I'll comment under the assumption that you haven't thought this out to its many possible consequences. Maybe you could make a case for some intrinsic right of travel, but there are other natural rights (not to mention socially-accepted rights and responsibilities) that would supersede such a right.

Here is an extreme example: If Israel opened their borders, there wouldn't be an Israel, just a bunch of craters.
Here's another: If the US opened their borders (ports, specifically), you wouldn't be able to trust that the antibiotic you're taking isn't actually cyanide or an ineffective knockoff.
Here's another: If there was no barrier to trade in controlled arms and dual-use technology, North Korea and Iran (among others) would already have space-capable nuclear arsenals.
For that matter, take any horrible thing you can imagine, from lethally incorrect medication to radioactive waste to biological and chemical weapons to slaves and make those things available anywhere in the world. Better get out your Geiger counter and make sure your toothpaste wasn't made with reactor-coolant sodium.

There are a lot of things that we get wrong. The mere existence of famine, poverty, and widespread illness are testaments to our social failures. These things do not invalidate what we have gotten right. Some things should be controlled, some things should be validated, some things deserve a chain of responsibility and a means of seeing that responsibility culminate in rational consequences for those that abuse their fellow man.

The real problem is that there is no one solution. Every problem plaguing us today is a trade-off. Drugs are illegal in part because of the collateral damage, in part because some people are just too stupid/irresponsible to have them, in part because it offends some people's morality, and in part because it damages someone's bottom line. Guns, same thing. The 'war on' targets are all like this. Other problems such as poverty, famine, economic collapse; these are due to many factors. Adjust that 'one thing' that seems like it will make everything better and something else collapses, some other unforeseen consequence hits us. We could do nothing and see no improvement at all, but then what would be the point of trying? Besides, different cultures define moral in different ways. There is no one right way.

To bring this back to the original topic, no. We absolutely cannot throw the border open. We may not like our laws, but we are bound to respect them and it is not legal to enter this country without a visa or citizenship. We are not morally obligated to drive our own support systems past the point of collapse solely to appease the guilt-ridden people who feel bad about the terrible conditions across the border or anywhere else. To put it bluntly we're no help to anyone if we can't help ourselves, and we're not doing so hot right now. Maybe it sounds callous to you, but screw the people that drain our social support without giving anything back. If individuals want to donate their time, money, or expertise then so be it but we cannot allow a de facto aid package to be sucked out of our hospitals and food pantries and shelters.

Good old Streisand effect. I just downloaded a copy of the evangelism presentation (oh noes, did I infringe MS's copyright?) and read through it. For some reason, learning that something is censored makes me take a lot of effort to find it and read through it carefully, much more than if nothing happened to it. It's probably partly "if it gets censored, it must be interesting" and partly sticking it to the man. Doesn't matter, whatever gets uploaded is out there and will be forever out there and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that.

you just package Cygwin DLLs with your binaries, and that's it.
Then the user another app with a different version of the cygwin dll (or installs cygwin on thier system) and due to the way cygwin uses shared memory to emulate posix stuff things tend to start crashing when two versions of the dll are loaded at once.

Also iirc the license for the main cygwin library is GPL with a linking exception for other FOSS licenses so if your software is not FOSS then afaict you would need a special license to do what you propose in a compliant manner.

I carry a bomb. The chance of there being more than one bomb on a plane is astronomical and since i don't plan to detonate mine, i feel much safer. If you want to try this, make sure your bomb is clearly labeled and declare it before you board - they don't like you bringing bombs on a plane unannounced.

For eve, assume that tank absorbs the healer role most of the time, as electronic warfare is far more significant than healing others. Ewar exists to negate damage, to negate speed advantages, to boost targeting speed, etc., which makes the bard/commander/buff+debuff class eve's de facto third member of the trinity.

Specialists don't succeed solo in eve (in combat). If you are all tank or all damage, you're all useless. A tank with no damage or ewar potential won't get attacked until everyone else is dead. An all-damage fit/skill will get primaried because they die the fastest and they are the biggest threat. All of this is irrelevant if your enemy is stupid of course, but let's concern ourselves with competent opponents here.

Success in pvp (and to some extent in pve) relies on doing enough damage to pose a credible threat while retaining enough tank to actualize that damage. Even in gangs or fleets, there may be a few specialists (tackle/ewar) but the generalists make it happen. Many successful gang arrangements have no specialization; the homogeneity of the group makes individual losses much less significant. Specialist groups can be more effective in the right circumstances (like gatecamping or frigate combat), but the range of situations encountered by a roving gang are hard to address with a group of specialists.

You may specialize in one weapon system, or one type of tank, or one flavor of ewar, but you cannot be called a competent combat pilot if you are missing one of the trinity. Even then, if your specialty is known it can be overcome. There is no invulnerable character, no perfect ship. Everything dies in the end; the more people you piss off the shorter the wait to go visit your cloning tank.

And that's why I play eve.

something else to consider...

The publishers are the ones who are selling books to those same distributors that pay for click-through sales. The publishers are already making their money (now). The problem for them is when cheap online printing services pair up with authors (content creators if you prefer) and with google to eliminate the traditional publishers, publicists, and distributors.

According to Back to the Future II, the Cubs won't win the World Series until 2015... ;^)

And this server is going to help the average person play The Sims 3, how? Or make Photoshop render faster? Or help Windows Movie Maker make the movie faster?

The average person plays at least a few games or has a task that a netbook isn't going to do well. They just aren't made for those tasks.

I thought the same thing, however I was proven "wrong". When my grandparents wanted a cheap computer (they basically live off of social security) I suggested the EEE 901 for $200, they already had a desktop and they really only used the computer for e-mail or internet. They said that the 9 inch screen wouldn't bother them. I loaded up Ubuntu and made the fonts -huge- for them. But for some odd reason they viewed it as "too slow" (don't know how, it was certainly faster than their low-end celeron running Windows 2K....) and the keyboard was "too small" (yet they still managed to text just fine on their phones...).

Also, laptops are cheap. my current laptop I got for $300, not on sale. Its not exactly outdated either, its got a Celeron 900 at 2.2 Ghz, a 15 inch screen, 2 gigs of RAM and a 160 gig HDD. Yeah, its got integrated graphics, yeah if I spent $150 extra I could have gotten a better machine, but as a student its a perfect laptop, Ubuntu runs flawlessly on it and everything works.

The cheapest netbook is $200, and the cheapest desktop is $200, which is $400, which doesn't save any money over my $300 laptop.

I never switched. The first posting wasn't mine. But you're right, i referred to the serfs as "foot soldiers".

But my point still stands: No one would pay to play a role thats doomed to loose.

was OOH! I want to play Splinter Cell starring Niles & Frasier Crane!!!

This is why I was so happy that all my wife wanted was a wedding in front of a judge and a meal with the parents at Buca's (passable Italian-American restaurant chain) afterwards.

Talk about floral centerpieces would make her eyes glaze over :-)

Sometimes patents like this one can serve the public interest merely by reducing the likelihood of bad ideas like this one from being put into general use through fines and legal action.