IT Employment

No visas? No problem. No jobs.


Today's Microsoft announcement of moving some R&D from Redmond to a new center in Vancouver, British Columbia heralds the first wave of corporate reaction to the failure of immigration 'reform'. The quote from Redmond's representative is about as subtle as a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster:

The company said the new location will "allow the company to continue to recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by the immigration issues in the U.S."

Reinforcement came from Big Blue via the Grey Lady, in which IBM explained to The New York Times it would still need some employees stateside, but moving programming work offshore seems to work just dandy.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. Articles have appeared explaining that India information workers are becoming too expensive, with both The Wall Street Journal and InfoWorld sending messages just as unsubtle as the Microsoft missive above. Nobody's jobs are safe if quarterly earnings could be adjusted by a penny it seems.

Let's not forget about the genesis of all these stories placed by corporate PR flacks into the MSM. You have seen the video of the attorney explaining how his firm can show Mister Employer how to break immigration law and not get caught when hiring overseas and avoiding qualified Americans, right? That "A" list material had to, at least in some small way, have been responsible for Congress cooling off on immigration reform and for scuttling the Real ID provisions buried within it. Thank you, Mister Lawyer; for once, Greed Was Good.

How long will it take for Congress to get over the insult? Join the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay on top of the latest tech news

Get this news story and many more by subscribing to our free IT News Digest newsletter, delivered each weekday. Automatically sign up today!

440 comments
Absolutely
Absolutely

What rights do individuals have with respect to foreign nations? We can buy foreign products. Are many foreign services available to us? I think not. Are corporations being granted rights which individuals are not?

TheGooch1
TheGooch1

Bill 287G It turns out Bill 287G is a long neglected law that permits ICE to fund and train local law enforcement(non-federal) in enforcing immigration laws. Since 2001, law enforcement agencies in 11 states have taken advantage of this program, and many more have applied to ICE and are awaiting approval. It looks like local governments our doing the job that the Federal government won't do. In addition, it was discovered that the Federal government employs at least 12k illegals, 2k of those are employed by the Pentagon. A law requiring Feds to verify legal citizenship of direct and contractor employees is in the works in response to this finding. There are several criminal investigations into the illegal issuance of Visa's by educational institutions. In response to this problem, and the greater problem of being able to know the status of and for local law enforcement to be able to act on the problem of expired Visa holders, another bill is being proposed to fund and allow local law enforcement to persecute expired Visa holders. One more program is forcing local law enforcement to report monthly on jailed illegal aliens,and tracking to make sure that they are deported. One such local agency is now deporting 1000 illegals a month, where before they would be just be released back into society. The tide has turned.

Absolutely
Absolutely

That's major news! Where did you read it?

jackie40d
jackie40d

Waukegan 287 (g) training of police officers http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1867004/posts And this is just the tip of the ice berg More are sure to follow this trend ! YES !

deepsand
deepsand

Just a sample. Note the bolded text, and the cahracterization of those whose point of view differs from that of the site's operator(s). Objective? Hardly. "There was quite a crowd outside and inside it seems. Tonight, the forces mobilized to clean up Waukegan, Illinois from the scourge of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION won a big victory. This thing does seem to be really spreading from community to community in America, since the Congress and Administration will not act and the people have had enough. [b]The "other side", comprised of lawbreakers--with no legitimate say in the internal political workings of our country--and their supporters and facilitators[/b], appear to promise even more demonstrations, boycotts in Waukegan, Illinois, peaceful action and of course, what not. They are whining and crying to the high heavens tonight on Chicago-based news media outlets."

deepsand
deepsand

You do not help your cause by constantly referring others to partisan sources laden with subjective view points.

Absolutely
Absolutely

1. Complain, including to one's political representatives in order to curtail others' rights to employ whom they choose 2. Train, based on the recognition of others' rights to compete for employment on ability

Absolutely
Absolutely

Who has 'rights' to compete for jobs within companies which enjoy the benefits of being headquartered in the United States?

jackie40d
jackie40d

That was the only way the State can control what goes on in a business . . And they get 2 chances to get it right before they are asked to leave Its better than the one we are collecting signatures for as it gives them 1 chance and they are gone ( this is in case Crappy Nappy ) our Governor wants to water it down to much she is a extreme left leaning Liberal and got trapped by her own words as to having to sign it into law . . So she is working behind the scenes to get other people to attack it . . And we welcome it as it takes the cost of courts out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of those whom want to hire people for less then legal wages . . BELOW FEDERAL Min. what is it now $5.75 Kids get that much and the Illegals are getting less !

Absolutely
Absolutely

To extend laws governing dual citizenship to include corporations, thus depriving them of the right to employ foreigners, would be a simple matter, and consistent with 'equal protection' precedents. In other words, the collectives termed 'corporations' ought not have what is, in effect, carte blanche dual, triple, quadruple etc. citizenship. They are American, and employ American workers, or they are not. The data about how much American workers are paid are valid reasons to keep American jobs stateside. The legal reasoning is much simpler, and clear-cut, if we jump straight to the questions of law and its interpretation, rather than debating based on the economic results of these laws.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

If a corporate farmer hires illegals to harvest his vegetables, paying them at least twice what they were making where they came from, and still sell them cheaper than he otherwise would be able to. He can make a little more profit, which he will use to buy something or invest, and the people who buy it at the cheaper price will have more of their money left over after the purchase, which they will use to buy something or invest, and buying something or investing is going to create job opportunities for someone else, and our economy will grow. You can substitute anything you like for "vegetables", the principle is the same.

Absolutely
Absolutely

of any of the several states, but only that of the federal government. With that context now stated, do we agree on the logical implication?

Absolutely
Absolutely

"...I don't think it's a given that the economic consequences of the practice are negative."

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

while legally it's clear that hiring illegal workers is, well, illegal, I don't think it's a given that the economic consequences of the practice are negative.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

is where you ride the Ferris Wheel and eat cotton candy. If you really want fair... if you really want the economy in this country to thrive, you're going to have to quit "protecting" it. Otherwise the bast companies are going to simply leave. Corporate law is more of a benefit to the government who wants to keep their thumb on everything than to the employee, or the consumer.

Absolutely
Absolutely

The challenge of US laborers, whether 20th or 1st generation immigrants, is how to effect the situation that employers are as much to us a "commodity" & "expendable" as we are to them. It seems fair to me to require that while they benefit from the corporate law and domestic tranquility of the United States, they must also employ her laborers.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]the legal and the economic analyses lead to the same conclusion[/i]

deepsand
deepsand

be it one who is either there domiciled or operating, to hire at will? At the moment, I am aware only of such restrictions existing, as a matter of Contract Law, when a Corporation undertakes to enter into an agreement with a State or Federal Agency to provide/perform certain goods/services.

deepsand
deepsand

This sub-thread, begun by your post at http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=228794&messageID=2282763 , fails to make any mention of the out-sourcing of IT jobs. Thus it was taken within the general context of the Discussion as it had to date evolved. Also, bear in mind that most who visit a Discussion do so by way of a link to the Root of the Discussion, rather than to that of an underlying Article or Blog. Even in the e-mail Newsletters, where both are, at least some times, listed, it's not clear that 1 is the Article/Blog & the other the resulting Discussion. As a result, the Article or Blog which gave rise to the Discussion if frequently overlooked.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I see that you are replying to john bartley's question, but that is not the context of my comments. I'm talking about IT jobs going to Canada and other countries.

Absolutely
Absolutely

In this context, the legal and the economic analyses lead to the same conclusion, but the legal analysis does so much more quickly. Read my comments again. I'm saying that corporations may not have the legal right to employ foreigners. It's the same conclusion as considering the 'more negative "economic results", but faster.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

It's obvious that the reason US corporations seek out foreign labor (either importing the labor or opening up an office in another country) is to get more bang for less buck. Most people don't want to analyze too deeply the reasons companies profit from doing so, afraid that they'll realize that they are just another commodity, and quite expendable.

deepsand
deepsand

It reads "Does the [u]lack of immigration reform[/u] concern you? Are you happy that bill was scuttled, and along with it, more mandates for states to adopt Real ID? And, does the PR campaign of corporate reaction seem as transparent to you as it does to me?"

Absolutely
Absolutely

Your observations have general merit, but it is up to you to provide evidence that such are applicable to the issue of United States corporations offering IT jobs to foreigners. [edit: 'they' -> 'such' & PS same for Tony]

deepsand
deepsand

"It's the Law" is all too frequently the rallying cry of those who are unable or unwilling to engage in critical thinking, or believe it to be to their personal advantage, such being of paramount import no matter the consequences to others..

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]The legal reasoning is much simpler, and clear-cut, if we jump straight to the questions of law and its interpretation, rather than debating based on the economic results of these laws.[/i] would you agree that if some laws are found to be the [/b]cause[/b] of some of the more negative "economic results", that they (the laws) might require adjustments? Or are laws meant to remain static?

deepsand
deepsand

by seizing part of Mexico, thus creating a borderland. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT[/b] 04.04.2006 [b]Borderlands and Immigrants[/b] By George Friedman The United States has returned to its recurring debate over immigration. This edition of the debate, focused intensely on the question of illegal immigration from Mexico, is phrased in a very traditional way. One side argues that illegal migration from Mexico threatens both American economic interests and security. The other side argues that the United States historically has thrived on immigration, and that this wave of migration is no different. As is frequently the case, the policy debate fails to take fundamental geopolitical realities into account. To begin with, it is absolutely true that the United States has always been an immigrant society. Even the first settlers in the United States -- the American Indian tribes -- were migrants. Certainly, since the first settlements were established, successive waves of immigration have both driven the American economy and terrified those who were already living in the country. When the Scots-Irish began arriving in the late 1700s, the English settlers of all social classes thought that their arrival would place enormous pressure on existing economic processes, as well as bring crime and immorality to the United States. The Scots-Irish were dramatically different culturally, and their arrival certainly generated stress. However, they proved crucial for populating the continent west of the Alleghenies. The Scots-Irish solved a demographic problem that was at the core of the United States: Given its population at that time, there simply were not enough Americans to expand settlements west of the mountains -- and this posed a security threat. If the U.S. population remained clustered in a long, thin line along the Atlantic sea board, with poor lines of communication running north-south, the country would be vulnerable to European, and especially British, attack. The United States had to expand westward, and it lacked the population to do so. The Americans needed the Scots-Irish. Successive waves of immigrants came to the United States over the next 200 years. In each case, they came looking for economic opportunity. In each case, there was massive anxiety that the arrival of these migrants would crowd the job market, driving down wages, and that the heterogeneous cultures would create massive social stress. The Irish immigration of the 1840s, the migrations from eastern and southern Europe in the 1880s -- all triggered the same concerns. Nevertheless, without those waves of immigration, the United States would not have been able to populate the continent, to industrialize or to field the mass armies of the 20th century that established the nation as a global power. [b]Population Density and Economic Returns[/b] Logic would have it that immigration should undermine the economic well-being of those who already live in the United States. But this logic assumes that there is a zero-sum game. That may be true in Europe or Asia. It has not been true in the United States. The key is population density: The density of the United States, excluding Alaska, is 34 people per square kilometer. By comparison, the population density in the United Kingdom is 247 per square kilometer, 231 in Germany and 337 in Japan. The European Union, taken as a whole, has a population density of 115. If the United States were to equal the United Kingdom in terms of density, it would have a population of about 2 billion people. Even accepting the premise that some parts of the United States are uninhabitable and that the United Kingdom is over-inhabited, the point is that the United States' population is still small relative to available land. That means that it has not come even close to diminishing economic returns. To the extent to which the population-to-land ratio determines productivity -- and this, in our view, is the critical variable -- the United States still can utilize population increases. At a time when population growth from native births is quite low, this means that the United States still can metabolize immigrants. It is, therefore, no accident that over the past 40 years, the United States has absorbed a massive influx of Asian immigrants who have been net producers over time. It's a big country, and much of it is barely inhabited. On this level, the immigration issue poses no significant questions. It is a replay of a debate that has been ongoing since the founding of the country. Those who have predicted social and economic disaster as a result of immigration have been consistently wrong. Those who have predicted growing prosperity have been right. Those who have said that the national character of the United States would change dramatically have been somewhat right; core values have remained in place, but the Anglo-Protestant ethnicity represented at the founding has certainly been transformed. How one feels about this transformation depends on ideology and taste. But the simple fact is this: The United States not only would not have become a trans-continental power without immigration; it would not have industrialized. Masses of immigrants formed the armies of workers that drove industrialism and made the United States into a significant world power. No immigration, no United States. [b]Geography: The Difference With Mexico[/b] Now, it would seem at first glance that the current surge of Mexican migration should be understood in this context and, as such, simply welcomed. If immigration is good, then why wouldn't immigration from Mexico be good? Certainly, there is no cultural argument against it; if the United States could assimilate Ukrainian Jews, Sicilians and Pakistanis, there is no self-evident reason why it could not absorb Mexicans. The argument against the Mexican migration would seem on its face to be simply a repeat of old, failed arguments against past migrations. But Mexican migration should not be viewed in the same way as other migrations. When a Ukrainian Jew or a Sicilian or an Indian came to the United States, their arrival represented a sharp geographical event; whatever memories they might have of their birthplace, whatever cultural values they might bring with them, the geographical milieu was being abandoned. And with that, so were the geopolitical consequences of their migration. Sicilians might remember Sicily, they might harbor a cultural commitment to its values and they might even have a sense of residual loyalty to Sicily or to Italy -- but Italy was thousands of miles away. The Italian government could neither control nor exploit the migrant's presence in the United States. Simply put, these immigrants did not represent a geopolitical threat; even if they did not assimilate to American culture -- remaining huddled together in their "little Italys" -- they did not threaten the United States in any way. Their strength was in the country they had left, and that country was far away. That is why, in the end, these immigrants assimilated, or their children did. Without assimilation, they were adrift. The Mexican situation is different. When a Mexican comes to the United States, there is frequently no geographical split. There is geographical continuity. His roots are just across the land border. Therefore, the entire immigration dynamic shifts. An Italian, a Jew, an Indian can return to his home country, but only with great effort and disruption. A Mexican can and does return with considerable ease. He can, if he chooses, live his life in a perpetual ambiguity. [b]The Borderland Battleground[/b] This has nothing to do with Mexicans as a people, but rather with a geographical concept called "borderlands." Traveling through Europe, one will find many borderlands. Alsace-Lorraine is a borderland between Germany and France; the inhabitants are both French and German, and in some ways neither. It also is possible to find Hungarians -- living Hungarian lives -- deep inside Slovakia and Romania. Borderlands can be found throughout the world. They are the places where the borders have shifted, leaving members of one nation stranded on the other side of the frontier. In many cases, these people now hold the citizenship of the countries in which they reside (according to recognized borders), but they think and speak in the language on the other side of the border. The border moved, but their homes didn't. There has been no decisive geographical event; they have not left their homeland. Only the legal abstraction of a border, and the non-abstract presence of a conquering army, has changed their reality. Borderlands sometimes are political flashpoints, when the relative power of the two countries is shifting and one is reclaiming its old territory, as Germany did in 1940, or France in 1918. Sometimes the regions are quiet; the borders that have been imposed remain inviolable, due to the continued power of the conqueror. Sometimes, populations move back and forth in the borderland, as politics and economics shift. Borderlands are everywhere. They are the archaeological remains of history, except that these remains have a tendency to come back to life. The U.S.-Mexican frontier is a borderland. The United States, to all intents and purposes, conquered the region in the period between the Texan revolution (1835-36) and the Mexican-American war (1846-48). As a result of the war, the border moved and areas that had been Mexican territory became part of the United States. There was little ethnic cleansing. American citizens settled into the territory in increasing numbers over time, but the extant Mexican culture remained in place. The border was a political dividing line but was never a physical division; the area north of the border retained a certain Mexican presence, while the area south of the border became heavily influenced by American culture. The economic patterns that tied the area north of the Rio Grande to the area south of it did not disappear. At times they atrophied; at times they intensified; but the links were always there, and neither Washington nor Mexico City objected. It was the natural characteristic of the borderland. It was not inevitable that the borderland would be held by the United States. Anyone looking at North America in 1800 might have bet that Mexico, not the United States, would be the dominant power of the continent. Why that didn't turn out to be the case is a long story, but by 1846, the Mexicans had lost direct control of the borderland. They have not regained it since. But that does not mean that the borderland is unambiguously American -- and it does not mean that, over the next couple of hundred years, should Washington's power weaken and Mexico City's increase, the borders might not shift once again. How many times, after all, have the Franco-German borders shifted? For the moment, however, Washington is enormously more powerful than Mexico City, so the borders will stay where they are. [b]The Heart of the Matter[/b] We are in a period, as happens with borderlands, when major population shifts are under way. This should not be understood as immigration. Or more precisely, these shifts should not be understood as immigration in the same sense that we talk about immigration from, say, Brazil, where the geographical relationship between migrant and home country is ruptured. The immigration from Mexico to the United States is a regional migration within a borderland between two powers -- powers that have drawn a border based on military and political history, and in which two very different populations intermingle. Right now, the United States is economically dynamic relative to Mexico. Therefore, Mexicans tend to migrate northward, across the political border, within the geographical definition of the borderland. The map declares a border. Culture and history, however, take a different view. The immigration debate in the U.S. Congress, which conflates Asian immigrations with Mexican immigrations, is mixing apples and oranges. Chinese immigration is part of the process of populating the United States -- a process that has been occurring since the founding of the Republic. Mexican immigration is, to borrow a term from physics, the Brownian motion of the borderland. This process is nearly as old as the Republic, but there is a crucial difference: It is not about populating the continent nearly as much as it is about the dynamics of the borderland. One way to lose control of a borderland is by losing control of its population. In general, most Mexicans cross the border for strictly economic reasons. Some wish to settle in the United States, some wish to assimilate. Others intend to be here temporarily. Some intend to cross the border for economic reasons -- to work -- and remain Mexicans in the full sense of the word. Now, so long as this migration remains economic and cultural, there is little concern for the United States. But when this last class of migrants crosses the border with political aspirations, such as the recovery of lost Mexican territories from the United States, that is the danger point. Americans went to Texas in the 1820s. They entered the borderland. They then decided to make a political claim against Mexico, demanding a redefinition of the formal borders between Mexico and the United States. In other words, they came to make money and stayed to make a revolution. There is little evidence -- flag-waving notwithstanding -- that there is any practical move afoot now to reverse the American conquest of Mexican territories. Nevertheless, that is the danger with all borderlands: that those on the "wrong" side of the border will take action to move the border back. For the United States, this makes the question of Mexican immigration within the borderland different from that of Mexican immigration to places well removed from it. In fact, it makes the issue of Mexican migration different from all other immigrations to the United States. The current congressional debate is about "immigration" as a whole, but that makes little sense. It needs to be about three different questions: 1. Immigration from other parts of the world to the United States 2. Immigration from Mexico to areas well removed from the southern border region 3. Immigration from Mexico to areas within the borderlands that were created by the U.S. conquests Treating these three issues as if they were the same thing confuses matters. The issue is not immigration in general, nor even Mexican immigration. It is about the borderland and its future. The question of legal and illegal immigration and various solutions to the problems must be addressed in this context. Distribution and Reprints This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc.. ?? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

Absolutely
Absolutely

The immigration of people to the United States, is an interesting, but essentially fallacious parallel of [u]partial[/u] emigration of a corporation, or part of a corporation's workforce. The corporation is treated as a single entity in law, and the assertion that such is entitled to set up operations in more than one country is analogous to dual citizenship, not to immigration.

deepsand
deepsand

Therefore, the material presented is not only highly relevant, but necessary for a full understanding of the issue.

Absolutely
Absolutely

"Logic would have it that immigration should undermine the economic well-being of those who already live in the United States. But this logic assumes that there is a zero-sum game." There is no "this logic" and "that logic", but application of logic with complete information, and without it. Contradictions are not the result of logic, but of illogic and/or ignorance.

deepsand
deepsand

In fact, in stating "But this logic assumes ...," the author is employing the colloquial meaning of "logic" as standing for "argument."

Absolutely
Absolutely

would not agree that, although common and understood, the phrasing is, literally, illogical.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

or are you being paid by them?

deepsand
deepsand

Have you no idea what StratFor is? Have you a clue?

jackie40d
jackie40d

NOT only does it not bother me but we are chasing the Illegals out of ARIZONA . . :-) We passed a bill to take away the license of a business if they hire ILLEGAL ALIENS and it seems some are leaving already ( are you all ready for the ones leaving ARIZONA ) And coming your way ;-) Next bill will be like Hampton PA No renting to ILLEGALS either . . Really get them going . . You can go anywhere you want you just can't stay here ! YES !

deepsand
deepsand

Lots of claims; but, [b]absolutely no supporting data[/b]. And, contrary to its disclaimer, it [b]is[/b] about "hate." Did you really think that saying otherwise would make it so? PS - You've lousy taste in music as well.

jackie40d
jackie40d

And I am right your so far off to the left you fell off the edge . . The other pages are FACTS gotten from Pages which were researched long and hard . . and you do not like Red Skelton ? Geez to bad so sad ! . .

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]BTW, it is not without reason that my friends call me "Mr. Spock."[/i] ...here on the Internet, you are also among skeptics and, I'm afraid, among worse also. So, go scare yourself, or leave your friends/credentials behind, and tell us the [u]reasons[/u] we should shive a git for your assertions.

deepsand
deepsand

You make no effort to substantiate any of what you purport to be "fact." Now, re-read my posts. Have I ever said that your statements re. statistical data are false? No, I did not. Rather, I demanded that which is logically required, empirical proof. Until such is in evidence, your statements remain unsubstantiated. Additionally, I would note that, like so many, you fail to place your claims in context. For example, as regards the monies expatriated by illegal immigrants, mention of such is [u]not[/u] accompanied by the same data re. monies expatriated by [u]legal[/u] immigrants, [u]citizens[/u] and [u]governmental agencies[/u]. To focus on one particular element, to the exclusion of the others, serves to obscure the true relative magnitude of the selected element. If you or any other wishes to convince me of anything, it is necessary that a factually complete and cogent proposal be presented. Half-assed conjectures just wouldn't cut it with me. As for left, right, up or down, you really are here engaged in naught but wild-assed speculation. The truth is that I am fiercely independent, have never belonged to & never will belong to any organized political party, have never voted a straight party ticket, and defy any and all attempts at being neatly categorized. BTW, it is not without reason that my friends call me "Mr. Spock."

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

is not unlike the press. Their "facts" are published in the way that most benefits the government... by ensuring that they'll be needed or even expanded (similar in concept to a fireman who commits arson). This is true in all branches of government, but especially visible in "Human Services" area. If they solve the problems, they lose their jobs!

deepsand
deepsand

And, it's self-defeating.

jackie40d
jackie40d

That when the left runs out of Logic ( which they never use ) They turn to calling people names . . I remember long ago a child hood saying which was Stick and stone my break my bones but words will never hurt me . . So this Bigotry and Racist stuff is one of the first words out of their mouths . . But facts seem to bother them the most and they will yell and scream to cover up all of what is FACT . . I almost wish A.I. was running the world and put these strange people away hehehe ( evil laugh here ) They have 2 legged robots now which can walk up and down ramps soon they will be police . . ( Eat less donuts then )

Absolutely
Absolutely

Allowing American employers to use overseas labor, and the protections of American corporate law at the same time, is not good. They should not have rights not afforded to individuals, including effectively dual citizenship.

deepsand
deepsand

You truly have me puzzled.

Absolutely
Absolutely

...but selectively, according to a screwy pattern. I stand by the assertion.

deepsand
deepsand

Logic does seem to oft times frighten the insecure. It is not for lack of reason that my friends call me "Mr. Spock."

deepsand
deepsand

As for bigotry, your words speak for themselves. Too much talk of killing; too little sign of understanding.

Absolutely
Absolutely

The deepsand alias is a screwy personality.

Absolutely
Absolutely

in zealous [u]opposition[/u] to bigotry are missing much of the point. Although it is satisfying to note that bigotry tends to be self-defeating, it also tends to make big messes during the self-defeat process. Logical implication: non-zealous opposition to bigotry.

deepsand
deepsand

owing to his have changed ISPs, thereby making TR's password reset e-mail inaccessible to him. But, that just my opinion!

deepsand
deepsand

"Better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

jackie40d
jackie40d

Not one of your life support forms for a sperm bank ! And I was a Member of this group LONG ago . . I just forgot the password and since I changed ISP's you can't get the old password sent to you, DAH ! . Must be a Liberal as Logic does not and is not part of their abilities I am sorry for you . . I was writing programs in Basic and selling them when you were in high school . . Way back when 5 1/4 and 11 inch floppies were in computers . . Remember the old 11 inch floppies, or are you to young ?

deepsand
deepsand

Have I got a job for jackie40d ... As evidenced by his Profile, he doesn't even know what a Biography is! "Mostly self taught graduated by the seat of my pants . . Use Linux and some Windows stuff ! [u]Seems some manufactures just do not want to make a Linux version of their stuff So stuck with some use of Windows now and then . . Also highly RECOMMEND AVG as a Anti virus program . . And if you got Norton's delete it please ! I have had to remove it from a lot of computers that went crash . . I do not know why they crashed and do not care any more . . I just shake my head when I see some one with Norton's on their computer and know they will be in to get it removed some time . . More money in my pocket . . I have been a member for a lot longer but when I changed ISP's they could not get the connection from 1 ISP to the next back so I had to RE Join ![/u] " Having published garbage like this he expects us to take him seriously? Not likely.

Editor's Picks