"Sure it's a theft of resources. Who is denying this?"
The word "theft" means something. Spam certainly does not meet the definition. Nor does unauthorized copying of digitial music files. Just because it is bad does not mean it is theft.
Spisska elsewhere said: "Even if they do immigrate, we are talking about people who are highly educated, highly skilled, gainfully employed, productive and law-abiding members of our society -- exactly what every country in the world would like its citizens to be. I don't think that "dilutes the value" of anyone's citizenship. Quite the contrary, I think it enriches our culture and makes all of us a little better off."
It is hard to say this any better. It is very hard to see "more folks lose than gain" when there are more of people like this contributing to the health of the country. If we want to stick to your criteria of whether folks lose or gain, you'd be better off deporting a lot of lousy native born Americans than keeping these great people out.
"every poll I've seen indicates most folks in the US want tighter immigration regulations"
I want tighter regulations, too. This is a perfect example of your use of extremely generalized poll data to justify specific stands that are not even mentioned in the poll. I'm sure that all of us agree that a lot more can be done to keep the `bad apples` out. However, this is a separate issue entirely from keeping these "assets to the country" out.
Also, you keep appealing to "the polls" even when they are ridiculously generalized and misleading. I prefer to look at the issue on its merits, rather than try to justify things based on results cooked up from opinion polls.
""According to AOL, its subscribers are getting less spam this year. "
Less subscribers = less spam! AOL has found a way to reduce it, for sure: reduce the number of customers through overpricing and degradation of services. This results in fewer inboxes: Viola! Less Spam!
"I suggest you take that up with Nobel prize winner economist Milton Friedman [computerworld.com]. Who told you it wasn't a subsidy?"
Of course there is no subsidy. Allowing people basic freedoms is not an expenditure of $$$$. Surely the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness by seeking and gaining a productive job is not a "subsidy". There may be subsidies involved (does the government pay to fly the workers here?), but there is no subsidy involved at all in merely allowing workers to work and earn a living.
The Friedman article you mentioned contains a lot of bad logic. One egregious quote: "When those workers accept minor-league wages, that's a big subsidy". Huh? It is a government subsidy when someone accepts a wage? That fits in with the logic that everything we earn is a gift of governmnet leaders. "Minor-league" is a very subjective evaluation, also.
"Your position is an extreme minority position according to every poll I've ever seen"
Whatever. The polls and text at the site seem to be misleading, easily allowing confusion between allowing good workers in and "open borders" allowing terrorists in.
If I saw the polls mentioned, I'd check the box for significant reduction in illegal immigration, of course. This is because I'd want less immigration to be illegal: why criminalize the situation where people come here to work? These people only help America. Weed out the "undesirables", but not the workers. Even if these workers did a lot of jobs better (the fears of the AFL-CIO) or the workers were of the "wrong" race (the fears of Pat Buchanan and FAIR).
"If liberal immigration policy..."
It isn't much of a liberal vs conservative issue at this time. Why even bring that into it?
Now that we've reached this milestone, how long before we have high-speed giant robot steam spiders? We've had the slow ones since the days of the Wild Wild West.
"....about Doom III was that everything appears to be wrapped in plastic..."
The very first thing I noticed when playing Quake (for the first time) was that when I "fragged" a bad guy, he exploded instantly into a pile of plastic-wrapped pink picnic hams. These hamsspeed then fell to the ground. The effect was similar to that of knocking over a grocery cart in a Safeway during the week before Easter.
Re:There's no such thing as "scientific fact"
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 1
"They don't and can't touch the why - which is left to philsophy and religion."
The "why" can also be part of the realm of science. For example, that pumpkin you are dropping out of the airplane? You can use scientific knowledge of gravity to figure out why it falls and splats on Mrs. Kotzwinkle's Toyota in the Wal-Mart parking lot, instead of floating sideways.
"How does this mean that "looking at Buckinham Palace" would do anything ever?"
Depends on who is looking. Check out this Cyclops guy. There is no uncertainty at all with the "Heisenburg uncertainty principle" when he decides to give something a look.
On the down side, it looks like yet another game where all the colors are too dark (murky greys, greens, and browns). Must every game look like it takes place inside the "Nostromo" from "Alien" (1)? The same old same old. On the plus side, the refinement makes it look as good as the "Final Fantasy" movie. If that is considered to be a plus...
I belive in subatomic Darwinism. So much, in fact, that I have an emblem of a Darwin fish consuming a proton on the back of my car bumper lid. Go ahead and look: it is microscopic.
(Below this, on the bumper, is a sticker that says "if you can read this, you are too close or you are trying to see my Darwin deck-lid emblem")
How about some numbers? Cleveland. First one I checked. total CC stations? 6. Total stations with web pages? 20. That's a 30% CC ownership rate in this one large market. The percent is likely a lot lower, as there are probably Cleveland stations without web sites that did not make the list of 20.
Omaha? 4 stations owned by CC. I found about 30 total radio stations in a directory. Assuming the list is complete, that's leaves CC with control of only 13%.
New York City? 5 CC stations out of about 71 total.
-----------
These are the first and only three cities I checked. CC is a small player in each of them.
"so "8%" is a wildly inaccurate representation of their true penetration upon the radio landscape or their total listener market share."
It is, however, an entirely accurate representation of how many radio stations they control. The big controversy with them is over ownership, right? Market share is a different situation. So much of this results in how well they serve the public. If they do it well, it makes market share go up. However, I really don't think that "being too popular even while others are out there" should be taken into account when determining whether the FCC should censor them.
"They own as many as seven stations in the same market"
I've looked into these markets. Where they own 7 stations, there might be 40 total stations. CC ends up being a small parf of the market's "Picture".
"CC owns 1,240 AM and FM stations in the US, over 30 TV stations"
Looks shocking until you realize that this is a small percent of radio stations out there. I do not know the totals on the TV stations, but I suspect that CC controls a similar tiny percentage. Did you know that CC could triple the number of radio stations they own, and still control only about 20% ?
"They are also active in political censorship (see "List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel"
That is a perverse, use of the term "censorship". Someone exerts control over their own medium, and it is censorship? Of course not. That is freedom of speech. The same way the the NYT is not "censoring" if it chooses not to print so many tinfoil helmet letters to their editorial page. The only "censorship" involved here were the extremist groups trying to get the government (FCC) to deny CC licenses due to its perceived political content.
"Radio stations are charged by the FCC with serving the local community in which they operate. CC, IMO, clearly fails at this."
You stated something to the effect that CC controls a much larger market share than its tiny 6-8% station ownership rate would imply. This indicates that they are doing very well at serving the community. If they did not serve the community, the community would listen to other stations. Listenership is the most accurate determining factor of how well a station serves the community.
Is the RIAA ok with this?
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M, created CopyCat"
Someone better check with the RIAA to make sure that this does not violate the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "theft" means something. Spam certainly does not meet the definition. Nor does unauthorized copying of digitial music files. Just because it is bad does not mean it is theft.
It is hard to say this any better. It is very hard to see "more folks lose than gain" when there are more of people like this contributing to the health of the country. If we want to stick to your criteria of whether folks lose or gain, you'd be better off deporting a lot of lousy native born Americans than keeping these great people out.
"every poll I've seen indicates most folks in the US want tighter immigration regulations"
I want tighter regulations, too. This is a perfect example of your use of extremely generalized poll data to justify specific stands that are not even mentioned in the poll. I'm sure that all of us agree that a lot more can be done to keep the `bad apples` out. However, this is a separate issue entirely from keeping these "assets to the country" out.
Also, you keep appealing to "the polls" even when they are ridiculously generalized and misleading. I prefer to look at the issue on its merits, rather than try to justify things based on results cooked up from opinion polls.
Less subscribers = less spam! AOL has found a way to reduce it, for sure: reduce the number of customers through overpricing and degradation of services. This results in fewer inboxes: Viola! Less Spam!
Of course there is no subsidy. Allowing people basic freedoms is not an expenditure of $$$$. Surely the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness by seeking and gaining a productive job is not a "subsidy". There may be subsidies involved (does the government pay to fly the workers here?), but there is no subsidy involved at all in merely allowing workers to work and earn a living.
The Friedman article you mentioned contains a lot of bad logic. One egregious quote: "When those workers accept minor-league wages, that's a big subsidy". Huh? It is a government subsidy when someone accepts a wage? That fits in with the logic that everything we earn is a gift of governmnet leaders. "Minor-league" is a very subjective evaluation, also.
Whatever. The polls and text at the site seem to be misleading, easily allowing confusion between allowing good workers in and "open borders" allowing terrorists in.
If I saw the polls mentioned, I'd check the box for significant reduction in illegal immigration, of course. This is because I'd want less immigration to be illegal: why criminalize the situation where people come here to work? These people only help America. Weed out the "undesirables", but not the workers. Even if these workers did a lot of jobs better (the fears of the AFL-CIO) or the workers were of the "wrong" race (the fears of Pat Buchanan and FAIR).
"If liberal immigration policy..."
It isn't much of a liberal vs conservative issue at this time. Why even bring that into it?
Tsk tsk. I think somewhere in eBay's prohibited items list, there is a rule against selling anything that contains or ever consisted of atoms.
""See? He's got atoms in his pockets! Call the local constabulary, Smithers!". "
mmmm. colored ham. mmmmmm.
If they can do this, can they also threaten our seaports with platoons of friggin' sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads?
If even that. I expected to be modded "flamebait", just as I was in real life whenever I drove my '78 Pinto Wagon.
Ah, that brings back memories. You really had to use your imagination to enjoy those silent radio plays of yesteryear.
Now you've got me going. I'm waxing nostalgic about playing "Mario Bros" in the sewers with real plumbing tools.
We did experiment some with external combustion vehicles about 30 years ago.
Now that we've reached this milestone, how long before we have high-speed giant robot steam spiders? We've had the slow ones since the days of the Wild Wild West.
The very first thing I noticed when playing Quake (for the first time) was that when I "fragged" a bad guy, he exploded instantly into a pile of plastic-wrapped pink picnic hams. These hamsspeed then fell to the ground. The effect was similar to that of knocking over a grocery cart in a Safeway during the week before Easter.
The "why" can also be part of the realm of science. For example, that pumpkin you are dropping out of the airplane? You can use scientific knowledge of gravity to figure out why it falls and splats on Mrs. Kotzwinkle's Toyota in the Wal-Mart parking lot, instead of floating sideways.
Depends on who is looking. Check out this Cyclops guy. There is no uncertainty at all with the "Heisenburg uncertainty principle" when he decides to give something a look.
On the down side, it looks like yet another game where all the colors are too dark (murky greys, greens, and browns). Must every game look like it takes place inside the "Nostromo" from "Alien" (1)? The same old same old. On the plus side, the refinement makes it look as good as the "Final Fantasy" movie. If that is considered to be a plus...
(Below this, on the bumper, is a sticker that says "if you can read this, you are too close or you are trying to see my Darwin deck-lid emblem")
You will see these new vengeful game widows appearing as griefers. They are the ones throwing pots and pans at you.
It certainly does in the case of support. If a free support line suddenly starts to charge, it has definitely gotten worse.
....If you make this character look like Jessica Rabbit, you will have one honey of a honeypot indeed.
Punish everyone by degrading support? Now, if you only charge for support for the bad guys....
Looking forward also to a commercial showing 5 identical McGruff the Crime Dog's standing in a row, saying in unison, "Don't clone that pup!"
Omaha? 4 stations owned by CC. I found about 30 total radio stations in a directory. Assuming the list is complete, that's leaves CC with control of only 13%.
New York City? 5 CC stations out of about 71 total. ----------- These are the first and only three cities I checked. CC is a small player in each of them.
It is, however, an entirely accurate representation of how many radio stations they control. The big controversy with them is over ownership, right? Market share is a different situation. So much of this results in how well they serve the public. If they do it well, it makes market share go up. However, I really don't think that "being too popular even while others are out there" should be taken into account when determining whether the FCC should censor them.
"They own as many as seven stations in the same market"
I've looked into these markets. Where they own 7 stations, there might be 40 total stations. CC ends up being a small parf of the market's "Picture".
"CC owns 1,240 AM and FM stations in the US, over 30 TV stations"
Looks shocking until you realize that this is a small percent of radio stations out there. I do not know the totals on the TV stations, but I suspect that CC controls a similar tiny percentage. Did you know that CC could triple the number of radio stations they own, and still control only about 20% ?
"They are also active in political censorship (see "List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel"
That is a perverse, use of the term "censorship". Someone exerts control over their own medium, and it is censorship? Of course not. That is freedom of speech. The same way the the NYT is not "censoring" if it chooses not to print so many tinfoil helmet letters to their editorial page. The only "censorship" involved here were the extremist groups trying to get the government (FCC) to deny CC licenses due to its perceived political content.
"Radio stations are charged by the FCC with serving the local community in which they operate. CC, IMO, clearly fails at this."
You stated something to the effect that CC controls a much larger market share than its tiny 6-8% station ownership rate would imply. This indicates that they are doing very well at serving the community. If they did not serve the community, the community would listen to other stations. Listenership is the most accurate determining factor of how well a station serves the community.
Someone better check with the RIAA to make sure that this does not violate the DMCA.