Mozilla Employee Denied Entry To the United States (gizmodo.com) 420
Reader Artem Tashkinov writes: Daniel Stenberg, an employee at Mozilla and the author of the command-line tool curl, was not allowed to board his flight to the meeting from Sweden—despite the fact that he'd previously obtained a visa waiver allowing him to travel to the US. Stenberg was unable to check in for his flight, and was notified at the airport ticket counter that his entry to the US had been denied. Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears among international tech workers, who fear they'll miss out on work and research opportunities if they're not allowed to travel to the US. The situation even caught the eye of Microsoft's chief legal officer Brad Smith, who tweeted at Stenberg to offer legal assistance.
Protectionist state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever.
Well the cynic in me thinks that in order for it to stop, Congress would have to *act*. There's been a whole lot of *not acting* going on in Congress as of late, and I'm perplexed as to why an economic downturn would induce that to suddenly change. Considering the most recent AHCA version to come out of the Senate, it doesn't seem like they care if the citizens die, so economic hardship should be the least of their worries. Even if it's industry that's hurting, it's not GOP industry hurting.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of that "none-acting" has been tactical. Look at health care. It's clear that neither House or Senate Republicans are really all that keen to further health care reform, at least not until after the 2018 mid-terms. So they put together legislation that they can't even convince a majority of their peers to support (let alone the Democrats), and which clearly is deeply unpopular with voters (the House bill had an approval rating of just 27%, and I can't imagine the Senate bill is going to be any more popular).
What it looks like to me is that Republican lawmakers know they have an unsuitable man in the White House, but political realities mean they can't be obstructionist in the same way they were with Obama, or in the way they intended to be with Clinton. Instead of being angrily and righteously obstructionist, they're just going to create a series of situations in which nothing much happens at all. They'll shake the President's hand, they'll praise him in the media, they'll keep up the appearances of being one big happy party, and meanwhile do everything in their power to keep that idiot from completely fucking things up.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because what is being pushed thru is not "health care reform" but a partial rollback of the ACA reform.
The current bills in the House and, more so, the Senate are more about cutting taxes, almost entirely benefiting the wealthy, than anything having to do with actual heath care, to allow conservative tax reform, also almost entirely benefiting the wealthy, to proceed using special procedural rules known as reconciliation [wikipedia.org] to pass changes with a simple majority vote and avoid a Democratic filibuster. "Legislation cannot add to the deficit outside the customary 10-year budget window and be eligible for this procedural protection."
This is why Congress started with health-care "reform" before tax reform - to save money in the budget on the former so it can be squandered on the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did I say that? What I'm saying is that the other branches of government are doing the job they were intended to do; which is act as a check on the Executive. Your problem isn't with me, it's with Madison, Jefferson et al who were the ones that knew there would be Presidents good and bad, and created a system with the specific intent to limit them.
Re: (Score:2)
The Senate is sluggish to vote on the AHCA. Obamacare is Obamacare, and Obama is evil. If you repeal the evil Obamacare and suddenly have a recession and terrible access to healthcare, you prove that Obama was sent by God to fix America and should definitely be crowned Emperor but we can't. It would be fatal for the Republicans, at least for about 20 years. Maybe they should have thought about that before campaigning so hard they had to label it with Obama's name.
by the way, that's coming in a few mo
Re: (Score:3)
so they could convert obamacare to socialist single federal govt payer system.
Actually, the ACA as current puts a break in the market chain. Low-income individuals purchasing health insurance on the exchange are shielded from the cost by subsidy, and higher-income individuals ... tend to have jobs that provide insurance, due to the full-time employee insurance mandate.
If the government went to a single-payer system and mandated employers provide insurance for all employees, two things would happen.
First, there'd be less underemployment, simply because hiring two 20-hour workers
Re: (Score:3)
What the feds could do...is let everyone open a liberally funded HSA, one that is NOT use it or lose it (like a FSA)....that each person could fund pre-tax...and use for their routine medical needs.
Agreed. At the current rates (about $3,750 individual, $7,000 family), an HSA is a reasonable vehicle for improving our healthcare system. Currently, HSA is an IRA that you can spend on medical, with no income restrictions and with no taxation on disbursement for medical (no penalty and no taxes taken); this means you can fund $18,000 into your 401(k) and $7,000 into your HSA regardless of income, or fund $5,000 into a traditional IRA (and $0 in a 401(k)) and $7,000 into HSA regardless of income. The IR
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Informative)
And liberals don't like sending half their taxes to the military, but you don't hear them whining about tyranny every goddamned second. Some of your taxes are gong to go to things you don't like, that's what civilization looks like. Man the fuck up already.
Re: (Score:3)
It is until you have a water shortage, and then, at the point, you're going to run up against a greater good argument you can't win. Eminent domain still exists as an actual thing in the US, so your idea that you have some absolute right to whatever is on your property has never actually been true.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still trying to find where in the Constitution the US Federal government is charged with telling what I have to do where my health and health care is concerned.
I'm guessing somewhere in here:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Believe it or not, your health and health care (and health insurance) status may affect others and vice-versa. At some point, hopefully you will realize that we're all in this together.
Re: (Score:3)
No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned. The current right press for corporate rights in a big way. Also Scalia, who was billed as a "strict constitutionalist" creamed his pants over corporate rights.
Until the idea that somehow corporations have rights that are equal to the rights of humans (which ARE in the constitution) then the idea that ANY of these people are strict constitutionalist is a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's such a widespread problem then why did insurance coverage rates increase by millions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err...I"m guessing the "ban" had nothing to do with this.
I mean, I'm taking a wild ass guess, but with a last name of "Stenberg", I'm guessing he's not from one of the few 'banned' majority muslim countries.
And for that matter, I"m willing to go out on a limb and guess, that we in the US aren't exactly getting a lot of our high tech or other types or work from those few middle eastern countries listed on the temporary "ban".
I don't think the US is g
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever.
What exactly do we expect for Congress to do? Let's be clear here: I despise Trump, but in all likelihood, this is INS bullshit unrelated to the Trump executive order. The EO only covers six countries; Sweden isn't one of them. Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company. So the real question is, does Stenberg have a valid work visa? Most of the people I hear being denied entry into the US are denied because they had a paying US gig and got the wrong kind of visa. The other possibility is that Stenberg made political remarks that the US government doesn't like, and, unfortunately, the US government has denied entry to persons for that reason for decades.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:5, Informative)
Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company. So the real question is, does Stenberg have a valid work visa? Most of the people I hear being denied entry into the US are denied because they had a paying US gig and got the wrong kind of visa
I think the summary and article make it clear that he doesn't have a work visa; he was trying to enter through the visa waiver program. And I agree that the lack of work visa is probably the issue--you can enter through the VWP or on a B-1 business visitor visa [state.gov] to attend a business meeting if you're employed by a foreign company and are not being paid by a US company. But Stenberg's a (presumably paid) employee of Mozilla. IANAIL and all that, but my understanding is that since he's being paid by a US company, coming to the US for a meeting with that company is considered work, and he's no eligible for VWP or a B-1 visa.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this isn't that big a deal. When I worked for ATI (Canadian company) as part of one of the US-based subsidiaries, we all had to get Canadian work visas. Well, initially no one did that and it was fine, just say the trip was for "business meetings". But then we had one guy that was going there a ton, as he now had direct reports in Canada, and I guess the Canadian immigration folks took notice. Pretty sure he was denied entry, after which we all had to get work visas.
Whatever one thinks about the tra
Re: (Score:3)
I'm almost certain that Daniel does not work directly for Mozilla Corporation (USA) but some European subsidiary.
I worked for Mozilla's NZ subsidiary and never had any trouble entering the USA on a visa waiver.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The EO only covers six countries; Sweden isn't one of them. Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company.
Mozilla starts with "Mo". It's clearly an abbreviation of "Mohammed-Zilla". They're clearly an evil jihadi terrorist organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress won't fix it so you can get into the U.S.? Microsoft knows what to do: Better call Saul.
Re:Protectionist state (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever
You can't? Considering no one in the Republican-controlled Congress has a backbone and as a result, are failing in their Constitutional duties, it is quite easy to seem them cowering like the cowards they are and letting this go on.
The potential damage to the US economy is enormous.
Which is what I'm hoping for. Yes, you read that right. I want damage to the U.S. economy because of the con artist's incompetence. Then we get to hear more of his deflections about it not being another of his failures, how it's not his fault the economy tanked, how it's Obama's fault, how Hillary would have been worse, how everyone else is to blame except him. It will be a classic case of malignant narcissism [psychologytoday.com] on full display.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Republicans aren't going to do anything about Trump because they as individuals don't want to be seen by their local constituents as being a traitor. (they might lose the primaries the next time around).
The Democrats aren't going to do anything about Trump (there's a reason they haven't been pushing for an indictment) because the longer Trump is in power the more seats they stand to gain as a party.
Democrats don't want Trump gone because he helps their party win swing states in the next election. Rep
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. We are still going to have legions of shitskins beating down the doors.
But I thought John Boehner had seen the light after his meeting with the Pope, which is why he left politics?
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the fact that I don't like Trump, I really don't think a travel ban on a few semi-working countries is going to do any real harm to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the fact that I don't like Trump, I really don't think a travel ban on a few semi-working countries is going to do any real harm to the US.
Other countries and their citizens notice. Including gaffes like this, which apparently isn't related to Trump but still is denying someone for no apparent reason, or at least not any reason the US is willing to disclose.
The signal that's sent is that nobody should rely on being able to visit the US, and if any meeting between people is important, to do it somewhere else. That, I think, is harmful to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did notice and I understand the reasons.
I don't think it affects my ability to visit the US. There's a big difference between my (European) country and some middle eastern mess of a country.
I know TFA deals with another European being denied travel, but at the moment we know nothing about the reasons (it could as well be a system failure somewhere).
Even though this has nothing to do with a policy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like, I'm going to say "fuck it" and link them anyways.
Sweden (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's traveling from Sweden, which has nothing to do with the travel ban. So why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?
Re:Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That they are. Take a look at the race baiting article from ProRepublica they published that was mentioned here a few hours ago.
Gizmodo is working it's way up there with Salon, Mother Jones, MIc, and a few others. Ars Technica is getting a bit political these days too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because otherwise there'd be no story (actually, there is no story, but that doesn't stop journalists from writing one). The US, like every other country in the world, has immigration controls, which are handled by individual agents who have the ability to allow or deny just about anyone (aside from US citizens, who cannot be denied entry) for just about any reason, because non-citizens have no right to entry. Of course, they rarely do so as long as you have the right visa/waivers/come from a country with t
Re:Sweden (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The only reason international meetings happen is to get people from other countries. For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them. If this becomes dubious for meetings in the US, such meetings will not happen in the US, which hurts assorted people in the US, including the business community and the scientific community.
Re:Sweden (Score:5, Informative)
It has already had an impact [ietf.org].
For those who won't bother to follow the link, Mark Nottingham said of QUIC meetings:
2) We won't hold any further interim meetings in the US, until there's a change in this situation. This means that we'll either need to find suitable hosts in Canada or Mexico, or our meeting rotation will need to change to be exclusively Europe and Asia.
Re: (Score:3)
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 som
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 an
Re: (Score:2)
So he's traveling from Sweden, which has nothing to do with the travel ban. So why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?
Right or wrong, this is a reminder that security means collateral damage. More security means more false-positives. So there is a relationship.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, security *theater* guarantees collateral damage.
Just as the Muslim^H^H refugee^H^H travel ban is nothing more than pandering to his slaw-jawed supporters, this is almost certainly a fuck-up by some over-eager Customs agent who discovered an excuse to wield a little power. Actual security has nothing to do with either situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously - he should publish some dirt on some banksters and then he'll get a free private flight from Sweden to the US on an unmarked white jet.
Re: (Score:2)
That may well be true, but I suspect he's also concerned about being able to go home again.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly because it's part of a larger picture that includes the traveler ban, possibly because the reporting's bad.
One bad customs agent (Score:3)
When you consider the major cost to events like these is the time of the engineers, hassles like missing key people or having to scramble to get a 3rd implementer of feature X suddenly cost more than flying to a nice country where the immigration isn't a bunch of assholes. Cuba would be nice if they had better internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coming back in 3...2...1...0
Screwed up irony (Score:2)
Go outside the USA (Score:2)
So, will Mozilla (and other multinational organisations) stop holding their all employee meetings in the USA and instead choose a place with a better admissions policy?
Come on, Americans: time to get on an international flight to meet up with the world, instead of us having to run the CBP gauntlet every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing, in your case people may be refused re-entry in the USA after their international employee meeting...
Re: (Score:3)
Easy solution: move your main operations outside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they are not citizens. Every country has to take back their citizens. Of course what they do with them after taking them in is another matter, so depending on the country and circumstances they may be for example imprisoned :)
Someone checked the wrong box (Score:2)
I'm going with a low level employee in the visa waiver checking department (Section 7G?) who had a long queue of waivers and wanted to go out to Joe's going away lunch. They either came back buzzed from a few beers or checked "DENY" on all the visas in the queue so they wouldn't miss the lunch.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's not all Trump's fault (though he's certainly doing his part). Can you imagine today's USA putting forth the kind of effort and sacrifice that won WWII? Well,
Re:Someone checked the wrong box (Score:5, Informative)
Note that his ESTA was approved, then rescinded. Someone specifically went to withdraw his approval after it was issued. That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he talked shit on social media. They actually watch that stuff now.
Re:Someone checked the wrong box (Score:4, Funny)
My guess is that it's because a Google for him leads to https://daniel.haxx.se/ [daniel.haxx.se]
In the minds (or what passes for it) of US immigration and border control, that domain name means he must be a dangerous haxxor...
Re: (Score:2)
visa free travel (Score:3)
Only Canada is a visa-free country with respect to the US. Visitors from Europe need a visa, but it can be "waived" in many cases when it is obvious that the person would have been granted a visa. A waiver can be denied for many benign reasons. In that case, he just needs to apply for a visa.
My guess is that this is either employment related (i.e., they are concerned that he is carrying out paid work in the US on a visitor visa), or that it is some legal issue on the Swedish side.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that this is either employment related (i.e., they are concerned that he is carrying out paid work in the US on a visitor visa), or that it is some legal issue on the Swedish side.
Yeah, I suspect it's employment-related. If he were an employee of a foreign company, he could enter via the VWP or on a B-1 to come to a business meeting. But he's an employee of a US company, so I'm pretty sure he needs an actual work visa to come for a business meeting with that company. As the author of cURL, he might be able to get an O-1A (for individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics (not including the arts, motion pictures or television industry)).
Amazing (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with Trump (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be surprised if it was an arbitrary action either. And don't be surprised if businesses start moving out of the US so employees can reliably visit the main business location.
Just Read Last Sentence (Score:4, Informative)
Get past all the political mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the situation and read the last sentence, which comes from a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson: "“Please know that we process 1.2 million people every day—around 700 are denied entry for various reasons. Having an approved ESTA does [not] guarantee a foreign national free entry into the US All travelers including those coming from visa waiver countries must clear all 60 grounds of inadmissibility.”
So, this guy is one of 700 people who are daily denied entry for NOTHING related to Trump's travel ban, but because he has a Twitter account and is a Mozilla employee, "AHHHH!!! TRUMP TRAVEL BAN!!! AHHHH!!! IT'S GOING TO GET EVERYBODY!!! AHHHH!"
In other news, water is wet.
"curl | sudo" is a security risk, so denied (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since this about the inventor of the curl, this is obviously a slap in the face to Arnold Schwarzenegger by the Trump administration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/24/schwarzenegger-and-macron-vow-make-planet-great-ag/ [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anybody else calling curl "the curl"? I am honestly curious.
Re: (Score:3)
whoosh yourself. Here is what "the curl" means:
In vector calculus, the curl is a vector operator that describes the infinitesimal rotation of a 3-dimensional vector field. At every point in the field, the curl of that point is represented by a vector. The attributes of this vector (length and direction) characterize the rotation at that point.
I never heard "the curl" when talking about curl training.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?
Beats me. I use a machine at the gym.
Re:Not related to Trump's ban... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?
Beats me. I use a machine at the gym.
Your gym has a snack machine too?
Re: (Score:2)
Your gym has a snack machine too?
Not my current gym. The gym I went to before had a snack bar. Smoothies with fresh fruit and whey powder were quite popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in narrow scope, but the broader idea of keeping valuable and useful people out of a country is part of the same fear-driven dysfunction.
I know, the idea that individuals who have something to contribute should be let in and individuals who want to participate in crime directly or indirectly (welfare) should be kept out is too radical for most politicos to handle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He does not, but he needs an ESTA registration (visa waiver) and his application seems to have been retrospectively rejected.
Re:No visa (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.
Re:No visa (Score:5, Funny)
Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.
Except your soul! (evil laugh)
Re:No visa (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you are eligible for a visa waiver, you have to get an electronic authorisation to travel from the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation.
I.e. you have to pass a check to have your visa waived, before you can try to have your visa waived, and your approval can be withdrawn at any time. Neither ESTA nor even a visa is reliable, you are still at risk of being refused (and losing your money on hotels, flight tickets, your business, travel, or study opportunity, etc). The USA (and some other countries) cannot be trusted to be reliable in this, the USA in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does he need a visa to visit the US for a business meeting? Does the US no longer accept Swedish passports? It sounds like Mozilla and Stenberg messed up.
Do you not understand the system? The reason most Swedes and citizens from certain other countries don't need a visa is because of the Visa Waiver program. However, in this case, his waiver is being denied and he'll have to apply for a standard visa (which may or may not be granted and could take 30 days or more).
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't. He had previously travelled to the US using the visa waiver program and this time had completed his ESTA.
No, it sounds like some USCIS employee screwed up.
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't. He had previously travelled to the US using the visa waiver program and this time had completed his ESTA.
No, it sounds like some USCIS employee screwed up.
Maybe it's USCIS's fault, but statistically, most common ESTA denials are sadly a result of typos and missing answers to one of the mandatory questions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden is part of the visa waiver program, so normally he wouldn't need a visa. But he does need an ESTA (travel authorization).
The article mention that it was actually the ESTA that was denied, but it is a bit unclear. Also, the denial happened at the airport which is a bit odd. Last time I went to the USA I applied for the ESTA a few weeks in advance and was accepted. Of course it is possible that his was first granted and then revoked, but it all sounds a bit odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Passport is for identification, a visa is required for all non-citizens as permission to enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Berlin Tegel or Schönefeld?
Tegel has security at the gate so you would have to go through security screening there. Schönefeld perhaps not (I don't go there much), and if you don't leave the secure zone of most airports in Europe you do not need to be re-screened if you transfer, exactly like in the USA.
Are you sure your ESTA was not checked electronically? Most airlines will integrate their departure control system with the CBP ESTA system so that passport details can be checked with the CBP to
We are going to Make America Great Again (Score:4, Funny)
We don't need fruity euro techies here. We are going to all have jobs in clean coal!
Re: We are going to Make America Great Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Although Mozilla does not believe this incident is related to the Trump travel ban, they could not resist stirring up some shit anyway.
Re:I sure hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
as much as people want to complain. traveling to the US is not a right.
I don't think many people are arguing that these travel restrictions are illegal, just that they are stupid and counterproductive. My company has offices in San Jose and Shanghai. Since our employees in China have difficulty getting visas to come to America for meetings and conferences, the Americans go to Shanghai instead, putting money into the Chinese economy, eating at Chinese restaurants, and staying at Chinese hotels.
Since American employees incur these additional travel expenses, we are more biased toward hiring in China instead.
No country has ever thrived by shutting itself off from the world.
Anyway, I am going to Shanghai in July for 3 months, and my family is going with me. We plan to spend plenty of American dollars trying every new restaurant on Nanjing Road, all at company expense (tax deductible). Thank you Donald Trump!
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that setting up a video conference would greatly reduce your travel costs
You do realize that using video conferencing instead of face-to-face collaboration doesn't work near as well in practice as it does in theory?
If Skype was a perfect substitute for commuting, the highways of Silicon Valley would be empty every morning.
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Funny)
You do realize that using video conferencing instead of face-to-face collaboration doesn't work near as well in practice as it does in theory?
It's like phone sex vs in-person sex. Of course, most programmers wouldn't know that.
Re:I sure hope (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that setting up a video conference would greatly reduce your travel costs and still allow you to meet with you counterparts in China?
That depends entirely on the meeting. Video conferences are good for some very basic meetings. Yet there's a world of things that technology just won't change. Strong inter-company relationships aren't made over a video screen. They aren't even made in a meeting room. They're made at the coffee machine, they are made at the dinner table, in the bar, while walking to the car.
My company not only has a policy that specific things need to be face to face, but also a policy of a group outing somewhere when they happen. There's a good reason for it too. Knowing someone on a personal level helps a lot on the work level too.
Not every company counts pennies, some invest in themselves.
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Interesting)
The DNC should have fielded a better candidate.
1. The "DNC" chose their candidate about as much as Russia chose our president. Democratic voters "fielded" their candidate. By a big majority. [fivethirtyeight.com]
2. You're obviously not talking "better" as in qualifications, you're talking about someone who gave voters the warm fuzzy feelings. Sure, Hillary did not. Speaking as a democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary, I'm very sorry I overestimated the average voter. No sarcasm, I can't fathom what I was thinking at the time. I guess I thought if the country willingly voted for a black dude twice they'd be capable of voting for a competent woman instead of a reality TV show host who has declared bankruptcy many times? My kids and I are going to be paying the price for that blunder. Next time I'll be sure to vote in the primary for whatever white dude I think will be the least offensive to the hick states and hope he picks competent people to actually do shit.
Why is this flamebait? Stein was complicit. (Score:4)
Not relevant if you think he was denied some reason other than Trump's travel ban, but if Trump was the cause, Stein's involvement is documented. She was actively recruited by Flynn and Russians. Check the lovely photo [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
But the other 40% may well have changed the outcome. And those 60% spent months spreading the idea that the other 40% shouldn't vote for 'the lesser of 2 evils' and denying the obvious facts that that 'lesser evil' was essentially for most of the Sanders/Stein platform - and could've won and enacted at least some of it.
Look, a binary choice may not be the best form of Democracy, but in our system, that's essentially what we have. However it happened, 'the greater of 2 evils' got elected, a hard-right ideo
Re: (Score:3)
In my country we number boxes according to preference. There is no penalty for voting for a third candidate.
Scenario:
Don gets 42 votes, Jill gets 25, hill gets 33. Who wins?
Well a quarter didn't vote for either. But if 80% of Jill voters prefer Hill over Don then Hill wins 53 to 47.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's not brown, what's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
When a story completely contradicts your theory about institutional racism, cite racism anyway.
Do you have a one-track mind??
Re: (Score:2)
in fact there's a 95% certainty that you have DNA from sub-saharan africa or northeast asia at some point in your lineage.
More like there's a certainty that more than 95% of your DNA hails from sub-saharan Africa.