So we should be the world's dumping ground for criminals and vagrants?
And no, I'm not saying that all immigrants fall into either of those categories. But the problem of Mexico exporting their criminals here is bad enough even with the laws in place.
I'm with ya, but in order to do that, we have to first remove the incentives that encourage people to come here illegally.
Right now, all it means to be a citizen is that you have to pay taxes. As an illegal immigrant, you get all (ok not all, but enough to make it worthwhile) of our social services for free, especially in left-leaning states like California.
So you think that allowing/forcing government agencies to co-operate with one another so that each can do their own job better is a bad thing?
I hate to use another 9/11 cliche, but wasn't the failure of the CIA, NSA, and FBI to communicate found largely to blame for the success of the attack?
...and aren't really that good at speaking Spanish.
Chances are that when the parents moved from Mexico as illegal immigrants, they didn't take the time to learn English, let alone speak it at home.
...you seem to believe that although everyone breaks laws, breaking immigration law is some kind of unforgivable sin or removes a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No, that's not what I believe. I believe that we have immigration laws for a reason, and that anyone who wishes to legally migrate to this country is more than welcome to.
It's really not that big of a thing; they're just living in the "wrong" place.
Your simplistic view fails to account for the enormous financial burdon that illegal immigration foists upon tax-paying citizens.
I agree with you 110% (despite the mathematical impossibility).
But let's not blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration is good for our country. Illegal immigration tends to just absorb resources.
I think it's possible to be "pro-immigrant" and still be opposed to illegal immigration. Just wanted to point out the distinction.
You have a very large grey economy, with a lot of companies (especially farming companies and service operations) depending on those illegal aliens for their operation.
That doesn't make it OK.
I thought that we, as a civilized nation, were supposed to punish companies that exploit people for cheap labor.
Not to mention that law-abiding companies have to compete on a level playing field (minimum wage). Why should any company be the exception?
Yes, heaven forbid that someone has an idea to legally make money, and can successfully execute it. That goes against everything this free nation stands for.
And I have more news for you: 'blogs' have ALWAYS been suspect. I don't suppose you can refer me to a time when blogs were an unimpeachable source of unbiased truth.
And that would hold water until a Little Guy (tm) sued a Big Evil Corporation (tm) with a valid claim, but lost due to the legal muscle of Big Evil Corporation.
Not sure how it works in the UK, but as you describe it, it seems that corporations could get away with just about anything.
What's frustrating is that people beg for freedom of choice across the board - freedom to choose an app, protocol, file format, library, language, whatever... to get the job done. But then they complain when two apps don't approach the same problem from the same angle because of "ego" or that they now have N "redundant" choices or X dependencies. You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps that's what I was trying to get at. I think you put it much better than I did.
The only people I see complaining in this thread are users, not the developers.
And that's why OSS, in the state it is in today, will never be able to compete with commercial, user-friendly offerings. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Since when was the purpose of Linux to 'supercede' Microsoft? Isn't it enough that Linux already provides a free, open alternative to an inferior operating system?
We'll never have very rigid standards in anything OSS because, I believe, programmers let their egos get in the way of creating the most usable program possible. They resent the notion of someone telling them how their project should function, and offen interpret any feedback as an attempt to stifle their creativity.
A lot of people like doing things their way, and that's fine! But when we see such fragmentation, forks, redundancy, etc. in OSS projects, we can't be surprised when interoperability is next to impossible.
So if you need to make your project work in a way that only you want it to work, don't be surprised when nobody else uses it.
Chances are that you aren't often pushing your CPU to capacity.
What I'd like to see is a better way to identify bottlenecks in my system. There's no sense pumping more power into a system if it's all going to be throttled by something like a slow hard drive.
And what about the people like ME who want performance for basic functionality, instead of "animated menus" and all of the graphical crap that Microsoft is really referring to whey they claim an application is "Feature Rich"
"Democratic decisionmaking about what is in the best interest of said community?"
And when was the last time that's happened at any level of government in this country? It's a pleasant ideal, but that's all it is. Temper it with the reality of government bungling and it's a far less attractive picture.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever even been in Philidelphia? The roads are crap, and there are husks of broken down cars all over the place. Lots of vagrants too.
Believe it or not, some cities have bigger, more pressing issues than a lack of free *COUGH* subsidized wireless Internet.
So we should be the world's dumping ground for criminals and vagrants?
And no, I'm not saying that all immigrants fall into either of those categories. But the problem of Mexico exporting their criminals here is bad enough even with the laws in place.
Don't post links to copyrighted media on your website.
Is it really that hard to understand?
I'm with ya, but in order to do that, we have to first remove the incentives that encourage people to come here illegally.
Right now, all it means to be a citizen is that you have to pay taxes. As an illegal immigrant, you get all (ok not all, but enough to make it worthwhile) of our social services for free, especially in left-leaning states like California.
So you think that allowing/forcing government agencies to co-operate with one another so that each can do their own job better is a bad thing?
I hate to use another 9/11 cliche, but wasn't the failure of the CIA, NSA, and FBI to communicate found largely to blame for the success of the attack?
Chances are that when the parents moved from Mexico as illegal immigrants, they didn't take the time to learn English, let alone speak it at home.
No, that's not what I believe. I believe that we have immigration laws for a reason, and that anyone who wishes to legally migrate to this country is more than welcome to.
It's really not that big of a thing; they're just living in the "wrong" place.
Your simplistic view fails to account for the enormous financial burdon that illegal immigration foists upon tax-paying citizens.
I agree with you 110% (despite the mathematical impossibility).
But let's not blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration is good for our country. Illegal immigration tends to just absorb resources.
I think it's possible to be "pro-immigrant" and still be opposed to illegal immigration. Just wanted to point out the distinction.
That doesn't make it OK.
I thought that we, as a civilized nation, were supposed to punish companies that exploit people for cheap labor.
Not to mention that law-abiding companies have to compete on a level playing field (minimum wage). Why should any company be the exception?
I'm sorta interested in why the ACLU is so interested in defending people, who by the simple act of being here, are breaking the law.
"I don't think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Yes, heaven forbid that someone has an idea to legally make money, and can successfully execute it. That goes against everything this free nation stands for.
And I have more news for you: 'blogs' have ALWAYS been suspect. I don't suppose you can refer me to a time when blogs were an unimpeachable source of unbiased truth.
And that would hold water until a Little Guy (tm) sued a Big Evil Corporation (tm) with a valid claim, but lost due to the legal muscle of Big Evil Corporation. Not sure how it works in the UK, but as you describe it, it seems that corporations could get away with just about anything.
Perhaps that's what I was trying to get at. I think you put it much better than I did.
Because mans suck.
Really, before you mod me down, do you really believe that the majority of mans provide enough information for people just learning the tool?
And that's why OSS, in the state it is in today, will never be able to compete with commercial, user-friendly offerings. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Stop right there.
Since when was the purpose of Linux to 'supercede' Microsoft? Isn't it enough that Linux already provides a free, open alternative to an inferior operating system?
We'll never have very rigid standards in anything OSS because, I believe, programmers let their egos get in the way of creating the most usable program possible. They resent the notion of someone telling them how their project should function, and offen interpret any feedback as an attempt to stifle their creativity.
A lot of people like doing things their way, and that's fine! But when we see such fragmentation, forks, redundancy, etc. in OSS projects, we can't be surprised when interoperability is next to impossible.
So if you need to make your project work in a way that only you want it to work, don't be surprised when nobody else uses it.
Chances are that you aren't often pushing your CPU to capacity. What I'd like to see is a better way to identify bottlenecks in my system. There's no sense pumping more power into a system if it's all going to be throttled by something like a slow hard drive.
Sorry... but it's not entirely off the mark this time!
Considering the hatred of Microsoft around here, I'd call "war" a perfectly suitable word to describe it.
Here you go.
And how is embedding a flight simulator into Excel 95 "Feature Rich?"
Can't argue with you there, but Excel 95 runs faster than OO.o on it's best day.
I thought the great thing about standards was that there are so many to choose from.
Microsoft chose to define and adhere to their own standard. In an OSS world, that would be perfectly acceptable.
It's called feature-rich applications, and it's what most people want out of the software they pay good money for.
Of course there will always be a few luddites like you out there longing for the days when 640K truly WAS enough RAM for everyone.
And when was the last time that's happened at any level of government in this country? It's a pleasant ideal, but that's all it is. Temper it with the reality of government bungling and it's a far less attractive picture.
Just try running OpenOffice or Gimp on a hardware-challenged laptop.
Yes, these really are stripped down.