Yeah, but what I find scary here is that a month or so back, the pentagon had asked 24 to cut down on torture, ostensibly to discourage its practice by the military. [...] a concerned group of citizens doing this PR work for the army. I considered 24 to be part of the pop-culture pro-torture propaganda. So I find it odd, not scary, that the pentagon is now telling them to cut it back... I don't watch 24, but I did see a member of congress on tv (ok, the Daily Show) say that since so many people loved Jack Bauer, and that Jack Bauer uses torture, therefore the American people have spoken and declared torture to be fine. I'm thinking it's stuff like that that prompted the Pentagon's distancing. Getting people desensitized to the idea of torture in the name of national security is one thing, but that elected representative was taking it too far.
As for the pop-culture propaganda, I recently caught a bit of Enterprise (which I also never really watched) on rerun, from the season where the Enterprise is going deep in enemy territory to disarm a weapon of mass destruction that someone from the future told 'em about (ripped from 2003's headlines!) where captain Archer had an uncooperative POW, and he took him to an airlock to scare and hurt him into talking (an airlock with a convenient slow air drain). Of course, Enterprise being a badly written show, his effort were transparent and you just know the guy will give in and Archer won't go through with it, but it struck me because it reminded me of Malcom Reynolds putting Jayne in the airlock on Firefly. The difference being, in Firefly you believed he would actually do it, but mostly that in Enterprise the airlock torture was glamourized as an effective way to get reliable information. Firefly never gave me the impression that torture was okay (in fact, it was shown in another ep as futile and sadistic). One show got shitcanned despite being the best sci-fi on TV at the time, the other dragged on long past the point where it was evident that it was a turd with a Federation isignia tacked on. I see the work of the media branch of the military-industry-congress complex here, funding a message and not another.
P.S. Galactica's version of that scenario was the most ambiguous, and arguably the better one: the torture wasn't working, the airlock was used to put a stop to it through summary execution, but the prisoner doesn't really die, being a downloadable conciousness... Galactica being Firefly's evolutionary descendant (hey, same SFX team, ship-cameo in the pilot episode), I'm not surprised they also take the non-apologetic stance on torture, but a more tv-friendly attitude towards summary execution (where would a how be without bad guys being killed off?)
That sounds logical, but it is not (IMHO). In the morning when I get up for work, I turn on maybe two lights (bedroom and bathroom). I am focused on getting ready for work, so there is not any entertainment (TV), stereo, really nothing except an electric razor. I brew my tea, and I am off to work (I don't think my headlights count as extra energy).
When I come home from work, well, all the lights in the kitchen, the halls, very soon the livingroom, the plasma TV, the surround sound, the computer. Lot's more things. Now, most of these don't change from summer to winter, except the lights. If it is light out, I do not turn them on (shocking). That is a savings of energy by not turning on the lights. So, the electronics are what eat up all the energy, but you're saving energy by turning on different lights at different hours?
I hope you had your cofee after you posted that...
If they are Mormons, just ask them about their special underwear - that seems to make them unconformable when their at my door:) If you answer the door naked, they stop coming...
This still does not explain why it is *so* widespread. Why is it better for me to know that when I die, I'm going to heaven and somebody will be there for me? What is the benefit of the belief to the believer? Motivation.
Look at the buildings people have erected in order to please those supernatural beings from beyond. They're going to great lengths because of their belief.
Just don't approve anything. In about 6 months you'll get the funds you need. I don't think that would work:
September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."
January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
[...] July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products.
[...] September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Will Apple insist on it have their DRM If you MUST make a stupid, pointless, tired joke about Apple FUD, you could at least try to do it in a sentence that makes sense.
smear with precisely zero rationale given to support it? Smear? What have religious pressure groups done that demonstrate good judgement?
Prohibition? The superbowl overreaction? The burning of the beatle's albums in the "bigger than jesus" days? The "play tatoos with LSD in them are being sold to kids at corner stores" urban legend? Harrassing and bombing medical clinics because the perform abortions? How about trying to ban modern biology from schools? Or force-feeding a braindead woman because of reflex muscle contractions of the face that look like precious smiles?
How many examples do you want? I didn't have to offer rationale because everytime a religious pressure group releases a statement, it is blatantly devoid of good judgement.
Parent groups prepare to label real life as "violent and filled with adult-related content."....seriously, folks. Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is. This is a religious pressure group, you can't teach good judgement if you don't have any yourself.
If you are going to cite a dictionary you should learn how to use one. You should look beyond the first entry, especially when later entries are domain specific. For example, a definition from a Law Dictionary:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: theft Function: noun Etymology: Old English thiefth : LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes. Fascinating.
It does not apply software, but, interresting.
Main Entry: service Function: noun 1 : the act of delivering to or informing someone of a writ, summons, or other notice as prescribed by law --see also notice by publication at NOTICE, SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, SUMMONS NOTE: Although service of process is primarily the means for a court to exert personal jurisdiction over a person, some form of service (as by publication of notice in a newspaper) is also usually required for exercise of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. 2 a : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity --usually used in pl. b : the maintenance or repair of tangible property
Using a service takes something away from them: Their time spent servicing you. Software is covered by copyright, but if someone makes a copy without paying the owner, nothing was taken away. Everyone understands this difference, some people ignore it and repeat a fallacious analogy because it makes their complaints sound more rightgeous than they really are. It's not honest to use software that wasn't paid for, but it's not honest either to claim that this is the same as taking something away from someone else.
In short: Stop saying that using warez is the same a stealing a wallet.
It's not double-speak, it's an accurate description. Moreover, we hear the term "illegal" all the time, like "illegal campaign contribution." I've told you, it's when applying it to a person, an illegal PERSON, as oopposed to the act. Why do you come back with "illegal is a real word, I can use it in a sentence"? Hard to tell if you're obtuse or pretending to be...
Meh, you know what, I don't care if you're dumb or faking dumb, I'm done repeating this, you don't want to be wrong, so you'll pretend you're right no matter what. Buh bye.
I agree that "all cultures except my own are irrelevant" is a disgustingly ignorant outlook. "Only cultures that made significant contributions to, or have a current significant impact on, the one I live in count when I'm considering how we got here" is a different matter. It doesn't mean the American Indians weren't interesting, or that Europeans didn't invade and take their land... it just means that the American Indians don't count as discoverers of the Americas from the viewpoint of the current culture. If you really think that the native cultures contributed so little to the modern american culture that they can be considered irrelevant, you're clearly so ignorant that discussions with you would be endless streams of frustrating incidents where you keep exposing your ignorance and defending it, rather than allowing the information you are exposed to to enlighten you.
If you think that the navajo codes were not a significant factor in WWII, for instance...
referring to people who've broken the law. Somehow, only dirty foreigners end up being called "illegals", not embezlers or any others who break the law. Again, the law aspect appears to be a red herring, since it's only used this way for one class of people who have broken the law. A class of people who's more traditional epitheths have fallen out of political corerctness.
It's doublespeak, and doublespeak is bad, mmm kay?
Theft covers both property and services. It is therefore appropriate to use the word theft with respect to software piracy. theft Pronunciation: 'theft Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
The thing I find odd is that most of the advanced civilizations were in Mexico and S. America, rather than from the North. If the first humans came from the north through asia, then the first people were nomads, with a lifestyle that is still surviving in remote parts of asia (mongols still ride and herd semi-tamed horses, people in siberia still stalk deer herds). These people found massive herds in north america, and they came from people who had been hunting from massive heards for thousands of years, so they kept doing what worked. The beasts looked a little different, but they gave Perfectly Normal Meat. Being nomads, these people spread down south, where there were deserts and mountains and jungles, but no great herds, so they had a choice: improvise, or walk all the way back to where it was cold and women covered themselves non-stop in great leather coats with the fur on the inside. In the south, it was warm, and boobies were flying freely... so the paleogeeks did their thing. To advance civilization, of course.
Despite what some overly sensitive user with a mod point thought, the parent post was NOT flamebait. Why is this modded up? Sheesh, mod it back down into the noise already!
And yes, "all cultures except my own are irrelevant" is bound to be flamed from people from any number of cultures. Since there's no "-1 ignorant" or "-1 jing" choices, flamebait will have to do.
The author doesn't get paid when his stuff is pirated. Wow, I did not know that! Tell me more, great source of new knowledge!
The fact that its digital software that can be copied unlimited times without cost is wholly irrelevant. Irrelevant? Wasn't it just like getting mugged just now?
The most important viewpoint is that of the author. If we want good software to continue to be made, not horribly bad user interface wise open source software, then you have to make sure the developer can get paid. Simple as that. That STILL isn't the same as a mugging.
You know what's a lot like theft, though? Having all data in your home folder taken away from you, permanently.
If you're looking for something tangible to liken to willfull disregard of copyright for personal use, try "sneaking in a movie theatre". THAT's the same: You're enjoying someone's hard work without giving them anything, but you aren't taking anything away from them. If you catch people sneaking in your theatre, you can kick them out, you can hand them over to the proper authorities to be dealt with according to the law, but you cannot empty their pockets and trash their contents. No matter how entitled you feel to your entry fee, you can't dish out vigilante justice.
don't have a problem with a migrant worker, as long as he is here LEGALLY. [...] meld into the US culture. The are more likely to learn English...a language needed [...] flying the freakin' Mexican flag?!?[...] absorbed in the melting pot. Just do it the LEGAL way. Now, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
You start with a rational of legality and documentation, which is all fine and dandy, but then you launch into a rant about english and flags. You peppered it with mentions of legality, but it's not illegal not to speak english nor is it illegal to wave another country's flag. Your issues obviously aren't limited to legality... But you say they are.
The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object.
The act of coming here contrary to our laws is what's illegal. Don't play the PC card on me - "illegal" is what they've always been called. The PC terms of "immigrant" (without the word "illegal" in front) and "migrant workers" are the terms people are using now to obfuscate the issue. That's what PC is, that's what PC does, it tries to change people's impressions of how things really are. Here is a 1907 report on immigration, I'll link the section on immigration legislation, so you can see that, no, "illegal immigrants" is not what they've always been called (nor illegal alien). That deliciously crafted bit of doule-speak is a recent invention. And "migrant workers" says nothing about the legality of the migration, it's a term for people who go where the work is. The fact that you paint that as a rewording of "illegalimmigrant" says alot about your preconceptions.
So, who's trying to change people's impressions of how things really are? The one saying "illegal immigrants is what they've always been called", or the one supplying proof that this isn't the case? Hint: It's not the guy with the historical documents supporting his assertions.
"That's a stupid thing to say, and you're stupid for saying it."
Why is that? Because "football" says nothing about boys or girls, it only mentions a foot and a ball. No matter how much of a sissy sport soccer is, that has nothing to with which one should be called "football". Not a thing.
If you don't like the law, change it through participation in the democratic process (and the judicial system itself, to an extent). I'd like to read your proposal on how illegal immigrants could, rather than cross the border without filling the proper paperwork, participate in a foreign country's democratic and judicial processes.
What part about "illegal" do people not understand? I have sympathy for people wanting to come here. My wife is from South America, it took years for her to become a legal resident (we'd already had one child). I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours taking her for medical exams, to get fingerprinted (several times, since they kept changing the rules about what they'd accept), getting documents translated and notorized...
I'm not saying it should be that brutal, but I'm saying that I did put my money where my mouth is - there's a right way and wrong way to immigrate to another country. Illegally is the WRONG way. The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object. They are "illegals", it's something deragotary to apply to them that happens to be politically correct, and some of us don't fall for PC naming schemes. Like I said to someone else, they broke a law? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (I've personally broken a jaywalking law no later than this morning, and I'll do it again later tonight, that would make me an 'OMG t3h illeal p3destr1an!', wouldn't it? But I don't EVER hear that formula applied to street crossing as it is with border crossing, but if "the law i the law", it should).
You are, of course, right on one thing: Coming to a country illegally is the wrong way to do it The thing is, for a lot of people, doing it wrong is the only way they can. They don't have the money you put in, and they don't have the know-how to face the paperwork, so they do what humans have always done, they improvise.
Sure, it's alarming to know that people come and go in your country without oversight, but remember, all of the accused 9/11 highjackers came to the states legally. Some even had their visa renewals shipped in 2002! There's no relation between proper paperwork and proper mentality. If someone comes illegally to do honest work, you should be less annoyed at them then when someone fills all the right forms but comes to screw and/or kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
[...]
a concerned group of citizens doing this PR work for the army. I considered 24 to be part of the pop-culture pro-torture propaganda. So I find it odd, not scary, that the pentagon is now telling them to cut it back...
I don't watch 24, but I did see a member of congress on tv (ok, the Daily Show) say that since so many people loved Jack Bauer, and that Jack Bauer uses torture, therefore the American people have spoken and declared torture to be fine. I'm thinking it's stuff like that that prompted the Pentagon's distancing. Getting people desensitized to the idea of torture in the name of national security is one thing, but that elected representative was taking it too far.
As for the pop-culture propaganda, I recently caught a bit of Enterprise (which I also never really watched) on rerun, from the season where the Enterprise is going deep in enemy territory to disarm a weapon of mass destruction that someone from the future told 'em about (ripped from 2003's headlines!) where captain Archer had an uncooperative POW, and he took him to an airlock to scare and hurt him into talking (an airlock with a convenient slow air drain).
Of course, Enterprise being a badly written show, his effort were transparent and you just know the guy will give in and Archer won't go through with it, but it struck me because it reminded me of Malcom Reynolds putting Jayne in the airlock on Firefly. The difference being, in Firefly you believed he would actually do it, but mostly that in Enterprise the airlock torture was glamourized as an effective way to get reliable information. Firefly never gave me the impression that torture was okay (in fact, it was shown in another ep as futile and sadistic). One show got shitcanned despite being the best sci-fi on TV at the time, the other dragged on long past the point where it was evident that it was a turd with a Federation isignia tacked on. I see the work of the media branch of the military-industry-congress complex here, funding a message and not another.
P.S. Galactica's version of that scenario was the most ambiguous, and arguably the better one: the torture wasn't working, the airlock was used to put a stop to it through summary execution, but the prisoner doesn't really die, being a downloadable conciousness... Galactica being Firefly's evolutionary descendant (hey, same SFX team, ship-cameo in the pilot episode), I'm not surprised they also take the non-apologetic stance on torture, but a more tv-friendly attitude towards summary execution (where would a how be without bad guys being killed off?)
I do find it interesting that +5 anti global warming posts have gone from "not happening" to "natural & good".
When I come home from work, well, all the lights in the kitchen, the halls, very soon the livingroom, the plasma TV, the surround sound, the computer. Lot's more things. Now, most of these don't change from summer to winter, except the lights. If it is light out, I do not turn them on (shocking). That is a savings of energy by not turning on the lights. So, the electronics are what eat up all the energy, but you're saving energy by turning on different lights at different hours?
I hope you had your cofee after you posted that...
Look at the buildings people have erected in order to please those supernatural beings from beyond. They're going to great lengths because of their belief.
September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."
January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
[...]
July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products.
[...]
September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Prohibition?
The superbowl overreaction?
The burning of the beatle's albums in the "bigger than jesus" days?
The "play tatoos with LSD in them are being sold to kids at corner stores" urban legend?
Harrassing and bombing medical clinics because the perform abortions?
How about trying to ban modern biology from schools? Or force-feeding a braindead woman because of reflex muscle contractions of the face that look like precious smiles?
How many examples do you want? I didn't have to offer rationale because everytime a religious pressure group releases a statement, it is blatantly devoid of good judgement.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes. Fascinating.
It does not apply software, but, interresting.
Main Entry: service
Function: noun
1 : the act of delivering to or informing someone of a writ, summons, or other notice as prescribed by law --see also notice by publication at NOTICE, SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, SUMMONS
NOTE: Although service of process is primarily the means for a court to exert personal jurisdiction over a person, some form of service (as by publication of notice in a newspaper) is also usually required for exercise of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
2 a : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity --usually used in pl. b : the maintenance or repair of tangible property
Using a service takes something away from them: Their time spent servicing you.
Software is covered by copyright, but if someone makes a copy without paying the owner, nothing was taken away. Everyone understands this difference, some people ignore it and repeat a fallacious analogy because it makes their complaints sound more rightgeous than they really are. It's not honest to use software that wasn't paid for, but it's not honest either to claim that this is the same as taking something away from someone else.
In short: Stop saying that using warez is the same a stealing a wallet.
Moreover, we hear the term "illegal" all the time, like "illegal campaign contribution." I've told you, it's when applying it to a person, an illegal PERSON, as oopposed to the act. Why do you come back with "illegal is a real word, I can use it in a sentence"? Hard to tell if you're obtuse or pretending to be...
Meh, you know what, I don't care if you're dumb or faking dumb, I'm done repeating this, you don't want to be wrong, so you'll pretend you're right no matter what. Buh bye.
"Only cultures that made significant contributions to, or have a current significant impact on, the one I live in count when I'm considering how we got here" is a different matter.
It doesn't mean the American Indians weren't interesting, or that Europeans didn't invade and take their land... it just means that the American Indians don't count as discoverers of the Americas from the viewpoint of the current culture. If you really think that the native cultures contributed so little to the modern american culture that they can be considered irrelevant, you're clearly so ignorant that discussions with you would be endless streams of frustrating incidents where you keep exposing your ignorance and defending it, rather than allowing the information you are exposed to to enlighten you.
If you think that the navajo codes were not a significant factor in WWII, for instance...
Again, the law aspect appears to be a red herring, since it's only used this way for one class of people who have broken the law. A class of people who's more traditional epitheths have fallen out of political corerctness.
It's doublespeak, and doublespeak is bad, mmm kay?
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Being nomads, these people spread down south, where there were deserts and mountains and jungles, but no great herds, so they had a choice: improvise, or walk all the way back to where it was cold and women covered themselves non-stop in great leather coats with the fur on the inside.
In the south, it was warm, and boobies were flying freely... so the paleogeeks did their thing. To advance civilization, of course.
And yes, "all cultures except my own are irrelevant" is bound to be flamed from people from any number of cultures. Since there's no "-1 ignorant" or "-1 jing" choices, flamebait will have to do.
Simple as that. That STILL isn't the same as a mugging.
You know what's a lot like theft, though? Having all data in your home folder taken away from you, permanently.
If you're looking for something tangible to liken to willfull disregard of copyright for personal use, try "sneaking in a movie theatre". THAT's the same: You're enjoying someone's hard work without giving them anything, but you aren't taking anything away from them.
If you catch people sneaking in your theatre, you can kick them out, you can hand them over to the proper authorities to be dealt with according to the law, but you cannot empty their pockets and trash their contents.
No matter how entitled you feel to your entry fee, you can't dish out vigilante justice.
Just do it the LEGAL way. Now, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
You start with a rational of legality and documentation, which is all fine and dandy, but then you launch into a rant about english and flags. You peppered it with mentions of legality, but it's not illegal not to speak english nor is it illegal to wave another country's flag.
Your issues obviously aren't limited to legality... But you say they are.
The act of coming here contrary to our laws is what's illegal. Don't play the PC card on me - "illegal" is what they've always been called. The PC terms of "immigrant" (without the word "illegal" in front) and "migrant workers" are the terms people are using now to obfuscate the issue.
That's what PC is, that's what PC does, it tries to change people's impressions of how things really are. Here is a 1907 report on immigration, I'll link the section on immigration legislation, so you can see that, no, "illegal immigrants" is not what they've always been called (nor illegal alien). That deliciously crafted bit of doule-speak is a recent invention.
And "migrant workers" says nothing about the legality of the migration, it's a term for people who go where the work is. The fact that you paint that as a rewording of "illegalimmigrant" says alot about your preconceptions.
So, who's trying to change people's impressions of how things really are? The one saying "illegal immigrants is what they've always been called", or the one supplying proof that this isn't the case?
Hint: It's not the guy with the historical documents supporting his assertions.
Why is that? Because "football" says nothing about boys or girls, it only mentions a foot and a ball. No matter how much of a sissy sport soccer is, that has nothing to with which one should be called "football". Not a thing.
I'd really like to know how that would work.
I have sympathy for people wanting to come here. My wife is from South America, it took years for her to become a legal resident (we'd already had one child). I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours taking her for medical exams, to get fingerprinted (several times, since they kept changing the rules about what they'd accept), getting documents translated and notorized...
I'm not saying it should be that brutal, but I'm saying that I did put my money where my mouth is - there's a right way and wrong way to immigrate to another country. Illegally is the WRONG way. The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object.
They are "illegals", it's something deragotary to apply to them that happens to be politically correct, and some of us don't fall for PC naming schemes. Like I said to someone else, they broke a law? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (I've personally broken a jaywalking law no later than this morning, and I'll do it again later tonight, that would make me an 'OMG t3h illeal p3destr1an!', wouldn't it? But I don't EVER hear that formula applied to street crossing as it is with border crossing, but if "the law i the law", it should).
You are, of course, right on one thing: Coming to a country illegally is the wrong way to do it
The thing is, for a lot of people, doing it wrong is the only way they can. They don't have the money you put in, and they don't have the know-how to face the paperwork, so they do what humans have always done, they improvise.
Sure, it's alarming to know that people come and go in your country without oversight, but remember, all of the accused 9/11 highjackers came to the states legally. Some even had their visa renewals shipped in 2002!
There's no relation between proper paperwork and proper mentality. If someone comes illegally to do honest work, you should be less annoyed at them then when someone fills all the right forms but comes to screw and/or kill people.