El Reg reports
The Internet Engineering Task Force has taken the rare (and possibly costly) decision to relocate an upcoming meeting out of America.
IETF 102, scheduled for mid-2018, was booked for the San Francisco Hilton, but instead will be held in the Fairmont Hotel in Montreal.
The reason, as announced by IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) chair Leslie Daigle, is the President Donald Trump administration: American travel restrictions make attendance uncertain.
[...] travel restrictions have been bounced around between the US legal system and the White House, and the Oversight Committee hasn't seen anything to reduce that uncertainty.
[...] it is impossible to know or predict the extent of the restrictions placed on individuals attempting to attend IETF 102 twelve months from now, or the level of uncertainty that will exist, and the impact that will have on the ability for the IETF to hold a successful meeting in the United States at that time. However, the current orientation and actions of the US government provide no basis for expecting conditions at the US border to improve for non-citizens.
[...] if the IETF cannot stage something in San Francisco, it will likely lose any deposit paid to the venue.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by bradley13 on Monday July 17 2017, @12:38PM (55 children)
This is just SJW virtue signaling.
None of the countries affected by the travel ban are likely to contribute anything meaningful to IETF deliberations. With the exception of Iran, all of them are engaged in bloody civil wars involving islamic extremists - which is presumably why they are on the list. Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Syria have other problems occupying their time...
Granted the Theater Security Agency (TSA) makes travel into and within the US generally unpleasant, but that's not the reason they named.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pasky on Monday July 17 2017, @12:54PM (3 children)
...nor could say Sweden contribute anything meaningful (curl author denied entry to US recently).
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday July 17 2017, @01:11PM
Linky [twitter.com].
Bet it's related with haxx.se (the home of curl.haxx.se).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @01:13PM (1 child)
> (curl author denied entry to US recently).
He might not be an islamist himself but he is citizen of an islamist country and was traveling from it at the time.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @02:08PM
Assange only visited Sweden and he got all rapey.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday July 17 2017, @01:09PM (5 children)
Several colleagues (scientists working at a major UK physics lab) travelling to a recent conference had to give their phone passwords and facebook ids. Makes me actively try to avoid conferences in the US. I realise that this is not in detail the same reason given by IETF. But it is clearly related.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday July 17 2017, @01:14PM
> had increased its vetting of individuals entering the country regardless of citizenship through searches of personal electronic devices and other means.
I RTFAed and noticed this, so it is actually part of IETF reasoning
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @01:17PM (1 child)
No, they didn't.
It was completely optional, and it was completely ok for them to leave it blank as having a Facebook ID is not a requirement for entry into the US.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday July 21 2017, @03:55PM
I wasn't there, but I understand that they had to surrender passwords etc. Lying on an entry visa waiver form is not a good idea. IANAL but I am sure it at least leaves one open to extradition, if not criminal proceedings.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday July 17 2017, @01:52PM (1 child)
I find it vaguely amusing that the IETF was founded in the US. Now thanks to the US doing orwellian shit with people's credentials and accounts it's trying to move in-person meetups out entirely. Must be annoying for an internet standards body. Especially when this is just another fine example of economic reality not clicking with these morons in the administration.
Sorry about that though, for what it's worth.
Also: Other reason given is SF is horrifically expensive. Which I can understand. I'd run to an entire other country out of sheer mind scramble from the CoL too. And "sjw virtue signaling" sounds like a dumbass term an SJW would come up with
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @07:20PM
WRT the deposit to the venue, I saw another article that I was going to submit under /dev/random and now realize is related to this topic.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @01:31PM (17 children)
Anyone who uses the terms "SJW" or "Virtue Signalling" automatically disqualifies themselves from the discussion. Congratulations on using both.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @02:05PM (6 children)
You've disqualified yourself, then.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @02:08PM
^found today's ignoramus^
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @02:37PM (1 child)
He didn't because he didn't use the terms, but merely quoted them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @03:36PM
Hey hey, stop trying to derail the angry train with your subtle points of logic! Rahhh angry Trumpkin rampage! I. Can. Not. Under. Stand. So. Must. Be. Wrong. Damned libruls ruin everything!
(Score: 0, Troll) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @04:55PM (2 children)
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have yet more stupid signalling from the Alt-Wrong.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday July 17 2017, @11:30PM (1 child)
Let's not resolve to name calling ... The people/ideas formerly known as Alt-right have been officially Mainstream for the last 6 months (or 9, depends how you count).
Why call them Alt-wrong, when you could point out they are now Lamestream, Main-Right, or -gasp- Establishment?
(Score: 2, Informative) by turgid on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:50AM
Calling them "Alt-Wrong Stupid Signallers" seems to touch the appropriate nerve.
So far they've given us Brexit and Fake President Pull-My-Finger of the People's Democratic Republic of America.
They proudly parade their ignorance in the most vociferous way, extolling broken 19th Century economic and social theories. They have made the Internet all but unusable for decent people.
If they prevail, they will succeed in setting our society back by approximately 150 years.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday July 17 2017, @04:06PM (9 children)
What is it you dislike about the terms?
- Is it that they are new? Without new terms, language cannot progress.
- Is it that the fields/discourses/topics they're used in the context of annoy you? How are those who are annoyed by those fields expected to have discourse with those who annoy them unless there's a shared vocabulary? Without discourse, there can be no persuasion. (Which is 99% of the problem 99% of the time in such fields.)
What equally-succinct terms do you prefer for the two concepts?
I assume that we can accept "Social Justice" to be a well-established phrase with nearly 2 centuries of use.
I also assume that you have no issue with the mere contraction of a phrase to its initialism.
So, how would you say "Social Justice Warrior" - complete with its hyperbolic trope, in three words or fewer, where the concept of "Social Justice" is preserved? I don't believe it can be done without simply substituting synonyms, which would be no clearer.
And "virtue signalling" - what would your alternative be? Two words, and with the same clarity - that two word phrase is remarkably clear in meaning, it really is just the signalling of that which is perceived to be a virtue. (Thus joining in with the stoning of a blasphemer would be virtue signalling in some groups, as virtues are culturally relative.)
Or is it that you simply don't want to discuss such topics? In that case, simply remain quiet, there's no reason for criticising the language used by those who are prepared to discuss them.
Note - personally I disagree with the grandparent post, as travel restrictions are demonstrably harsher than just the latest changes, but I don't disapprove of how he presented his argument. In fact, before I read the entirity of his post, the initial claim that this was just SJW virtue signalling seemed to have an element of truth to it. However, his following argument did not support that claim, and there is evidence that it's false, so I am firmly on the opposite side of the fence in that regard.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @04:54PM (6 children)
TL;DR. You, sir, are an Alt-Wrong and you are stupid signalling.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:08PM (5 children)
SJW means that the writer is inconvenienced with the argument of the person, and has little counter argument to offer because it would make them look bad.
Rather than promote a counterpoint, it is easier to call them a name, as if that solves any perceived issues.
Remember, someone fighting for social justice -- is probably doing a good thing. Often the SJWs are seeking to further the protections against discrimination, bullying, abuse, etc. It is hard to admirably stand up and and make a compelling counter argument, but there are plenty of white nationalists that make an argument. Some more polished than others. And none of them can be called admirable.
Also calling someone a moral authority... that is essentially a condescending term that admits that yeah that other person has better scruples. It is only an insult when spoken by someone inconvenienced by it.
NRA advocates are SJWs. They are one-issue SJWs.
Anti-abortion advocates are just as much an SJW as pro-choice advocates.
You would expect Mr. Bradley to make note of this, but he does not. He and others only cast it upon those liberal mindsets that are found to be too distasteful for his level of tolerance.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @05:25PM (1 child)
Thanks. I'm sick and tired of trying to point that out myself so I just give them a taste of their own medicine nowadays, as it were.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:49PM
Yup, patience and tolerance have been worn out where shitty conservatives are concerned. Apparently they just shut their mouths for quite a few years when being a bigot was out of fashion, but Trump has brought it back into popularity. I will say that is one silver lining to this mess, getting to see people's true beliefs.
For all you conservatives who might melt over this, I specifically said "shitty conservatives" because there are plenty of decent ones out there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:08PM
Social justice is about victimhood ranking and privilege checks.
It goes vaguely like this: You can get a point for being non-white, a point for being a woman, a point for being gay, 5 points for being trans, 5 points for being disabled, 5 points for being an illegal alien, and 10 points for being muslim. Add the virtue points to determine your victimhood ranking.
When two people argue, the person with the higher score is correct. If that contradicts any facts, then the facts are racist and sexist and homophobic and islamophobic. The facts are especially racists, even if the subject is unrelated to race and everybody involved is of the same race.
People with low scores need to grovel before those with high scores, apologizing for current and past group inequality, even when the low-scoring person happens to be worse off than the high-scoring person. It is important for a high-scoring person to be embarrassed about his privilege, and to generally hate himself and all of his kind.
People with low scores are expected to support their own population replacement -- that is, to use UN terminology, a genocide. For example, one could avoid having children or one could adopt children with more virtue points. One must support immigration, since immigrants generally have more points.
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Monday July 17 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)
But the bradley post *did* have a counter-argument - that was the paragraph that followed the line that sent turgid into a tizz. You realise that you've just argued against turgid with the above line. And he's agreed with you. OK, it's wasn't a compelling argument but if you claim it didn't exist, that means you both turned your brains off (and presumably they were running in energy-saving mode already) as soon as you were triggered by the scary words in the first sentence.
Perhaps it's time to just sit back and watch you salt your own soil and further weaken your arguments' roots.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @08:30PM
The comment by bradley13 is simply bigotry.
He claims that one can determine an individual's technical utility by nationality/location.
One might also claim that everyone in the USA approves of The Orange Clown.
Both of those notions are ignorant, narrow-minded, and prejudiced.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @04:54PM
You're just a racist nazi.
See how it works?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Tuesday July 18 2017, @04:18PM
(i) It's literal mockery. Go, review the gamergate fuckery. Kinda like referring to opposing counsel in a civil case as "the defendant's liar."
(ii) The new right sycophants never describe their own conduct as virtue signalling. When they state a position, it's because they have well thought out principles. When their opponents state a position, it's because they're desperate for approval.
The problem for the moment isn't the exact terms themselves, it's the consistent and continuous use in attacks. Eventually, this leads to the problem actually being the exact terms themselves - cf. faggot, nigger, dyke, and so on. Bullies love engendering the flinch response.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday July 17 2017, @02:36PM (9 children)
So, by your logic, we should have banned all travel from Northern Ireland, and possibly Ireland and the UK, for most of the 20th century. In fact, arguably we should still be banning it now because groups like the Real IRA are still out there trying to kill people with the goal of making Northern Ireland part of Ireland rather than part of the UK.
Also, Sudan's war has been over for a couple of years.
In general, though, fears of terrorism are thoroughly misplaced, because Americans are far more likely to be killed falling off a ladder than anything the terrorists have been able to do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @03:00PM (3 children)
Not just that,
with that wording, as the US is currently involved in several civil wars with islamist extremists, you can ban all of the US to fly as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gawdonblue on Monday July 17 2017, @10:03PM (2 children)
It goes without saying that US citizens should be banned from travelling to other countries, for a whole raft of reasons.
They're very loud, for one. Nice quiet suburban mom back home in (insert US city name here1) becomes a nasal foghorn that wakes up half the neighbourhood shouting out to her husband about how cute some feral animal is.
1. Why do Americans always state exactly where they're from? Everyone else says their country name when you ask2, and all you really want to know is whether they're from Canada or the US3 but they insist on telling you the name of the town and state they live in. Only Americans do this.
2. Actually, Americans usually tell you exactly where they're from within the first 5 seconds of meeting them. I've assumed this is just a nationwide misunderstanding of Dale Carnegie: "Oh, hiiiiii! I'm Susan and this is my husband Dave and we're from Sparrowfart, North Dakota. You know, right near the border with Seattle4. We have two children. Randy, our youngest, is in junior high, and [insert list of Randy's achievements here]. Tammy, our eldest, is in college and [insert list of Tammy's achievements here and usually includes who they've dated; I don't know why]. Dave works at [insert obscure business name here, which you're supposed to recognise; I never do] and he's just got 20 years of service5. Dave tell them about what happened last week with your boss...". Carnegie's point was to appear6 to be interested in the other person's home, family and work. Oh well.
3. Don't know why, but Canadians sound more American than Americans. They should get get an accent of their own.
4. North Dakota might be somewhere near a state called Seattle. I'd look it up but it probably doesn't matter.
5. It always seems to be after 20 years service. I assume this is when Americans are allowed to take leave.
6. I actually attended a Dale Carnegie course once. My work paid for it. Embarrassingly, I got kicked out for calling it "How to Win Friends and Manipulate People". After attending six sessions, I honestly thought that was the goal. They couldn't influence me otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @12:18AM
The explanation of number 3 is that Canadians watch a lot of American TV while holed up for the winter.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday July 18 2017, @01:58PM
Americans state where they're from because US states/Canadian provinces are mostly as large or larger than your country, and despite that, there is a very large amount of movement within states and between them, and any random American has a decent chance of not only knowing where the hell Bumfuck, MiddleOfNowhere is, but probably their cousin lives there or they stopped through on a business trip last year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @03:33PM (4 children)
If terrorists pose the same risk as an important occupational hazard, that is actually significant. I agree that the response to terrorism was bungled. But 9/11 was a major event, and the perpetrators would do us orders of magnitude more harm if they could.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 17 2017, @03:43PM (2 children)
Ladder accidents aren't very high up on the causes of death in the US. They aren't zero, but it's not like thousands of people are falling off ladders to their death every year. Occupational risks that are far more significant than ladders include getting murdered (especially if you work as a convenience store clerk), black lung disease (for miners), and getting hit by tree branches (for lumberjacks).
My general view on the reason why the government is doing far more in the name of fighting terrorism than it is in the name of ladder safety is because fighting terrorism creates the "America! Fuck yeah!" vibe that so many people love.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:28PM
We don't have much potential for exponentially increasing ladder accidents. Terrorism does have that potential, since most of it comes from a small but rapidly growing segment of the population.
Ladder accidents normally affect only the person who is most responsible. When others are affected, they are almost always at least partially responsible. One can generally prevent ladder accidents by avoiding ladders; this is not really an option with terrorism.
There is no plausible military or border control response to ladder accidents, but there are many for terrorism. The fact that we can do something about thing X doesn't imply that nothing should be done about thing Y. If we could reduce ladder accidents with a bombing run or import ban, we sure as heck would. We probably would ban ladders if not for the fact that people would instead make wobbly stacks of chairs and buckets.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday July 18 2017, @12:49AM
It's because there's money in war. Lots of it.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday July 18 2017, @04:03AM
But 9/11 was a major event
Over FIFTEEN years ago. Bin Laden is dead. Al-queadea did nothing of interest after that - there was no need for them to - they won.
The biggest threat to normal americans is your crazy police force who shoot unarmed women in their pyjamas.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday July 17 2017, @03:41PM (5 children)
Bzzzt, wrong. The first travel did affect educated, accomplished people with lives and careers in first world countries who just happen to have been born in (or have dual citizenship of) the banned nations. OK, the revised ban eased off on dual nationals, but the fact remains that this haphazardly-introduced and heavily contested travel ban is clouded with chaos and uncertainty. If I was organising an event that involved large numbers of people from all over the world converging on a single place, I think removing the USA from my planning would simply mean one less headache.
Furthermore, if there is anyone in Somalia or Yemen or wherever trying to practise innovative engineering despite the local situation then the world needs to be supporting them, not turning their backs. Maybe there's a Syrian engineer-entrepreneur who needs to hook up with international colleagues to put the finishing touches to an awesome new water-purifier that will save thousands of lives. Could be there's a Sudanese genius looking for help getting a new anti-mosquito technology off the ground, to help protect war-refugees from malaria. These are countries with a great many problems in need of solutions. Engineering provides solutions, whereas travel bans impede them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
Compared to the population norms, terrorists are unusually likely to be engineers and engineers are unusually likely to be terrorists.
I doubt we can say for sure why. The obvious guess is that it has something to do with a rigid belief in the "right way". Maybe it is just that engineers can get shit done. Here in the USA, engineers are far more conservative and creationist than scientists are.
People with lives and careers in first-world nations are in fact more dangerous. They understand our weak points. They know how to blend in and generally navigate our society. They don't hate us any less. If anything, the direct exposure to us just makes our supposedly immoral society harder to ignore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)
Citation needed
in the USA, engineers are far more conservative and creationist than scientists are
Citation needed
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/02/the-liberal-arts-are-dead-long-live-stem/ [thefederalist.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @03:44AM
That's actually not new.
Decades ago, I saw a bunch of those folks in my curriculum.
They had managed to make it into the program but couldn't complete the coursework and never got the sheepskin.
...and most of them had never tinkered with anything in their lives--beyond twisting a knob on a TV.
They weren't there because they had an aptitude or an interest in tech, they'd heard that tech was lucrative.
Heh. My freshman year, we had a guy in the class who all the instructors already knew.
It was his 3rd try at getting through the first years' coursework.
(He didn't make it that time either.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @02:04AM
Travelling to the US was already a headache before Trump's Muslim bans. Remember Dmitry Sklyarov [archive.org]?
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday July 17 2017, @04:54PM (3 children)
This is just xenophobic bigot virtue signaling.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
It's also (almost certainly) not true. I went to an international conference of plasma scientists in NJ a couple of months back. Many (all?) of our Chinese colleagues were no shows; the rumour was that they had last minute visa issues. I can assure you that those of us that work for DoD are very much interested in hearing what our counterparts in China are up to these days. It is no mystery to me why IETF would want to avoid that kind of hassle. The USA is rapidly turning into the very kind of shit hole backwater that we regularly used to sneer at a mere few years ago. God help us.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday July 18 2017, @03:53AM
Friend of mine was denied an esta because he travelled to Libya once (he's a broadcast engineer). He used to have a journalist 'I-visa' for the US, but he's since left the company. Can't go for meetings or holidays, at least with the costly hoop jumping to get a B-visa.
Still, 190 other countries to go to.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Monday July 17 2017, @07:56PM
Which is just SJW virtue signaling with a different value for how "justice" is defined.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @04:55PM (1 child)
Stop with your stupid, please.
America lost control of the internet a long time ago. Your corporate masters outsourced it all a long time ago.
It's not about Trump, it's about keeping the people that took over for the USA involved with the processes the USA is no longer involved in.
Traditionally it stayed at its roots, but really that is not necessary anymore. Even Vint Cerf sold out. There is no one in the US that really would defend our rights anyway, and when people like you start using SJW as the reason, you may as well just stop talking now because your microscopic vision is not going to help deal with the big picture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:36PM
There is no one in the US that really would defend our rights
Just a note here:
bradley13 is a USAian expatriate who has lived in Switzerland for some time.
His sniping comes from quite a distance.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday July 17 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
Basic question -- this post, modded to -1, shows up by default because of the *number* of mods applied to it, right? A quick pointer to why it's showing up would be helpful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @02:09AM
a similar report [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday July 17 2017, @10:09PM
Another basic question -- anyone know of big (or medium) IETF contributors/interested parties from the banned countries? I wanted to know the names in this field from those countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @02:00AM
Because people never immigrate?
Example: An Iranian-born British citizen might still find travel to Trump-istan problematic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:56AM
There are bellends on both sides of every argument. Pointing out their existence on the other side somewhat loses its impact if you then can't make it through a single sentence before behaving like a colossal bellend yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)
announcements from foreign brands this year compared to previous years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @01:07PM
Foreign brands with factories in China, right?