>Yet most of the inhabitants of the United States are descended from people who immigrated during the time period you're talking about. Why was it ok for them but not for people immigrating today?
Why do you think it was OK back then? Have you talked to any Native Americans about the effects of uncontrolled migration on their tribes? Plainly put, it was an unmitigated disaster and a genocide. They used to control the whole continent (but divided between various tribes of course, that sometimes didn't get along); now their numbers are puny and they're corralled in some shitty reservations.
>Do you want criminals from other towns/counties/states coming to yours?
>If open borders work between Washington and Oregon, why don't they work between Washington and Canada?
Within a country, it's easy: people have criminal records, and can't just skip town and go to the next town and assume a new identity. (Centuries ago, however, they did.) Between countries, it's not so easy: countries don't share their criminal data that easily. That's why we have passports: it's an identification document that shows the destination country that the person is not a criminal and is allowed to travel (since they agreed together not to give these out to serious criminals).
>Immigrants pay taxes
Some do, some don't. Some go to Germany expecting a free ride, passing through all the poorer countries along the way.
>Instead of banning them, why not just let them come but make them ineligible for social services? That's cruel
Why is that cruel? If 100M people suddenly decided to move into Andorra, how exactly do you think the country is going to pay for social services for them?
No, because they have no ability enforce any policy.
>Why do you need this “global government” to let people travel around?
You said you don't want borders. That's different than just letting people travel freely. National borders entail much more than freedom of travel.
>not too long ago people were able to travel wherever they wanted without visa or passport
Yeah, because it was really difficult to travel anywhere except maybe between neighboring countries. When travel became cheap and easy and countless millions of people starting doing it, they made more restrictions because some people were taking advantage of it.
>Why do you think that we should keep those restrictions?
Do you want criminals from other countries coming to your country? In those wonderful olden days you speak of, that's what happened: people committed terrible crimes, and then evaded capture and fled to other places where no one knew who they were or what they did. Understandably, people don't really want that any more.
We also have the issue of economic migrants. No country really wants to be inundated with millions of poor people from some other country; in the era of modern social services, countries don't have the resources to provide for them. In those olden days, when people moved to a new country, they either figured out how to make a living, or they starved to death, or maybe were exiled or killed if the people there didn't like them for some reason.
The USA is a single country with a federal government, so your suggestion there makes no sense.
The Schengen zone is basically the same as the EU, which isn't a single government, but it's acting a lot like one in many ways. Either way, what you seem to be advocating is a single global government. There's no way to have no borders without having a single government controlling everything.
This isn't really happening much any more. Spinning-platter HDs are barely increasing in size any more (I got a 4TB portable drive 5 years ago that I still use; now, looking at what's available, 5TB is the max and 4TB is still at the high end). SSDs are growing, but still not cost-competitive with spinning platters, and not really reliable for long-term offline storage anyway like spinning platters.
There just isn't that much demand for large-scale storage, since everyone just keeps their data "in the cloud" or has subscriptions to online services now. 20 years ago, HD sizes were doubling every year.
He can spin stories and build worlds very well indeed, but he can't write dialog or direct actors worth a damn. He needs someone else to handle this stuff. His best work was when he came up with the grand vision for something, but someone else handled dialog, scriptwriting, and directing. Basically, the guy was a technical genius but had no eye for the human element.
Here in Japan, every home store and electronics/appliance store sells mini-split HVAC systems directly to consumers. It's no different than buying a washing machine.
What's really annoying is that they could have sidestepped the whole problem by simply putting a simple physical on/off switch on them, instead of the soft on/off button they use. No one uses these cheapo calipers for more than a few minutes at a time anyway, so the battery would probably last a lifetime with a normal switch and no one would notice that it's a power hog.
I figured that was obvious and I didn't need to detail the relationship. Obviously, Gnome isn't paying anyone; they're funded and paid (through dev salaries) by RH and friends, who exercise a lot of control over the project's direction. Of course the distro maintainers are going to ship Gnome, because it's theirs.
I'm not aware of schools, universities, or hospitals using Linux/Gnome. I've heard of it for some US Government systems, where they seem wedded to Red Hat. All the medical computers I've ever seen are running Windows.
Maybe RH has a bunch of institutional customers I'm completely unaware of, but as far as I can tell, the Gnome devs seem to be trying to build a GUI aimed at mythological users: non-technical users they somehow think are going to switch to Linux Real Soon Now if only they can entice them with their holy ultra-simplified GUI. The real world doesn't work this way.
This sounds like a Russian-style argument: "you won't remove everyone else's choices and just force everyone to do everything my way, so you're being obstructionist!"
Don't just support Gnome: add a couple of paid devs to the Gnome project to help out, but more importantly make it even more antagonistic towards users and other non-Gnome devs. Have your undercover devs become highly-placed "visionaries" in the Gnome project, insulting and belittling anyone who opposes their One True Vision for desktop Linux and throwing a wrench into any attempts to get along with anything in the Linux ecosystem that isn't part of the Gnome project.
I've run into this problem. I consider Gnome to be completely unusable, so I'll suffer with some kind of workaround, any workaround, rather than use Gnome.
Why do you think it was OK back then? Have you talked to any Native Americans about the effects of uncontrolled migration on their tribes? Plainly put, it was an unmitigated disaster and a genocide. They used to control the whole continent (but divided between various tribes of course, that sometimes didn't get along); now their numbers are puny and they're corralled in some shitty reservations.
>Do you want criminals from other towns/counties/states coming to yours? >If open borders work between Washington and Oregon, why don't they work between Washington and Canada?
Within a country, it's easy: people have criminal records, and can't just skip town and go to the next town and assume a new identity. (Centuries ago, however, they did.) Between countries, it's not so easy: countries don't share their criminal data that easily. That's why we have passports: it's an identification document that shows the destination country that the person is not a criminal and is allowed to travel (since they agreed together not to give these out to serious criminals).
>Immigrants pay taxes
Some do, some don't. Some go to Germany expecting a free ride, passing through all the poorer countries along the way.
>Instead of banning them, why not just let them come but make them ineligible for social services? That's cruel
Why is that cruel? If 100M people suddenly decided to move into Andorra, how exactly do you think the country is going to pay for social services for them?