Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
all
ParticipantYou could say the same for any deductible corporate expense.
ParticipantSan Diego Unified got that new cool vehicle. I think I will get one for myself.
Participant[quote=flu]
FLU 1:39 “Thou shall not try to be a dick”….
[/quote]Ever tried. Ever failed.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=all]List it on sedo.com and see if anyone bites.
I sold a four letter .com few months ago for $1,500, but ICANN opening up the TLD space crushed the valuations. Unless you own a typo of a frequented website (the goggle.com guy is doing good) or have luck as cybersqutter (adaware.com owner used to make $20K/day doing nothing) you will not have easy time monetizing it.[/quote]Typosquatting is actionable if it’s an attempt to infringe on a famous mark (Tiffany just had 150 or so domain names transferred to it based on typosquatting)and doesn’t really work that well, as indicated here: http://www.domainsherpa.com/is-domain-name-typosquatting-worth-it/%5B/quote%5D
That is why goggle.com offers no search results. Adaware.com owner was lucky that he had a non-business, non-american entity on the other side, which is why he managed to keep and monetize the domain for a couple of years.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
And it’s his side business. Main business he’s in is internet marketing. Weird thing is, he’s totally off the grid. His credit report is blank. He has no internet presence. All of his mail, personal and roughly 15 businesses go to a forwarder in North Dakota.[/quote]This could be related to the decade-old anti-spam law, or CA taxation rules.
ParticipantList it on sedo.com and see if anyone bites.
I sold a four letter .com few months ago for $1,500, but ICANN opening up the TLD space crushed the valuations. Unless you own a typo of a frequented website (the goggle.com guy is doing good) or have luck as cybersqutter (adaware.com owner used to make $20K/day doing nothing) you will not have easy time monetizing it.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
My read of history is a little different. I don’t disagree with your other points, but the real issue here is anachronism — Empire was 19th century whereas nation-states were 20th century.[/quote]Plenty of multi-national countries are surviving – the United Kingdom, the US, China, Iran, Nigeria…
[quote=FlyerInHi]On Israel, today we live in a globalized world of open borders, free movement, freedom of religion. For Israel to hang on to the “Jewish State” is anachronistic. A whole governing structure based on the Jewish religion is anachronistic and against principles of human rights, plain and simple.[/quote]
The borders are open if you have the money and that is nothing new. If you are a Syrian refugee trying to reach Germany you will be beaten up when you enter Bulgaria.
I agree with you that some or most Palestinians are not being treated fairly. I just don’t find arguments of something being anachronistic relevant.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all]
This reminds me of a pre-WWI article about separatist movements in Austro-Hungarian territories as 19th century anachronism. The same argument is used whenever a group of people favors the current circumstances. Fourth century Romans argued the same.
[/quote]I don’t quite get this. Everybody knew that the Autro-Hungarian empire was made up of many nationalities and that the empire itself was anachronistic. That’s why it fell apart.[/quote]
It might be self-evident today, but it was not particularly popular position in Vienna 100 years ago. The Empire was industrialized, expanding, adopting and elevating the subjects’ standard. The infrastructure put in place during that time is still in use. Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne, was working on federalization of the country. It would make as much sense for UK or US to disintegrate today. After all, a hundred years later the splintered territories are jumping through the hoops to get back where they were pre-WWI.
So a century ago the irredentism was seen as 19th century anachronism and the quoted article dismisses it as 20th century phenomenon. It will be described as a relic of 21st century 100 years from now.
Participant[quote=Arraya] It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law.[/quote]
This reminds me of a pre-WWI article about separatist movements in Austro-Hungarian territories as 19th century anachronism. The same argument is used whenever a group of people favors the current circumstances. Fourth century Romans argued the same.
I actually do agree with point #4 from your other post – everything does suck. Just look at the list of countries that never ratified the Rome Statue of ICC.
ParticipantIt makes it somewhat easier to be bad ass if you have unconditional support of the only super-power. With the level of financial and political support it is kind of funny to see the media in Israel barking at Kerry and the administration. Maybe it is just a mask?
IIRC, Serbs were pushed out of Kosovo for being way less aggressive while having historic claim to the land at least as good as Jews do.
Giving in does not seem to be an option for Israel. My Jewish neighbor argues that pulling out of Gaza in the first place was a mistake. Seems kind of self-evident today. On the other hand you have demographics working against you. There was a story few days ago about a middle-aged guy who lost his house and his workplace, but he managed to evacuate with his eight children, all eight in their twenties. Same day was another similar story, a town major who lived in a destroyed house with his four adult sons and their families. If families are having 5-10 children as a norm you will end up with a lot of hot-blooded male adolescents with nothing to do and Israel to blame.
Maybe another 6-day war would by few years of peace? But it does not seem like that can be repeated. Maybe if you nuke someone they will stop messing with you?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
but even with an i94, after 180 day overstay, you have to leave the country for a ban of 3 years.
1 year or greater overstay means a ban of 10 years.
[/quote]No, you do not. If you have entered the country legally you are eligible for AOS and you do not need to leave the country.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
I try to avoid the terms “legal” and “illegal” because they are not precise and only serve to demonize people.
[/quote]Legal/illegal is not confusing, unless you want to be confused.
You enter the country legally if you have a valid visa (border crossing card, covered by waiver) using one of the designated points of entry.
Otherwise you entered the country illegally.If you overstay you are out of status. It is not a crime to overstay, but it comes with civil penalties. So, it does not come with jail time, but it is still not legal, hence it is illegal.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/fiance-marriage-visa-book/chapter11-1.html
[quote=FlyerInHi]US immigration law is complicated. For people to claim that those poor kids’ parents from central America are educated enough to figure it all out is ludicrous.[/quote]
I agree. The current system is designed to benefit politicians, immigration attorneys and various NGOs.
July 21, 2014 at 11:07 AM in reply to: OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America #776950Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
You can no longer regularize status through marriage or other way after a 180 day overstay without serving a ban up to 10 years That means returning to home country to wait out the ban.There is some flexibility for the consular office to issue a return visa before expiration of the ban but no guarantee. That’s reserved for humanitarian reasons such as children in USA.[/quote]
This if you elect Consular Processing (CP), as opposed to Adjustment of Status (AOS). If you have a proof that you have entered the country legally (usually I-94 form) you can adjust your status without leaving the country, assuming you are otherwise eligible.
If you have entered illegally you do not have the AOS option and you must go through consular processing. This is where I-601(a) waiver might help.
ParticipantBrian,
I am not sure how you can qualify 1 year wait to join your spouse or your child as ‘not long’. The fees are designed to cover the cost of the process and they are frequently increased. So you pay $1K+ in fees, send your paperwork and wait 6-12 months for someone to touch your file because the president decided to appease an interest group and divert resources. It is not long if it is a year of someone else’s life.
July 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM in reply to: OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America #776845Participant[quote=Blogstar]
Import her illegally marry her and go to mexico and spend a couple of weeks immigrating her, live happily ever after.[/quote]USCIS redirected resources from processing family based applications to mini-DREAMers over a year ago. That caused a backlog in family based queue. It is taking about a year to process parents/spouses of citizens applications. Bring her on K-1, if you intend to marry her.
Visa waiver has its own risks – the officer at the port of entry is supposed to evaluate the risk of overstaying. A German couple I know was denied entry at LAX back in 2011.
-
AuthorPosts
