Imagine a universe where we're both correct. They way I read it, the first travel ban was never meant to include LPRs, but they were detained by overzealous CBP agents. The administration subsequently clarified the order, as per my original link.
And we both made typos, this was in 2017, not 2018.
Explicitly excluding on the basis of country of origin, biological gender, psychological gender, sexual preference or skin color is nothing but discrimination. The fact that excluding white males is socially acceptable does not make it any different.
It is perfectly fine to have an organization that promotes equal opportunity. But it should be exactly that: equal opportunity for everyone.
I also find it very interesting that it's always about the "inclusion" and "diversity" when it comes to the nice tech or executive jobs. I've never seen a self-proclaimed equalist protesting in favor of male rights in child custody cases, or protesting for more males in elementary level teaching positions. br>
So stop your SJW bullshit and have another un-biased look at what you just said.
If you want to take off to the green north, go for it. But do it for the right reasons.
The article is full of lies. Here is an example:
At Access Now, a non-profit that organizes the RightsCon digital rights conference, Trump's travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries hit close to home. "One of our interns at the time was an Iranian citizen with a U.S. green card, and she wasn't able to leave the country to go to Brussels to help us organize the (2017) event," RightsCon director Nick Dagostino said.
Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) have never been banned from entering the U.S., regardless of their country of birth. See also this..
If you want to disapprove of Trump (and there are indeed many reasons to do so), do it for the right reasons, not for fake news propaganda for people who just want to be a "victim" so they can complain.
Exactly. This is not a case of a patent troll. In this case, there is a company actually working on something, and Tesla has been poaching their employees. From the article:
Nikola unveiled its hydrogen-powered semi in December 2016. Elon Musk first showed off the Tesla Semi last December. Once you start looking at the drawings in Nikola's patents, or compare photos of concept vehicles, you'll see that there are some similarities between the trucks. Nikola also alleges that Tesla reached out to poach an employee and doesn't hold any patents for its truck design compared to Nikola's half-dozen.
This is not a patent troll. This is a company who is competing with Tesla.
And I'm not saying that they are right and will win the case.
Not being allowed to do business in the UK would be a bit of a downer for Zuckerberg.
Except that Facebook or any of its subsidiaries are not directly owned by Mark Z anymore.
Why would he even consider entering that Police State where people are locked up for "offensive" tweets? He'd be smart to ignore that small island that's no longer even EU anymore.
The answer is irrelevant. The United States is a capitalist economy with a free market. In that free market, I should be able to get into a contractual relationship with anyone I want as long as the business itself is legal (so prostitution would not count).
Imho, the government has no business interfering with two companies that decide to merge. If they want more competition, they should make it easier to start a company.
This law is irrelevant. The Netherlands has 17 million people, or 0.22% of the world population.
New York State is bigger. Seriously, this is supposed to be News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters. Not Irrelevant Laws That Nobody Cares About. The 1st amendment also breaks laws in most European countries. Do we care? Nope, didn't think so.
Poor minorities who tend to vote Democrat are disproportionately likely to lack government issued IDs.
Having a valid government issued ID is also a pre-requisite to work legally in the United States. So instead of whining about lost votes, you could also argue for a federal law that provides no or low-cost ID options to low-income households.
Arguing that there is no need to use ID when voting is equal to arguing that there should be no border controls: now those poor, poor minorities are not even able to go to Canada. And I'm not even mentioning that they can't legally buy alcohol until they're 30. Are you going to stand in front of your local Bevmo with a sign?
Didn't think so.
I do agree with you that not having ID is a problem for those who don't have one, but that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Not having an ID causes a shitton of issue, and not being able to vote should be the least of their worries.
So yes, the Florida election was stolen by exactly the anti-Democratic voter suppression tactics for which you are now advocating!
For the record, being an immigrant I'm a left-leaning moderate. I'm an favor of universal healthcare and free education. I don't like the policies of our current Supreme Leader. I never liked Bush Jr (Sr was a bit better). I liked Obama and would vote for him with my eyes closed.
BUT. You can not have democracy without fair elections, and showing proof of eligibility to vote is one of the necessary safeguards.
I'm tired of Republicans pretending this is a legitimate concern and not a disingenuous ploy to
I'm not a republican. I'm not even allowed to vote in U.S. elections.
prevent U.S. Citizens from legally voting because they don't have government issued IDs.
If you don't understand that it is necessary to verify that right at the polls, then you are either extremely dumb or just a troll.
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
Sure, just look here. This was a difference of 537 votes. Is that significant enough for you? Now obviously I don't know whether they were "illegal" votes or not, but my point is that ~500 can make the difference between an election swinging one way or the other. And that makes it pretty clear to me that every vote counts.
Nothing wrong with that, the shit they don't want you to remember isn't worth remembering anyway
Yeah, like the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, or the Holocaust by Germany.
These two examples are exactly why you don't need a government tell you what you can and can't remember. But then again, the EUSSR has been on the slippery slope of censorship for a loooong time now. It started with the children. Then the terrorists. Then the poor ex-cons. What's next, offensive tweets?
No! You're the fucking asswipes that don't get it. It's got AUTOPILOT, not Chauffeur. When you go into an airplane, the pilots sit in front, don't sleep, and watch the skies, the instrumentation, and the aircraft handling, the pilots are paying attention!
I was going to comment the exact same thing. I happen to be a pilot, albeit for fun only. When I fly my little single engine plane with auto-pilot, it keeps me straight and level, and on the heading that I choose. It does not look out for other airplanes, and I definitely don't have an Ground Proximity Warning System, or a Traffic Collision Avoidance System. So I look around and pay attention, as I should when flying VFR.
Auto-pilot is the same thing. It is a driver assistance function, not an autonomous vehicle function. As sad as this accident is, in my humble opinion the driver earned himself the Darwin Award for not paying attention at a spot where he knew that the function was unreliable AND disregarded signals from the function to take manual control.
That is, unless there were underlying medical conditions that prevented him from doing so. He wouldn't be the first "pilot" to have a heart attack behind the wheel.
Well done, French, you just played yourself. This is as stupid as the Superbowl, where competitors from a single country call themselves "World Champion".
But then again, the French always like to shoot themselves in the foot. Aren't they supposed to be on strike this week?
this is the same MIT that assisted the victory of WWII...
No it is not. It is an MIT consisting of nothing but naysayers. The idea that one day a human would be on the moon would get the same response from "scientists" as late as 1930.
some neuroscientists, who say brain uploading isn't possible.
I'm sure those 60% transfer travelers whom switched airplanes or simply fueled up on some U.S. international airport should be considered way better than paying tourists.
That's 41,000 per day now. If that requirement hits, it may be thousands and thousands less. Since there is no security benefit, I can only assume the goal is to prevent people from traveling to US so much. I am sure the tourist industry / travel industry would love that.
Read between the lines. If you look here, you'll see that only 7,432,515 B1/B2 (tourist and business) visas were issued. That's a little over 20k per day. A large percentage of these will be business visitors.
The total number of arrivals for 2017 is 54,973,043. That's a little over 150k per day. So your visa-based tourists and business travelers together make up ~13% of yearly travelers to the U.S.
Remember that a lot of countries are exempt from the visa requirements through the Visa Waiver Program.
If the UK courts really wants to talk to him they can always seize whatever assets he has in the UK as a collateral and block all his businesses there until he decides to show up.
Seize it based on what? What legal basis exists for the U.K. government to rob, under threat of fire arms, a U.S. persons personal assets?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why the civilized world dislikes the U.K. police state.
The US have been the frontrunner in trying to censor speech such as "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0".
See, just this comment shows how much of an idiot you are. "The US" did nothing to censor this. No U.S. court made any legal determinations as to the legality. It was the RIAA/MPAA that was trying to issue DMCA requests to take these down. In fact, would it come to a lawsuit, it would be very likely to be ruled protected speech under the U.S. first amendment. Which, for the record, does not exist in your police state.
Go back to your free speech zone.
Just read this news report:
A man has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after allegedly posting a tweet in response to the Brussels attacks.
The tweet read: "I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said 'Nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply."
Matthew Doyle, 46, was arrested on Wednesday night in Croydon.
Indeed if it were the case that UK users were using an entirely US-based service provided by a US-based company then you would have a point
Good, we agree on that.
Facebook has data centres all over the world, not just the US,
Correct, but irrelevant. The only reason to have data centers all over the world is to speed things up for the end user. It only takes one business decision and a few days to move all that data to the U.S. The only effect will be that the latency will increase, and with that the user experience will slightly decrease.
it deliberately targets it services to people in the UK and signs UK-based advertizing contracts to allow UK companies to gain access to UK-based users. It derives a significant amount of its revenue from UK-based operations
Agreed.
and hence, since it is conducting business there it should clearly be subject to UK laws in the same way that a UK-based business conducting business in the US would be subject to US-based laws.
How does Facebook get its revenue? It gets revenue through the sales of ads. Those ads are bought by UK advertisers, who are responsible for the content of their ads. The transactions are done through local subsidiaries, since Facebook Inc is not a legal entity in the U.K.
The platform is not run by those local subsidiaries. It is run and paid for by Facebook Inc. The end-user freely provides their data to Facebook Inc, which does not exist in the U.K. The fact that local subsidiaries sell ads on the facebook.cum website makes no difference.
This is nothing more than yet another third world police state parliament trying to bully an American company. Because when it comes to civil liberties, the U.K. police state is ranking very low these days.
And for the record, I'm not exactly a big fan of Facebook.
I ran across similar jurisdictional issues a decade ago dealing with servers for online gambling sites. The Attorney General in many states had absolute control of whether their residents could participate in the online gambling sites, regardless of where the servers are located, or where the company was incorporated.
This is a very different story. You are talking about different jurisdiction with the same country. I'm talking about different jurisdictions in different countries.
If you have an arrest warrant in California, you will be arrested during a traffic stop in Florida.
If you have an arrest warrant in Florida, you will not be arrested during a traffic stop in the U.K. (well, unless it is an Interpol warrant).
The same Attorney General, will have virtually no jurisdiction to take down a gambling server in another country where online gambling is legal. Yes, he may ask local ISPs to block it, but he has 0 jurisdiction to force that foreign company to do anything.
However, if you are going to do business in those countries and especially if you are potentially involved in a massive violation of their online privacy laws then expect to get summoned by their governments, if not their courts.
If I operate an American registered website on an American hosted server paid for by an American registered corporate entity, and some user in some shithole country like the U.K. registers and providers their personal data, that foreign court has exactly 0 jurisdiction.
If that American registered corporate entity opens up a foreign subsidiary which sells ads on the American based website, that foreign court still has exactly 0 jurisdiction when it comes to the operations of that platform. That foreign court may have some jurisdiction when it comes to the adspace being sold, and local taxes to be paid, but that's about it.
The UK is a frightening police state where they imprison people over pet videos.
This. Exactly this. If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Moreover, free speech does not have the same protections in the U.K. as it does in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzt! I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.
Imagine a universe where we're both correct. They way I read it, the first travel ban was never meant to include LPRs, but they were detained by overzealous CBP agents. The administration subsequently clarified the order, as per my original link.
And we both made typos, this was in 2017, not 2018.
Came here to comment the same. Glad to see everyone agrees.
I don't agree that outreach is discrimination
Explicitly excluding on the basis of country of origin, biological gender, psychological gender, sexual preference or skin color is nothing but discrimination. The fact that excluding white males is socially acceptable does not make it any different.
It is perfectly fine to have an organization that promotes equal opportunity. But it should be exactly that: equal opportunity for everyone.
I also find it very interesting that it's always about the "inclusion" and "diversity" when it comes to the nice tech or executive jobs. I've never seen a self-proclaimed equalist protesting in favor of male rights in child custody cases, or protesting for more males in elementary level teaching positions.
br> So stop your SJW bullshit and have another un-biased look at what you just said.
To the great green north!
If you want to take off to the green north, go for it. But do it for the right reasons.
The article is full of lies. Here is an example:
At Access Now, a non-profit that organizes the RightsCon digital rights conference, Trump's travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries hit close to home. "One of our interns at the time was an Iranian citizen with a U.S. green card, and she wasn't able to leave the country to go to Brussels to help us organize the (2017) event," RightsCon director Nick Dagostino said.
Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) have never been banned from entering the U.S., regardless of their country of birth. See also this..
If you want to disapprove of Trump (and there are indeed many reasons to do so), do it for the right reasons, not for fake news propaganda for people who just want to be a "victim" so they can complain.
Nikola unveiled its hydrogen-powered semi in December 2016. Elon Musk first showed off the Tesla Semi last December. Once you start looking at the drawings in Nikola's patents, or compare photos of concept vehicles, you'll see that there are some similarities between the trucks. Nikola also alleges that Tesla reached out to poach an employee and doesn't hold any patents for its truck design compared to Nikola's half-dozen.
This is not a patent troll. This is a company who is competing with Tesla.
And I'm not saying that they are right and will win the case.
Not being allowed to do business in the UK would be a bit of a downer for Zuckerberg.
Except that Facebook or any of its subsidiaries are not directly owned by Mark Z anymore.
Why would he even consider entering that Police State where people are locked up for "offensive" tweets? He'd be smart to ignore that small island that's no longer even EU anymore.
The answer is irrelevant. The United States is a capitalist economy with a free market. In that free market, I should be able to get into a contractual relationship with anyone I want as long as the business itself is legal (so prostitution would not count).
Imho, the government has no business interfering with two companies that decide to merge. If they want more competition, they should make it easier to start a company.
Try, a pretty good summary of a NANOG thread that's weeks old.
The law doesn't say that they can't trade.
This law is irrelevant. The Netherlands has 17 million people, or 0.22% of the world population.
New York State is bigger. Seriously, this is supposed to be News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters. Not Irrelevant Laws That Nobody Cares About. The 1st amendment also breaks laws in most European countries. Do we care? Nope, didn't think so.
Poor minorities who tend to vote Democrat are disproportionately likely to lack government issued IDs.
Having a valid government issued ID is also a pre-requisite to work legally in the United States. So instead of whining about lost votes, you could also argue for a federal law that provides no or low-cost ID options to low-income households.
Arguing that there is no need to use ID when voting is equal to arguing that there should be no border controls: now those poor, poor minorities are not even able to go to Canada. And I'm not even mentioning that they can't legally buy alcohol until they're 30. Are you going to stand in front of your local Bevmo with a sign?
Didn't think so.
I do agree with you that not having ID is a problem for those who don't have one, but that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Not having an ID causes a shitton of issue, and not being able to vote should be the least of their worries.
So yes, the Florida election was stolen by exactly the anti-Democratic voter suppression tactics for which you are now advocating!
For the record, being an immigrant I'm a left-leaning moderate. I'm an favor of universal healthcare and free education. I don't like the policies of our current Supreme Leader. I never liked Bush Jr (Sr was a bit better). I liked Obama and would vote for him with my eyes closed.
BUT. You can not have democracy without fair elections, and showing proof of eligibility to vote is one of the necessary safeguards.
I'm tired of Republicans pretending this is a legitimate concern and not a disingenuous ploy to
I'm not a republican. I'm not even allowed to vote in U.S. elections.
prevent U.S. Citizens from legally voting because they don't have government issued IDs.
If you don't understand that it is necessary to verify that right at the polls, then you are either extremely dumb or just a troll.
Which begs the obvious question, do you have the slightest bit of credible evidence that non U.S. Citizens voting in significant numbers is a problem?
Sure, just look here. This was a difference of 537 votes. Is that significant enough for you? Now obviously I don't know whether they were "illegal" votes or not, but my point is that ~500 can make the difference between an election swinging one way or the other. And that makes it pretty clear to me that every vote counts.
Federal law however has some strong things to say about how the 'actual' election is supposed to be run.
Except the obvious rule that voters have to provide proof of U.S. Citizenship.
Nothing wrong with that, the shit they don't want you to remember isn't worth remembering anyway
Yeah, like the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, or the Holocaust by Germany.
These two examples are exactly why you don't need a government tell you what you can and can't remember. But then again, the EUSSR has been on the slippery slope of censorship for a loooong time now. It started with the children. Then the terrorists. Then the poor ex-cons. What's next, offensive tweets?
I will NOT ever buy another book from Amazon
Let me guess, you're vegan, too? You forgot to mention that...
No! You're the fucking asswipes that don't get it. It's got AUTOPILOT, not Chauffeur. When you go into an airplane, the pilots sit in front, don't sleep, and watch the skies, the instrumentation, and the aircraft handling, the pilots are paying attention!
I was going to comment the exact same thing. I happen to be a pilot, albeit for fun only. When I fly my little single engine plane with auto-pilot, it keeps me straight and level, and on the heading that I choose. It does not look out for other airplanes, and I definitely don't have an Ground Proximity Warning System, or a Traffic Collision Avoidance System. So I look around and pay attention, as I should when flying VFR.
Auto-pilot is the same thing. It is a driver assistance function, not an autonomous vehicle function. As sad as this accident is, in my humble opinion the driver earned himself the Darwin Award for not paying attention at a spot where he knew that the function was unreliable AND disregarded signals from the function to take manual control.
That is, unless there were underlying medical conditions that prevented him from doing so. He wouldn't be the first "pilot" to have a heart attack behind the wheel.
it's a French law.
Well done, French, you just played yourself. This is as stupid as the Superbowl, where competitors from a single country call themselves "World Champion".
But then again, the French always like to shoot themselves in the foot. Aren't they supposed to be on strike this week?
Facebook is here to stay..
- Myspace
- Yahoo
- Kodak
- Blockbuster
- Radioshack
- Weirdstuff Warehouse *snif*
this is the same MIT that assisted the victory of WWII...
No it is not. It is an MIT consisting of nothing but naysayers. The idea that one day a human would be on the moon would get the same response from "scientists" as late as 1930.
some neuroscientists, who say brain uploading isn't possible.
So is putting a human on the moon. Or is it?
I'm sure those 60% transfer travelers whom switched airplanes or simply fueled up on some U.S. international airport should be considered way better than paying tourists.
Transit visa are the C category, not B1/B2.
That's 41,000 per day now. If that requirement hits, it may be thousands and thousands less. Since there is no security benefit, I can only assume the goal is to prevent people from traveling to US so much. I am sure the tourist industry / travel industry would love that.
Read between the lines. If you look here, you'll see that only 7,432,515 B1/B2 (tourist and business) visas were issued. That's a little over 20k per day. A large percentage of these will be business visitors.
The total number of arrivals for 2017 is 54,973,043. That's a little over 150k per day. So your visa-based tourists and business travelers together make up ~13% of yearly travelers to the U.S.
Remember that a lot of countries are exempt from the visa requirements through the Visa Waiver Program.
If the UK courts really wants to talk to him they can always seize whatever assets he has in the UK as a collateral and block all his businesses there until he decides to show up.
Seize it based on what? What legal basis exists for the U.K. government to rob, under threat of fire arms, a U.S. persons personal assets?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why the civilized world dislikes the U.K. police state.
The US have been the frontrunner in trying to censor speech such as "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0".
See, just this comment shows how much of an idiot you are. "The US" did nothing to censor this. No U.S. court made any legal determinations as to the legality. It was the RIAA/MPAA that was trying to issue DMCA requests to take these down. In fact, would it come to a lawsuit, it would be very likely to be ruled protected speech under the U.S. first amendment. Which, for the record, does not exist in your police state.
Go back to your free speech zone.
Just read this news report:
A man has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after allegedly posting a tweet in response to the Brussels attacks. The tweet read: "I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said 'Nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply." Matthew Doyle, 46, was arrested on Wednesday night in Croydon.
This would never happen in the U.S.
So F you, and F your police state.
What a refreshing perspective from an American.
I'm not an American. I'm European.
Indeed if it were the case that UK users were using an entirely US-based service provided by a US-based company then you would have a point
Good, we agree on that.
Facebook has data centres all over the world, not just the US,
Correct, but irrelevant. The only reason to have data centers all over the world is to speed things up for the end user. It only takes one business decision and a few days to move all that data to the U.S. The only effect will be that the latency will increase, and with that the user experience will slightly decrease.
it deliberately targets it services to people in the UK and signs UK-based advertizing contracts to allow UK companies to gain access to UK-based users. It derives a significant amount of its revenue from UK-based operations
Agreed.
and hence, since it is conducting business there it should clearly be subject to UK laws in the same way that a UK-based business conducting business in the US would be subject to US-based laws.
How does Facebook get its revenue? It gets revenue through the sales of ads. Those ads are bought by UK advertisers, who are responsible for the content of their ads. The transactions are done through local subsidiaries, since Facebook Inc is not a legal entity in the U.K.
The platform is not run by those local subsidiaries. It is run and paid for by Facebook Inc. The end-user freely provides their data to Facebook Inc, which does not exist in the U.K. The fact that local subsidiaries sell ads on the facebook.cum website makes no difference.
This is nothing more than yet another third world police state parliament trying to bully an American company. Because when it comes to civil liberties, the U.K. police state is ranking very low these days.
And for the record, I'm not exactly a big fan of Facebook.
I ran across similar jurisdictional issues a decade ago dealing with servers for online gambling sites. The Attorney General in many states had absolute control of whether their residents could participate in the online gambling sites, regardless of where the servers are located, or where the company was incorporated.
This is a very different story. You are talking about different jurisdiction with the same country. I'm talking about different jurisdictions in different countries.
If you have an arrest warrant in California, you will be arrested during a traffic stop in Florida.
If you have an arrest warrant in Florida, you will not be arrested during a traffic stop in the U.K. (well, unless it is an Interpol warrant).
The same Attorney General, will have virtually no jurisdiction to take down a gambling server in another country where online gambling is legal. Yes, he may ask local ISPs to block it, but he has 0 jurisdiction to force that foreign company to do anything.
However, if you are going to do business in those countries and especially if you are potentially involved in a massive violation of their online privacy laws then expect to get summoned by their governments, if not their courts.
If I operate an American registered website on an American hosted server paid for by an American registered corporate entity, and some user in some shithole country like the U.K. registers and providers their personal data, that foreign court has exactly 0 jurisdiction.
If that American registered corporate entity opens up a foreign subsidiary which sells ads on the American based website, that foreign court still has exactly 0 jurisdiction when it comes to the operations of that platform. That foreign court may have some jurisdiction when it comes to the adspace being sold, and local taxes to be paid, but that's about it.
The UK is a frightening police state where they imprison people over pet videos.
This. Exactly this. If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Moreover, free speech does not have the same protections in the U.K. as it does in the U.S.