Nope. You are on the territory of whatever country the airport is in. When's the last time you heard of someone just dropping their drugs in the bin in the transit lounge because "hey I'm in international territory you can't arrest me".
See Davis Carruthers for an arrest of someone transiting though a US airport (flying from the UK to Costa Rica) resulting in 3 years of house arrest (restricted to a hotel) before being convicted and sentenced to 33 months prison - because while not in the US his company took some bets from US residents over the internet.
Or Maher Ara who while transiting through the US traveling from Tunisia to Canada, who wasn't actually charged and arrested but just shipped off to Syria to be tortured because his name matched a watch list and he knew someone else on a watch list, but same principle.
You don't let him stay because he now has a criminal history, and statistically has a much higher chance of commiting a crime in the future than someone without such a history.
Since he didn't live up to his half of the visa agreement (don't commit any felonies being part of it) booting him is the obvious choice. There are plenty of other smart people to replace him.
So he not only committed whatever the crime was, he also failed to live up to his visa requirements.
Do you really think he should continue to occupy an immigration spot that could instead be taken by a law-abiding person seeking a better life in America? Someone who hasn't committed a felony?
He's in prison for retribution and for deterance, since he'll be deported we couldn't give a stuff about rehabilitation (though obviously he gets treated just as the other prisoners do).
The marginal cost of one extra prisoner is essentially irrelevant, if he wasn't there most of that cost would already be spent anyway (need the prisons built and the guards paid since there are other prisoners, etc).
If you just kick him out then you've created a whole army of criminals.
Someone needs killin', get a Mexican or Canadian across the border and have them kill them. If they gets caught they just gets sent home anyway - to sneak back across next time you need someone offed.
Foreigners should get a free try at robbing Americans blind, if they get away with it then they are rich. If they get caught they just get sent home just as if they never tried in the first place.
The prison system is not all about rehabilitation - there are at least three other components:
1. Keeping dangerous people away from society at large - clearly not an issue here since deporting does the same thing.
2. Deterring other people from doing the same thing by showing them the potential consequences - this clearly does apply here.
3. Retribution - just plain punishing the criminal for the sake of punishing them.
Different places have different emphasises on each element. Some leave some out entirely.
I know of no other country that taxes foreign income for non-resident citizens (and I know the tax rules, with respect to this, quite a few countries).
Renouncing your US citizenship is not "all a formality", well if you are wealthy anyway.
It's damn expensive since they hit you (if you meet an income/wealth cutoff) with a "let's pretend you liquidated *all* your assets today at market rates, how much capital gains would you have made - ok, pay tax on that right now" rule. So it might be cheaper to just keep the citizenship and pay the taxes every year (depending on the what that capital gains tax will be and what your future income will likely be).
Most magazines don't charge you several multiples of the subscription cost to cancel the subscription.
Sure, but no one other than you has made the claim that "patent claims tend to fail 90% of the time", so that being not factually correct is pretty much irrelevant.
The actual article is talking about various subsets of patents and that some of them have very high "failure" rates when they make it through to a judgement. The "patent troll" subset is one such high failure rate group.
Of course there are holes in their data, heck they even point some of them out.
Which part of "some porn (just regular adult stuff)" do you think inclides "kiddie porn".
The guy is already declaring himself to be a vindictive dickhead. Someone who wants the benefits of being a contractor while also getting the benefits of being an employee, just because.
There's no need to blatantly lie to make it even worse.
"Troll" has a precise definition in their study - a non-practicising entity. So if the patent being sued over isn't used by the entity doing the suing in any of their products/etc, they are labelled a "patent troll" in the study.
He was done for perverting the course of justice. Which is not a thought crime in any aspect.
It causes real harm to other people, undermining the justice system itself. I'd argue it is a more serious offense than murder - not for the person being murdered or their families/friends, but for society in general.
And in the UK all those listed offences (and perverting the course of justice as well) have life in prison as their maximum. of course you don't usually get the maximum. But in a country where the general duty police don't carry guns I'm pretty sure you are getting more than 12 years in prison if you use an AK-47 to commit armed robbery...
But losing not being able to play it in 2020 after already playing it for 200 hours in 2010 doesn't mean "$50 down the drain" - those 200 hours of gameplay isn't magically removed when you can't use it in 2020.
The aliens could ban all recreation and send us to the salt mines at laser point in 2020 too - $50 down the damn drain!
Obviously a scores value diminishes with time. A game given a score of 9 in 1990 is not going to get a score of 9 in 2010. Things have moved on.
A score of 10/10 shouldn't mean "perfect and unimprovable, no need to ever make a game every again", it just means "the best one around now".
What's the point of having a point on the scale that you can't use.
Can you also not award 0/10 because it's possible for a worse game to exist - after all this one only wiped my hard drive on install it didn't catch my computer on fire...
Most people don't want the flexibility of a finer scale - can you really justify a score of 74 over 75 over 73 for something?
It's just a summary opinion, a 5 point scale is about as much as you ever need "avoid at all costs/avoid/if desperate/run of the mill/good/great".
More likely they couldn't think of an easy way to make it not game breakingly stupid like it was in Civ 4 (always be the same religion as the opponent civ you don't want to fight yet...)
The pinnacle of the Civ series is still just plain "Civilization" (Alpha Centauri doesn't count as Civ series...).
Yes I don't mind when Chuck Norris (the solitary phalanx unit in a city) takes out two battleships all by himself.
The Civ V demo looks ok, but I'll wait for it to hit the discount bins, like i did with IV, since it doesn't grab me as a much have. A downside of producing games with lasting power that aren't based upon "oh pretty graphics" as the sole selling point is I can wait a year or two and they are still great fun.
They likely put a small dent in the TV station audience and in the movie attending audience.
But the complaint had nothing to do with the "put out of business" part - it had to do with the "once the competition is gone squeeze the customer" part. That you are too stupid to notice that makes me even more stupid for bothering to reply comprehending anything beyond "Run, Dog, Run" is clearly beyond you.
neural-net backgammon players have significantly out performed other approaches. To the extent that in some cases in which it chose a different move to the conventional approach the play at world class level now uses the computer's choice.
Of course that doesn't make it intelligent, but it does mean the AI approach of temporal difference learning to train a neural network using self-play (so there's no expert player database or anything, it starts choosing random moves) can produce something better than "trivial algorithms, perhaps backed by a little data".
No instead they just didn't allow people to download the games they had purchased just so they could get some publicity.
They sell cheap older games, right? Exactly the sort of thing I would buy on impulse to play on my laptop on the 6 hour layover at an airport.
Now I didn't buy anything from them and wasn't traveling in the last few days. But I did do exactly that on steam last month, and boy would I have been pissed if steam had decided to not let me download the game on my laptop because I foolishly waited until the day after I bought it to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. You are on the territory of whatever country the airport is in. When's the last time you heard of someone just dropping their drugs in the bin in the transit lounge because "hey I'm in international territory you can't arrest me".
See Davis Carruthers for an arrest of someone transiting though a US airport (flying from the UK to Costa Rica) resulting in 3 years of house arrest (restricted to a hotel) before being convicted and sentenced to 33 months prison - because while not in the US his company took some bets from US residents over the internet.
Or Maher Ara who while transiting through the US traveling from Tunisia to Canada, who wasn't actually charged and arrested but just shipped off to Syria to be tortured because his name matched a watch list and he knew someone else on a watch list, but same principle.
You don't let him stay because he now has a criminal history, and statistically has a much higher chance of commiting a crime in the future than someone without such a history.
Since he didn't live up to his half of the visa agreement (don't commit any felonies being part of it) booting him is the obvious choice. There are plenty of other smart people to replace him.
So he not only committed whatever the crime was, he also failed to live up to his visa requirements.
Do you really think he should continue to occupy an immigration spot that could instead be taken by a law-abiding person seeking a better life in America? Someone who hasn't committed a felony?
He's in prison for retribution and for deterance, since he'll be deported we couldn't give a stuff about rehabilitation (though obviously he gets treated just as the other prisoners do).
The marginal cost of one extra prisoner is essentially irrelevant, if he wasn't there most of that cost would already be spent anyway (need the prisons built and the guards paid since there are other prisoners, etc).
Just hope your plane never gets diverted to a US airport, or you forget to check if it has a stop over in US territory.
And who knows what bizarre tax treaty your country of choice will sign with the US next year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1989.html
it's a "compassion" thing, letting someone spend a decade in prison nearer to their family instead of in a place where they have no family.
If you just kick him out then you've created a whole army of criminals.
Someone needs killin', get a Mexican or Canadian across the border and have them kill them. If they gets caught they just gets sent home anyway - to sneak back across next time you need someone offed.
Foreigners should get a free try at robbing Americans blind, if they get away with it then they are rich. If they get caught they just get sent home just as if they never tried in the first place.
The prison system is not all about rehabilitation - there are at least three other components:
1. Keeping dangerous people away from society at large - clearly not an issue here since deporting does the same thing.
2. Deterring other people from doing the same thing by showing them the potential consequences - this clearly does apply here.
3. Retribution - just plain punishing the criminal for the sake of punishing them.
Different places have different emphasises on each element. Some leave some out entirely.
I know of no other country that taxes foreign income for non-resident citizens (and I know the tax rules, with respect to this, quite a few countries).
Renouncing your US citizenship is not "all a formality", well if you are wealthy anyway.
It's damn expensive since they hit you (if you meet an income/wealth cutoff) with a "let's pretend you liquidated *all* your assets today at market rates, how much capital gains would you have made - ok, pay tax on that right now" rule. So it might be cheaper to just keep the citizenship and pay the taxes every year (depending on the what that capital gains tax will be and what your future income will likely be).
Most magazines don't charge you several multiples of the subscription cost to cancel the subscription.
We'll be sure to make sure to download the data every month and email it to you.
because nothing could possibly go wrong putting your banking login credentials in something a script can access.
Of course microsoft money, quicken, etc do that so I guess it's not considered bad after all.
At which point you are no longer American, and hence do not meet the condition of the fucking statement. Thus not invalidating it.
There is no bluetooth logo on my PS3.
Unless you are American, in which case you're on the hook for US Federal taxes no matter which country you happen to live in.
Sure, but no one other than you has made the claim that "patent claims tend to fail 90% of the time", so that being not factually correct is pretty much irrelevant.
The actual article is talking about various subsets of patents and that some of them have very high "failure" rates when they make it through to a judgement. The "patent troll" subset is one such high failure rate group.
Of course there are holes in their data, heck they even point some of them out.
http://www.discogs.com/Boyzone-All-That-I-Need-Remix/release/1323688
Which part of "some porn (just regular adult stuff)" do you think inclides "kiddie porn".
The guy is already declaring himself to be a vindictive dickhead. Someone who wants the benefits of being a contractor while also getting the benefits of being an employee, just because.
There's no need to blatantly lie to make it even worse.
"Troll" has a precise definition in their study - a non-practicising entity. So if the patent being sued over isn't used by the entity doing the suing in any of their products/etc, they are labelled a "patent troll" in the study.
He was done for perverting the course of justice. Which is not a thought crime in any aspect.
It causes real harm to other people, undermining the justice system itself. I'd argue it is a more serious offense than murder - not for the person being murdered or their families/friends, but for society in general.
And in the UK all those listed offences (and perverting the course of justice as well) have life in prison as their maximum. of course you don't usually get the maximum. But in a country where the general duty police don't carry guns I'm pretty sure you are getting more than 12 years in prison if you use an AK-47 to commit armed robbery...
If you refuse to buy things that use DRM then video gaming is not the best choice of recreational activities.
Sure there's the occasional DRM free game that can run on a DRM free OS, but you've certainly culled the field...
But losing not being able to play it in 2020 after already playing it for 200 hours in 2010 doesn't mean "$50 down the drain" - those 200 hours of gameplay isn't magically removed when you can't use it in 2020.
The aliens could ban all recreation and send us to the salt mines at laser point in 2020 too - $50 down the damn drain!
Why?
Obviously a scores value diminishes with time. A game given a score of 9 in 1990 is not going to get a score of 9 in 2010. Things have moved on.
A score of 10/10 shouldn't mean "perfect and unimprovable, no need to ever make a game every again", it just means "the best one around now".
What's the point of having a point on the scale that you can't use.
Can you also not award 0/10 because it's possible for a worse game to exist - after all this one only wiped my hard drive on install it didn't catch my computer on fire...
Most people don't want the flexibility of a finer scale - can you really justify a score of 74 over 75 over 73 for something?
It's just a summary opinion, a 5 point scale is about as much as you ever need "avoid at all costs/avoid/if desperate/run of the mill/good/great".
More likely they couldn't think of an easy way to make it not game breakingly stupid like it was in Civ 4 (always be the same religion as the opponent civ you don't want to fight yet...)
The pinnacle of the Civ series is still just plain "Civilization" (Alpha Centauri doesn't count as Civ series...).
Yes I don't mind when Chuck Norris (the solitary phalanx unit in a city) takes out two battleships all by himself.
The Civ V demo looks ok, but I'll wait for it to hit the discount bins, like i did with IV, since it doesn't grab me as a much have. A downside of producing games with lasting power that aren't based upon "oh pretty graphics" as the sole selling point is I can wait a year or two and they are still great fun.
There's 3 homicides of prisoners in prison in the UK a year, so clearly they aren't doing a good job of the butchering you expect.
They likely put a small dent in the TV station audience and in the movie attending audience.
But the complaint had nothing to do with the "put out of business" part - it had to do with the "once the competition is gone squeeze the customer" part. That you are too stupid to notice that makes me even more stupid for bothering to reply comprehending anything beyond "Run, Dog, Run" is clearly beyond you.
neural-net backgammon players have significantly out performed other approaches. To the extent that in some cases in which it chose a different move to the conventional approach the play at world class level now uses the computer's choice.
Of course that doesn't make it intelligent, but it does mean the AI approach of temporal difference learning to train a neural network using self-play (so there's no expert player database or anything, it starts choosing random moves) can produce something better than "trivial algorithms, perhaps backed by a little data".
No instead they just didn't allow people to download the games they had purchased just so they could get some publicity.
They sell cheap older games, right? Exactly the sort of thing I would buy on impulse to play on my laptop on the 6 hour layover at an airport.
Now I didn't buy anything from them and wasn't traveling in the last few days. But I did do exactly that on steam last month, and boy would I have been pissed if steam had decided to not let me download the game on my laptop because I foolishly waited until the day after I bought it to do so.
In which case why do you they so many ways of stopping simple evasion methods from working?