I think I have this one on my web-enabled phone I'm using to get to Slashdot now. I see something odd happening to the icons in the cor $%$YT$%45#@544D3$ [end of line]
"Immigration rights aren't _always_ give away for free. In Canada and New Zealand"
So you are talking about rights for individuals, that are unfairly restricted in other countries? Allowing freedom like this is not corporate welfare in any way.
"My basic argument is that the US government ought to price these immigration rights at a level that benefits the existing US citizenry "
The best price is free. The immigrants end up paying taxes, so you get the "benefit for the citizenry". They also do productive work: this builds America.
"For example, not all visa holders are here for peaceful reasons"
You have a good point on this. Screen out the terrorists. However, this is a straw-man argument on your side when you realize that this situation applies to the tiniest fraction of immigrants (and virtually none of the Mexicans and Indians you are railing against).
"Whoever sponsors a visa should purchase an insurance policy that covers damage done by the visa holder"
This would invite frivolous lawsuits in which someone who didn't do something would be sued for something someone else did. One way to avoid this is to not have visas be "sponsored": just allow them anyway.
"Billion in damages done by the 911 terrorist-that damage shouldn't be paid for by the general public"
These should be paid for by the terrorist organizitions themselves. They are the ones involved.
"You can say that Nader's definition is a bad concept"
Yes, because he includes much that is not a giveaway.
"Also, the H-1b immigration rights _were_ sold"
No, they were not. The visas are given out for free.
"I'm familar with the economic arguments that you can have open borders and broad based economic prosperity"
I don't favor "open borders". The borders should be open only to workers. Not to terrorists or welfare bums. It is nutty to place artificial barriers between the best workers and jobs.
"From my perspective, open borders benefits larger property owners"
The main benificiaries are working people.
" find it curious that some "free market" advocates are so quick to defend property rights that tend to concentrated into the hands of few"
Ah, the myth of "concentration". I don't defend such myths.
"I think the issue of hatred here is that you hate the idea of social welfare programs I personally have no desire to experience Randite capitalism"
Nor do I. I've had many arguments with Randists. However, we diverge from the original question: How is it corporate welfare? Apparently, visas are never sold, so there is no money being given. What is wrong with letting the best workers get jobs?
In the linked (non Slashdotted!!! Yah) site: "but the Contra name was born out of two Japanese kanji symbols on the side of the cabinet that were pronounced "kon" and "tra". "
I always thought that it had something to do with the Contra rebels in Central America, who were in the news at the time. Now... I know better.
Thanks! It makes it work. Google's own "Basics of Search" has this in the beginning paragraph: " Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query". It's too bad that, for now, you have to put a "never guess it in a million years" keyword into the line in order to get it to work. Hopefully, the renewed competition will get Google to clean this up.
The behavior is really not that obscure, 'get pages that have what I am looking for'. That is how I always search anyway.
"Millions of people, and the slashbot hivemind, tend to find google to be a very useful search engine"
What part of "it is my preferred search engine" did you miss? (By the way, it is not my "opinion" that the phrase-search is buggy. It is just a fact. I showed the bug).
"You are probably the only person on the planet who is bothered that one of the results for "to be or not to be""
Actually, this is just one of the most obvious ways to show that Google has problems doing phrase searches. I've had this happen on many other "real world" search examples.
"but nevertheless this really does show that Google isn't suitable for your special requirements."
My "special requirment" is not that special: it is to have relevant, accurate results. Is it really too much to ask for: search engine results that *gasp* contain what you asked specifically for? Google is buggy in this, while altavista works. However, Google is my search engine of choice because it has a lot more results than Altavista. Even if some of the results are incorrect....
"Windows has de facto monopoly....Try running such a page on MacOS and you're in trouble"
I'd argue against your case, but you have failed to argue one. We've moved on from the actual definition of monopoly (blew you away there) to some contrived thing in which "Yeah, the alternatives exist, but they don't WORK AS WELL because of tricks by one of the companies involved. Therefore, that tricky company is a MONOPOLY."
Sure, you can call Microsoft a monopoly. You can also call it a giraffe, for all the sense it makes.
"Windows has a de facto monopoly in spite of the the existence alternatives"
If it did, none of us would be using Mac OS or Linux, would we? I considered your point, but realized that it was valid. Not only do non-Windows OS's exist, but millions use them. There is no monopoly, defacto or otherwise.
"The existence of "alternatives" does not mean anything"
The existence of alternatives means everything, as their presence negates the argument of a monopoly. One = monopoly. One + alternatives = many.
"The third result I get is tobeornottobe,com If you can't see the relevance of that then you're an imbecile."
I didn't ask for someone's subjective definition of "relevance". I ask for something that is the only thing I ask for with search engines: pages containing the phrase. Google has problems doing this well, that is all. If you think that "to be or not to be" is the same phrase as "tobeornottobe" and that "now here" is the same phrase as "nowhere", perhaps you deserve the flame.
By the way, until very recently, a search on the phrase came up with the page www.be.com. We know that this is a bogus/inaccurate result as well, but even you might admit that this one is not even "relevant" by your standards.
"There's a huge difference between these two queries"
Which is why I did the one in quotes. The one that does not work as it should. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I said I did the search in quotes in the first place.
"Which would be why you put phrases in quotes, no?"
That is how I searched, and Google failed. When I point this out, people usually say how hard this is to do. Yet, it is easy using SQL logic to return strings containing substrings. It is so easy, in fact, that most other search engines have been doing this accurately for years. Finally, Google admitted that this is a bug and that they will fix it some day.
"All the hits on the first page contains the phrase"
The third result does not contain the phrase. It contains something I did not ask for: the phrase with no spaces in it. If I had wanted this, I would have left the spaces out. There are differences whether or not there are spaces. Consider "now here" vs "nowhere". Google, by the way, manages to handle these words and it knows the difference.
Now try "to be or not to be" on Altavista.com. no bogus results. No returns on an altered version of the phrase; 100% accurate.
What am I talking about? The fact that this search does not work.
No, the third result is irrelevant, as it does not contain the phrase. If I had wanted where the quote came from (who made it), I would have asked for that. Instead, I asked for a pages containing a phrase, and Google failed to come up with completely relevant/accurate results. There are plenty of other "real world" examples of when I do phrase searches and Google fails.
Right now, by the way, it looks like there is only one bogus result (90% accuracy). Pretty good.
"The fact that Google has close to a monopoly on searching means there is too much of a chance..."
It has nothing like one. Yahoo search, msn, altavista, dogpile, and many others exist and are used. Monopoly means something, and Google sure does not fit the definition of one.
Again, how is it corporate welfare? You have failed to show that it is. Your arguments seem to be colored by some sort of hatred for immigrants or something. Is it based on race? Or what?
Will you next argue that oxygen in the air is corporate welfare? The government does not sell it.... but (like with the visas) it could, you know!
Google has problems coming up with accurate results for the phrase "to be or not to be". Altavista and others produce 100% accurate results in the top 10, while Google will have between 1 and 3 results of pages not containing the phrase.
"Read the definition of corporate welfare as orginally coined by Ralph Nader"
Nader makes the mistake of including much that is not welfare at all (such as tax breaks) as welfare.
"If visas were sold at auction, they'd easily generate $50K each"
However, you seem to be admitting that nothing like this is ever sold: it is always given away for free... to ANY immigrant. It is not welfare at all, in any way. It is just permitting freedom to people.
What is wrong with this immigration anyway? If there is anything wrong with the H1B visa system, it is that it is too restrictive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting around these problems, as I have done all I can to make my mobile phone very secure. You can see a photo of the modifications so far.
I think I have this one on my web-enabled phone I'm using to get to Slashdot now. I see something odd happening to the icons in the cor $%$YT$%45#@544D3$ [end of line]
It would be cool to have full rights to that blue death star logo. Wonder why they are selling it off?
So you are talking about rights for individuals, that are unfairly restricted in other countries? Allowing freedom like this is not corporate welfare in any way.
"My basic argument is that the US government ought to price these immigration rights at a level that benefits the existing US citizenry "
The best price is free. The immigrants end up paying taxes, so you get the "benefit for the citizenry". They also do productive work: this builds America.
"For example, not all visa holders are here for peaceful reasons"
You have a good point on this. Screen out the terrorists. However, this is a straw-man argument on your side when you realize that this situation applies to the tiniest fraction of immigrants (and virtually none of the Mexicans and Indians you are railing against).
"Whoever sponsors a visa should purchase an insurance policy that covers damage done by the visa holder"
This would invite frivolous lawsuits in which someone who didn't do something would be sued for something someone else did. One way to avoid this is to not have visas be "sponsored": just allow them anyway.
"Billion in damages done by the 911 terrorist-that damage shouldn't be paid for by the general public"
These should be paid for by the terrorist organizitions themselves. They are the ones involved.
Yes, because he includes much that is not a giveaway.
"Also, the H-1b immigration rights _were_ sold"
No, they were not. The visas are given out for free.
"I'm familar with the economic arguments that you can have open borders and broad based economic prosperity"
I don't favor "open borders". The borders should be open only to workers. Not to terrorists or welfare bums. It is nutty to place artificial barriers between the best workers and jobs.
"From my perspective, open borders benefits larger property owners"
The main benificiaries are working people.
" find it curious that some "free market" advocates are so quick to defend property rights that tend to concentrated into the hands of few"
Ah, the myth of "concentration". I don't defend such myths.
The worst problem with trade that needs solving is the existence of tariffs, quotas, etc. These need to be removed, period.
Nor do I. I've had many arguments with Randists. However, we diverge from the original question: How is it corporate welfare? Apparently, visas are never sold, so there is no money being given. What is wrong with letting the best workers get jobs?
I always thought that it had something to do with the Contra rebels in Central America, who were in the news at the time. Now... I know better.
The behavior is really not that obscure, 'get pages that have what I am looking for'. That is how I always search anyway.
I did the same thing. Lots of results. Then, I clicked on the images (instead of web search). Nothing. Unless I did something wrong. You try it.
What part of "it is my preferred search engine" did you miss? (By the way, it is not my "opinion" that the phrase-search is buggy. It is just a fact. I showed the bug).
Actually, this is just one of the most obvious ways to show that Google has problems doing phrase searches. I've had this happen on many other "real world" search examples.
"but nevertheless this really does show that Google isn't suitable for your special requirements."
My "special requirment" is not that special: it is to have relevant, accurate results. Is it really too much to ask for: search engine results that *gasp* contain what you asked specifically for? Google is buggy in this, while altavista works. However, Google is my search engine of choice because it has a lot more results than Altavista. Even if some of the results are incorrect....
I'd argue against your case, but you have failed to argue one. We've moved on from the actual definition of monopoly (blew you away there) to some contrived thing in which "Yeah, the alternatives exist, but they don't WORK AS WELL because of tricks by one of the companies involved. Therefore, that tricky company is a MONOPOLY."
Sure, you can call Microsoft a monopoly. You can also call it a giraffe, for all the sense it makes.
If it did, none of us would be using Mac OS or Linux, would we? I considered your point, but realized that it was valid. Not only do non-Windows OS's exist, but millions use them. There is no monopoly, defacto or otherwise.
"The existence of "alternatives" does not mean anything"
The existence of alternatives means everything, as their presence negates the argument of a monopoly. One = monopoly. One + alternatives = many.
I didn't ask for someone's subjective definition of "relevance". I ask for something that is the only thing I ask for with search engines: pages containing the phrase. Google has problems doing this well, that is all. If you think that "to be or not to be" is the same phrase as "tobeornottobe" and that "now here" is the same phrase as "nowhere", perhaps you deserve the flame.
By the way, until very recently, a search on the phrase came up with the page www.be.com. We know that this is a bogus/inaccurate result as well, but even you might admit that this one is not even "relevant" by your standards.
Which is why I did the one in quotes. The one that does not work as it should. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I said I did the search in quotes in the first place.
'zactly. Which is why Windows certainly is not one either.
That is how I searched, and Google failed. When I point this out, people usually say how hard this is to do. Yet, it is easy using SQL logic to return strings containing substrings. It is so easy, in fact, that most other search engines have been doing this accurately for years. Finally, Google admitted that this is a bug and that they will fix it some day.
The third result does not contain the phrase. It contains something I did not ask for: the phrase with no spaces in it. If I had wanted this, I would have left the spaces out. There are differences whether or not there are spaces. Consider "now here" vs "nowhere". Google, by the way, manages to handle these words and it knows the difference.
Now try "to be or not to be" on Altavista.com. no bogus results. No returns on an altered version of the phrase; 100% accurate.
No, the third result is irrelevant, as it does not contain the phrase. If I had wanted where the quote came from (who made it), I would have asked for that. Instead, I asked for a pages containing a phrase, and Google failed to come up with completely relevant/accurate results. There are plenty of other "real world" examples of when I do phrase searches and Google fails.
Right now, by the way, it looks like there is only one bogus result (90% accuracy). Pretty good.
It has nothing like one. Yahoo search, msn, altavista, dogpile, and many others exist and are used. Monopoly means something, and Google sure does not fit the definition of one.
As long as the pages being returned contain the keywords (in other words, are accurate results), how is this a problem?
Will you next argue that oxygen in the air is corporate welfare? The government does not sell it.... but (like with the visas) it could, you know!
Google has problems coming up with accurate results for the phrase "to be or not to be". Altavista and others produce 100% accurate results in the top 10, while Google will have between 1 and 3 results of pages not containing the phrase.
Nader makes the mistake of including much that is not welfare at all (such as tax breaks) as welfare.
"If visas were sold at auction, they'd easily generate $50K each"
However, you seem to be admitting that nothing like this is ever sold: it is always given away for free... to ANY immigrant. It is not welfare at all, in any way. It is just permitting freedom to people.
What is wrong with this immigration anyway? If there is anything wrong with the H1B visa system, it is that it is too restrictive.