Maybe I should, but I'm honest to a fault when it comes to customs. I have a long history of visits with them as well, so they know I'm not trying to stay.
Non-citizens in the US don't have anywhere the same legal protections as citizens.
So I provided an example (of the highest law of the land) of a situation where non-citizens do, in fact, have the same rights as US citizens. Again, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they're in plain English.
Simply because you think they should only apply to citizens does not change the actual wording of the laws themselves.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all persons on United States soil, and so do the laws of the United States, unless otherwise written. No alien expects that their country's laws apply when they are in another country, however, they do expect that that country's laws fully apply to them (and rightly so), including all rights and protections granted by them (again, unless otherwise written).
I repeat my sibling's request for an example of why these laws apparently don't apply to non-citizens, however, as you have proven yourself a troll through your responses to the sibling post, I will not respond again unless you actually provide such an example and do not repeat your trolling.
There are two usual reasons. Business, as everyone else has mentioned. Love is the other, as in my case. The sacrifices I have to make to get through the border to see my girlfriend are well worth it in the end, in my opinion.
I would guess that the latter reason is growing in numbers as well, what with the Internet and dating sites out there now. Border officers clearly are quite used to hearing it.
Yes, unfortunately at the moment my argument is true in theory, and often false in practise. That could be easily resolved were the American people to elect a leader (and Representatives like Ms. Sanchez) who actually forces the government to respect the laws that are currently on the books to protect our rights.
Bush et al have created a set of shadow laws that aren't on the books but can be called upon a person at will when they piss off the Government. They aren't on the books because they know that the American people wouldn't stand for them, but they do create a chilling effect on any sort of protest -- which is why we don't see as much actual protest in the US as in other first world countries. (Think "free speech zones" here.)
Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens.
And yes, I know border searches are thought to be an exception to the fourth amendment.
Anyway, I think the Congresswoman's statement was a misstatement (or at least hope it is)... I doubt they'll actually say "Well, normally I'd give you a receipt, but you're an alien so fuck you," even given the interactions I've had with CBP staff.
What's mental is that a jury (or worse, a judge) accepted the result of a new, questionable, unproven technology as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was guilty. (I assume here that the Indian justice system has the same burden of proof as most others.)
What's mental is that this will probably set precedent.
What's mental is that this may be used from now on without question even when we did the same thing with polygraphs, only to realize later that they are notoriously inaccurate.
Small claims might work; a retail return won't (you can't return opened software under US and other countries' copyright laws). You'd also have a hard time convincing your credit card company to do a chargeback several weeks after you received the product.
Exactly the same experience here. TPB has better customer service than EA and with more honest opinions (on their comments) to boot. Plus, I don't have to physically go anywhere; I just wait a few hours and it's right there on my PC, ready to go.
If content makers woke the fuck up and realized that they're quickly getting outsold by their own repackaged material, they'd actually innovate in their methods of sale, and find out what customers actually want instead of telling them.
And this is a prime reason why we skip the middleman and just go to The Pirate Bay anyway, since we'll inevitably end up there later when the DRM gets too annoying.
Oh, absolutely. I suppose in the end that everything can come down to monetary benefits since additional skills derived from work on your chosen platform will be useful when you are making money with it.
I'm just saying that extrapolating to that extreme isn't what most developers do; pleasure in coding comes into it as well, and I wouldn't say that's an irrational choice.
The thing about it is, talented developers often find themselves in the "software architect" position on projects; that is, deciding upon which platform to build a project. While popularity of a platform (and therefore the possibility of profit) does have an impact on that decision, many developers find that it's simply easier to code on open platforms, as well as obtain assistance from the community that's built up around them.
Economic reasons are not the only thing looked at, in other words.
Expect to see the telecom draw out this lawsuit as long as they can possibly take it (think SCO here) and deploy their own network in the meantime, then sue the town again if they try to lay their own network thereafter for tortious interference with business practices or other such legal BS (IANAL and don't know what statutes they could use).
Craziness. I hope a judge knocks this down quick, but I'm not optimistic.
It's basically the company telling the town, "Stay the fuck out of our business or it'll cost you dearly. It's our monopoly, dammit."
Those exceptions are unchangeable personal characteristics (or inherently personal beliefs) that may or may not affect how a person actually behaves on a site, so I think it's fair that someone can't say "no niggers" and get away with it.
With the exception of dress, of course, but I'm pretty sure we still see signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", n'est-ce pas?
You could, though, ban someone for insulting another person for being straight, or calling a fellow black man a nigger where such language isn't usually accepted on the site.
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's fair that you should only be able to ban based on past history or current behaviour, because that's all that will ultimately affect your site.
A lot of people seem to think that free speech extends to non-public places. A public forum like Slashdot is still owned by someone (in this case, OSTG) and that someone has the right to refuse entry.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I should, but I'm honest to a fault when it comes to customs. I have a long history of visits with them as well, so they know I'm not trying to stay.
Grandparent stated:
So I provided an example (of the highest law of the land) of a situation where non-citizens do, in fact, have the same rights as US citizens. Again, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they're in plain English.
Simply because you think they should only apply to citizens does not change the actual wording of the laws themselves.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all persons on United States soil, and so do the laws of the United States, unless otherwise written. No alien expects that their country's laws apply when they are in another country, however, they do expect that that country's laws fully apply to them (and rightly so), including all rights and protections granted by them (again, unless otherwise written).
I repeat my sibling's request for an example of why these laws apparently don't apply to non-citizens, however, as you have proven yourself a troll through your responses to the sibling post, I will not respond again unless you actually provide such an example and do not repeat your trolling.
Lesson learned: Don't feed the trolls.
Welcome to Slashdot. :^)
Ow, you just hurt my brain.
There are two usual reasons. Business, as everyone else has mentioned. Love is the other, as in my case. The sacrifices I have to make to get through the border to see my girlfriend are well worth it in the end, in my opinion.
I would guess that the latter reason is growing in numbers as well, what with the Internet and dating sites out there now. Border officers clearly are quite used to hearing it.
Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, unfortunately at the moment my argument is true in theory, and often false in practise. That could be easily resolved were the American people to elect a leader (and Representatives like Ms. Sanchez) who actually forces the government to respect the laws that are currently on the books to protect our rights.
Bush et al have created a set of shadow laws that aren't on the books but can be called upon a person at will when they piss off the Government. They aren't on the books because they know that the American people wouldn't stand for them, but they do create a chilling effect on any sort of protest -- which is why we don't see as much actual protest in the US as in other first world countries. (Think "free speech zones" here.)
Yep, it doesn't even mention the word "citizens". The bill itself is quite short and makes a lot of sense.
Take a look: HR 6869: Border Search Accountability Act of 2008
Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens.
And yes, I know border searches are thought to be an exception to the fourth amendment.
Anyway, I think the Congresswoman's statement was a misstatement (or at least hope it is)... I doubt they'll actually say "Well, normally I'd give you a receipt, but you're an alien so fuck you," even given the interactions I've had with CBP staff.
Why can't it be both? We know the second, but the first is a practical means of getting as close to the second as we can for this patent.
I've heard they go well with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
What's mental is that a jury (or worse, a judge) accepted the result of a new, questionable, unproven technology as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was guilty. (I assume here that the Indian justice system has the same burden of proof as most others.)
What's mental is that this will probably set precedent.
What's mental is that this may be used from now on without question even when we did the same thing with polygraphs, only to realize later that they are notoriously inaccurate.
What. The. Fuck.
Small claims might work; a retail return won't (you can't return opened software under US and other countries' copyright laws). You'd also have a hard time convincing your credit card company to do a chargeback several weeks after you received the product.
Hell, if people actually care about the manual, it'll be included in Version 2 as a PDF.
Exactly the same experience here. TPB has better customer service than EA and with more honest opinions (on their comments) to boot. Plus, I don't have to physically go anywhere; I just wait a few hours and it's right there on my PC, ready to go.
If content makers woke the fuck up and realized that they're quickly getting outsold by their own repackaged material, they'd actually innovate in their methods of sale, and find out what customers actually want instead of telling them.
But don't expect that any time soon.
And this is a prime reason why we skip the middleman and just go to The Pirate Bay anyway, since we'll inevitably end up there later when the DRM gets too annoying.
Man, I fully expected to see a cascading reply frenzy from lower and lower UID users. You're getting lazy, guys!
Oh, absolutely. I suppose in the end that everything can come down to monetary benefits since additional skills derived from work on your chosen platform will be useful when you are making money with it.
I'm just saying that extrapolating to that extreme isn't what most developers do; pleasure in coding comes into it as well, and I wouldn't say that's an irrational choice.
Sure, it can boil down to money, but from the immediate perspective of the developer, it's about simply making our jobs easier.
Oh my! Sarah Palin is so obviously reading Slashdot too! I'm sure she'll be crying herself to sleep tonight.
Lighten up.
This just in: Britney Spears is actually a weapon sent by aliens to enslave the Earth through hidden prime number telepathic messages.
News at eleven.
The thing about it is, talented developers often find themselves in the "software architect" position on projects; that is, deciding upon which platform to build a project. While popularity of a platform (and therefore the possibility of profit) does have an impact on that decision, many developers find that it's simply easier to code on open platforms, as well as obtain assistance from the community that's built up around them.
Economic reasons are not the only thing looked at, in other words.
Expect to see the telecom draw out this lawsuit as long as they can possibly take it (think SCO here) and deploy their own network in the meantime, then sue the town again if they try to lay their own network thereafter for tortious interference with business practices or other such legal BS (IANAL and don't know what statutes they could use).
Craziness. I hope a judge knocks this down quick, but I'm not optimistic.
It's basically the company telling the town, "Stay the fuck out of our business or it'll cost you dearly. It's our monopoly, dammit."
Those exceptions are unchangeable personal characteristics (or inherently personal beliefs) that may or may not affect how a person actually behaves on a site, so I think it's fair that someone can't say "no niggers" and get away with it.
With the exception of dress, of course, but I'm pretty sure we still see signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", n'est-ce pas?
You could, though, ban someone for insulting another person for being straight, or calling a fellow black man a nigger where such language isn't usually accepted on the site.
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's fair that you should only be able to ban based on past history or current behaviour, because that's all that will ultimately affect your site.
A lot of people seem to think that free speech extends to non-public places. A public forum like Slashdot is still owned by someone (in this case, OSTG) and that someone has the right to refuse entry.