He's not talking about other nations, he's talking about the US and saying if you are not a citizen of a nation, its a foreign nation to you and they have no obligation to let you in.
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
That doesn't sound relevant.
Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like?
If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you.
It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
You're confusing yourself with irrelevant analogies. You can say, "you may come into my house only if you give me your unlocked phone," and an immigration official can't assault you because there are certain protections granted to foreigners against being randomly assaulted. It's also not hard to imagine them NOT being legally bound not to search people's phones, and if you're trying to say someone's breaking the law here then it's your burden of proof.
If you can't find a better job, you should probably appreciate the one you have and not try to skate by with the bare minimum, if for no other reason than you're likely to miscalculate at some point.
Not GP but I’m trying to figure out what you’re insinuating.
> For tougher environments or deployments with poor indoor cellular coverage, the outdoor model maintains the same high performance cellular connectivity with improved antenna performance in a durable IP67 rated enclosure. It is built for rooftop installs, off site locations, and mobile deployments where reliability is critical. Just like its indoor counterpart, you can also connect it via any PoE port, anywhere on your network, greatly simplifying cabling requirements.
And the first image they show of the outdoor model is it installed in a fixed location on a rooftop.
Your quote lists mobile deployments, their bullet point also says:
>Built for rooftops, remote sites, and vehicle based setups
They are insinuating if you actually read their press release then you would not state it was targeted only at stationary deployments.
Based on the spec sheet 2 out of its 6 antennas are directional, this is probably a 4x4 modem so it must have some way to switch 2 antenna from directional to omni.
Wanting to install a different OS puts you in the tiniest of tiniest slices of consumers shopping for a new phone. There is a tiny amount of market demand for it.
1. We had serviceable devices and vehicles for ages. There was an equally tiny group of people who knew how to service them. However, everyone used to benefit because they paid those tiny group to do it for them. They benefited because those servicemen had incentives that were more aligned with the consumers, than with the manufacturers.
2. This is not like asking the OEMs to develop a feature that serves a tiny group. The size of that group is no excuse to go out of their way to restrict them. This is an explicitly hostile and actively malicious move. That's why I said your mother's unwillingness to use the feature is no excuse to deny the same to others. But you ignored that argument altogether.
3. The 'tiny slice' is not nearly as tiny or insignificant as you'd like others to believe. Plenty of people, especially the teenagers and the youth like to tinker around with devices. The success and popularity of earlier Arduino and Raspberry Pi are undeniable testimony to that. It's also from this group of tinkerers who started from their garage that we got the next generation of innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak. These sort of restrictions deny the next generation their own such pioneers and the free-market competition.
OEMs rely on misleading and dishonest arguments like this to gaslight the consumers into unfair deals and squeeze out every bit of unfair profit. In a fair world, such attempts would be strongly condemned and penalized with a loss of marketshare. And it's about time that became a reality.
However, my question wasn't that at all. My question was, what's your motivation in repeating their argument here? How does such an anti-consumer argument help you in any way? Is it consumer Stockholm syndrome?
And when I was a kid some of my peers were watching Al Queda execution videos.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I do not think kids should have unrestricted access to the internet, especially if their parents can’t/won’t set limits.
Everything is negotiable. We collectively choose where to draw all the arbitrary lines you draw. Free and open internet is as arbitrary as a completely locked-down internet.
If we give up the ability to negotiate, then we would not be able to have this conversation in the future. As we have seen many times, all over the world, authoritarian regimes will absolutely suppress dissent and chill speech if they have the tools. Today maybe it's adult content. They're already attacking the press and anyone critical about the administration: they keep trying to get the corporations to fire their comedians and rein in their reporters. So this isn't slippery slope. We're there and nearing the bottom.
We, the people who build and operate the internet as well as the tech that enables it, collectively choose to maintain a free and open internet for the benefit of all free people.
Maybe with enough effort you can force the internet to fracture into a centralized TV-style internet and a “shadow” free internet, but you’ll probably kill the economy in the process. Regardless, you’ll never stamp out those of us who will maintain the free internet over whatever channels we can find.
Kids also cannot sign up for internet service, or pay for it. So in both cases, we're talking about society gating access to something, adults obtaining that product legally and bringing it into their home.
The question, then, is who is responsible for the children in the household? I've always answered this exactly one way: the parents. Power and responsibility must go together, so if the parents are responsible, then the parents must have the power. Parents have been held legally responsible for the crimes of their children, and given the coverage of parents being arrested for letting their kids go on a walk across town, I'd say this sets up incentives pretty well.
But all of that is a sideshow; a narrative. What we actually have is a massive swing towards authoritarianism globally, largely fueled by in increase in the internet allowing for unprecedented surveillance overreach, and the folks trying to seize control of those reins are using children seeing porn as a way to seem benevolent to garner support from folks that don't understand what's actually happening. Huge swathes have been duped into believing the narrative and fighting for age-gating in the worst possible ways, and that's because they're missing the larger pattern.
Kids can access the internet in all kinds of places outside the home, and outside the purview of their parents supervision. Schools, libraries, friend's houses, public wifi anywhere.
You may be right about the authoritarianism; it's a tendency of our species and makes it all the more remarkable that Western freedoms have lasted this long. I think, though, that it's more likely simple greed. The giant tech companies, dependent on ad revenue because nobody would actually pay for what they are offering, must be able to track and profile people.
The "protect kids from porn" lobby has always been around, it has nothing to do with surveillance or the internet. These people would be picketing a bookstore that sold Hustler magazine back in the 1970s, and demanding that customers be made to prove their age.
> Kids can access the internet in all kinds of places outside the home, and outside the purview of their parents supervision. Schools, libraries, friend's houses, public wifi anywhere.
Then these places should make sure kids are not doing wrong things on the web on their machines. Just like a shop should make sure to not sell alcohol to kids. A library should have some kind of web filter anyway to at least block porn.
If only it were that simple. To fix the analogy, imagine that every other kids' dad left the liquor cabinet unlocked and allowed them to carry liquor around anytime they liked.
How does a parent check that a friend isn’t passing pills to them in the back of the bus? How are they checking that they don’t shoplift when out on their own? This is not an argument.
Do your best as a parent and that is enough. Perfection is not possible or even desired; kids do have a degree of agency, and if they want to break the rules they are going to do it! And breaking some rules (ideally in a safe-ish way) is one way that we learn how to be independent from parents as we mature.
The day we have an epidemic of children and teens abusing alcohol to the point of it turning into a national healthcare emergency, you will find that stricter control of alcohol will certainly be put in place.
We are at that point now with children having unrestricted access to online content that isn’t age appropriate, as well as being influenced by insane weirdos on TikTok and the like at an age where they are particularly impressionable.
The CDC says 4,000 underage drinkers die in the US every year. Maybe we could reduce that with stricter controls, but at what point does that become too burdensome to the rights of legal drinkers?
It's even harder to get the balance right when it comes to free speech issues like online pornography.
> The CDC says 4,000 underage drinkers die in the US every year
That's not quite correct. They count both deaths where the decedent had a high blood alcohol level and deaths where someone else who was responsible for the death had a high blood alcohol level. Because of this many of those in the count were underage but were not drinkers.
For example if I'm driving drunk and you are my sober passenger and I drive us off a tall cliff killing you your death will be included in their count because I was drunk and responsible for it. It also works the other way. If I'm sober and you are drunk, and I drive us off the cliff and you die it counts because you died drunk.
When grandpa was young, if there was a wolf in the forest, they went and killed the wolf. They would not break the children legs to keep them home.
Killing the wolf saved both the children of busy parents that couldn't be bothered to break their legs, and the children that grew old enough to have their leg fixed but weren't yet adult.
Today instead of chasing predators away from children spaces, we just box the children so at one magic birthday they'd be out in the world untouched by evil. The world will be still evil however, and the not children for a day unprepared for it.
What if, here's a radical idea, we terminate corporation with toxic ads or that let predators use their system to target children.
I was driving in a rural area, and almost hit deer several times. I finally made it to my destination, and island, with no deer, but a healthy wolf population.
The state would breed wolves on the island then release them on the mainland to keep the deer in check.
Sorry to ruin your metaphor, but we really need more wolves.
If you could offer the proponents of these laws a deal where all the bills die in committee and in exchange Pornhub gets shut down, I suspect they'd take it. But you can't. The First Amendment doesn't permit such targeting, and almost nobody who opposes age gating would concede the premise that porn is inherently bad.
But again, the problem isn't this or that content-exchange site; the problem is people doing illegal activities within, or facilitated by, such sites, or people within the site that are sourcing willingly illegal material or distributing material that is illegal to some recipients. And lawmakers are targeting the middlemen and the recipient instead of going to the root cause, and the cynic in me thinks, "Of course they'd do that, why would they go after themselves?" But it's a bit of a reduction, and not all wolves are rich and powerful (though those who are uncaught or get away scot-free mostly are).
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Heinlein
If you hand power to the state every time people fail to properly handle their responsibilities, you end up in a dictatorship. It is a parent's responsibility to keep their kids away from the dark corners of the internet. Thoughtful regulation would create tools to allow them to do that easily, not hand parenting over to governments.
Where are those former peers now? You reference this like their life trajectory must have been irreparably harmed by it. Are they in prison? Were they killed while committing violent crime? Are they on disability from being permanently emotionally crippled? Or what?
A little tangential since this is more about gating white supremacist content than violence or sex, but I was on 4chan when it was being infiltrated by genuine white supremacist organizations and Russians that talked about how manly Assad was to influence teenagers interested in anime. I had people in real life to talk to about these things so I narrowly escaped the influence. Looking at the current state of the US, not everyone did. That being said, despite my hope that older people would be less prone to such influence, it doesn't always seem to be the case.
Having a 3-year old and two cats (and many more previously in my life), that sounds absurd.
I can give my 3-year old (38 months) multi-part instructions and he can even ask clarifying questions back when my instructions are ambiguous or he doesn’t understand them. He’s also being to ask insightful questions as he observes the world around him.
To suggest cats are capable of anything remotely close to that (with humans) requires extraordinary evidence.
> he can even ask clarifying questions back when my instructions are ambiguous or he doesn’t understand them
This is kinda moot in this discussion given cats have neither the facial structure nor lung capacity for this. Others are essentially saying that a cat would (have the mental capacity to) do these things if they were not so physically constrained.
> If it’s true, someone ought to be able to demonstrate it.
This is not a truism.
> Again, extraordinary evidence required.
Yeah, whatever, dude. I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the irrelevance of the point that humans are physically capable of speaking like humans. That's moot to the claim that had been made in the parent comment.
I could go on about other points you made. For example, you seem to be conflating working memory ("multi-part instructions") with understanding of language, given that was what the parent commenter had claimed.
> He’s also being to ask insightful questions as he observes the world around him.
Cats don't have the same mental capabilities as a 3-4 year-old but that is not under contention. That doesn't strictly mean they don't have a similar capacity for language as a 3-4 year-old. Put another way, you were not talking about your son's capacity for understanding language but rather his general mental capacity, which is not an apt refutation of what was claimed.
This isn't to convince you of some belief (indeed, you're entitled to your opinion, friend) but to point out the illogic in your argument.
Ok, then what does “ a similar capacity for language as a 3-4 year-old” mean if it’s not everything else you say it isn’t.
So they can’t speak nor understand us, nor remember several instructions, nor formulate questions, so what then do they have that puts them on par with a 3-4 year old?
I'm not sure I understand your distinction between understanding of language and general mental capacity. As I (and the other person responding, I believe) understand, the two are inseparably connected in humans.
There’s many points you could make about the United States and immigration, but I don’t think this is one of them.
reply