ISPs have never had a "land grab" and there is no place in the US where an ISP has EVER had a government-granted monopoly.
Cable television and telephone companies HAVE had government monopolies (telcos still do, cable does not), but they are just one medium for internet service. The vast number of available ISPs pretty much disproves any claim to a monopoly status.
But you can't "have" a visa waiver. The requirement for a visa is waived.
That is called a visa waiver.
You don't have anything. They let you in without a visa.
You have a waiver to the normal visa requirements, so no, you don't have a visa. You have the waiver. The ESTA is how you apply to participate in the visa waiver program. If you are not approved under ESTA then you do not have a waiver and need a visa. It's not that hard. And most people understand the discussion without a waiver of words.
I don't think that one can have a "valid visa waiver". It's an oxymoron.
It is a tautology, which is the opposite of an oxymoron. Of course you can have a valid visa waiver. If you have a visa waiver, it is valid. The opposite is not having an approved visa waiver, or an unapproved visa waiver. So, technically, "valid" should be "approved" in that phrase.
This kind of thing has been a problem for the IETF before,
What exactly is "this kind of thing"? It's a failure to obtain a valid visa waiver or visa before trying to depart for the US.
Those other utopian nations don't hassle people travelling there for meetings.
He wasn't hassled for traveling to a meeting. He was denied boarding because he didn't have a valid visa waiver.
Do you believe that "going to a meeting" should be the sole and only consideration when the US considers a request for a visa waiver? Does that one consideration trump all others?
Helping set the standards for the Internet is important,
So is getting a visa waiver or visa before coming to the US. Just like getting one before going to Brazil, Germany, Australia, New Zealand,...
Depends on the reason he gave for the visit when he filled out the form initially.
so fraught with risk
Yeah, because 700 out of 1.2 million is such a high probability of failure, and failing to check if the visa waiver was approved before going to the airport is such a dumb idea.
And that's not in the Tis of Thee's best interest.
Depends on why the ESTAs are being disapproved, doesn't it? I think so. Apparently you do not care. And since the ESTA is not the only way of getting authorization to enter...
There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors.
That's a pretty explicit reference to the "meeting with international visitors". The US didn't "reject" the income from a "meeting", it rejected the ESTA from a non-citizen who was seeking to enter the country on a visitor visa waiver to conduct work in the US. Other than the fact that it was a meeting with his employer, the meeting itself had nothing to do with the matter. But that points out that this was not "a meeting with international visitors", it was an "all hands employee meeting". He's not a visitor to Mozilla or the meeting, he's an employee.
All I am saying is that if it becomes difficult to hold meetings one place,
It isn't difficult to hold meetings "one place". The US did nothing to prevent the meeting. Most probably, had the guy applied for the right waiver, or the right visa, he would not have been denied. The fact that he'd come to the US for his employer on an ESTA before made him overconfident, and he got caught this time.
someone will provide a welcoming venue.
I think you will find that every country will reject entry to someone who claims to be coming for a "visit" when the true purpose is for work. Or for whatever reason this guy was denied -- we don't know for sure, we can just guess. The fact he was trying to use a visitor visa waiver for work is a clue. And I know for a fact that every time I enter another country, I am asked explicitly the purpose of my visit, and if that purpose doesn't match the entry requirements, I don't get in. That would be my fault for trying to get around the immigration laws.
There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors.
You somehow think this has something to do with what the meeting was? Sorry, but the US is quite willing to accept the "income" from meetings with international visitors, even if they include Porto Ricans. And the amount of "PR" that comes from Mozilla holding an employee meeting in the US is scant, if any. Yawn, who cares where Mozilla holds its employee meetings?
It's a different matter when it comes to accepting people who want to enter the US on a VISITOR visa waiver so they can do work here, or for some other reason we don't know about. The VISITOR visa waiver is for visitors. There are waivers and visas for people coming to work. It's most likely he applied for the wrong one -- his fault, not the US -- and he got caught this time.
Would you have any problem if I, a US citizen, was refused entry to Brasil, say, when I had gotten a visitor visa but told the border agent that I was there to work for two weeks?
Not relevant if you think he was denied some reason other than Trump's travel ban, but if Trump was the cause,
And if LRH was the cause, it was because Stenberg's body Thetans were disruptive and blocking his state of clear. This was all documented in the Green Book. It's a miracle the guy got out of the airport before the Sea Org agents scooped him up as a suppressive person and took him to The Camp.
The article doesn't say that. It says he had one previously and this one was denied. It is an assumption that the article is talking about the same ESTA in both places, but "previously" means "before this", presumably "before this trip" since that is what an ESTA covers. What he had before doesn't matter.
That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.
Or a deliberately misleading article and summary to make some political point.
He was told it was denied while he was standing in the check-in line. That doesn't mean it was denied while he was at the airport.
Of course it is possible that his was first granted and then revoked, but it all sounds a bit odd.
Or it was never approved in the first place, and he assumed that since he'd gotten one before that it was a pro-forma action that he didn't need to check on this time.
It's not an ESTA denial. The summary says he had a valid visa waiver at the time.
No, it says he had previously obtained a visa waiver, but it doesn't say when or how long ago. What visa waivers he had for previous trips don't matter.
The story explicitly says that the ESTA he filed THIS TIME was denied. Thus, he did not have a valid visa waiver at the time he was traveling. The summary is, as usual, intentionally misleading.
2) We won't hold any further interim meetings in the US, until there's a change in this situation.
It is nice that this guy is standing up to support Daniel Stenberg. You don't know why he wasn't admitted, but you'll cut off your nose to spite your face anyway.
What happens when Mexico or one of those utopian European or Asian nations denies entry to one of your meeting participants?
No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.
There is more to being admitted to the US than just "doing the appropriate paperwork". You can do all the paperwork you want, but all that does is get you into the system. If your name triggers a review, you can still be denied entry. There is no story here.
Why was this guy denied? Who knows. Maybe his name and other details matched another person's too closely, and the other person has a felony criminal record or other disqualifying issue.
The story here is that the US still has control of its borders and can deny non-citizens entry for any of a number of reasons, even if that person is standing in the check-in line at the airport, or standing in front if an ICE agent at a US airport. The story is, this guy can get a redress number that will flag his identity as "not that other guy" for future trips, if he truly isn't the guy with the real issue. (My boss has one -- his name triggers a review -- and he has no problem traveling. I used to be asked on a regular basis if I lived in Colorado, to the point that I said "I'm not that guy" and I got through without further ado.)
For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them.
And most of them do. Sometimes they cannot get entry. Just like people who want to travel from the US to other countries. But you never hear that it is a travesty for someone from the US to be denied entry to Brazil, for example, just how horrible it is that someone didn't make it into the US. Is there more to this story? Probably.
So this means that every airport with US-bound flights needs to have a 2nd security checkpoint just for the US-bound gates ?
Many of them already do. When I flew from Munich to the US last time, I went through three different security screenings. And I'm not counting the interrogation that takes place before they even let you into the check-in line, or the outbound customs and immigration folks.
I talked about what the parent and the article were saying, specifically that there are some regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
There are no such regulations.
You come along and say that those regulations don't exist.
They don't. Can you provide a reference to one?
Ergo: the article which claimed that they exist, which you didn't bother to read, is lying.
No, you are lying. I don't care what the article said.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
It doesn't matter if those two statements, which I made, are equivalent. What matters is if there are regulations that "exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots". There are not.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying?
If you read what I write and not try to make it up on your own, you'll save everyone a lot of time. I responded to the specific statement:
regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots,
There are no such "regulations which exist". Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots." The only regulation is that the person flying the drone or the observer must have VLOS on what they are flying. Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Compare that to manned aircraft regulations that do mandate certain anti-collision and other lighting systems for certain classes and types of aircraft. But even those do not ensure anything other than that the lights are there. Visibility is not a defined outcome of those regulations.
That seems awfully negligent.
Sue me. If you can. The truth is an absolute defense.
He's basically using a figure of speech, you retarded aspie fuckwad.
Just as you had 100% free choice in being insulting or not, and you chose poorly. You could blame me for "forcing your hand", but the fault remains with you.
He didn't want to do something he didn't have to, but someone else did something that "forced his hand". Were this some negotiation where the correct response depends upon the "opponent's" action, you'd have a point. This isn't. It's a choice to allow someone else drive your bus. "I am going to do this because you don't want me to" isn't "adapting" or "jujitsu".
But I gored a popular ox, so the mods are here to "adapt" and "jujitsu" me. They didn't want to, but I forced their hand, hmmm?
But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".
Nobody said they did. It's called "reductio ad absurdum." Take an argument to an extreme to show why it is absurd.
People DO say: "the rich should pay more" when they talk about solving government financial problems. That argument is false, because EVEN IF you took ALL the money from the rich (taxed at 100% of income and wealth), and then removed them from the welfare roles as a new cost by killing them, you couldn't solve the government financial problems. That means there has to be a different answer, if there is one. See how that works?
And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis.
And the ones who want to tax them more are doing so from a "this is unfair" basis, as well. "They should pay their fair share..." Well, "fair" is such a wonderful subjective term, isn't it? You think it is fair if they pay 60% of their income, perhaps. I think it is fair if they pay 35% -- because 35% of A LOT is much more than 35% of what I pay on. They're already paying a large percentage of the total tax bill. I think that's fair. YMMV.
Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*". Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*"..
When you realize that an almost majority of the people pay no income tax at all,...
They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else.
Then tax them at the same rate as everyone else. This shows data for 2016. The top 1% had 22% of the income and paid 34% of their income in taxes. The average tax as percentage of income for all was 31%. That looks like it's about the same rate, within some margin of error. Isn't that fair? Remember before you say "no", that 34% of $1.7 million (the average income of the top 1%) is a lot more than 31% of $81,000 (the average income of the 60th through 80th percentile of taxpayers.) And consider that the top 1% already pays almost a full quarter of all taxes.
I think the even more relevant quote was: "I didn't want so much of this show to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand."
I noticed that, too. It tells me that John Oliver allows other people to control what he does. Or he gives them control over his actions. Either way, it isn't a positive trait. Kind of like children. "Johhny, why did you punch Suzie?" "She made me do it."
And when you click "no thanks" you are brought to a blank page.
So, in other words, it is not an opt-in selection. The law requires opt-in. They can't legally refuse service if the provision is opt-in otherwise it wouldn't be.
If you agree, you get these constant emails stating the the terms and conditions have changed.
You will get those no matter what, so it's not an issue of the opt-in vs. not opting-in under this law.
Did you think that this one opt-in was intended to replace the TOS agreement process? Sorry, that's not what it does.
So, again, exactly how is not opting-in to the collection of browser data etc under the CA law NOT a viable alternative to opting-in?
I think EULA's should be deemed not enforceable just for that fact.
The fact that they have to notify your if the TOS changes to allow you to disagree with the TOS changes is why EULAs should be deemed not enforceable? And this has anything to do with opting-in or not to a privacy provision under CA law how?
Slashdot Mirror
Just a giant fucking land grab of ISPs.
ISPs have never had a "land grab" and there is no place in the US where an ISP has EVER had a government-granted monopoly.
Cable television and telephone companies HAVE had government monopolies (telcos still do, cable does not), but they are just one medium for internet service. The vast number of available ISPs pretty much disproves any claim to a monopoly status.
Now I am more convinced than ever that there are NO exclusive agreements anywhere in America.
Federal law prohibits exclusive franchise agreements, and has done so for at least 20 years. That's why you won't find any.
But you can't "have" a visa waiver. The requirement for a visa is waived.
That is called a visa waiver.
You don't have anything. They let you in without a visa.
You have a waiver to the normal visa requirements, so no, you don't have a visa. You have the waiver. The ESTA is how you apply to participate in the visa waiver program. If you are not approved under ESTA then you do not have a waiver and need a visa. It's not that hard. And most people understand the discussion without a waiver of words.
I don't think that one can have a "valid visa waiver". It's an oxymoron.
It is a tautology, which is the opposite of an oxymoron. Of course you can have a valid visa waiver. If you have a visa waiver, it is valid. The opposite is not having an approved visa waiver, or an unapproved visa waiver. So, technically, "valid" should be "approved" in that phrase.
This kind of thing has been a problem for the IETF before,
What exactly is "this kind of thing"? It's a failure to obtain a valid visa waiver or visa before trying to depart for the US.
Those other utopian nations don't hassle people travelling there for meetings.
He wasn't hassled for traveling to a meeting. He was denied boarding because he didn't have a valid visa waiver.
Do you believe that "going to a meeting" should be the sole and only consideration when the US considers a request for a visa waiver? Does that one consideration trump all others?
Helping set the standards for the Internet is important,
So is getting a visa waiver or visa before coming to the US. Just like getting one before going to Brazil, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, ...
But that's non-sequitur in any case.
Depends on the reason he gave for the visit when he filled out the form initially.
so fraught with risk
Yeah, because 700 out of 1.2 million is such a high probability of failure, and failing to check if the visa waiver was approved before going to the airport is such a dumb idea.
And that's not in the Tis of Thee's best interest.
Depends on why the ESTAs are being disapproved, doesn't it? I think so. Apparently you do not care. And since the ESTA is not the only way of getting authorization to enter ...
Um, no? Why do you get that impression?
From this statement, which I quoted in my reply:
That's a pretty explicit reference to the "meeting with international visitors". The US didn't "reject" the income from a "meeting", it rejected the ESTA from a non-citizen who was seeking to enter the country on a visitor visa waiver to conduct work in the US. Other than the fact that it was a meeting with his employer, the meeting itself had nothing to do with the matter. But that points out that this was not "a meeting with international visitors", it was an "all hands employee meeting". He's not a visitor to Mozilla or the meeting, he's an employee.
All I am saying is that if it becomes difficult to hold meetings one place,
It isn't difficult to hold meetings "one place". The US did nothing to prevent the meeting. Most probably, had the guy applied for the right waiver, or the right visa, he would not have been denied. The fact that he'd come to the US for his employer on an ESTA before made him overconfident, and he got caught this time.
someone will provide a welcoming venue.
I think you will find that every country will reject entry to someone who claims to be coming for a "visit" when the true purpose is for work. Or for whatever reason this guy was denied -- we don't know for sure, we can just guess. The fact he was trying to use a visitor visa waiver for work is a clue. And I know for a fact that every time I enter another country, I am asked explicitly the purpose of my visit, and if that purpose doesn't match the entry requirements, I don't get in. That would be my fault for trying to get around the immigration laws.
There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors.
You somehow think this has something to do with what the meeting was? Sorry, but the US is quite willing to accept the "income" from meetings with international visitors, even if they include Porto Ricans. And the amount of "PR" that comes from Mozilla holding an employee meeting in the US is scant, if any. Yawn, who cares where Mozilla holds its employee meetings?
It's a different matter when it comes to accepting people who want to enter the US on a VISITOR visa waiver so they can do work here, or for some other reason we don't know about. The VISITOR visa waiver is for visitors. There are waivers and visas for people coming to work. It's most likely he applied for the wrong one -- his fault, not the US -- and he got caught this time.
Would you have any problem if I, a US citizen, was refused entry to Brasil, say, when I had gotten a visitor visa but told the border agent that I was there to work for two weeks?
Not relevant if you think he was denied some reason other than Trump's travel ban, but if Trump was the cause,
And if LRH was the cause, it was because Stenberg's body Thetans were disruptive and blocking his state of clear. This was all documented in the Green Book. It's a miracle the guy got out of the airport before the Sea Org agents scooped him up as a suppressive person and took him to The Camp.
Note that his ESTA was approved, then rescinded.
The article doesn't say that. It says he had one previously and this one was denied. It is an assumption that the article is talking about the same ESTA in both places, but "previously" means "before this", presumably "before this trip" since that is what an ESTA covers. What he had before doesn't matter.
That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.
Or a deliberately misleading article and summary to make some political point.
Also, the denial happened at the airport
He was told it was denied while he was standing in the check-in line. That doesn't mean it was denied while he was at the airport.
Of course it is possible that his was first granted and then revoked, but it all sounds a bit odd.
Or it was never approved in the first place, and he assumed that since he'd gotten one before that it was a pro-forma action that he didn't need to check on this time.
It's not an ESTA denial. The summary says he had a valid visa waiver at the time.
No, it says he had previously obtained a visa waiver, but it doesn't say when or how long ago. What visa waivers he had for previous trips don't matter.
The story explicitly says that the ESTA he filed THIS TIME was denied. Thus, he did not have a valid visa waiver at the time he was traveling. The summary is, as usual, intentionally misleading.
2) We won't hold any further interim meetings in the US, until there's a change in this situation.
It is nice that this guy is standing up to support Daniel Stenberg. You don't know why he wasn't admitted, but you'll cut off your nose to spite your face anyway.
What happens when Mexico or one of those utopian European or Asian nations denies entry to one of your meeting participants?
No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.
There is more to being admitted to the US than just "doing the appropriate paperwork". You can do all the paperwork you want, but all that does is get you into the system. If your name triggers a review, you can still be denied entry. There is no story here.
Why was this guy denied? Who knows. Maybe his name and other details matched another person's too closely, and the other person has a felony criminal record or other disqualifying issue.
The story here is that the US still has control of its borders and can deny non-citizens entry for any of a number of reasons, even if that person is standing in the check-in line at the airport, or standing in front if an ICE agent at a US airport. The story is, this guy can get a redress number that will flag his identity as "not that other guy" for future trips, if he truly isn't the guy with the real issue. (My boss has one -- his name triggers a review -- and he has no problem traveling. I used to be asked on a regular basis if I lived in Colorado, to the point that I said "I'm not that guy" and I got through without further ado.)
For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them.
And most of them do. Sometimes they cannot get entry. Just like people who want to travel from the US to other countries. But you never hear that it is a travesty for someone from the US to be denied entry to Brazil, for example, just how horrible it is that someone didn't make it into the US. Is there more to this story? Probably.
So this means that every airport with US-bound flights needs to have a 2nd security checkpoint just for the US-bound gates ?
Many of them already do. When I flew from Munich to the US last time, I went through three different security screenings. And I'm not counting the interrogation that takes place before they even let you into the check-in line, or the outbound customs and immigration folks.
I talked about what the parent and the article were saying, specifically that there are some regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
There are no such regulations.
You come along and say that those regulations don't exist.
They don't. Can you provide a reference to one?
Ergo: the article which claimed that they exist, which you didn't bother to read, is lying.
No, you are lying. I don't care what the article said.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
It doesn't matter if those two statements, which I made, are equivalent. What matters is if there are regulations that "exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots". There are not.
I don't care.
You don't care that you are wrong. I got it.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying?
If you read what I write and not try to make it up on your own, you'll save everyone a lot of time. I responded to the specific statement:
There are no such "regulations which exist". Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots." The only regulation is that the person flying the drone or the observer must have VLOS on what they are flying. Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Compare that to manned aircraft regulations that do mandate certain anti-collision and other lighting systems for certain classes and types of aircraft. But even those do not ensure anything other than that the lights are there. Visibility is not a defined outcome of those regulations.
That seems awfully negligent.
Sue me. If you can. The truth is an absolute defense.
... Did you read the article? You should read the article.
I don't need to read the article, I know the regulations. No such regulations exist.
The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots,
There are no regulations that exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
He had a 100% free choice in the matter.
Did I say otherwise? No.
He's basically using a figure of speech, you retarded aspie fuckwad.
Just as you had 100% free choice in being insulting or not, and you chose poorly. You could blame me for "forcing your hand", but the fault remains with you.
But I gored a popular ox, so the mods are here to "adapt" and "jujitsu" me. They didn't want to, but I forced their hand, hmmm?
But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".
Nobody said they did. It's called "reductio ad absurdum." Take an argument to an extreme to show why it is absurd.
People DO say: "the rich should pay more" when they talk about solving government financial problems. That argument is false, because EVEN IF you took ALL the money from the rich (taxed at 100% of income and wealth), and then removed them from the welfare roles as a new cost by killing them, you couldn't solve the government financial problems. That means there has to be a different answer, if there is one. See how that works?
And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis.
And the ones who want to tax them more are doing so from a "this is unfair" basis, as well. "They should pay their fair share..." Well, "fair" is such a wonderful subjective term, isn't it? You think it is fair if they pay 60% of their income, perhaps. I think it is fair if they pay 35% -- because 35% of A LOT is much more than 35% of what I pay on. They're already paying a large percentage of the total tax bill. I think that's fair. YMMV.
Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*". Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*"..
When you realize that an almost majority of the people pay no income tax at all, ...
They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else.
Then tax them at the same rate as everyone else. This shows data for 2016. The top 1% had 22% of the income and paid 34% of their income in taxes. The average tax as percentage of income for all was 31%. That looks like it's about the same rate, within some margin of error. Isn't that fair? Remember before you say "no", that 34% of $1.7 million (the average income of the top 1%) is a lot more than 31% of $81,000 (the average income of the 60th through 80th percentile of taxpayers.) And consider that the top 1% already pays almost a full quarter of all taxes.
I think the even more relevant quote was: "I didn't want so much of this show to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand."
I noticed that, too. It tells me that John Oliver allows other people to control what he does. Or he gives them control over his actions. Either way, it isn't a positive trait. Kind of like children. "Johhny, why did you punch Suzie?" "She made me do it."
And when you click "no thanks" you are brought to a blank page.
So, in other words, it is not an opt-in selection. The law requires opt-in. They can't legally refuse service if the provision is opt-in otherwise it wouldn't be.
If you agree, you get these constant emails stating the the terms and conditions have changed.
You will get those no matter what, so it's not an issue of the opt-in vs. not opting-in under this law.
Did you think that this one opt-in was intended to replace the TOS agreement process? Sorry, that's not what it does.
So, again, exactly how is not opting-in to the collection of browser data etc under the CA law NOT a viable alternative to opting-in?
I think EULA's should be deemed not enforceable just for that fact.
The fact that they have to notify your if the TOS changes to allow you to disagree with the TOS changes is why EULAs should be deemed not enforceable? And this has anything to do with opting-in or not to a privacy provision under CA law how?
Why is not opting-in a viable alternative to opting-in? I don't get it.