I understand there was a class action against Apple for basically the same thing: Selling a 16GB iPhone that actually had about 6GB of useful space. You should look into the progress of that case, and see if there's any precedent for you.
OTOH, Apple can be held liable because they make the hardware that says 16GB, and the software and OS. And it's obvious they benefit from people filling up there phones, as they are more likely to upgrade to a new phone...and then buy the larger memory - for which Apple charges a dear price. In the case of Google, two companies usually do that, say Samsung and Google. It's harder to hold one liable for the actions of the other.
"What does the current population of a country have to do with anything?"
It has a tremendous amount to do with how much a nation is capable of doing. That's why we almost always compare countries on a per capita basis. In the current context of immigration it matters because:
- a country has a certain number of people to process immigrants that work for the gov't. A bigger country would have more
- a country will have a certain number of churches, social groups, and programs to house immigrants and refugees. A bigger country would have more.
- a country will have a certain size tax base to pay for the programs to evaluate, and set up immigrants and refugees. A bigger country will have more.
- a country will have a certain number of towns and population centers to send immigrants and assimilate them into the population. A bigger country will have more.
- a country will have a certain amount of housing available, and a bigger country will have more.
- a country will have a certain amount of supply of available jobs for immigrants so they can accept them without causing a short term over-supply of labor. I know this is getting complicated, but a bigger country can handle a bigger shock to the supply of labor without destabilizing the economy.
- a country will have a certain supply of language and skills training for refugees. A bigger country will have more.
So, just that. And a lot of other things I didn't get around to mentioning.
2) You write "...America which is NOT attract those businesses". If you are arguing that the USA does NOT attract startup businesses, I must ask "why do you hate the USA so much"? Your negative opinion is wrong and pessimistic about your country. I recently saw this startup data about the hot auto technology sector https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/auto-tech-startups-2016-recap/ Have a look at the charts, which show you are terribly wrong. The USA obviously has attracted the LION'S SHARE of startup businesses...at least up until President Trump's reign.
Amen. I feel like my brain is bionic, enhanced by the Internet. Need to fix the torque sensor in my e-bike...youtube search...there's a video to teach me.
What's that quote about "First they came for the..." Oh, yeah, Martin Niemoller's poem. Would I ever have that info at my fingertips in the old days?
I have unbelievable access to shopping. Not just consumer crap (yeah, that too), but parts to repair my furnace, for example. Just search, download the manual, find the partslist in the PDF, match the broken part number, search for that part number, BAM, order. Two days later my furnace is fixed.
This access to information and things is fucking amazing. I am a superman beyond what was thought possible when I was a kid. I am not interested in losing my bionic ability.
Humans are native to the region around Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.
Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.
It is my opinion that it's the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.
Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?
Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you're just lazy and lucky. Can't say that for migrants - they all sacrificed to be where they are.
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Your anecdote about a Social Security office is of no value.
First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation - they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.
So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems...just lazy.
I wish I could rate your argument as -1 "insightful".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
So...ah...you're providing evidence that the "religion question" exists for applicants, but you're just debating the TIMING of the religious test? And you agree that it exists, but debate how heavily the answer to the religion question will be weighted?
Can you see how that doesn't do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet's assertion that there is a religious test in Trump's EO?
Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:
- transparency - intolerance of whistle-blowers - state-sanctioned espionage - intellectual property matters - asset forfeiture - The TPP
Mike didn't rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump's EO. Don't act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.
And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn't apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.
Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits. But so is:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."
The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.
Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one. But are we?
I see nothing in Trump's history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.
We'll only know for certain in the future, but I'm confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller's poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.
I know a guy whose brother is a Cinci cop 1990-present. His brother told him that he goes into District 1 all the time, on-duty, wearing nothing more than a speedo banana hammock. Seems crazy, but I have it on good authority, so we know it's true.
By 2006, crime in the district was down 19%, but street orgies and gay sex were each up 32% and 45% respectively as reported by Enquirer. My friends brother says it was all a positive change, and wants to establish that he is strictly a top, not a bottom.
It's not that everyone in the USA was OK with fascism, and that may have motivated some towards war.
But I think David's account of history fits better with the actual events. The US did not move on Hitler when he brought fascism and racism to his own country...but sovereignty would restrain us. However, once he marched on the Sudetenland, then Poland, the USA could have reacted, but didn't.
Canada and other commonwealth countries entered after the UK did with the sinking of the Lusitania. It wasn't until this act of aggression that the Brits got invested.
But the USA? We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor. Our motivator was not the fight against fascism. It was the defense against attackers, and to stop the growth of an enemy axis and empire.