From what I can see, the problem in the most egregious cases isn't the rules, it's that the rules haven't been enforced. With Trump's general deregulation policy, I suppose there really is no alternative than to heavily limit H1Bs, because the border is the one place he seems keen to have lots of barriers.
Of course, you already see places like Europe and China making a clear argument that maybe all the experts should go work for them. Trump's policies may have the effect of starving the US of pools of foreign talent that have made it a dominant economic power for decades.
I think my bigger issue is that programming languages and spoken human languages are two rather different thing. While both are "languages" in that they are descriptive, structured and functional, they really serve pretty vastly different purposes, and I'm not at all sure one gains the same value from coding as from foreign languages.
Yes you also said it was a state court, when it is in fact the Western Washington District "FEDERAL* court, so in fact it is empowered to deal with Federal laws, and your claim of jurisdictional overreach is pure rubbish.
Oh, and Robarts is a Federal judge for the District Court for the Western District of Washington. He's a George W. Bush appointee, so what the "liberal" slur even means is beyond me, but more to the point if you don't even know what court he's in, you don't exactly strike me as someone with the ability to assess the veracity of his ruling. Since when were Federal Court judges not allowed to make rulings on Federal law?
Nothing is simply binary. If it was, we wouldn't have courts at all. We'd just have a machine that you entered parameters into and out popped the decision. The constitution also involves things like civil liberties, equal protection before the law, and other aspects meant to insure that the government can be held to a certain standard. Now maybe the decisions being made won't stand up to the appeals, and that's how the courts themselves are checked, with SCOTUS being the final arbiter of whether a law, executive order or regulation fits within constitutional constraints. But the whole point of the American system of government is that no branch has some sort of unreviewable and absolute power.
In this particular case, the judge is making a ruling based on the law itself, and contains references to case law. So before you declare it invalid, perhaps you should actually read it.he signing and implementation of this Executive Order. It can be found here, so since you clearly view yourself as a constitutional and legal expert, explain precisely where the TRO goes off the rails? After all, it is a Temporary Restraining Order, and the government will have another opportunity to defend itself against the States.
Up until I gained a partnership, half my bosses had been women. Thus when I come here and hear fantastical tales of the evils of women, I just shake my head, because it's almost as if some of the posters have spent virtually none of their adult lives in the company of women.
The first computer I used was an Apple II around 1980, and I got my first computer around 1981 (a real shitty little Radio Shack home computer called the MC-10 with a whopping 4k on board). I've been programming casually and professionally since before the 80286 processor was even released.
Well, so badly written and executed was the EO that the Administration had to clarify that Green Card holders were allowed back in. The way the EO was communicated, it was initially interpreted as a blanket ban. Doesn't Trump have somebody who understands how the government he's been elected to run works?
Well, even she has been forced down by the "bowling green massacre".
What strikes me about Trump and his team isn't that they're liars. That's a given for the Press Secretary or anyone else speaking for an Administration. What strikes me is how incredibly inept they are. I'm trying to square all of this against the fact that Conway clearly has some chops, after all, she basically won Trump the presidency, so we're talking about someone who understands messaging. And yet here we are, two weeks in, and it's just been one mismanaged episode after another. Someone in the White House is leaking transcripts, Trump won't stop tweeting, Conway and Spicer just go from one absurdity to another, with the Inaugaration attendance claism and Bowling Green Massacre being the most obvious. And then there's the way the travel ban EO was released.
There's a total lack of efficiency, and total inability to manage message. Sure, the base won't bitch, they've got too much invested emotionally, and they've already proven they can tolerate anything that comes out of Trump's or his lieutenants' mouths. But you can just see people like Ryan and McConnell, clearly still hoping to use their current hold on power, to do all those conservative things they've dreamed about, realizing Trump actually means a lot of things he said. There are storm clouds gathering here, Trump seems determined to fuck up almost every alliance the US has, make enemies on almost an hourly basis. Christ the man even threatened to invade Mexico right to the Mexican president. Even if it was a joke, considering his treatment of Mexico during the campaign and during the first weeks of his presidency, I have to imagine Nieto probably wasn't laughing.
But there are a lot of Trump supporters here who seem to believe he is, or ought to be. But ultimately the accusation of "judicial overreach" is usually when someone didn't get their way. It's a sort of empty knee jerk bit of invective.
Cut through the baloney? It's been so thick in bullshit for the last two weeks I doubt there's anyone in the White House who even knows what's actually happening, or even wants to know. Maybe Trump's predecessors lived in ivory towers. He appears to live at the bottom of a salt mine.
This is what happens when you put national security in the hands of your pals. "Way to go, Brownie!"
But Bannon isn't merely just some good buddy who gets a high paying job in government. Bannon is effectively a political officer who handed the keys to Breitbart to Trump. But as at least someone in the Administration should now be figuring out, running a successful political campaign has virtually nothing to do with governance. You need your Conways and Bannons, of course, because you need people who can spin your policies, but to give someone like Bannon a position of actual power with what appears to be virtually no oversight at all, well that's insane.
Have the Redmond shills ever thought of another formula beyond "I have been a long-time Linux/BSD users, but ever since I discovered Windows, my erections are twice as a hard!"
I think Howard Stern may have nailed it, and since Stern is someone who has known Trump for a long time, I tend to accept his view that Trump's politics really are fairly Democrat and liberal, but that he's just feeding the base what they want. There's no way you can jive whose previously stated views with the views he espouses now, without suggesting either some sort of severe psychiatric episode or brain injury.
Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.
Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.
As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.
That being said, universities, within reason, should be places where free exchange of ideas happens in an environment free of overt violence or threat of violence. I find Milo to be a vile and evil human being, but that being said, he has as much right to say his piece as I do mine, and the fact that a pack of spoiled malcontents would transform themselves into a liberal version of Brown Shirts means as repugnant as Milo is, they're all the worse.
Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy? And in the end all these moronic protesters did was to give Milo the kind of legitimacy and influence he craves. A better response would have been just not to show up. If the room was half-filled, that would have sent a far better message than being a bunch of goons.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe schools could do a lot better job of identifying those whose talents and interests lie in certain directions earlier on, like the Germans do.
From what I can see, the problem in the most egregious cases isn't the rules, it's that the rules haven't been enforced. With Trump's general deregulation policy, I suppose there really is no alternative than to heavily limit H1Bs, because the border is the one place he seems keen to have lots of barriers.
Of course, you already see places like Europe and China making a clear argument that maybe all the experts should go work for them. Trump's policies may have the effect of starving the US of pools of foreign talent that have made it a dominant economic power for decades.
I think my bigger issue is that programming languages and spoken human languages are two rather different thing. While both are "languages" in that they are descriptive, structured and functional, they really serve pretty vastly different purposes, and I'm not at all sure one gains the same value from coding as from foreign languages.
Yes you also said it was a state court, when it is in fact the Western Washington District "FEDERAL* court, so in fact it is empowered to deal with Federal laws, and your claim of jurisdictional overreach is pure rubbish.
Oh, and Robarts is a Federal judge for the District Court for the Western District of Washington. He's a George W. Bush appointee, so what the "liberal" slur even means is beyond me, but more to the point if you don't even know what court he's in, you don't exactly strike me as someone with the ability to assess the veracity of his ruling. Since when were Federal Court judges not allowed to make rulings on Federal law?
So you've read both but have nothing to say beyond "Liberals"?
Don't you have a backwoods fortress to build for the end times?
Nothing is simply binary. If it was, we wouldn't have courts at all. We'd just have a machine that you entered parameters into and out popped the decision. The constitution also involves things like civil liberties, equal protection before the law, and other aspects meant to insure that the government can be held to a certain standard. Now maybe the decisions being made won't stand up to the appeals, and that's how the courts themselves are checked, with SCOTUS being the final arbiter of whether a law, executive order or regulation fits within constitutional constraints. But the whole point of the American system of government is that no branch has some sort of unreviewable and absolute power.
In this particular case, the judge is making a ruling based on the law itself, and contains references to case law. So before you declare it invalid, perhaps you should actually read it.he signing and implementation of this Executive Order. It can be found here, so since you clearly view yourself as a constitutional and legal expert, explain precisely where the TRO goes off the rails? After all, it is a Temporary Restraining Order, and the government will have another opportunity to defend itself against the States.
Irony died on January 20th.
That's what I've been saying about nosql for a long time now.
Up until I gained a partnership, half my bosses had been women. Thus when I come here and hear fantastical tales of the evils of women, I just shake my head, because it's almost as if some of the posters have spent virtually none of their adult lives in the company of women.
You're trying to hard to prove your street cred.
The first computer I used was an Apple II around 1980, and I got my first computer around 1981 (a real shitty little Radio Shack home computer called the MC-10 with a whopping 4k on board). I've been programming casually and professionally since before the 80286 processor was even released.
As to my sig, it's just a sig
Well, so badly written and executed was the EO that the Administration had to clarify that Green Card holders were allowed back in. The way the EO was communicated, it was initially interpreted as a blanket ban. Doesn't Trump have somebody who understands how the government he's been elected to run works?
Well, even she has been forced down by the "bowling green massacre".
What strikes me about Trump and his team isn't that they're liars. That's a given for the Press Secretary or anyone else speaking for an Administration. What strikes me is how incredibly inept they are. I'm trying to square all of this against the fact that Conway clearly has some chops, after all, she basically won Trump the presidency, so we're talking about someone who understands messaging. And yet here we are, two weeks in, and it's just been one mismanaged episode after another. Someone in the White House is leaking transcripts, Trump won't stop tweeting, Conway and Spicer just go from one absurdity to another, with the Inaugaration attendance claism and Bowling Green Massacre being the most obvious. And then there's the way the travel ban EO was released.
There's a total lack of efficiency, and total inability to manage message. Sure, the base won't bitch, they've got too much invested emotionally, and they've already proven they can tolerate anything that comes out of Trump's or his lieutenants' mouths. But you can just see people like Ryan and McConnell, clearly still hoping to use their current hold on power, to do all those conservative things they've dreamed about, realizing Trump actually means a lot of things he said. There are storm clouds gathering here, Trump seems determined to fuck up almost every alliance the US has, make enemies on almost an hourly basis. Christ the man even threatened to invade Mexico right to the Mexican president. Even if it was a joke, considering his treatment of Mexico during the campaign and during the first weeks of his presidency, I have to imagine Nieto probably wasn't laughing.
But there are a lot of Trump supporters here who seem to believe he is, or ought to be. But ultimately the accusation of "judicial overreach" is usually when someone didn't get their way. It's a sort of empty knee jerk bit of invective.
Cut through the baloney? It's been so thick in bullshit for the last two weeks I doubt there's anyone in the White House who even knows what's actually happening, or even wants to know. Maybe Trump's predecessors lived in ivory towers. He appears to live at the bottom of a salt mine.
This is what happens when you put national security in the hands of your pals. "Way to go, Brownie!"
But Bannon isn't merely just some good buddy who gets a high paying job in government. Bannon is effectively a political officer who handed the keys to Breitbart to Trump. But as at least someone in the Administration should now be figuring out, running a successful political campaign has virtually nothing to do with governance. You need your Conways and Bannons, of course, because you need people who can spin your policies, but to give someone like Bannon a position of actual power with what appears to be virtually no oversight at all, well that's insane.
I use my Wii U mainly to play Mario 64 these days.
Have the Redmond shills ever thought of another formula beyond "I have been a long-time Linux/BSD users, but ever since I discovered Windows, my erections are twice as a hard!"
Which completely misrepresents what BLM is about. That's like arguing the ACLU is all about protecting Nazis and pedophiles.
Views may change, but we're not talking about views he apparently held thirty years ago, but rather views he seems to have held until a few years ago.
I think Howard Stern may have nailed it, and since Stern is someone who has known Trump for a long time, I tend to accept his view that Trump's politics really are fairly Democrat and liberal, but that he's just feeding the base what they want. There's no way you can jive whose previously stated views with the views he espouses now, without suggesting either some sort of severe psychiatric episode or brain injury.
Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.
Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.
As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.
That being said, universities, within reason, should be places where free exchange of ideas happens in an environment free of overt violence or threat of violence. I find Milo to be a vile and evil human being, but that being said, he has as much right to say his piece as I do mine, and the fact that a pack of spoiled malcontents would transform themselves into a liberal version of Brown Shirts means as repugnant as Milo is, they're all the worse.
Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy? And in the end all these moronic protesters did was to give Milo the kind of legitimacy and influence he craves. A better response would have been just not to show up. If the room was half-filled, that would have sent a far better message than being a bunch of goons.