to reprocess and safely dispose of nuclear waste.
It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Of course they do. That's why they gerrymander districts, "steal" Supreme Court nominations, and attack access to voting rights under the pretext of near non-existent voter fraud.
Poor people are poor for a reason. They are red-lined into neighborhoods of poor people. They and their children are raised to execute suboptimal reasoning. That makes them manipulable voters, and ineffective in protecting their self interest. Then they knock up the local poor girl, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
The point is its a security design flaw to provide an anachronistic feature that no one cares about anymore. (Almost) no one uses ssh to "tunnel" a window for every application that is initiated within their own user session, but that is literally what needs to be done (and a kludge, mind you) to actually have a "secure" xwindow session. While I grasp that xwindow maintainers don't consider it a "compelling" security hole, they should have deprecated the feature decades ago, to resolve the security issue (and implemented an alternative if they thought it was "important" enough to keep).
What happened to using the system environment path which is already secured?
Where do you think the system environment path comes from? Why would you include a feature that isn't necessary either for system operation or system security?
Auto Elevation. Microsoft introduces UAC. People get annoyed with it. Microsoft introduces Auto Elevation. Guess what, still annoying and now possible security hole.
Its heartbreaking that Microsoft doesn't have security architects capable of guiding a redesign of their platform to reflect current OS security theory and practices.
I am fine if Windows asks me to enter a user and password to elevate. It works on my *cough* Linux desktop. Annoying? Yes. Secure? More so.
Its also considered a backward practice. Modern authentication systems should not require a "hackable" password. Also, any system administrator using a GUI interface that relies on xwindows (xorg) can be totally vulnerable to hacking. Security design flaws in xwindows were never fully removed, even after twenty years. Everyone is counting on newer graphics architectures (mir, wayland, whatever) to eventually resolve those issues.
unique 8-11 character passwords [...] Look up rainbow tables, people!
The rainbow table I'm aware of only goes up to 9 characters with a 4TB dictionary for NTLM hashes. Granted, with a more targeted dictionary, you may get up to 11 characters. While I'm sure 11+ characters could be vulnerable to rainbow tables, it would require serious hardware investment. I try to go over 12 characters myself, for passwords I care about. And it goes to half for a SHA256 hash string (64 bytes).
For what it's worth, Facebook could easily put a big crimp on it's fake news by vetting its news sources. Only publish stories from sources that adhere to some set of standards for truth and/or retractions. Why they don't eludes me.
Because Facebook wants to be able to call individual Facebook user submissions as "news". They also don't want to hire humans to manage the newsbot sifters to make sure nothing that may damage the Facebook News brand (like a shitpost). What I find egregious is that Facebook could easily declare their "news" feed a rumor mill, avoid all this angst, but those greedy f**kers just want to call user innuendo and content "News" for marketing purposes, but not exert an iota of responsibility in validating the content.
We have laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants. I presume that you want the President to do his job and enforce the fu**ing law. As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.
Chasing after employers for illegal immigrants is not productive step at this moment, because the penalties hasn't been raise since the 1950's. What is rational is a comprehensive immigrant policy, that include cracking down on employers, having migrant worker visas, processing of current illegal immigrants to put them on a legal status, then enabling a path to citizenship, cease trying to deport kids of illegals that have been raised in this country and are adults now, and yes, real enforcement of immigration status once a functioning system is in place.
I don't care right now if the current immigration laws are enforced right now. They don't fucking work right now, as is. Pissing away more money on the current enforcement regime is a waste of money. A fucking wall won't do jackshit. Indiscriminately deporting what we've rounded up at INS now, just means most of them will be back in a few years. Its just digging a hole up to your head, then filling it up, then digging another hole. The system, as is, will not significantly reduce the rate of illegal immigration.
2. you're not in favor of Presidents doing extra-legal things like not following existing immigration laws.
I supported most of what Obama did during his term concerning illegal immigration. An executive order is not "extra legal" when the fucking Congress won't do their fucking job.
As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.
How did Obama "ignore" said laws? He's done more deportations than any other administration, including George W Bush. Its been a waste of time and money. Do you seriously care about PotUS's following the law? Where the fuck was your outrage over the PotUS breaking the law when the Bush administration conducted an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq???
Slashdot Mirror
HSBC is HongKong Shanghai Bank of Commerce. Headquartered in London, it is probably the sixth largest bank in the world by assets. This article is not originating from a policy think tank concerned about millennial wage earners saving enough for their retirement. This is a business that makes money by encouraging customers to leave cash not being spent on necessities with them. Its a lame, stupid marketing piece.
Millennials should not be overly concerned about copying traditional habits used to build a retirement nest egg. They should be worried about whether they can have a lucrative career in a field they choose, since computerization is going to be wiping out all sorts of occupations, from trucking and taxis, warehouse stocking, to medical doctors, lawyers, and financial/insurance analysts. You can't be considering taking on a 30 year mortgage, if your profession could be wiped out after 20 years, and its stupid to be worrying about developing a 401K portfolio if you're still buried in (stupid) student loan debt for the next decade (ha ha).
If millennials really want to plan for their long term future, thirty to forty years from now, they should consider whether they want to develop survivalist skills, or a firearm and ammo collection if they want to go out in a blaze of "glory". It doesn't seem productive to plan for a future based on assumptions that won't be true thirty years out.
When no one will hire you for a job thirty years from now, then it can only be called retirement, as in forced retirement.
Hate to say it, but people don't seem to realize that health care costs money, and it may even require not financially covering certain treatments, like organ transplants, rare diseases, and MRIs for diagnosis ass-covering. If the American public cannot concede to common sense, no form of nationalized health insurance program will be fiscally plausible.
I just hope Bannon is really on his way out rather than on route to greater mischief
Bannon's an isolationist nationalist, not an internationalist. He wouldn't be leading the US into Syria; more likely North Korea, in the overreaction way.
I have zero problem with Bush Sr.'s intervention. It was pretty astounding piece of statecraft. Letting Saddam Hussein control the largest, cheapest source of oil in the region would have been suicidally stupid.
Ah, another moron George W Bush voter. Why not lay blame with the PotUS that started this mess?
On the Internet, every dog is a world class assembly programmer.
No, you're absolutely right. Brainfart on my part.
That's the main problem with C++. It is incredibly hard to know what is happening behind the scenes (will this object allocate memory or not?), so one has to be very careful in performance-critical parts.
Its more difficult to know what's happening below the source code level, because C++ is conceptually more abstract than C. But ANSI C is an abstraction as well. Its not like the days of K&R C, where you knew what the parameter passing code looked like in assembler. And C++ being a higher level of code abstraction than C is a good thing. If you know how to code C++, you avoid all the problems with loose pointers, and memory leaks, and human implementation errors prevalent with C.
(will this object allocate memory or not?)
That is a horrible example. You always should know when an object allocates memory, because C++ doesn't intrinsically do automatic memory allocation and garbage collection. You have to write that in with constructors and destructors. Yes, the programmer may not do that properly, but it shouldn't be a problem to debug when it occurs.
And then using a C++ subset you know performs well, or just programming in C is the way to go.
If you're a mediocre programmer, you will be more likely to produce a working program in C, but it will be also more likely to contain bugs. That does not mean C is a "better" language for real-time system code than C++.
If you just want a program that runs well and you don't care about the last 30% of performance, you don't need to know as many details of C++,
Again, that is part of the B.S. about C++ being less efficient than C. I already brought up the example of the L4 microkernel. Many windowing and graphics libraries are written in C++, and they don't suffer from a 30% inefficiency compared to a library written in C. If you don't have a mastery of C++, then you're not going to write efficient code in C++; that is true for any language on that level.
If the infrastructure is in place I can certainly see using C++ in the kernel and device drivers.
Its already been done. At least one of the L4 microkernels (Fiasco?) is implemented in C++. You don't lose code efficiency doing it in C++, if you know what you're doing in C++.
It is not worth learning assembly.
You are dead wrong. I wish I had the points to downvote your post.
You are correct that its not worth learning assembly, in order to learn "modern" software development.
What makes learning assembly valuable is that it is the most barebone, lowest level set of instructions that a human can cobble together for a CPU to execute. Every other language involves cobbling together hundreds of CPU instructions which would be magnitudes more inefficient than expressing it in assembler. Because higher level languages are designed for humans to understand what they are instructing the CPU to do, in the desire to increase the output of human programmers, at the expense of actual execution efficiency.
By writing programs in assembler, particularly I/O routines, the human programmer learns how the CPU "thinks". And indirectly, learns to comprehend that all current computers are constructed to the same design specified by Turing back in the beginning. You come to realize that all CPUs work the same way, even though they have different sets of CPU instructions. They're all moving data from storage to memory, memory to register, simple ALU operations in the register, and moving it back to memory and eventually storage.
Most people cannot read a book, and magically implement code or concepts from scratch. They need to write programs, have those programs fail, and learn to figure out why they failed. That way, those programmers learn how to express what they want done to the machine. Learning assembler is learning how the CPU thinks, and how assembler instructions are building blocks to abstractions. Assembler programmers (and to a lesser extent C programmers) really do understand "what the machine is doing".
Yes, once you can master assembler for one CPU platform, you'll probably never need to learn to do it for a different CPU, and probably never need to write assembler again. You learn to code assembler to truly grasp how a set of chips operate to produce the simulacrum that is the personal computer.
What I'd like to see is them say, you want an up or down vote?
Politically, its a waste of time, but more "important", a waste of political capital. To hold a hearing for Garland at this point, is just making the Republican Senate acknowledge they made an egregious error in "stealing" a Supreme Court candidate. They were venal, partisan shitheads to do it in the first place; that isn't going to change anything with them making a meaningless gesture.
McConnell is this idiot, posturing, rationalizing tool that is willing to remove the 60 vote rule for SCotUS confirmations in order to successfully "steal" a SCJ for a generation. He just thinks its "important" that somehow "history" blames the Democrats for removing that rule, when it can only be done by a Senate Majority Leader at the beginning of a session. These are the same idiots that think the Confederacy was a noble cause that had nothing to do with perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So, eliminate the rule requiring a 60 senator majority to approve a SCotUS. The rule only has meaning when the Senate operates in a non-partisan manner in the "interest of the nation"; its obviously incapable of doing so at this point. And I agree, maintain a filibuster of the Gorsuch nomination indefinitely. At very least, that is a gesture where Republicans don't get "everything" they wanted from their SCJ theft. As long as retard McConnell isn't willing to go the nuclear option, the partisan Republicans can't "profit" from stealing a SCJ nomination. Look, with the way Trump and the Congress is operating, the Democrats could have a majority in the House by 2018, and a Senate majority by 2020. Then the Democratic Senate could restore the 60 vote majority rule after passing a censure motion on McConnell as long as he's Senator.
In other words, reasoning not aligned with the cult of globalism.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. The important point is that they aren't raised by parents or taught in primary school to independently evaluate that notion.
People know when they are being fucked over, even stupid ones.
Absolutely. But they (anyone really) still can be manipulated to take a course of action not in their interest.
You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
Nope, that's not how Jebus wants it. He's full of wrath and fury over those dead little fetuses, (not the birthed ones) and he want moral defectives^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Christians to fight for them! And he rewards his followers with good jobs, nice homes, SUVs, and wealth.
Just read what he wrote. Its civil and reasonable and on Slashdot. How many of those kind of posts do you see here?
Solyndra went bankrupt because its initial business plan did not take into account the level of Chinese manufacture, subsidy, and eventual dumping (which also did not exist at the time Solyndra was a nascient enterprise in the planning stages).
The Chinese don't have a lot of natural gas, unlike the USA,
Any place where there are large coal deposits, there are exploitable natural gas deposits. The Chinese are also implementing an experimental MSR power plant, and provided its commercially feasible, will probably be the future model of nuclear reactors in China; not older, breeder reactor designs.
Nuclear is as expensive as we make it,
Bullshit. Letting a commercial company produce a reactor vulnerable to meltdown, allowing it to irradiate a populated region for hundreds of years, and then let the company declare itself bankrupt after that event is hardly cheap or cost effective.
Nuclear power is needed because wind power, solar power, and hydro power alone are insufficient to meet the world's demand for electricity.
Even if lefties don't like to admit it, the reality is that nuclear power is one of the most effective and efficient ways of generating large amounts of electrical power.
Bullshit. Nuclear power is economically unsustainable without direct government intervention and subsidy. The only thing notable about nuclear power is that it doesn't require utilizing "fossilized carbon" in order to produce its relatively large and "dangerous" power.
And mind you, I am actually a supporter of nuclear power subsidization by the federal gov't. But 1950's technology should not be propagated or even used to replace old nuclear reactors. There should be a working model for non-fissile (thorium) nuclear reactors which then can be propagated commercially, modern designs that make nuclear meltdowns near impossible, and a sustainable program to reprocess and safely dispose of nuclear waste.
It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Of course they do. That's why they gerrymander districts, "steal" Supreme Court nominations, and attack access to voting rights under the pretext of near non-existent voter fraud.
Poor people are poor for a reason. They are red-lined into neighborhoods of poor people. They and their children are raised to execute suboptimal reasoning. That makes them manipulable voters, and ineffective in protecting their self interest. Then they knock up the local poor girl, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
The point is its a security design flaw to provide an anachronistic feature that no one cares about anymore. (Almost) no one uses ssh to "tunnel" a window for every application that is initiated within their own user session, but that is literally what needs to be done (and a kludge, mind you) to actually have a "secure" xwindow session. While I grasp that xwindow maintainers don't consider it a "compelling" security hole, they should have deprecated the feature decades ago, to resolve the security issue (and implemented an alternative if they thought it was "important" enough to keep).
What happened to using the system environment path which is already secured?
Where do you think the system environment path comes from? Why would you include a feature that isn't necessary either for system operation or system security?
Auto Elevation. Microsoft introduces UAC. People get annoyed with it. Microsoft introduces Auto Elevation. Guess what, still annoying and now possible security hole.
Its heartbreaking that Microsoft doesn't have security architects capable of guiding a redesign of their platform to reflect current OS security theory and practices.
I am fine if Windows asks me to enter a user and password to elevate. It works on my *cough* Linux desktop. Annoying? Yes. Secure? More so.
Its also considered a backward practice. Modern authentication systems should not require a "hackable" password. Also, any system administrator using a GUI interface that relies on xwindows (xorg) can be totally vulnerable to hacking. Security design flaws in xwindows were never fully removed, even after twenty years. Everyone is counting on newer graphics architectures (mir, wayland, whatever) to eventually resolve those issues.
unique 8-11 character passwords [...] Look up rainbow tables, people!
The rainbow table I'm aware of only goes up to 9 characters with a 4TB dictionary for NTLM hashes. Granted, with a more targeted dictionary, you may get up to 11 characters. While I'm sure 11+ characters could be vulnerable to rainbow tables, it would require serious hardware investment. I try to go over 12 characters myself, for passwords I care about. And it goes to half for a SHA256 hash string (64 bytes).
For what it's worth, Facebook could easily put a big crimp on it's fake news by vetting its news sources. Only publish stories from sources that adhere to some set of standards for truth and/or retractions. Why they don't eludes me.
Because Facebook wants to be able to call individual Facebook user submissions as "news". They also don't want to hire humans to manage the newsbot sifters to make sure nothing that may damage the Facebook News brand (like a shitpost). What I find egregious is that Facebook could easily declare their "news" feed a rumor mill, avoid all this angst, but those greedy f**kers just want to call user innuendo and content "News" for marketing purposes, but not exert an iota of responsibility in validating the content.
We have laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants. I presume that you want the President to do his job and enforce the fu**ing law. As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.
Chasing after employers for illegal immigrants is not productive step at this moment, because the penalties hasn't been raise since the 1950's. What is rational is a comprehensive immigrant policy, that include cracking down on employers, having migrant worker visas, processing of current illegal immigrants to put them on a legal status, then enabling a path to citizenship, cease trying to deport kids of illegals that have been raised in this country and are adults now, and yes, real enforcement of immigration status once a functioning system is in place.
I don't care right now if the current immigration laws are enforced right now. They don't fucking work right now, as is. Pissing away more money on the current enforcement regime is a waste of money. A fucking wall won't do jackshit. Indiscriminately deporting what we've rounded up at INS now, just means most of them will be back in a few years. Its just digging a hole up to your head, then filling it up, then digging another hole. The system, as is, will not significantly reduce the rate of illegal immigration.
2. you're not in favor of Presidents doing extra-legal things like not following existing immigration laws.
I supported most of what Obama did during his term concerning illegal immigration. An executive order is not "extra legal" when the fucking Congress won't do their fucking job.
As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.
How did Obama "ignore" said laws? He's done more deportations than any other administration, including George W Bush. Its been a waste of time and money. Do you seriously care about PotUS's following the law? Where the fuck was your outrage over the PotUS breaking the law when the Bush administration conducted an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq???