Texsox

I love the internet. I might never have known this http://ibscrohns.about.com/cs/otherdiseases/a/greenstool.htm I also learned that Lucky Charms is notorious for causing this. Cool! Another reason to eat a bowl. I wonder if there are any other colors I can shoot for.

I'm just going to guess that the CIA has at least the same tools as this guy, perhaps more. I am also going to assume that the CIA employs people just as smart.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Not to pick a fight with you but come on....they didn't ask to be invaded and then occupied for 4+ years. And if someone did ask, would we go, invest billions of dollars, and thousands of lives? No, we go where it makes sense for American interests. I'm sorry it sucks to be them. I'm sorry if they think we should be there ten days or ten years. We'll answer to America's needs first.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) I think polls are useful, when you have all the information. One thing I agree with, in terms of the point SS2K5 was making, is that you can pull numbers out of polls to try to shift the appearance of the results. Here is a novel idea - when a poll comes out, just state the facts. Give people the actual, statistical results. Instead, we get a few hard numbers from the poll, surrounded by "expert analysis" that is usually nothing more than fluff and dumbing down of the results. If they had any scientific validity, I might as well. But these have no reliability, no validity. And giving the people the stats is nice on the surface, and we could require everyone to take statistics in High School so they could analyze the statistics. But that ain't going to happen. What we have is a bunch of people giving their opinion. Did everyone in the population have an equal chance of being polled? That's step one. I doubt it in this case.

Let me try another explanation. I know what is in my brain, isn't that controversial. There is a cost per customer served. Companies figure this out all the time. Costs generally go up the longer you are servicing someone. So lets arrive at a cost per minute to service someone. Do we all agree we can determine the cost per person served? Now let's take the time lost, if any, when someone can't fully grasp the language as effectively as they could in their own language. So even if they can read and write English, they may be quicker in Spanish. Add up those cost savings, multiply it by the number of people being served and see the potential savings. Can we agree that time is money? Paying someone by the hour to spend 30 minutes is more expensive then having them spend 15 minutes. Then look at the price of the technology, translations, eliminating the form, whatever, in solving the problem. The difference determines what should be done. Does that make sense? Given the illiterate example, the cost savings would probably never surpass the cost to solve the problem. Making forms available in braille, might.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) You won't wait less - you will wait more, while various forms and rules are translated, or people struggle with it, and there are more forms to sift through, and someone else's language isn't on there, etc. Just like hammerhead said earlier. If you expect people to speak English, then not only do we wait less in line, but we all pay less in taxes. I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here. The majority of people should not have to pay extra money and wait longer in line because the minority refuse to learn English. If they both happen to know Spanish, great, it makes no difference to me. But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea. Exactly Yep, that's what we have now. Let's do it once for the popular languages. Problem solved, or at least made better. If 20 or 30% of the population needed it, then it might just be the right thing to do. Now, I believe it is too small of a need. Exactly. Having people do the same translations, over and over again while others wait, is inefficient. Especially for millions and millions of people. And since most of these are already done, I think keeping them makes more sense than throwing them away with an English only ban. I believe our government should have an open mind and look for efficient ways. If translating to Spanish is cost effective, go for it. Let them assimilate on their own time. If it costs $1,000,00 to translate and saves $3,000,000 go for it. If it costs $1,000,000 and saves $100,000 then don't. Currently with our population it may begin to make economic sense for Spanish, but not for illiterates.

And in an ideal world that is what will happen. Everyone will learn enough English in a week to navigate the forms. But in the real world, it takes time to learn a language. Some people will never trust there second language. Would you trust your High School French while filling out a tourist application? Driver's License? You would probably bring a friend to help translate. That is why I appreciate that Mexico has most of their work and temp immigration forms in English as well as Spanish. But hey, they can afford it, they are a rich country. What happens when people wait longer, they need more space. They need more parking spaces, chairs, bathrooms, clerks. They need more time off work. Then double it when they bring a translator. It's easy to demand that an adult learn English well enough to fill out government forms. What grade level are they written at? It's another to understand that language acquisition basically peaks at 10 years old and it gets much tougher after that. Reality check. If you had 1% needing this, it is probably a waste. If you had 99% needing this, it is an obvious benefit. There is a cross over point. Is it 50%? Possibly, my guess it is less. Why did we translate many of these forms to computer based? Because anytime you are repeating the same step over and over again it is more efficient to automate it. Think of this the same way. If tens of thousand of clerks will look at Name and translate nombre to hundreds of thousands of customers, why not do it one time and be done? BTW, you do know that most of this has already been done? I applaud those that believe we can afford to keep people in lines if it will help the immigrant to assimilate. I am all for that. I just think our government should strive for lower costs with better service. Same as private business. Automating processes, like translating forms, is one way. A careful analysis should be done and if the results say translating a form is cheaper, then we should, if it is more expensive, we should not. So that would probably mean it makes sense to do Spanish, but not French or Greek.

That is why these polls should receive no serious consideration. We can start picking apart this and make everything look good, or bad. Couple of points: The Iraqi public better start caring about what we think, I could care less what they think. Last I looked we're footing the bill and I see a lot more made in America weapons and s*** there. So basically, I don't really care about a poll where Iraqis self report their "feelings". Here's a feeling for you, how about you sell us really cheap oil? I might be in favor of sticking around and keeping Syria, Iran, and Saudia Arabia, countries you think are try to harm you, off your asses, if I was filling up with $1 petrol.

There is a thread already started in the Diamond

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) I just don't get how a guy like Fossett goes out without a flight plan. If he was injured but still alive, time would be of the essence. If they knew where he was flying, they could have found him a lot faster. He was Scouting an area, I'm not certain how exact it would have been. But I agree. That is rule #1 in any outdoor activity

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Maybe. But does he have a ring? Great Post. Would I trade the last 7 seasons with Minny? No

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:31 PM) As I recall, when Powell flirted with running in 92 or 96 (I forget which), even though he looked like an early favorite, he dropped out because his wife told him she would leave if he ran. IIRC there was also some personal safety issues. Unlike some, I actually like him more after he served in the West Wing.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) So if Hillary wins the Presidency, God help us all, will she take Ted Stevens list of who she should nominate for a key position? No, the list would be very different. That tells me he has already moved towards the right in his picks. Isn't that a good thing? And if Congress was under GOP leadership the lists would be different. I don't see a problem. Do you?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) sounds like this is going to end up with "tragedy" written all over it. At least he went out doing what he loved.. crashing into the ground?

All good points. But I think he has distanced himself enough at this point. I believe he, better than any other person with a chance, transends politics and partisanship. I think he would be a free thinker and able to pull a large group of people together. I do not know why more GOP faithful do not push hard for him to run. Hell, I don't know why more Dems don't push for him to run.

It's been a while sense we have had a (career) military man in that office. I'd give serious consideration to one. I wish CP would run.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) So, which side is the one that should put away partisanship? The side nominating the middle finger to the congressional majority, or the side saying "no, we won't confirm your middle finger". A few months ago, Chuck Schumer already offered up a list of names he'd consider to be "meeting the Dems half way". It's not like they're demanding the job be given to Hillary or anything like that. Seems fair enough.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) Actually it's about 20% more, but who's counting. In numbers, but Nuke counts for like 100,000 regular soldiers . . .

Sidebar. A few weeks back the Ney Yorker ran an article about a condition where people chew off their fingers. Like down to the bone and keep going. Turns out they found a genetic cause of the condition. Cool read if you get the New Yorker. The people need to be restraint. They aldso know what they are doing is wrong and will beg people to not let them out of the restraints. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08...fa_fact_preston

I really do not like those point-counterpoints after the President speaks, and will not watch. I know it;s the whole equal time thing but I prefer to spend those moments contemplating what the President said, noit having "the other side" tell me what to think.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) You seem to be thinking that effeciency just means just moving through a line quicker. Time has a value. If that value is not met in the cost it takes to reduce queing times, you are not being more efficient, even though the line moves twice as fast. If that were the case banks would have a teller for every person who walked in the door. They don't do it that way. As a matter of a fact, they have as few people as the public will tolerate working, because they know at a certian level of service, they will get a certian level of return business. In your scenario you are not only talking about a few more forms, but that means someone needs to write these forms, someone needs to edit these forms, someone needs to decide where to send these forms, someone needs to be able to answer questions about these forms with the general public, someone needs to be able to know that their translation into Spanish, while accurate, might be saying something that they are not trying to portray because something is lost in the subleties of languages, etc. Its not as simple as you make it out to be. I agree Likewise, if the value is met, then it is more efficient. WHICH IS WHAT I AM SAYING. First of all, we already have most of the forms. For example our DMV has almost everything already done in Spanish and English. People zip through fairly quickly, I would hate to see what would happen if we went back to one language. Again, if the form is translated once an official version is finished. What you describe gets done thousands and thousands of times, and the exact problem you are trying to avoid, items lost in subtleties, happens more frequently when you have thousands of people doing their own personal translation. Someone is already answering more questions about those forms, there would be less in a speakers native tongue. How is any of this less efficient? Correcting mistakes takes time. To believe there isn't a cross over point where providing these services is cheaper defies logic. There may or may not be a cross over point. I believe there is. Perhaps at 10% of the population, perhaps 25%, obviously at 51%, but it is there. Disagree if you will. And I know you will. Of course if Tex says it, it must be wrong, no matter how long you take to find it, and if it contradicts something you said yourself before.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) Hell no. I frequent two different post offices in the vicinity of the Harlem & Irving Plaza, and both have Polish attendants who assist people with forms while they are waiting in line. There could be 20 people in line, and at least 2/3 of them will not understand English. People will think that I'm exaggerating, but it's the truth. Could you imagine how inefficient it would be if one of those clerks translated the form ONE TIME. OMG, the government would grind to a halt Glad to see so much thinking outside the box around here. By golly it's how my grand dad did it and we can't change. Can't even examine it to see if we could do better. How innovative of you.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) IT IS NOT LESS EFFICIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS MORE EFFICIENT!!!!!! Do you have some goofy definition of efficient? How is having to deal with more than one language more efficient than just one? That makes no sense. I think I just need to give up discussing this topic with you. How is taking ten minutes when it could be done in 5 minutes MORE EFFICIENT!!!! How can transalting a form once be LESS EFFICIENT than having a people standing there in line doing it tens of thousands of times?? Why does private business do it?? Efficient means more profits, not less!! Taking more time MAKES NO SENSE. TYPING IN CAPS MAKES NO SENSE

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) You tell me. I have offered the same arguement all along when it comes to growth. The reality on the ground is that people who want better benefits and higher wages are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing a 10% expansion of the labor pool. You don't have to agree with the position of an arguement to be able to understand the fundementals that go with an arguement. Think about it. If you are a part of a group with a certian skill set, do you want more or less people around who also can do your job. Now what if part of that group was willing to work for way less than you could afford to do? What effect do you think that would have on wages? Now why do you think big business is in favor of letting the illegals stay? Its not a big leap to understand it. I'm confused about a 10% expansion of the labor pool. Aren't we talking about people who are already here and earning wages? How would this be an expansion? Yes, I agree a large available, willing, and available pool of workers will keep wages down. It seemed you were saying it is a bad thing, which confused me.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) How long does it take people to assimilate if you don't make them learn the language. In IT I have worked for a lot of different companies. And a lot of time, the programming wing of the department has a lot of foreign based workers that come over on Visa. Not just Indians, but Malaysians, Indonesians, Vietnamese. The Indian's usually are taught English in schools. But a lot of the other countries dont have that infrastructure setup. A lot of them didn't speak English, or spoke little English, however have made an extreme effort to learn the language. Why, because they had to. I have a co-worker now that came over from Indonesia. He said he knew a few words when he came over, but located some free schools in Chicago to learn English(yes they have them) and he took on the challenge of learning English. Now why can he and others in the workforce assimilate, and learn English. Yet we need to create a secondary infrastructure for those who seem to have so many issues. The leap from Spanish to English is not as difficult as say Mandrian Chinese, or Russian, or Indonesian is to go to English. At least Spanish and English come from a similar root language. There are lots of immigrants from places that don't speak English that come over here, and have the same battle that the Spanish speaking public has to deal with. Why can they assimilate. Over the history of the United States, we have had different foreign groups come over, and assimilate. Once they move into society, and take on the efforts of learning the language and becoming part of the melting pot. Sometimes its time to pull the security blanket, and make them assimilate. They can do it, its just about if they want to. Fair enough, and you're willing to pay the price of a less efficient government, more wait times at government offices, to help them assimiliate? I do not believe I am.