If I had a quarter for every time some guy unnecessarily kissed Ron (and now Rand) Paul's fiscally-self-satisfied ass on Slashdot, we wouldn't need fiscally conservative politicians because I could just pay for everything the country needs out of my quarter-for-every-time-someone-kissed-Ron-Paul's-ass-fund. I could be the nanny state you've always dreamed of. And all because of your figurative leg humping of the Paul family. Vote for Paul!

When the inhibiting factor in the use of certain types of software is cost, then the goal isn't really improving, but rather recreating, but for free. Improvements are a bonus; people will even accept deficiencies as long as the price is right. Of course, Facebook is already free, at least from a monetary perspective, so you're right.

Obviously. The question is whether or not they consider dunkin' their donuts.

More like every day...and just by reading Slashdot.

Pretty much any time I read the word "only" in contexts such as these, it ends up being what amounts to a quickly-reached and myopic false dichotomy, as if the onlypossible options are legal/regulatory or private/technological. But perhaps, like anything else in life, the best overall solution is a combination of the best lower-level solutions, especially as the globe gets more global and things like jurisdictions and corporate partnerships get more and more nebulous.

And for what it's worth, I think you meant to write that sometimes the regulation is NOT worse than the alternative, right? Maybe I missed something.

India will always have a place (as will the Philippines, especially for support desk stuff) because of the language issues. This isn't to say that someone won't come up with an "interesting" business model serving as a communicative go-between for relatively dirt cheap Asian (read: Chinese) programmers and English-speaking business groups, but given the number of reqs. I see that stress "Excellent communicator", I think having some background in English is always going to be valuable.

I would be fine with H1Bs if they actually filled needs that weren't being met, but if you go to a site like Corp-To-Corp (or whatever you prefer), you'll see the number of companies that are willing to sponsor H1Bs for jobs like "PHP Developer, Perl Programmer, Midlevel Java Developer" and the like. If it was Bio-Genetic-Something-Or-Other, that would be one thing; there are not a lot of bio-genetic-something-or-otherists out there. But that's simply not the case with computer programmers, developers and the like.

My (now former) company simply opened multiple large IT ffices in places like Gurgaon, Mumbai and Noida, so they don't have to get H1B workers. (They were first opened as BPO offices.) American workers are slowly laid off (always in small numbers every few months) or lost by attrition, new workers are hired in those Indian offices and work for the Indian subsidiary of that company. Those offices have grown by leaps and bounds since they were first opened in 2002-3ish. So that company doesn't "outsource" anything or get any H1Bs. Whether or not that's a dirty trick is another discussion. Everyone will have their opinions.

I would say that any H1B in this economy is pretty frustrating if just based on perception (and perception tends to be reality...); I guess I just don't believe there aren't enough American workers to do those jobs.

I mod you -1 for disagree.

The "problem" is that the "bad guys" really do get away with more the more we enforce the constitution. No matter your political ilk or even if you claim not to have one (riiiiiiiight...), it's easier to get away with more crap the more freedom you have. And the Constitution takes its freedom VERY seriously, something I am very happy about.

As such, the issue is really about whether or not it's better to live in a place where we live with this sort of potential for crime because it goes hand-in-hand with freedom, or whether it's worth it to forsake certain freedoms to obtain greater control over certain bad (and really bad) behaviors.

It's easy to swing ridiculously to one side, but there are good arguments on both sides, and even amongst some of the crazier fringes. Unfortunately debates about stuff like this usually devolve into (choose your favorite or select all 6!): 1 - A bunch of tools having what amounts to a libertarian pissing contest 2 - An argument about legalizing marijuana 3 - Something where someone mentions the military industrial complex (this happens regardless of the issue actually...) 4 - Some guy talking about yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded theater 5 - A bunch of thoughts that all begin with "Well, I'm an independent, but..." 6 - Someone talking about "pigs" and how evil they are, usually in relation to something someone experienced regarding #2 above

Anyhow, when you talk about "unelected, abusive, thugs" you lose credibility and hurt your own arguments (while helping the bad cops that you dislike) via your imbalance. Not every cop is an abusive thug, nor would having to elect every cop be a good idea -- mostly because you'd have a hybrid cop/politician which is a terrifying concept. Even for someone that generally supports the police like me.

I was - and still am - under the impression that you've missed the point.