So if we gave them all Visas - we'd be good for less than two weeks?
Sounds like a bigger problem here.
On a related note, how many highly skilled and educated people live here already who are currently unemployed?
Two observations.
* Immigrants will go to where the work is. They will live almost anywhere the work is, they are moving already so it is easier than for someone who has roots somewhere.
* Immigrants will work harder and for less money. This is like starting a new job x10. Typically starting a new job - people work their tails off (for the first year or two at least). Think about that plus moving half way around the world just for personal achievement. Imagine the motivation that would give you. You would want to prove yourself, get permanent status, make a lot of money to bring family here ETC. And the money? think about it. Would you take less money for a huge opportunity in life?
Here is the thing though. Bringing in skilled immigrants is great for greedy capitalism, you get talent, hard work, and for cheap. The problem is - we are just working around a growing problem. What about the people who already live here. Not just the adults, but the kids who will be in high school and college in a few years. Why can't they be the ones who fill these jobs?
Bringing in immigrants is a short term moneymaker for corporations. Longer term, and in a couple of generations, these immigrants grand kids will be the ones who don't have a job. Let's put more focus on that aspect rather than always rallying behind opening the floodgates without properly considering the ramifications.
Einstein, Tesla and Musk. None of those guys would have ended up in the US if you had any power over immigration policy. Oh.. and are you native? Genuine question as I have no idea.
What kind of argument is this? You can't argue fate. You could also say that without the level of immigration we have, the world trade center would never have been attacked, we would have never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Millions of lives would be saved.
One could say that Einstein changed fate such that a certain person was never even born who would have surpassed his achievements. This is nonsense and illogical.
In the United States, nine percent of computer science graduates are unemployed, and 14.7 percent of those who hold degrees in information systems have no job. Graduates with degrees in STEM - science, technology, engineering and medicine - are facing record joblessness, with unemployment at more than twice pre-recession levels. The job market for law degree holders continues to erode, with only 55 percent of 2011 law graduates in full-time jobs.
The argument is that if you deny people entry you miss out on talent. It is that simple. Now you want to deny people with proven talent who's abilities will further the interests of the nation state. Some of those you deny will have exceptional abilities. The nation as a whole loses.
It is very sad that nine percent of computer science graduates are unemployed. Why is that? Why are they not fulfilling the already critical need for skilled IT workers? A clue - it's not because the immigrants are taking all there jobs.
Love the quote BTW - from and immigrant news service.
Do you use soap to wash your hands? or just rinse them off with water (especially if you happened to get a little on you)?
Do you then pick up your chicken wings or pork ribs with your butt cheeks and stick them into your mouth, proceeding to lick off the excess sauce/grease?
I have just demonstrated why your example has a complete lack of logic or value.
FWIW, I use a baby wipe. This uses less water and about the same amount of paper. it actually does a little better job, is quicker and far more economical. My toilet will last 40 years with about 10% of the purchase and maintenance costs. I also carry wipes around to use in public restrooms so while you may get clean at home, I get clean on the road as well.
I mainly do this because I have itching/chapping issues if I don't.
If a christian run organization fired an employee (lets not kid ourselves here, Eich was fired) because they paid $1,000 to support gay marriage, how dramatically would the reaction differ from this situation?
Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.
I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.
When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.
Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.
These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.
If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".
Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.
If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.
I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
Congrats Apple for all your achievements. It is amazing what can be accomplished when you employ Chinese Engineers and manufacturers who's tech espionage (they steal trade secrets) is one of their best known traits/assets.
Apple have made several aquisitions in the last few years to give them the technology they need to make these sorts of developments. Even if some of the tech had been stolen, it would require a lot of work to put it into practice.
I know I'm feeding the troll, but I couldn't help it; this is just too ridiculous.
What he did is support the disagreement that what is now considered a "right" by an increasingly liberal society was indeed a "right". What is wrong with this? Liberals and gays need to realize that they are often bigots against religion. Those believing the Bible's teachings have a different set of moral standards. I find it ironic that this man is called immoral by liberals and that gays are dubbed the immoral ones by believers in God.
Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-religious groups and individuals.
Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?
Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.
Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.
The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
anti-religious groups and individuals.
Aren't you forgetting the people trying to implement state-sponsored discrimination.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
do atheists know they are really correct? how do
religious people? At least the religious people have
a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
Insane presuppositions aside. The existence of God has nothing to do with equal rights under state laws. Prop 8 wasn't a referendum on whether or not God exists, it was a vote by a 'tyrannical majority' to strip the rights of the minority.
So who are the real bigots here?
The people who try to deny rights to others.
Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
help them up and continue the competition.
Or just don't actively work to harm other people, that will go much further.
Except it isn't "Liberals vs. Believers" because there are lots of liberals who are christians. And there are christian churches that will marry two people of the same sex. There are lots of people who interpret the bible differently.
So what is happening is certain liberals are bigoted against certain religions that have certain interpretations of their religious texts. Which is a lot different than liberals are bigoted against religion.
This seems pretty unpopular PG , and it seems to have a lot of pitfalls and things that you have overlooked. How about making it so that people can opt into seeing the pending comments (so to them everything is as it was before). Let people decide for themselves.
This really would be the right thing to do. If it seems that most people not opt into the (old way) or opt out and stay out after a while, then maybe switch over.
The people of the internet are what make HN. Let them decide. Don't take the freedoms on hundreds of thousands of people away overnight.
There are only 5,500 people with 1000 karma or more. Most of them live in California. Now letting them agree with and approve the opinions and viewpoints of the other hundreds of thousands of members is going to shut down most opinions before they are even heard, some of which are more generally popular than theirs. The minority will silence the majority.
Silence those with opinions that are not popular. Even if their points are valid, censor them. how many innocuous comments (ones that may not be quite worth an up-vote, yet add a sprinkle of thought) will be lost forever? In this scenario, all those comments who were left at 1 point now are never heard. Casual users (which must make up quite a large percentage of HN) will not be readily heard.
Those comments with even an air of controversy will not be approved because if it ends up with down-votes, that will go toward the approving member's record and may end up getting them banned eventually.
Controversial points and less popular opinions and facts will never be seen to counter. PG, you are building a Censorship wall so that controversial or unpopular comments now don't even exist to refute/debate. There is a reason that anytime you take away people's free speech or expression, they eventually revolt.
Why do comments that are not mainstream have to go away (as in never be seen). Why not engage in debate about them. I never understood this. Sure I can see censoring comments containing personal threats or vulgar content, but this is ridiculous. Keeping information from someone's eyes just because one group does not agree with it is censorship.
Honestly, the way that disagreeable comments are handled now are quite refreshing and are one of the reasons that HN is so popular. Anyone can post their opinion. If people don't agree with it, they can engage in civil opposition. If it is inappropriate, they can down-vote.
Perhaps the biggest reason for not pending comments is that you are going to dramatically change what shows up here. You have members of one group (or classification if you will) who are very active and will all have 1000 points, this group now is the voice of HN. Those who post more occasionally, post late, or don't pad their numbers by replying to the hot thread (rather they create their own which drops 3/4 down the page) now have a limited voice. Other groups likely have many differing opinions than the over 1000 class, they now have no voice. You see, your over 1000 (certainly the minority of your members) mostly all have common opinions, ideologies and viewpoints about things. This group now has the power to silence those others (though perhaps even larger in numbers) groups.
I would have liked it if you ran a poll before coding something like this. A last minute pseudo-courtesy notification shows just how much HN is really all about you and does not really belong to the people who actually own it (the public). Without us, you've got and idle server. No stories posted, no comments, nothing. Your totalitarianism attitude put a bad taste in my mouth.
I promised not to comment on HN again due to this policy but I logged in one last time just to upvote this comment from NextUserName. I don't care how much karma he/she has or doesn't have, the words hit the nail right on the head. I hope that the HN folks realize that this decision to pend comments has left a bad taste in many visitors mouths. The path goes against the social expectations of today. Whether other platforms do it or not, is not and should not be the issue. I can see that user experience is not high on the task list with this decision, but please listen and care about us who are now leaving but still wish to return when a more social policy is in place.
Silence those with opinions that are not popular. Even if their points are valid, censor them. how many innocuous comments (ones that may not be quite worth an up-vote, yet add a sprinkle of thought) will be lost forever? In this scenario, all those comments who were left at 1 point now are never heard. Casual users (which must make up quite a large percentage of HN) will not be readily heard.
Those comments with even an air of controversy will not be approved because if it ends up with down-votes, that will go toward the approving member's record and may end up getting them banned eventually.
Controversial points and less popular opinions and facts will never be seen to counter. PG, you are building a Censorship wall so that controversial or unpopular comments now don't even exist to refute/debate. There is a reason that anytime you take away people's free speech or expression, they eventually revolt.
Why do comments that are not mainstream have to go away (as in never be seen). Why not engage in debate about them. I never understood this. Sure I can see censoring comments containing personal threats or vulgar content, but this is ridiculous. Keeping information from someone's eyes just because one group does not agree with it is censorship.
Honestly, the way that disagreeable comments are handled now are quite refreshing and are one of the reasons that HN is so popular. Anyone can post their opinion. If people don't agree with it, they can engage in civil opposition. If it is inappropriate, they can down-vote.
Perhaps the biggest reason for not pending comments is that you are going to dramatically change what shows up here. You have members of one group (or classification if you will) who are very active and will all have 1000 points, this group now is the voice of HN. Those who post more occasionally, post late, or don't pad their numbers by replying to the hot thread (rather they create their own which drops 3/4 down the page) now have a limited voice. Other groups likely have many differing opinions than the over 1000 class, they now have no voice. You see, your over 1000 (certainly the minority of your members) mostly all have common opinions, ideologies and viewpoints about things. This group now has the power to silence those others (though perhaps even larger in numbers) groups.
I would have liked it if you ran a poll before coding something like this. A last minute pseudo-courtesy notification shows just how much HN is really all about you and does not really belong to the people who actually own it (the public). Without us, you've got and idle server. No stories posted, no comments, nothing. Your totalitarianism attitude put a bad taste in my mouth.
So if we gave them all Visas - we'd be good for less than two weeks?
Sounds like a bigger problem here.
On a related note, how many highly skilled and educated people live here already who are currently unemployed?
Two observations.
* Immigrants will go to where the work is. They will live almost anywhere the work is, they are moving already so it is easier than for someone who has roots somewhere.
* Immigrants will work harder and for less money. This is like starting a new job x10. Typically starting a new job - people work their tails off (for the first year or two at least). Think about that plus moving half way around the world just for personal achievement. Imagine the motivation that would give you. You would want to prove yourself, get permanent status, make a lot of money to bring family here ETC. And the money? think about it. Would you take less money for a huge opportunity in life?
Here is the thing though. Bringing in skilled immigrants is great for greedy capitalism, you get talent, hard work, and for cheap. The problem is - we are just working around a growing problem. What about the people who already live here. Not just the adults, but the kids who will be in high school and college in a few years. Why can't they be the ones who fill these jobs?
Bringing in immigrants is a short term moneymaker for corporations. Longer term, and in a couple of generations, these immigrants grand kids will be the ones who don't have a job. Let's put more focus on that aspect rather than always rallying behind opening the floodgates without properly considering the ramifications.