I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I guess I should start packing then. I was born (if I was born?) in Greece, on a mountain top. Why does America hate me?
Villaraigosecond!
Echidne-
you only need to start packing if you don't believe in JEEBUS because we now live in Jeebusland.
Shit, I wish I were born in Canada or England and they made me return.
But having just woken up, to tell you truth, I don't quite understand what this is all about. More coffee, please.
Shit, I wish I were born in Canada or England and they made me return.
or france or spain....
i used to feel so fortunate for having been born here.
no more.
good morning all.
o/t and sorry for bad news so early
six more people killed in suicide bomb in iraq today.
Interesting.
SETI uses individual personal computers connected thru the internet to process raw data, taken from radio telescopes, into informational packets allowing researchers to pinpoint galatic noise that may carry intelligence information.
The process of using thousands upon thousands of small desktop PCs, world-wide, manipulating small packets of raw data is the same as using a large Supercomputer.
There are also other on-line, internet Projects, Cancer being one, that has employed the same methodology too.
These research organizations use free PC cpu-cycles from volunteers so they don't have to ask Congress for funding for a Supercomputer and the facilities and personnel necessary to run it. To employ such a draconian measure would set back research into the dark ages.
Also, other countries may take up the reins and support the researchers themselves. If that happens, how will the US control those people in the US that participate in a collective Supercomputer group located in another country?
In short, how is the US gonna police people's use of internet resources?
regards
.
her eyes, of course I believe in Jesus! I've met him at many of the divines' cocktail parties. So I'm safe! 
Looks like These people are in some serious trouble then.
Fucking bush.
alle guten Bürger müssen Busch folgen
Is there something going on on the internet lately?
I run about 5 different security packages. Seems that for the last couple of weeks, all security software is being updated every 2 to 4 days.
Just kinda odd for so many security updates to be coming out.
regards
.
Moad-Dib, I have noticed that, too. I spend hours updating stuff. Maybe there is some sort of an attack going on?
That's freaky (Atrios' post, I mean).
Many European countries have similar laws. So why is Li'l George taking cues from Yurp? I mean, isn't that what this "Onward Fristian Soldiers" crap is all about -- the fact that Justice Kennedy cited non-U.S. precedent in his opinion about how it's not OK for the state to execute juveniles?
I'm so confused.
Morning Moonbats
Um, both BIS (at Commerce) and DDTC (at State) which administer the export control laws have always used the most restrictive country in the case of dual citizens so I don't see the big change here by doing the same thing where new citizenship is acquired.
It's also significant to note that these rules do not apply to U.S. permanent residents who are treated the same as U.S. citizens for these purposes regardless of their birth country.
Our larger systems can have 28+ Sun blade CPUs as well as a few other miscellaneous processors. Guess we can't sell them overseas without an export license, and I guess I, being foreign-born, won't be installing them.
FWIW, the 190K MTOPS standard has been upped from what it was a couple years back; used to be that a 16 processor Sun E10000 would easily count as a supercomputer (and our larger customers could load up such a system just trying to process the calls for a single telco).
Cheers,
I wish I were born in Canada or England and they made me return.
There are only a handful of what the US recognises as 'dual nationals'. US/Canada, US/Mexican (sometimes) - just a few more. But effectively, unless you're birthplace is in one of the dual locations, A is right - the US is now actually declaring that the US decides your citizenship, not the country which granted it.
You think OQL, it would have been better to have been born in Canada or England? Right now I'm wondering whether or not according to the US, my US citizenship is 'valid enough' to remain, or indeed, what kind of half-assed trouble I'm going to encounter the next time I run across a particularly ill-suited border officer on my next trip north.
I hope that A and Mrs. A's paperwork is really, really in order.
So let's start a list of people we want to use it against;>
Arnold
Kissinger
Rupert Murdoch!
Why does America hate my husband?
Freaky is right! My grandparent's parents came from other countries... oh, what shall I do?
So, someone born in Vietnam is not going to get the same treatment for citizenship as someone born in Germany?
I work in the export control / nonproliferation field, and I can tell you that the rule changes aren't some grand conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration.
There actually is sensitive technology that we don't want in the hands of foreign citizens, at least not without licenses. We need to be certain that individuals learning in our universities don't take their newly-found expertise back to places like Iran, etc. This is called a deemed export license (i.e., we have deemed an export to a foreign entity to have taken place, even though it is was just information). This is particularly useful in nuclear, chemical, and biological sectors.
Sometimes these rules seem like a pain, but it's better to restrict access and license users based on their needs than not at all...
A little bit OT: I was talking to a friend who works as a researcher at a scientific/defense company (in MA), one of those "weapons of the future" type think tanks. They are VERY interested in blogs lately mostly from the standpoint of seeing it as Borg-like instant information dissemination system (an international neuro-net, I guess). The combination of picture phones, wireless networks and blogs makes it possible for literally millions to know when something has happened anywhere in the world within minutes. I told him it was creepy that the defence-secutiy eggheads were monitoring and manipulating postings at places like this, but he said everything you post is in the public domain and the government has the right to use it for information network development purposes (and most likely is at this very minute).
Humph.
What happens if your place of birth is Hong Kong which changed ownership within the last decade and its wonderful government based upon the principle of "one country, two systems"? It's now part of a country which has export controls on it, but doesn't have the export controls itself due its past as part of the British Empire.
By birth you could be a citizen of the United Kingdom, you could be a "British National {Overseas}" who carries a Passport issued by the British but doesn't qualify you to be a "real" British citizen, or you could carry a Hong Kong SAR Passport as a "Chinese national" (or some combination of the these three).
but he said everything you post is in the public domain and the government has the right to use it for information network development purposes (and most likely is at this very minute).
Well, no, not really. The fact of publicly posted material does not invalidate the rights of a person to the words they produce. In fact, Art, you might want to nudge your little friend toward the various court rulings concerning the publication of private letters.... Merely because words are made public does not invalidate personal ownership or responsibility.
Your little friend had better become very, very familiar with the concepts of Citation and Footnoting.
Perhaps it's just my reading, but as far as I can tell, the following scenario would be allowed under the rules: You're the child of British diplomat parents. You were born in Pakistan while your parents were posted there. You're a British citizen (subject), but since you were born in Pakistan, you come under the restrictions.
Two of my three officemates in grad school were Americans who had lived abroad for years as children (one had a sibling born abroad), so the chances are not so small of such a scenario.
Hmmm - perhaps we should go with PLACE OF CONCEPTION (since we all know that a fertilized egg is a human being with all legal rights, according to those in charge)... so if you get knocked up on your honeymoon in, say, Bali... well, let's just say you'll be doing a lot of paperwork... and what of the war baby, conceived by two soldiers in Iraq?
This could get interesting!
This all seems to center on the idea that the USA is and will remain on top of computer innovation. Rules like these will put a stop to that.
This is, of course, discrimination on the basis of national origin. But it will be used against non-US-citizens, and the Supreme Court has said that non-citizens have weaker rights than others (the case was about whether or not the government's clear bias in choosing which non-citizens to target was unlawful).
The same has long been true of immigration law. The national quotas are per country--country of birth, that is, not citizenship.
I've long wondered why this rule (it's not even law, just an INS regulation) is allowed to stand. After all, if a citizen wants to sponsor a relative, there is real harm in the amount of time they have to wait.
For instance, if your brother is a Canadian citizen, but was born in the Phillipines, then he'll wait 15-20 years to get his green card. If he was born in (say) Belgium, the wait would be much shorter.
that's what is already happening. People are being kidnapped and sent to country of "origin" regardless of current citizenship. And no mention is made of this ridiculous inconsistency.
Without saying anything specific here, there are some rational reasons for considering country of birth along with country of citizenship.
Some countries, particularly in the former communist bloc and the Middle East, make it difficult to renounce citizenship. Expatriates from those countries who take, say, American, British or Canadian citizenship usually do so without losing the foreign cititzenship. Even though they may have no real concerns for that country, they still remain subject to its laws, and we can see the potential blackmail or extortion possibilities as well: "You have relatives in the old country, yes?"
Sullywatch - well, okay, except you cannot renounce British citizenship. Or Canadian citizenship.
In fact, just about the only country that demands renunciation is the United States in order to acquire US citizenship. Having dual citizenship is fairly common among the rest of the civilised world. Having multiple citizenships is as well.
emildir - this is why my stomach knots up every time I contemplate going back up north, even for a visit. Having over the years had to endure intensifyingly stupid interrogations from immigration officers who did not grasp the concept of dual citizenship, I actually fear the situation now.
This is nothing new.
Hmm ... Googling on renouncing Canadian citizenship found a lot of references to Conrad Black (who was required to do so by the Canadian government in order to accept a British title he dearly coveted). We would presume that he was allowed to do so.
Oh, here’s Canadian law on the subject.
9. (1) A citizen may, on application, renounce his citizenship if he
(a) is a citizen of a country other than Canada or, if his application is accepted, will become a citizen of a country other than Canada;
(b) is not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20;
(c) is not a minor;
(d) is not prevented from understanding the significance of renouncing citizenship by reason of the person having a mental disability; and
(e) does not reside in Canada.
(2) The Minister may, in the Minister's discretion, waive on compassionate grounds the requirements of paragraph (1)(d) or (e).
(3) Where an application for renunciation is approved, the Minister shall issue a certificate of renunciation to the applicant and the applicant ceases to be a citizen after the expiration of the day on which the certificate is issued or such later day as the certificate may specify.
And here are the relevant Canada Citizenship and Immigration regs.
And should you wish to turn your back on the Queen, here's the form to renounce British citizenship.
Yes, the U.S. citizenship oath includes a statement of renunciation of foreign citizenship. But that doesn't count as far as most foreign governments are concerned.
Heh, I was just about to say, this sounds like the Maher Arar Clause going into effect -- just a rules harmonization. After all, if they can seize a Syrian-born Canadian citizen in a US airport and deport him to Syria (where he gets to sit in prison and be tortured), on the mere suspicion of being a "terra-ist," this is unsurprising.
I have an English friend who literally refuses to set foot in the US. I'm beginning to see the logic of his position.
I have no problem with these rule changes.
Except that they're about 30 years too late.
The damage has been done.
Those systems out there in the hands of arab and chinese governments are too similar to the more advance systems coming out now and in the future. They may be less powerful but the operating systems are too similar and the step by step operation too easy to recognize and coordinate between the two. One need not export the technology for them to study for too long before those trained in computer science in our schools are able to translate controls between a primative system and the more advanced.
Our schools are already graduating people with expertise in making their own. They have been hired by our manufacturers for too long, become too exposed to the technology, and have since gone back overseas to teach them locally.
Such export control laws now simply delay the invitable. The only way to prevent undesired forces from being able to affect our systems, hacking, etc, is to revolutionize them in ways that no programmers or computer science students being graduated today can understand them.
The new(and soon to come) hydrogen molecule based computers which are still in the testing and developement stages will provide just that, but they are still another 10-20 years down the line and are only in the smallest prototype stages now. And the only way to keep these private is to keep them secret and it's too late for that. Scientific American has already covered them, I should know cause I read the articles, and people know of their existence and the general theories of their operation are already exposed for others to see.
No. I don't see us being able to do anything but slow them(hackers & terrorists) down.
MYOB'
.
It's also significant to note that these rules do not apply to U.S. permanent residents who are treated the same as U.S. citizens for these purposes regardless of their birth country.
Why would we not expect this to be changed next? All movement in the last five years has been towards a more restrictive society.
This rule is stupid because, as the comments above show, it will be unworkable.
But thanks, George. Canadian universities appreciate having another point to mention in the sales pitch to recruit faculty and graduate students from around the world. I think the universities in India and China and Singapore will also appreciate this new rule.
Yeah, THIS bitch most certainly IS insane!
"I repeat: Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations.
It's not like it's an important job. Get a grip, people!
He's not replacing Paula Abdul on 'American Idol.'"
--Ann Coulter, showing the disdain SHE AND BUSH have for our allies.
THIS twat needs to "get a grip."
Shit, I wish I were born in Canada or England and they made me return.
Or Ireland, where a lot of my ancestors are from.
In fact, just about the only country that demands renunciation is the United States in order to acquire US citizenship. Having dual citizenship is fairly common among the rest of the civilised world. Having multiple citizenships is as well.
Yet another indication of how backwards and arrogant MURKA is.
Yes, the U.S. citizenship oath includes a statement of renunciation of foreign citizenship. But that doesn't count as far as most foreign governments are concerned.
From the official British perspective, that oath might as well be taken under duress, and as such, can't be considered valid. You have to go to a British consulate to swear a real oath.
I noticed that Snitchens is finally getting a US passport, though I couldn't be arsed reading his piece on the subject.
I have an English friend who literally refuses to set foot in the US. I'm beginning to see the logic of his position.
Were I not already here, I'd probably feel the same.
(I believe that Australia requires those with dual UK/Oz citizenship to give up their British passports in order to vote in Australian elections.)
Yet another indication of how backwards and arrogant MURKA is.
To be honest, it's not as bad as it once was: the US has gone from not permitting dual citizenship to not 'recognising' it.
The most important thing, if you're a dual national with a US passport, is not to show your other passport at US border control. Just act like it doesn't exist.
Why would we not expect this to be changed next? All movement in the last five years has been towards a more restrictive society.
Well, there are already steps along that line. Some of the mooted anti-terrah legislation would essentially reduce the protections of a green card to that of a tourist visa.
Here we go! Blood and Soil! Every pers, oops, man is bound by natural loyalties to the soil that he sprang from, and those that share his blood.
I predict a resurgence in the natural sciences.
I'm not happy about this. I have dual citizenship, which is one of the few comforts remaining to me as I wander through Jeebusland.
Dual citizenship has never been banned per se by the US; it's just that the State Department bureaucrats who oversaw the relevant areas of law often took a dim view of it and frequently exceeded their authority in punishing thsoe who exercised rights as foreign citizens.
One of the key cases that settled this, for instance, was brought in the 1960s by some guy that State tried to expatriate based on the fact that he voted in an Israeli election. That led to Congress codifying specifically that only four things (treason, explicit renunciation, service in a hostile army during a time of declared war and a catch-all "actions wildly inconsistent with a desire to maintain citizenship") could result in loss of citizenship for those not naturalized (who can be expatriated for lying on their citizenship applications, as John Demjanjuk found out).
So today, we don't recognize dual citizenship in that U.S. law recognizes no special category for it. You can be a dual or multiple citizen all you want; as far as the US is concerned you're a US citizen and a U.S. citizen only.
India, we believe, does have an explicit prohibition on holding citizenship in any other country (probably to eliminate the problems that would arise if everyone in India who could claim Pakistani citizenship did so), which has led to some creative circumventions by Indian-Americans who have children in American hospitals.
This really is nothing new. If you recall, the original INS "registration" programs post-911 (useless precursors to the widespread fingerprinting currently in effect) were targetted at "country of origin" and not citizenship, per se. It's really annoying, especially if one has the bad luck of having been born in some "watched" country because your parents happened to work there at the time... (no, not bitter at all).
And incidentally, that *is* one of the reasons I moved to a Canadian university despite fewer funding opportunities, etc...
For those people who are worried about the "threat" posed by export of this "technology": the threat is not that of exporting the knowledge, but the use to which it can be put.
Fundamentally, the technology itself is use-neutral. Besides, there has been significantly little change in the basics of computer architecture over the years. In addition, the use of clusters allows people to use equipment that is relatively old and still get rather impressive performance out of them. A five- or six-year-old machine may be horribly out of date by today's standards, but get a few dozen of them hooked up, and you've got yourself a supercomputer.
Furthermore, the use of a supercomputer is very, very different than knowing how to *build* a supercomputer. I've used them for a number of years, and could probably put one together (that is, hook up equipment, install software, and so on), but I wouldn't really be able to tell you how all the hardware operates. I could even run jobs on the machine, but anybody who can learn to run jobs on a Linux-type machine can learn to run jobs on a supercomputer.
So, trying to restrict who can use a supercomputer is a rather short-sighted move. We won't make our country any safer, and it won't help us keep a competitive edge in either business or science.
totally bonkers.
These controls are there for 40 years, I guess. They were supposed to prevent bad guys from amassing sufficient computational power to design nukes.
The problem is that a single el-cheapo PC is more powerful than supercomputers of yore, so if twenty years ago there was some point in imposing those controls, it is not there anymore. By Moore Law, if we are successgul in imposing these controls, we delay the emergence of nukes in wrong hands by 3-5 years. But those years are OVER!!
Second thing is that computers are manufactured in places beyond export controls. 15 years ago I talked with a person who had to run around those restrictions. His boss would give him a suitcase full of dollars, and he would fly to Singapore where everything was available if you paid cash, so they did not have to book the transaction. Hey, they would even give you a discount!
The second trick of the trade was to buy computers with processors one generation behind, i.e. with processors replaced with obsolete (and hence very cheap) chips. The current generation chips he would pack in his wallet and keep in the pocket. Again, the purchase is made somewhere in Asia, where custom officers are nowhere as vigilant as ours.
pseud - you can also lose your British citizenship by an act of Parliament (UK Nationality Act of 1981)
And there are local cases of renouncing Canadian citizenship. One of the restrictions for eligibility to sit in Hong Kong's Legislative Council (as a directly elected member) is to not claim foreign citizenship. So we had a couple of candidates who had to rush to renounce their Canadian citizenship to be eligible.
And you don't need to be a Hong Kong citizen to vote here, just a Permanent Resident. Equiv to allowing "Green Cards" to vote in US elections.
"This really is nothing new."
Well, you're right there! In fact, the US went to war with the UK in 1812 in part because the UK declined to recognize US naturalized citizenship, and took the position that those born British subjects could be forced to serve in the British Navy without regrad to subsequent naturalization . . .
Oh, wait, we were on the other side of the issue back then . . .
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
