Interesting thing: If, in an immigration medical, you either say you have ever smoked marijuana in the past, or it's determined that you have by testing, your visa will be instantly denied and you will be banned from entry to the United States for at least three years.
Doesn't matter how long ago you smoked or whether it's legal in your country (and in fact, testing is done on every immigration medical in some countries, such as Jamaica). It could have been twenty years ago and only once. Doesn't matter. Banned for three years.
Yes, this does mean that President Obama, if immigrating now, would incur a three year ban.
Applicant should hire a lawyer and/or contact the Congressman or Senator of the petitioner if it's a family-based visa. Likely the interviewer thought the applicant was lying (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts this was in a Stokes interview and the applicant's sponsor had said something different about what he/she had had for breakfast) but that's still no reason to deny a visa.
If you're filing a DS-160 for a non-immigrant visa, they literally ask you if you're a terrorist about five different ways. I'm pretty sure they've got that covered.
If he wants to really both increase legal immigration and simultaneously decrease illegal border-jumpers, he should authorize the hiring of more visa adjudicators. I filed for my fiance visa in February, and the US Consulate in Montreal is now saying it's unlikely I'll have my interview until November. If that sounds slow to you, consider that that's one of the fastest immigration categories: some have a wait time of several years before a visa can even be considered.
In addition, the immigration process is incredibly hostile. I can't call the Consulate at all. They have a 1-900 number (yes, that's 1-900... $1.89 per minute) if you absolutely need to talk to someone, but they can't tell you anything directly about your case, they just give general information. The Department of State can tell you if you have an interview date yet, but nothing else. And God help you if you make a typo on any of your many, many, many forms, as that'll add at least a month, usually a few to your processing time.
The reason that illegal immigration is a problem in the US is because legal immigration is so fucking difficult and costly (this is going to cost me over $2,000 in government fees before I'm done; expect to pay much more if you want to use a lawyer to assist with the process). Make legal immigration simpler, more streamlined, and less hostile, and illegal immigration will massively decrease. Nobody wants to risk being arrested but many feel they're in a position where they have no choice.
PS: If I didn't have VisaJourney to help me with the process, I'd be utterly lost. Big props to them; if you ever have to do anything with USCIS, the information there is invaluable.
Err... Green cards expire after ten years now, so your argument with respect to them being permanent no longer applies. Further, you have to prove at least half your time over the last ten years have been spent physically in the US, or you lose LPR status.
They should already have had your fingerprints when you did the biometrics for your green card. Why did they ask for them again, if you don't mind my asking? I'm likely going to be adjusting status in the next year or so after getting my K-1.
Yes, but if you think that Nintendo doesn't check the serial number when a unit is returned (and sold, for that matter, whether at retail or online; at retail they scan the serial number through a window in the box), you're insane. Your scam (and it is a scam) won't work, regardless of how evil Nintendo is toward homebrew.
...so they licensed not just the copy on the disk, but the disk itself.
And that's basically an impossibility, because all materials indicate that they are selling you the disk, and without an explicit rental agreement, I don't think it's legal to "license" property. Either you have it, or you don't.
Of course we can all thank our corrupt congress critters for that.
Which is why there is precisely zero chance that this bill will pass.
This is the best type of bill: one that's put forward because someone sees that something being done now could be done in a better way. But publishers have lobbyists and cash, and those always trump the public interest in the US House of Representatives.
I argue that EULAs are not contracts because there is no negotiation; no meeting of the minds. One could further argue that the terms are so one-sided as to be unconscionable.
There's apparently a bunch of confusion in the courts here. There are other cases on the same page (the first-sale doctrine page) that ended with first-sale being upheld even though the EULA said the user had to give up that right.
Personally, I think that software publishers should not be able to legally disallow first-sale like that. If they could, the same could be done with, for example, books, and resale could be completely prohibited just by saying "this book is licensed not sold; your license prohibits you from reselling the book."
Yeah, unfortunately eBay will pretty much always follow through on a requested auction takedown from a content producer. They just don't want to be involved in their lawsuit.
Vernor absolutely has the right to resell his CD, due to a well-known section of copyright law known as first-sale doctrine. If you legally possess a copyrighted work, you can resell it, as long as a new copy is not created. I don't think this case will last very long.
Now, the DMCA would allow Autodesk to, say, validate a CD key online once only and then deny future installs on other hardware, since any attempt to get past that would be a circumvention attempt prohibited by the DMCA. But it's not Vernor's fault that Autodesk didn't do that. (Of course, just maybe they know that if they did, customers would be more reluctant to buy their software since most people don't like DRM.)
I'm still not seeing a reason of why this is done. I'm not particularly a network person, so maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but why don't they do something similar to what's done on the open internet: use automatic, end to end encryption (e.g. SSL) in which the password is passed in the clear (but encrypted) and then hashed on the server to validate its authenticity?
Meanwhile, a small group of civilians in a nearby town swear that they saw an person in an odd-looking motorcycle zoom past them at high speed the other day, leaving some kind of wall in his wake.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting thing: If, in an immigration medical, you either say you have ever smoked marijuana in the past, or it's determined that you have by testing, your visa will be instantly denied and you will be banned from entry to the United States for at least three years.
Doesn't matter how long ago you smoked or whether it's legal in your country (and in fact, testing is done on every immigration medical in some countries, such as Jamaica). It could have been twenty years ago and only once. Doesn't matter. Banned for three years.
Yes, this does mean that President Obama, if immigrating now, would incur a three year ban.
Applicant should hire a lawyer and/or contact the Congressman or Senator of the petitioner if it's a family-based visa. Likely the interviewer thought the applicant was lying (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts this was in a Stokes interview and the applicant's sponsor had said something different about what he/she had had for breakfast) but that's still no reason to deny a visa.
If you're filing a DS-160 for a non-immigrant visa, they literally ask you if you're a terrorist about five different ways. I'm pretty sure they've got that covered.
In fact, President Obama has revamped the USCIS website and made it a little easier to use. Not too much, but at least it's something; trust me when I say that before, it was completely labyrinthine.
If he wants to really both increase legal immigration and simultaneously decrease illegal border-jumpers, he should authorize the hiring of more visa adjudicators. I filed for my fiance visa in February, and the US Consulate in Montreal is now saying it's unlikely I'll have my interview until November. If that sounds slow to you, consider that that's one of the fastest immigration categories: some have a wait time of several years before a visa can even be considered.
In addition, the immigration process is incredibly hostile. I can't call the Consulate at all. They have a 1-900 number (yes, that's 1-900... $1.89 per minute) if you absolutely need to talk to someone, but they can't tell you anything directly about your case, they just give general information. The Department of State can tell you if you have an interview date yet, but nothing else. And God help you if you make a typo on any of your many, many, many forms, as that'll add at least a month, usually a few to your processing time.
The reason that illegal immigration is a problem in the US is because legal immigration is so fucking difficult and costly (this is going to cost me over $2,000 in government fees before I'm done; expect to pay much more if you want to use a lawyer to assist with the process). Make legal immigration simpler, more streamlined, and less hostile, and illegal immigration will massively decrease. Nobody wants to risk being arrested but many feel they're in a position where they have no choice.
PS: If I didn't have VisaJourney to help me with the process, I'd be utterly lost. Big props to them; if you ever have to do anything with USCIS, the information there is invaluable.
Err... Green cards expire after ten years now, so your argument with respect to them being permanent no longer applies. Further, you have to prove at least half your time over the last ten years have been spent physically in the US, or you lose LPR status.
They should already have had your fingerprints when you did the biometrics for your green card. Why did they ask for them again, if you don't mind my asking? I'm likely going to be adjusting status in the next year or so after getting my K-1.
That's weird. I remember reading something saying "We the People" recently, and not "We the Citizens"... maybe I'm just imagining things.
Aren't open research journals supposed to solve both of those problems?
There is zero chance of that passing muster in a courtroom. They just slapped that on there to discourage people from prying.
Yes, but if you think that Nintendo doesn't check the serial number when a unit is returned (and sold, for that matter, whether at retail or online; at retail they scan the serial number through a window in the box), you're insane. Your scam (and it is a scam) won't work, regardless of how evil Nintendo is toward homebrew.
Well, I can't give you a Flash game, but I can give you this:
I'm O.K. - A Murder Simulator
Starring everyone's favourite crackpot!
...so they licensed not just the copy on the disk, but the disk itself.
And that's basically an impossibility, because all materials indicate that they are selling you the disk, and without an explicit rental agreement, I don't think it's legal to "license" property. Either you have it, or you don't.
Funny, if I were elected to office I'd bypass steps two and three. I guess that's why I'm not a politician.
Of course we can all thank our corrupt congress critters for that.
Which is why there is precisely zero chance that this bill will pass.
This is the best type of bill: one that's put forward because someone sees that something being done now could be done in a better way. But publishers have lobbyists and cash, and those always trump the public interest in the US House of Representatives.
I made no representations about what you said. I was just saying my own belief about EULAs and their legality.
I argue that EULAs are not contracts because there is no negotiation; no meeting of the minds. One could further argue that the terms are so one-sided as to be unconscionable.
But that's another matter.
More importantly, how many Libraries of Congress per second can I expect?
Having said that, the inability to exercise first sale rights MAY constitute a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
..which is always disclaimed in any reasonably effective EULA.
There's apparently a bunch of confusion in the courts here. There are other cases on the same page (the first-sale doctrine page) that ended with first-sale being upheld even though the EULA said the user had to give up that right.
Personally, I think that software publishers should not be able to legally disallow first-sale like that. If they could, the same could be done with, for example, books, and resale could be completely prohibited just by saying "this book is licensed not sold; your license prohibits you from reselling the book."
Wouldn't that be a boon for book publishers?
Hey, can I copy your comment to use as an example on the Wikipedia false dichotomy page? It's a really good one.
Yeah, unfortunately eBay will pretty much always follow through on a requested auction takedown from a content producer. They just don't want to be involved in their lawsuit.
Vernor absolutely has the right to resell his CD, due to a well-known section of copyright law known as first-sale doctrine. If you legally possess a copyrighted work, you can resell it, as long as a new copy is not created. I don't think this case will last very long.
Now, the DMCA would allow Autodesk to, say, validate a CD key online once only and then deny future installs on other hardware, since any attempt to get past that would be a circumvention attempt prohibited by the DMCA. But it's not Vernor's fault that Autodesk didn't do that. (Of course, just maybe they know that if they did, customers would be more reluctant to buy their software since most people don't like DRM.)
I am not a laywer.
I'm still not seeing a reason of why this is done. I'm not particularly a network person, so maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but why don't they do something similar to what's done on the open internet: use automatic, end to end encryption (e.g. SSL) in which the password is passed in the clear (but encrypted) and then hashed on the server to validate its authenticity?
And the Compy... just peed my carpet.
Meanwhile, a small group of civilians in a nearby town swear that they saw an person in an odd-looking motorcycle zoom past them at high speed the other day, leaving some kind of wall in his wake.