Intelligence agencies all over the world can look at lots of things and you won't find out. They get Internet connection data, packet contents, data stored in the cloud. Both in the US and Europe (as well as elsewhere), they can install key loggers and viruses on your computer to track what you type, get your passwords, access your data, etc. This didn't start with 9/11, it's been there since the cold war (although it has been more restricted in the US than elsewhere). It's questionable, but it hasn't been such a big problem in the past because very few people were ever accused of being spies or terrorists.
What's worrisome is that these powers are now being extended to the police and that the definition of terrorism has been extended so far. Those are the changes you should really be worrying about.
As another commenter said - some of these people could have made plans based on this information that would be very hard to reverse.
You should not make plans that are "hard to reverse" based on merely winning the visa lottery. The visa lottery only gives you an opportunity to apply for a visa, it is not a guarantee. It still takes a long (and variable) amount of time between winning and getting a visa, if you get one at all. The visa lottery description is quite clear about that.
I understand the disappointment, but if someone actually has suffered economic harm from this, it is their own fault.
If you want to support wireless devices and streaming properly, you need user mode audio servers; you can't put that stuff into kernel drivers.
PulseAudio got off to a bad start, and I don't really know whether it's a good design in its details. It almost certainly isn't the "best method", but it's the method that people who actually put in the work came up with, and they stuck with it, which is why it's still around.
If you want to put in the work to do something better, please feel free to do so.
It does't say "uniformly random", only "strictly random". Picking a random element from a preselected subset can still be "strictly random", it just isn't "uniformly random" over the entire set.
Reversing the lottery was unfair to the tiny fraction who were selected.
Winning this lottery has never been a guarantee of a visa, and visa decisions can always be reversed if it turns out you weren't eligible after all. So, it was unfortunate, but "unfair" is going a bit far.
Google has a much more persuasive argument for taking down the patent system if they say "we paid for this crap but we shouldn't have to". Now it looks like "we were to cheap to play by the rules and we're trying to make excuses". Furthermore, if this kills Android (and there is a good chance that it will), companies will not touch open source with a ten foot pole anymore. No, it's not fair, but it's the way things work.
I never even alluded to publishing under a made up name, so I don't know where that came from.
Whether they have to use the IRB doesn't depend on what affiliation they publish as, it depends on where they do the work. So, if they do work that requires IRB approval but don't get it and then want to publish, they have to do it under a different name or they are in trouble. Furthermore, funders and the university usually insist that you list your proper affiliation, so, again, if you don't want to do this, you can't use your own name.
As for the "academic career": some people don't care, they have good industry jobs and do academia just for the fun of it.
Well, these people care; people don't publish Nature papers "just for the fun of it". Furthermore, companies usually have their own restrictions and reviews on human research, both because companies often receive public funding, and for reasons of liability.
you're free to publish under a different affiliation if the research was not done in your capacity at the University
You're free to publish as Donald Duck if you like. But it won't do any good for your academic career. If you want your publications to count for something, you need to publish under your own name and affiliation.
If the US government goes for this, it would be a disaster for US exports, because that's just the kind of excuse they need to erect other trade barriers.
But none of that really matters; Google should have bought the Nortel patents and sued the hell out of Apple. Instead, they and their partners are now going to be the targets of endless lawsuits by companies like Apple and Microsoft, companies that can't win through technology and instead need to rely on marketing, monopolies, and lawsuits.
A European company would not be under US jurisdiction, and could simply decline to hand over data.
A European company doesn't have to respond to requests from the US, but it does have to answer requests from European governments. European governments can get data on their citizens with very little effort or oversight. And European governments have agreements to share this data with the US government.
As a EU citizen, I want my government to protect my privacy. If they have to lean on US companies to achieve that, so be it.
The US government shouldn't be your biggest worry since it really only cares about drugs, terrorism and money laundering and can't do much to you unless you travel to the US. And when you travel to the US, you have to give up the data anyway.
Who you should be worried about is European governments and European corporations; they can basically ignore your privacy at will and without consequences, and they can really hurt you.
My point is that the EU probably only imposed such a high fine because it was dealing with a US company; European nations have a history of protectionism and using government action to screw US companies.
For that they'd have to rapidly switch the optical system that directs light at each eye. If they can do that for each line and do it fast enough, why do it interlaced at all? Why not simply do it a field at a time? That would be much simpler and cheaper hardware.
And keep in mind that Microsoft is a quintessentially American company with little political clout in Europe. I have my doubts that a European company, in particular one with many employees, would have been treated the same way.
Everybody knows who they are affiliated with. And if they publish under a pseudonym, they might as well not publish at all, since one of the major points of publishing these days is to advance your career.
People should get some facts before engaging in these black-and-white discussions.
Taxes on the top 0.01% have fallen dramatically to match those of the top 1%. Does that make sense? Probably not. Is it responsible for our economic problems or debt? Probably not.
Another little fact of interest to this group is where all those "rich people" come from: Silicon Valley and New York. Without those counties, income inequality in the US hasn't increased significantly over the last few decades. Yes, the gap between the rich and the poor that is supposedly condemning us to third world status soon is just the result of the IT revolution.
Frankly, most of the taxing or spending decisions currently debated in Congress are irrelevant and merely political posturing. Personally, I think they increase the taxes on the top 1% significantly, but it won't make any difference. But at least they can then move on to more important things.
With polarizing or switching glasses for 3D, each eye receives 1080p. With this, it seems that each eye receives 540p, half the resolution. Yes, that's much lower quality and doesn't qualify as "full HD" anymore.
Here in Sweden, refugees are naturalised and offered citizenship after four years, provided they can prove their identity and haven't been involved in criminal activities.
Yes, Sweden has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the rest of the EU combined. That isn't characteristic of EU policies as a whole, nor even of Swedish policies in the past. And as you point out, these people have trouble integrating and that there are big political problems as a consequence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgM3ykveMys
There is also something unusual about the lack Iraqi refugees to the US (or lack thereof), but that's easier to explain: the US accepts large numbers of refugees, in addition to even larger number of immigrants. But in the case of Iraq, there is (rightly or wrongly) concern about terrorism, which has led to problems. In fact, Sweden's willingness to accept the refugees seems to be due to horse trading with the US.
(I can't find any evidence for the four year claim; do you have a pointer?)
Do you see why receiving refugees isn't the easier option?
You correctly observe that refugees are harder to integrate, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the willingness of a country to let refugees enter, and that's politically easier to push through than letting more immigrants in.
Furthermore, Sweden wouldn't attract better immigrants even if it tried, due to cultural and linguistic barriers (not to mention lousy weather).
Using the death penalty as a political tool happens because courts are politically controlled and there's a lack of rule of law. It doesn't happen because a country is European. There's no more reason to believe, say, France, would use it as a political tool if it had it than the USA.
You implied that abolishing the death penalty is some kind of moral imperative. I'm saying it's really just a choice; Europeans incorrectly think it's a moral imperative because of Europe's lousy history with it.
I've noticed that many Americans reason as if European countries were still governed by the same principles as they were in the 1700's, when America broke free. I've some good news: you won.
We don't have to go back to the 1700's; Europe was full of military dictatorships, communist dictatorships, and socialist states even after WWII, nor did those responsible just vanish. Even modern European democracies differ substantially from the liberal democracy found in the US.
I think the main difference is that Europeans place greater emphasis on positive rights and freedom from abuse by the government, while Americans place greater emphasis on freedom of choice and freedom from meddling by the government.
I think the main difference is that Europeans have been so indoctrinated that they don't even notice the infringements on their liberties by their governments. Occasionally, they get a whiff of it, such as when they opposed the EU constitution, but then they are just outmaneuvered again by their governments (most of the EU constitutional provisions have simply been put in as amendments). Many of those "positive rights" aren't worth the paper they are written on and are written in such a way that they can often just as well be used against liberty as for the promotion of liberty.
What is needed here is the EU getting serious, with massive fines for companies who are caught violating the agreement
Why should the EU be any more serious about foreign violations than about violations within the EU? Despite the grand sounding principles, companies in the EU often just get a slap on the wrist.
I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Your original sentence was:
(Europe receives a large amount of war refugees, for example from Afghanistan, and the immigration is starting to create serious tensions in society.)
(Note that you're mixing up refugees--temporary shelter--with immigration--permanent integration.) To which I responded:
The vast majority of foreigners moving to Europe come from former European colonies, plus guest workers summoned by European companies in times of labor shortage; not exactly a stellar record.
You continue:
Europe has cared since at least the 1950's, when the UN's Refugee Convention was created. We've taken in refugees for humanitarian reasons for many decades. It's part of a larger movement for human rights, where practically all European nations have agreed to abolish the death penalty, abolish torture, follow the Geneva conventions for warfare, and so on.
You're trying to portray Europe as some kind of morally superior entity. I don't see that. Europe has huge problems integrating immigrants; you mention the tensions yourself. It prefers refugees because it doesn't have to integrate those. It lets in people from former colonies because it doesn't have a choice, and it tries to recruit foreign workers when the economy compels it to. In contrast, the US has large numbers of actual immigrants, people who clamor to get in, people who integrate well and yet can preserve their cultural and religious heritage.
Most of the other points are common to the US, except for the death penalty. In Europe, the death penalty has been misused as a political tool by governments for centuries, so it appalls Europeans and Europe should prohibit it. But that hasn't been the case in the US. The US use of the death penalty is consistent with the views of many religions and ethicists: it is applied in limited circumstances and only for the worst crimes.
Europeans have always been really good articulating grand visions, writing great books, and expounding compelling philosophies and principles. But putting those into practice is a different matter. Strident pacifism works as poorly as rampant militarism, and writing human rights and equality into one's constitutions is neither necessary nor sufficient for achieving them.
The US central bank could keep printing money until they succeeded in depreciating the dollar, but they chose not to. That's what I mean by "holding back".
That would basically mean an economic war with China and that is in nobody's interest. The current system works pretty well for everybody: the US gets cheap goods, China develops, and Europe lives under the illusion that it is far richer than it actually is. It only stops working if either the US starts experiencing unacceptably high unemployment (we're getting close) or until China or Europe are getting cold feed because their citizens figure out that they really don't have much in the way of savings.
It's not that simple, or nations would try to depreciate their own currencies all the time. If the dollar falls too much, it could cause serious inflation within the USA. Do you have any article describing the global chaos USA fears would happen after a Dollar depreciation? I'm interested in learning.
You just answered your own question: it's called "competitive devaluation" (you can search for it and its role in various economic crises). Also, the article you pointed to on Fox addresses it.
You're thinking about the disaster with Greece's economy?
That's only a small part of it. Europe has a common currency (sort of), but little common policy, and what there is is being fought by member governments and citizens for all sorts of reasons. Those are not good signs if you're looking for a currency with long term stability and predictability.
I'm not sure having a common European currency is a good idea to begin with.
If Europe overcomes its internal differences, then a common currency is the natural consequence. If Europe doesn't, then it won't matter. Europe has had half a century to grow together; it's make-or-break time.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence agencies all over the world can look at lots of things and you won't find out. They get Internet connection data, packet contents, data stored in the cloud. Both in the US and Europe (as well as elsewhere), they can install key loggers and viruses on your computer to track what you type, get your passwords, access your data, etc. This didn't start with 9/11, it's been there since the cold war (although it has been more restricted in the US than elsewhere). It's questionable, but it hasn't been such a big problem in the past because very few people were ever accused of being spies or terrorists.
What's worrisome is that these powers are now being extended to the police and that the definition of terrorism has been extended so far. Those are the changes you should really be worrying about.
You should not make plans that are "hard to reverse" based on merely winning the visa lottery. The visa lottery only gives you an opportunity to apply for a visa, it is not a guarantee. It still takes a long (and variable) amount of time between winning and getting a visa, if you get one at all. The visa lottery description is quite clear about that.
I understand the disappointment, but if someone actually has suffered economic harm from this, it is their own fault.
Or you just turn on visual hashs in ssh_config. It's ASCII art instead of color images, but that's because you usually use ssh over consoles.
If you want to support wireless devices and streaming properly, you need user mode audio servers; you can't put that stuff into kernel drivers.
PulseAudio got off to a bad start, and I don't really know whether it's a good design in its details. It almost certainly isn't the "best method", but it's the method that people who actually put in the work came up with, and they stuck with it, which is why it's still around.
If you want to put in the work to do something better, please feel free to do so.
It does't say "uniformly random", only "strictly random". Picking a random element from a preselected subset can still be "strictly random", it just isn't "uniformly random" over the entire set.
Winning this lottery has never been a guarantee of a visa, and visa decisions can always be reversed if it turns out you weren't eligible after all. So, it was unfortunate, but "unfair" is going a bit far.
Google has a much more persuasive argument for taking down the patent system if they say "we paid for this crap but we shouldn't have to". Now it looks like "we were to cheap to play by the rules and we're trying to make excuses". Furthermore, if this kills Android (and there is a good chance that it will), companies will not touch open source with a ten foot pole anymore. No, it's not fair, but it's the way things work.
Whether they have to use the IRB doesn't depend on what affiliation they publish as, it depends on where they do the work. So, if they do work that requires IRB approval but don't get it and then want to publish, they have to do it under a different name or they are in trouble. Furthermore, funders and the university usually insist that you list your proper affiliation, so, again, if you don't want to do this, you can't use your own name.
Well, these people care; people don't publish Nature papers "just for the fun of it". Furthermore, companies usually have their own restrictions and reviews on human research, both because companies often receive public funding, and for reasons of liability.
You're free to publish as Donald Duck if you like. But it won't do any good for your academic career. If you want your publications to count for something, you need to publish under your own name and affiliation.
If the US government goes for this, it would be a disaster for US exports, because that's just the kind of excuse they need to erect other trade barriers.
But none of that really matters; Google should have bought the Nortel patents and sued the hell out of Apple. Instead, they and their partners are now going to be the targets of endless lawsuits by companies like Apple and Microsoft, companies that can't win through technology and instead need to rely on marketing, monopolies, and lawsuits.
Sounds like you're not a very good driver. Good drivers anticipate and know when it's safe to, oh, look at the dashboard.
A European company doesn't have to respond to requests from the US, but it does have to answer requests from European governments. European governments can get data on their citizens with very little effort or oversight. And European governments have agreements to share this data with the US government.
The US government shouldn't be your biggest worry since it really only cares about drugs, terrorism and money laundering and can't do much to you unless you travel to the US. And when you travel to the US, you have to give up the data anyway.
Who you should be worried about is European governments and European corporations; they can basically ignore your privacy at will and without consequences, and they can really hurt you.
My point is that the EU probably only imposed such a high fine because it was dealing with a US company; European nations have a history of protectionism and using government action to screw US companies.
So, NASA hands out all these presents, and later they change their mind and want them all back. I think people would be better off refusing it.
And maybe if they spent more time getting people up into space and less on chasing down moon rocks, we'd soon get fresh moon rocks from the source.
For that they'd have to rapidly switch the optical system that directs light at each eye. If they can do that for each line and do it fast enough, why do it interlaced at all? Why not simply do it a field at a time? That would be much simpler and cheaper hardware.
And keep in mind that Microsoft is a quintessentially American company with little political clout in Europe. I have my doubts that a European company, in particular one with many employees, would have been treated the same way.
Everybody knows who they are affiliated with. And if they publish under a pseudonym, they might as well not publish at all, since one of the major points of publishing these days is to advance your career.
People should get some facts before engaging in these black-and-white discussions.
Taxes on the top 0.01% have fallen dramatically to match those of the top 1%. Does that make sense? Probably not. Is it responsible for our economic problems or debt? Probably not.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/ny-times-who.html
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
Another little fact of interest to this group is where all those "rich people" come from: Silicon Valley and New York. Without those counties, income inequality in the US hasn't increased significantly over the last few decades. Yes, the gap between the rich and the poor that is supposedly condemning us to third world status soon is just the result of the IT revolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/business/21scene.html
Frankly, most of the taxing or spending decisions currently debated in Congress are irrelevant and merely political posturing. Personally, I think they increase the taxes on the top 1% significantly, but it won't make any difference. But at least they can then move on to more important things.
With polarizing or switching glasses for 3D, each eye receives 1080p. With this, it seems that each eye receives 540p, half the resolution. Yes, that's much lower quality and doesn't qualify as "full HD" anymore.
... just not at the same time
Yes, Sweden has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the rest of the EU combined. That isn't characteristic of EU policies as a whole, nor even of Swedish policies in the past. And as you point out, these people have trouble integrating and that there are big political problems as a consequence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgM3ykveMys
There is also something unusual about the lack Iraqi refugees to the US (or lack thereof), but that's easier to explain: the US accepts large numbers of refugees, in addition to even larger number of immigrants. But in the case of Iraq, there is (rightly or wrongly) concern about terrorism, which has led to problems. In fact, Sweden's willingness to accept the refugees seems to be due to horse trading with the US.
(I can't find any evidence for the four year claim; do you have a pointer?)
You correctly observe that refugees are harder to integrate, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the willingness of a country to let refugees enter, and that's politically easier to push through than letting more immigrants in.
Furthermore, Sweden wouldn't attract better immigrants even if it tried, due to cultural and linguistic barriers (not to mention lousy weather).
You implied that abolishing the death penalty is some kind of moral imperative. I'm saying it's really just a choice; Europeans incorrectly think it's a moral imperative because of Europe's lousy history with it.
We don't have to go back to the 1700's; Europe was full of military dictatorships, communist dictatorships, and socialist states even after WWII, nor did those responsible just vanish. Even modern European democracies differ substantially from the liberal democracy found in the US.
I think the main difference is that Europeans have been so indoctrinated that they don't even notice the infringements on their liberties by their governments. Occasionally, they get a whiff of it, such as when they opposed the EU constitution, but then they are just outmaneuvered again by their governments (most of the EU constitutional provisions have simply been put in as amendments). Many of those "positive rights" aren't worth the paper they are written on and are written in such a way that they can often just as well be used against liberty as for the promotion of liberty.
Why should the EU be any more serious about foreign violations than about violations within the EU? Despite the grand sounding principles, companies in the EU often just get a slap on the wrist.
I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Your original sentence was:
(Note that you're mixing up refugees--temporary shelter--with immigration--permanent integration.) To which I responded:
You continue:
You're trying to portray Europe as some kind of morally superior entity. I don't see that. Europe has huge problems integrating immigrants; you mention the tensions yourself. It prefers refugees because it doesn't have to integrate those. It lets in people from former colonies because it doesn't have a choice, and it tries to recruit foreign workers when the economy compels it to. In contrast, the US has large numbers of actual immigrants, people who clamor to get in, people who integrate well and yet can preserve their cultural and religious heritage.
Most of the other points are common to the US, except for the death penalty. In Europe, the death penalty has been misused as a political tool by governments for centuries, so it appalls Europeans and Europe should prohibit it. But that hasn't been the case in the US. The US use of the death penalty is consistent with the views of many religions and ethicists: it is applied in limited circumstances and only for the worst crimes.
Europeans have always been really good articulating grand visions, writing great books, and expounding compelling philosophies and principles. But putting those into practice is a different matter. Strident pacifism works as poorly as rampant militarism, and writing human rights and equality into one's constitutions is neither necessary nor sufficient for achieving them.
That would basically mean an economic war with China and that is in nobody's interest. The current system works pretty well for everybody: the US gets cheap goods, China develops, and Europe lives under the illusion that it is far richer than it actually is. It only stops working if either the US starts experiencing unacceptably high unemployment (we're getting close) or until China or Europe are getting cold feed because their citizens figure out that they really don't have much in the way of savings.
You just answered your own question: it's called "competitive devaluation" (you can search for it and its role in various economic crises). Also, the article you pointed to on Fox addresses it.
That too can mean many things.
That's only a small part of it. Europe has a common currency (sort of), but little common policy, and what there is is being fought by member governments and citizens for all sorts of reasons. Those are not good signs if you're looking for a currency with long term stability and predictability.
If Europe overcomes its internal differences, then a common currency is the natural consequence. If Europe doesn't, then it won't matter. Europe has had half a century to grow together; it's make-or-break time.