Their gender matters because as girls from Afghanistan, they would have been able to make a pretty good case that they should be allowed to remain in the US after being admitted due to conditions for girls in Afghanistan.
"We still don't know the reason why we were not granted visas, because other countries participating in the competition have been given visas,"
Most likely the usual reasons: either, they didn't demonstrate that they had enough money to stay in the US, or there was doubt about their ability or desire to leave the US once granted entry. Same reason EU countries frequently deny entry.
After all, the US does seem to have difficulties removing people who overstay their visas or enter illegally.
In the sense that I defended the president's right to make such bans for any reason, including religion.
didn't describe Trump as being "preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims".
You'd be amazed about all the things that I don't describe on Slashdot. But since you ask, I do hope Trump is preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims. So am I. So, for that matter, were my ex-Muslim boyfriends. So is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's rational to be preoccupied with the dangers of an ideology that advocates one's death. If you think that suggests that we are closet Muslims, you are rather confused.
If the government doesn't prohibit it and it is profitable to do so, which in the case of last-mile, it isn't. It's a lot more profitable to refuse to share with other ISPs so that you don't have to compete with them.
Again, your economic reasoning is bullshit. I'm not going to take you through it step by step, I'm simply telling you that "natural monopoly" doesn't cut it, and claiming that there is a natural monopoly when there isn't just makes you sound stupid.
There should be a ban on the import of sex robots designed to look like children, the author of a new report into the phenomenon has said. Prof Noel Sharkey
I think Prof Noel Sharkey is perhaps a little too preoccupied with the dangers of "child sex robots".
Following a lawsuit brought in the US by the publisher Elsevier, Elbakyan [the SciHub founder] is presently in hiding due to the risk of extradition;[16] Elsevier has been granted a $15 million injunction against her.[17] According to a 2016 interview, her neuroscience research is on hold, but she has enrolled in a history of science master’s program at a “small private university” in an undisclosed location.
Note also that Elsevier is a Dutch publisher, headquartered in Amsterdam. Maybe the US should tell Elsevier to go f*ck themselves and file those lawsuits in Europe rather than the US. Why should the US always take the political crap that results from European publishers suing people?
and everything to do with needing to run a cable to every single building
That's like saying that selling soap is a natural monopoly because every soap manufacturer needs to invest in their own soap selling store in every neighborhood. Of course, in the real world, companies don't operate like that and instead create efficient mechanisms for sharing distribution channels if government doesn't prohibit it.
There are many engineering and business solutions to the problem of making it possible for hundreds of providers to provide competitive service to residential customers. The only reason these solutions aren't being implemented is because of the way public roads and public infrastructure are managed in the US and the way telecoms are regulated.
Historically, utilities weren't private companies that became natural monopolies and then needed to be regulated. Rather, government deliberately created monopolies for the usual reasons that socialists and central planners do: they erroneously believed that it's more efficient, they believed that they could "save" the money that people otherwise have to pay in "profits", and they wanted to avoid "excessive duplication". It's the same stupid, ignorant impulse as Bernie Sanders' complaint that we have too many underarm deodorants. And the whole mess was then retroactively justified with a bullshit theory of "natural monopolies".
How is that relevant? Obviously, if your only provider is AT&T and you don't like them, you're SOL, whether you have arbitration or get tied up in a lawsuit.
Reaching a property with cable or DSL is no different from reaching it by road: you're either on public roads, in which case it's up to the city and doesn't cross private land, or you need to negotiate with another private property owner.
The reason cable and DSL monopolies exist is not because of difficulties crossing private lands, but because governments control who can put stuff in/on public roads, and they are doing a poor job.
If you're talking about the line poles, well, AT&T paid to put those up, didn't they?
There are many last mile solutions and many forms of ownership. Most utility poles are owned by the electric company; underground conduits tend to be owned by the city. And technically, poles and conduits can support many providers.
Again, why can't we just step back and let the free market sort it all out?
We should, but we don't. Communities own the land that is needed to reach subscribers, and they are usually managing it poorly, namely in a way that encourages monopolies.
We The People actually paid the telcos hundreds of millions of dollars to push DSL to the last mile, which they gave away as executive bonuses. ATT is a criminal enterprise.
I'm not aware of any government subsidies for building "DSL to the last mile". Care to point to any sources? Even if the government did, why not balance that against the taxes that AT&T paid?
In any case, when government engages in crony capitalist subsidies of businesses, the people you ought to hold responsible for it is government, not the businesses.
Someone's bound to come along and compete directly with AT&T, right?
Nobody can compete with AT&T because government has granted AT&T a monopoly. First, governments create monopolies, and then people like you call for more government to redress the problems resulting from creating monopolies... and usually create even more monopolies in the process.
... everywhere you offer those wonderfully forced-arbitration-bound-services, are there viable alternatives available, that include a free pony? No? Then you have not even a shred of moral defense for this sham of non-reasoning.
Suggesting Seattle's booming labor market may have skewed the study's results, two nonpartisan economists concluded it "suffers from a number of data and methodological problems that bias the study in the direction of finding job loss, even where there may have been no job loss at all."
Correct, there probably was "no job loss at all", because Seattle's booming labor market would have skewed the results by compensating for job losses with unrelated job gains.
When you replace a $8/h worker with a $15/h worker, there is no "job loss" as far as the business is concerned, but the $8/h worker is still out of a job. That was the original intention of minimum wage laws in the US, after all: to replace cheap, non-union "colored" workers with more expensive white union workers.
Slashdot Mirror
Their gender matters because as girls from Afghanistan, they would have been able to make a pretty good case that they should be allowed to remain in the US after being admitted due to conditions for girls in Afghanistan.
Most likely the usual reasons: either, they didn't demonstrate that they had enough money to stay in the US, or there was doubt about their ability or desire to leave the US once granted entry. Same reason EU countries frequently deny entry.
After all, the US does seem to have difficulties removing people who overstay their visas or enter illegally.
In the sense that I defended the president's right to make such bans for any reason, including religion.
You'd be amazed about all the things that I don't describe on Slashdot. But since you ask, I do hope Trump is preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims. So am I. So, for that matter, were my ex-Muslim boyfriends. So is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's rational to be preoccupied with the dangers of an ideology that advocates one's death. If you think that suggests that we are closet Muslims, you are rather confused.
Again, your economic reasoning is bullshit. I'm not going to take you through it step by step, I'm simply telling you that "natural monopoly" doesn't cut it, and claiming that there is a natural monopoly when there isn't just makes you sound stupid.
TPTB seem to be discovering that the world is increasingly not working according to their preferences or plans.
I think Prof Noel Sharkey is perhaps a little too preoccupied with the dangers of "child sex robots".
Yes, though not for the reasons you think: the US simply happens to be the biggest market, so that's where the biggest damages accrue.
The US doesn't "profit" from these cases; this is a colossal waste of US taxpayer dollars.
"We are changing our terms. If you want to continue your service with us, you have to do it under the new terms. You're free to cancel if you don't."
They can also simply terminate the contract.
Neither Elsevier nor SciHub are US entities.
It's annoying that non-US entities are trolling each other in the US legal system.
FYI:
Note also that Elsevier is a Dutch publisher, headquartered in Amsterdam. Maybe the US should tell Elsevier to go f*ck themselves and file those lawsuits in Europe rather than the US. Why should the US always take the political crap that results from European publishers suing people?
That's like saying that selling soap is a natural monopoly because every soap manufacturer needs to invest in their own soap selling store in every neighborhood. Of course, in the real world, companies don't operate like that and instead create efficient mechanisms for sharing distribution channels if government doesn't prohibit it.
There are many engineering and business solutions to the problem of making it possible for hundreds of providers to provide competitive service to residential customers. The only reason these solutions aren't being implemented is because of the way public roads and public infrastructure are managed in the US and the way telecoms are regulated.
Historically, utilities weren't private companies that became natural monopolies and then needed to be regulated. Rather, government deliberately created monopolies for the usual reasons that socialists and central planners do: they erroneously believed that it's more efficient, they believed that they could "save" the money that people otherwise have to pay in "profits", and they wanted to avoid "excessive duplication". It's the same stupid, ignorant impulse as Bernie Sanders' complaint that we have too many underarm deodorants. And the whole mess was then retroactively justified with a bullshit theory of "natural monopolies".
I'm not sure what you mean by "against time"; men taking much younger women is hardly unusual throughout human history.
How is that relevant? Obviously, if your only provider is AT&T and you don't like them, you're SOL, whether you have arbitration or get tied up in a lawsuit.
Reaching a property with cable or DSL is no different from reaching it by road: you're either on public roads, in which case it's up to the city and doesn't cross private land, or you need to negotiate with another private property owner.
The reason cable and DSL monopolies exist is not because of difficulties crossing private lands, but because governments control who can put stuff in/on public roads, and they are doing a poor job.
There are many last mile solutions and many forms of ownership. Most utility poles are owned by the electric company; underground conduits tend to be owned by the city. And technically, poles and conduits can support many providers.
We should, but we don't. Communities own the land that is needed to reach subscribers, and they are usually managing it poorly, namely in a way that encourages monopolies.
No, it's not.
And, whaddayaknow, that's pretty much the argument progressives make for business taxes.
But I'm sure AT&T is happy to make their arbitration clauses optional if the government makes their taxes optional. How about it?
Economists call it a monopoly. Monopolies are created by governments. Thank your legislators.
I'm not aware of any government subsidies for building "DSL to the last mile". Care to point to any sources? Even if the government did, why not balance that against the taxes that AT&T paid?
In any case, when government engages in crony capitalist subsidies of businesses, the people you ought to hold responsible for it is government, not the businesses.
You buy a mobile phone, you pay $50-100/month. If you don't like it, you go somewhere else. What exactly are you planning on suing AT&T for?
Nobody can compete with AT&T because government has granted AT&T a monopoly. First, governments create monopolies, and then people like you call for more government to redress the problems resulting from creating monopolies... and usually create even more monopolies in the process.
Binding arbitration exists in the UK, just like it does in the US.
There, FTFY.
Correct, there probably was "no job loss at all", because Seattle's booming labor market would have skewed the results by compensating for job losses with unrelated job gains.
When you replace a $8/h worker with a $15/h worker, there is no "job loss" as far as the business is concerned, but the $8/h worker is still out of a job. That was the original intention of minimum wage laws in the US, after all: to replace cheap, non-union "colored" workers with more expensive white union workers.