That's the problem. All people entering the USA have no protection as accorded to American citizens. You are treated as hostile unless proven otherwise. In the meantime, all rights are suspended with no expectation of being treated as a human being.
Being a foreigner, I have read numerous times of horror stories happening at the immigration. It's really discouraging to go to the USA even if you have all the best intentions to go there.
I understand your dread of entering the U.S. (though you say you have only "read" about "horror stories" and not actually done it yourself), but this is a common misconception. The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.
Yes, it's true that border security will stretch those rights (I'm not saying I think that's good), but the Constitution still applies, both to citizens and non-citizens alike.
This story actually illustrates that the Constitution applies; win or lose, the ACLU is using those rights to challenge the government's alleged abuses.
Well, like you, I did grow up using command lines, but check your six; at least one generation of serious IT people did not. And the ranks of those of us who did are rapidly dwindling.
I've been seeing the love for CLI's in a couple of articles here lately, and I'm wondering... why are GUI's "walled gardens", and CLI's are not? The CLI's have their definite boundaries as well. You can't run a function using a system utility that doesn't support it.
At best, I'd call GUI's walled gardens, and CLI's (larger) fenced in fields with rocks and weeds along with the trees and flowers. Definitely more versatile, not as friendly for some uses.
To get out of the boundaries of either a GUI or a CLI, you can just write your own code, to create... a GUI or CLI application. You can write a script, or put the equivalent function into a GUI app.
Google engineers are brilliant!
They have found the cure against the number 1 killer disease in the US... boredom!
Actually, I think what they are attempting to cure is literacy.
Because god knows Americans are too proud of their command of standard English, and lord their impeccable grammar and spelling over the rest of the world.
The whole premise of your first post was based on your incomprehension of simple English. What you wrote was irrelevant, a non-sequitur to what I wrote. You don't seem to understand that my post was about which "they" a previous poster was referring to. It had nothing, NOTHING to do with the topic of your rant.
You are STILL firing at the WRONG TARGET. Yours was the pedantic, lecturing, condescending post. You corrected me about supposed ignorance which I did not display. I am far more knowledgeable than you on the subject, and I'm not going to engage you on what you did write, because you're more than a little unhinged.
Your analogy is invalid. Your first comment (unsolicited by me) into this thread was "People need to take themselves ress seriousry." Unless you're Asian? I didn't think so.
You're comfortable with racist humor like a fish which doesn't notice water. It's just part of the environment. Well, notice it. Ingrained racism is no longer fashionable. And it's less tolerated.
Try this on; if you tell a racist joke, YOU ARE BEING RACIST. It's just a fact. Your strenuous protests give me the idea you actually know this, but won't admit it to yourself.
Yow, were you this thick in school?
Anyway, I've spent my quota of time educating you. Feel free to post one more I won't reply to (or read), and go on with your life, satisfied that there's... there's... no, nothing wrong with YOU.
I was pointing out that the GP's "they" was that poster's intent to refer to the school board, which is the only reasonable interpretation by a reader of standard English. That was my entire point.
You built a gigantic tinfoil hat rant on top of your mistaken premise.
Thank goodness you suggested I read a history book - I probably know more history than you.
Still, you did win me over to your point of view. After all, how could I resist the elegance of your argument; "far far far far far far far far far far far FAR more nefarious with its potential impact." One more "far" and I would have subscribed to your newsletter.
It's obvious from the context that "they" are censorious local school boards. Good for you for throwing an evil corporation/NSA spying comment into an unrelated topic.
You're retreating further and further into the weeds, which is a good sign. Any time now you may begin to think. Don't be afraid of it, it's part of growing up.
Oh my goodness, you actually used the defenses of "I have lots of (black, Mexican, Chinese) friends" AND the "well, I'm one of (ethnicity), so I can tell those jokes". AND you implied I may be racist (while you are not) BECAUSE I pointed out what you wrote was racist.
It's ok China, you can ban the game just keep in mind that millions of BF 4 players are enjoying the game on Chinese manufactured equipment.
Irony anyone?
Umm, since their intent is to prevent Chinese from getting ideas, and they do like the revenue from manufacturing computers for the rest of the world, and would probably prefer that other countries' youth wasted their time on games instead of studying, then...
Moderation requires manpower. Nobody in their right mind volunteers to moderate comments for for-profit businesses, so they have to pay moderators. Which they don't want to do.
Which means either you get spam, flames and shitposting, or forced registration/real id.
This guy at the Atlantic uses unpaid moderators, but he also does a lot of moderating himself... if you call banning people for questioning his assumptions or criticizing him as an author moderation.
He loves to get into arguments with commenters in the threads on his posts, but only as long as you comment very specifically on the facts of that specific post. If you call his motivations or technique into question, BAM! he bans you, not only from his threads, but from commenting on anything at the Atlantic site.
Disclaimer; obviously I ran afoul of his sensibilities, and got banned for pointing out he does what he claims he doesn't.
He's very proud of the way he polices his site and prevents posters from disagreeing with him in any fashion that challenges how he controls the conversation.
Think of real world identification for online comments like the suggestion that we replace seatbelts and airbags in automobiles with a sharp metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Imagine how much more carefully the average person would drive!
Naturally, no sane society would do that to cars, but the equivalent vulnerability in online commenting would do wonders for civility, and I also believe improve the quality of the content. Yes, yes, there would be some horror stories about people posting reasonable comments who are persecuted, but then, life is risk, isn't it?
Just to show my money, er, identity is where my mouth is, here's my real life information. Feel free to send any and all comments about my post.
Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111
To the overall business? No, what the geekheads in the back room do adds no observable value. If that back room function costs 20% more, it makes no appreciable difference.
I say this as one with experience in the back room, the front room, and the boardroom.
My point was that (in my experience, which encompasses a majority of what IS does for business), the interface is irrelevant. What's important is the human creativity and analysis to address what actually benefits the business.
That almost never coincides with the tricks one can do with a CLI.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem. All people entering the USA have no protection as accorded to American citizens. You are treated as hostile unless proven otherwise. In the meantime, all rights are suspended with no expectation of being treated as a human being.
Being a foreigner, I have read numerous times of horror stories happening at the immigration. It's really discouraging to go to the USA even if you have all the best intentions to go there.
I understand your dread of entering the U.S. (though you say you have only "read" about "horror stories" and not actually done it yourself), but this is a common misconception. The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.
Yes, it's true that border security will stretch those rights (I'm not saying I think that's good), but the Constitution still applies, both to citizens and non-citizens alike.
This story actually illustrates that the Constitution applies; win or lose, the ACLU is using those rights to challenge the government's alleged abuses.
Well, like you, I did grow up using command lines, but check your six; at least one generation of serious IT people did not. And the ranks of those of us who did are rapidly dwindling.
I've been seeing the love for CLI's in a couple of articles here lately, and I'm wondering... why are GUI's "walled gardens", and CLI's are not? The CLI's have their definite boundaries as well. You can't run a function using a system utility that doesn't support it.
At best, I'd call GUI's walled gardens, and CLI's (larger) fenced in fields with rocks and weeds along with the trees and flowers. Definitely more versatile, not as friendly for some uses.
To get out of the boundaries of either a GUI or a CLI, you can just write your own code, to create... a GUI or CLI application. You can write a script, or put the equivalent function into a GUI app.
Disclosure; I've been computing since the Olivetti P-6060 was a cutting edge machine. http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=407
Google engineers are brilliant! They have found the cure against the number 1 killer disease in the US... boredom!
Actually, I think what they are attempting to cure is literacy.
Because god knows Americans are too proud of their command of standard English, and lord their impeccable grammar and spelling over the rest of the world.
The whole premise of your first post was based on your incomprehension of simple English. What you wrote was irrelevant, a non-sequitur to what I wrote. You don't seem to understand that my post was about which "they" a previous poster was referring to. It had nothing, NOTHING to do with the topic of your rant.
You are STILL firing at the WRONG TARGET. Yours was the pedantic, lecturing, condescending post. You corrected me about supposed ignorance which I did not display. I am far more knowledgeable than you on the subject, and I'm not going to engage you on what you did write, because you're more than a little unhinged.
You stupid, myopic little troll.
Your analogy is invalid. Your first comment (unsolicited by me) into this thread was "People need to take themselves ress seriousry." Unless you're Asian? I didn't think so.
You're comfortable with racist humor like a fish which doesn't notice water. It's just part of the environment. Well, notice it. Ingrained racism is no longer fashionable. And it's less tolerated.
Try this on; if you tell a racist joke, YOU ARE BEING RACIST. It's just a fact. Your strenuous protests give me the idea you actually know this, but won't admit it to yourself.
Yow, were you this thick in school?
Anyway, I've spent my quota of time educating you. Feel free to post one more I won't reply to (or read), and go on with your life, satisfied that there's... there's... no, nothing wrong with YOU.
I was pointing out that the GP's "they" was that poster's intent to refer to the school board, which is the only reasonable interpretation by a reader of standard English. That was my entire point.
You built a gigantic tinfoil hat rant on top of your mistaken premise.
Thank goodness you suggested I read a history book - I probably know more history than you.
Still, you did win me over to your point of view. After all, how could I resist the elegance of your argument; "far far far far far far far far far far far FAR more nefarious with its potential impact." One more "far" and I would have subscribed to your newsletter.
You are an idiot.
It's obvious from the context that "they" are censorious local school boards. Good for you for throwing an evil corporation/NSA spying comment into an unrelated topic.
Aww, I had the feeling you were heading in the right direction, and then you muled on me. So sad.
But I'm flattered you looked at my posts. That makes me feel warm and squishy inside.
Whirling hot oil around at high speed, in a kitchen.
What could go wrong?
And you're still doing it! You call racism "standard jokes". That. Is. AWESOME!
And still you keep replying to try and justify your position. Better and better.
You're retreating further and further into the weeds, which is a good sign. Any time now you may begin to think. Don't be afraid of it, it's part of growing up.
Oh my goodness, you actually used the defenses of "I have lots of (black, Mexican, Chinese) friends" AND the "well, I'm one of (ethnicity), so I can tell those jokes". AND you implied I may be racist (while you are not) BECAUSE I pointed out what you wrote was racist.
That is ADORABLE!
Good, I think I got through, since you're defending yourself with a little desperation.
Someday you may realize what's wrong with you and just, you know, wean yourself out of racism. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.
How about you grow up a little instead? Hmm? You may not realize, but some of the people you know are embarrassed for you.
Yes, that's the stuff! Though the racists don't often use their fake online identity, as you have done.
I applaud your (fake) bravery, sir!
It's ok China, you can ban the game just keep in mind that millions of BF 4 players are enjoying the game on Chinese manufactured equipment. Irony anyone?
Umm, since their intent is to prevent Chinese from getting ideas, and they do like the revenue from manufacturing computers for the rest of the world, and would probably prefer that other countries' youth wasted their time on games instead of studying, then...
No, that's not ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Ha ha! I see what you did there! I love casual racism!
I for one do not want to get beet up for my pour use of grammer and spilling!
To this I say, "Borscht!"
Moderation requires manpower. Nobody in their right mind volunteers to moderate comments for for-profit businesses, so they have to pay moderators. Which they don't want to do. Which means either you get spam, flames and shitposting, or forced registration/real id.
This guy at the Atlantic uses unpaid moderators, but he also does a lot of moderating himself... if you call banning people for questioning his assumptions or criticizing him as an author moderation.
He loves to get into arguments with commenters in the threads on his posts, but only as long as you comment very specifically on the facts of that specific post. If you call his motivations or technique into question, BAM! he bans you, not only from his threads, but from commenting on anything at the Atlantic site.
Disclaimer; obviously I ran afoul of his sensibilities, and got banned for pointing out he does what he claims he doesn't.
He's very proud of the way he polices his site and prevents posters from disagreeing with him in any fashion that challenges how he controls the conversation.
"I am convinced that there is a tech solution to this."
You do realize that this statement is almost always incorrect?
I replied to this AC post so I could quote it and make it visible. This is the truest and most insightful comment I've seen in a month, at least.
Think of real world identification for online comments like the suggestion that we replace seatbelts and airbags in automobiles with a sharp metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Imagine how much more carefully the average person would drive!
Naturally, no sane society would do that to cars, but the equivalent vulnerability in online commenting would do wonders for civility, and I also believe improve the quality of the content. Yes, yes, there would be some horror stories about people posting reasonable comments who are persecuted, but then, life is risk, isn't it?
Just to show my money, er, identity is where my mouth is, here's my real life information. Feel free to send any and all comments about my post.
Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500 (202) 456-1111
To the overall business? No, what the geekheads in the back room do adds no observable value. If that back room function costs 20% more, it makes no appreciable difference.
I say this as one with experience in the back room, the front room, and the boardroom.
My point was that (in my experience, which encompasses a majority of what IS does for business), the interface is irrelevant. What's important is the human creativity and analysis to address what actually benefits the business.
That almost never coincides with the tricks one can do with a CLI.