What the hell are you gibbergabbering about? That is the fee to enter legally. Read the context (the post I replied to). The bill provides a fine of $2000 for an illegal immigrant to make their status legal. That fee, compared to what it costs to immigrate the legal way is NOT a large fee.
More than that, the fees for legal immigration must be paid upfront (and even before you are granted permission to work in the US) while the fine for illegal immigrants may be deferred a number of years.
If 'every' immigrant doing it the legal way will face that, then ones who previously attempted to enter illegally, but are now here legally, would also be facing it. Duh. That's great justification. Now explain it to others who have been deported for returned mail that illegal immigrants will face the same kind of crap in their process to change their status to legally resident. I'm sure that'll make it all better.
The point is that "the system is broken", but Washington is focused on giving millions of residing illegal immigrants legal status as some form of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" rather than fixing the damned system! Just a guest worker program.
Pay a rather large fee? Have you any idea what it costs to immigrate the LEGAL way? Compared to that, it's not a large fee by any means.
I'll tell you what's so horrible about amnesty. Every immigrant doing it the legal way still has to face the difficulties of the system and some will no doubt be deported for crap as insignificant as undelivered mail (which they tried to do to my wife) while politicians try to "fix the problem" by giving illegal immigrants the right to stay.
It may have been easier if my wife had entered illegally. And that's just what I can't stand, the fact that they're making it easier and arguably better to do it the wrong way. Just this one time, again.
Immigration is not a problem. Unchecked immigration is.
Have you noticed that much of the degradation in this thread is coming from people criticizing conservatives? You can't tell that there's a great amount of malice towards conservatives?
And you think these are defining characteristics of conservatives?
If you're thinking that independence and personal ownership (responsibility) is the highest moral priority, then you must be thinking of Libertarians. Did the definition of conservatism change while I was sleeping, or are you just trying to demonize the political movement of your disfavor?
And what would you know about moral priorities? You want the government to redistribute wealth so you don't have to. If there's one great thing that the taxed redistribution of wealth does really well, it's leaving the citizens without any sense of obligation to do their own part. Big brother has already take the money and the responsibility to do it. Not to mention how much of it was wasted before it got to anybody in need.
Conservatives have a tendency toward ethical blindness when it comes to the pracitcal human consequences of certain ideological fixed-points, like for example their belief in the awesome awesomeness of free markets as applied to everything under the sun. I assume that, by that, you mean that there is some suggestion on how to improve social conditions by some kind new kind of restrictions of the market. What exactly do you have in mind?
Or are you just shooting your mouth off like so many jerkwads do these days?
Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did not work for.
Being poor has nothing to do with that, unless you think that I should be eager to grab for what another person has labored for. Which, having not the attitude of a thief, I do not want to take. I am poor, not desperate.
Don't forget that the alcohol industry is responsible for a great deal of CO2 emissions. Fermentation (C6H12O6 2C2H5OH + 2CO2) produces 2 molecules of ethanol and 2 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of glucose. Ethanol has a molecular weight of 46 and CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. For every 23 lbs of ethanol produced, 22 lbs of CO2 is produced as a byproduct.
Now, consider that they're trying to produce ethanol for fuel. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel, but in producing ethanol, you put CO2 into the air in an almost equal measure. Do environmentalists really want to put that in their cars?
Console controllers are comfortable and have as many buttons as any game should ever need Let me introduce you a console called the Atari. You get 2 buttons. They do everything you need them to do.
The point is that games have to limit their number of functions to what's available on the console controllers their designed for. Just because the console has enough buttons to perform all the tasks that a certain game requires does not mean no game should ever need more. As games become more advanced, so do the controls.
Yeah, right. I wouldn't buy a TiVo because companies that provide digital subscription-based services (besides WoW and EQ, or email for that matter) are EVIL.
Or maybe because TiVo doesn't let me record programs to DVD or to USB drives.
I can't justify spending $16.95 (entry level TiVo subscription with a 1-year commitment, as low as $8.31 for 3 years prepaid) to see the same damn content that my digital tuner shows me with it's guide.
But I could justify spending $5/month on such a service, especially if I can do whatever I want to with the recorded program. I don't see why it would need to be more than $5/month. Unless the provider is getting greedy.
I don't mind giving someone a profit, but there are limits to my generosity. And $17 per month with a minimum 1 year contract is waaaay out of the bounds of my generosity.
Actually, with the advent of Vista (and Microsoft's subsequent announcement of the end of XP), Microsoft has given me quite a bit of incentive to change.
Backwards compatibility is something Microsoft has failed miserably at. If my next OS is not going to support all of the software I've already purchased, it's going to be an OS that I can use indefinitely. Upgrading your system shouldn't be a major migration.
So I'm trying to get comfortable running Ubuntu. I've never done much in Linux, and it isn't easy. But damnit, I'm beginning to despise Microsoft! Damn them for giving me no options!
At least, once I have figured out how to do everything I need and want to do in Ubuntu, I will experience a freedom I have never known before.
You don't patent "a blue thing", you patent "a blue thing that does x-y-z". If your "blue thing" also does "a-b-c" without alteration, it does not constitute a novelty and cannot be patented by someone else (or at least, it shouldn't be approved). Even if "a-b-c" were unintended, it would STILL be prior art made by the manufacturer of "a blue thing".
However, if you made an alteration to "a blue thing" that made it perform "a-b-c" when it couldn't do that before, THEN you could file a patent for that.
However, the range of a typical honeybee, the thing MOST likely to polinate it, has a range of about 5 MILES in a day. Well it's quite simple, see. They solved this problem by killing off the honey bees.
From the sounds of it, that's more likely to result in the telling of the age or the high use of the chip, having very little to do with what information was last contained on the chip.
That's like looking at a dirt road and trying to identify what vehicle last drove on that surface. Successfully repeat that 7 times and you've recovered a full byte!
It has a Blu-Ray player that you can't find on other systems Yeah, that's great. But I wasn't planning on buying one of those any time soon, anyways. So why should I care?
Claiming the 2nd amendment is in order to overthrow the government is just a joke. Not a single gun owner has the balls Perhaps that's because the 2nd amendment actually calls for a well regulated militia, not just citizens with guns. The supreme court has ruled that "the Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia and it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"" in the case of United States vs. Miller.
This means that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right for the common citizen to keep and bear just guns but grenades, tanks and even warships and military aircraft, as these are all vital to the effectiveness of a militia.
But that ruling was just so they could excuse the purpose of the amendment to protect the right to carrying a sawed-off shotgun (in ignorance of the fact that sawed-off shotguns have a long history of use in wartime). I'm sure they don't want to let you own and operate a tank, and they'd reverse that ruling if you challenged them on it to that end.
as far as I can tell from the protests when they drive their bloody tractors down the highway at 7AM Those aren't protests. They're just on their way to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has been doing that for years.
Where have you been?
You forgot to consider the band-wagon factor, where politicians say something just because another, more popular politician said it.
With that in mind, it's really not all that unlikely that all 9 democrats would say the same thing.
Can you give me a name of one of your artists? I feel like calling in a request.
More than that, the fees for legal immigration must be paid upfront (and even before you are granted permission to work in the US) while the fine for illegal immigrants may be deferred a number of years. If 'every' immigrant doing it the legal way will face that, then ones who previously attempted to enter illegally, but are now here legally, would also be facing it. Duh. That's great justification. Now explain it to others who have been deported for returned mail that illegal immigrants will face the same kind of crap in their process to change their status to legally resident. I'm sure that'll make it all better.
The point is that "the system is broken", but Washington is focused on giving millions of residing illegal immigrants legal status as some form of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" rather than fixing the damned system! Just a guest worker program.
My keyboard also promotes palms down. Are we going to see a vertical keyboard next?
Pay a rather large fee? Have you any idea what it costs to immigrate the LEGAL way? Compared to that, it's not a large fee by any means.
I'll tell you what's so horrible about amnesty. Every immigrant doing it the legal way still has to face the difficulties of the system and some will no doubt be deported for crap as insignificant as undelivered mail (which they tried to do to my wife) while politicians try to "fix the problem" by giving illegal immigrants the right to stay.
It may have been easier if my wife had entered illegally. And that's just what I can't stand, the fact that they're making it easier and arguably better to do it the wrong way. Just this one time, again.
Immigration is not a problem. Unchecked immigration is.
And why I was late!
Have you noticed that much of the degradation in this thread is coming from people criticizing conservatives? You can't tell that there's a great amount of malice towards conservatives?
And you think these are defining characteristics of conservatives?
The world has gone mad.
And what would you know about moral priorities? You want the government to redistribute wealth so you don't have to. If there's one great thing that the taxed redistribution of wealth does really well, it's leaving the citizens without any sense of obligation to do their own part. Big brother has already take the money and the responsibility to do it. Not to mention how much of it was wasted before it got to anybody in need.
Or are you just shooting your mouth off like so many jerkwads do these days?
Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did not work for.
Being poor has nothing to do with that, unless you think that I should be eager to grab for what another person has labored for. Which, having not the attitude of a thief, I do not want to take. I am poor, not desperate.
Any part of that you don't understand?
You didn't even read TFA, did you? It says "Lawyer Asks RIAA To Investigate Bush Twins". Evidence generally does not preclude an investigation.
The lawyer is not reporting a crime. He's reporting suspicious activity which may be a crime, and calling for an investigation.
This has the potential to be a much more viable case to than having nothing more than a file and an IP address, which the RIAA regularly pursues.
Don't forget that the alcohol industry is responsible for a great deal of CO2 emissions. Fermentation (C6H12O6 2C2H5OH + 2CO2) produces 2 molecules of ethanol and 2 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of glucose. Ethanol has a molecular weight of 46 and CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. For every 23 lbs of ethanol produced, 22 lbs of CO2 is produced as a byproduct.
Now, consider that they're trying to produce ethanol for fuel. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel, but in producing ethanol, you put CO2 into the air in an almost equal measure. Do environmentalists really want to put that in their cars?
The point is that games have to limit their number of functions to what's available on the console controllers their designed for. Just because the console has enough buttons to perform all the tasks that a certain game requires does not mean no game should ever need more. As games become more advanced, so do the controls.
Yeah, right. I wouldn't buy a TiVo because companies that provide digital subscription-based services (besides WoW and EQ, or email for that matter) are EVIL.
Or maybe because TiVo doesn't let me record programs to DVD or to USB drives.
I can't justify spending $16.95 (entry level TiVo subscription with a 1-year commitment, as low as $8.31 for 3 years prepaid) to see the same damn content that my digital tuner shows me with it's guide.
But I could justify spending $5/month on such a service, especially if I can do whatever I want to with the recorded program. I don't see why it would need to be more than $5/month. Unless the provider is getting greedy.
I don't mind giving someone a profit, but there are limits to my generosity. And $17 per month with a minimum 1 year contract is waaaay out of the bounds of my generosity.
Actually, with the advent of Vista (and Microsoft's subsequent announcement of the end of XP), Microsoft has given me quite a bit of incentive to change.
Backwards compatibility is something Microsoft has failed miserably at. If my next OS is not going to support all of the software I've already purchased, it's going to be an OS that I can use indefinitely. Upgrading your system shouldn't be a major migration.
So I'm trying to get comfortable running Ubuntu. I've never done much in Linux, and it isn't easy. But damnit, I'm beginning to despise Microsoft! Damn them for giving me no options!
At least, once I have figured out how to do everything I need and want to do in Ubuntu, I will experience a freedom I have never known before.
It doesn't quite work that way.
You don't patent "a blue thing", you patent "a blue thing that does x-y-z". If your "blue thing" also does "a-b-c" without alteration, it does not constitute a novelty and cannot be patented by someone else (or at least, it shouldn't be approved). Even if "a-b-c" were unintended, it would STILL be prior art made by the manufacturer of "a blue thing".
However, if you made an alteration to "a blue thing" that made it perform "a-b-c" when it couldn't do that before, THEN you could file a patent for that.
Yeah, it's sexist to suggest that men expect women to fix dinner! I fix my own dinner!
I am highly offended.
From the sounds of it, that's more likely to result in the telling of the age or the high use of the chip, having very little to do with what information was last contained on the chip.
That's like looking at a dirt road and trying to identify what vehicle last drove on that surface. Successfully repeat that 7 times and you've recovered a full byte!
This means that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right for the common citizen to keep and bear just guns but grenades, tanks and even warships and military aircraft, as these are all vital to the effectiveness of a militia.
But that ruling was just so they could excuse the purpose of the amendment to protect the right to carrying a sawed-off shotgun (in ignorance of the fact that sawed-off shotguns have a long history of use in wartime). I'm sure they don't want to let you own and operate a tank, and they'd reverse that ruling if you challenged them on it to that end.
Are you seriously suggesting that they haven't made a profit? Or you think that they haven't made a sufficient profit?
This is a multi-billion dollar/year industry and Monsanto is already at the top.