Mahone
-
Posts
2087 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mahone
-
-
45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
True; though the same could be said about criminal defense lawyers. The product they sell isn't really access to otherwise-unobtainable knowledge or the ability to do the legally impossible. It's the peace of mind of knowing that the job's being done right when the stakes of a misstep are obscenely high; the time one saves by not having to personally deal with the minutiae, and the sense of unbiased judgment borne of a lawyer's professional detachment. (And often, frankly, it's the quality of the working relationship the lawyer has built with the courts and government lawyers and bureaucracies.)
In either a criminal or an immigration context, either you think you need the lawyer's services . . . or you don't. That's fine, of course; but I wince whenever I hear someone say "you don't need a lawyer". Because until I left private practice last year, an awful lot of folks who had received that kind of advice proceeded to make easily-avoidable mistakes with a litany of nasty consequences and wound up in my office, begging me to fix it.
In a criminal defense context, i'd absolutely agree with you. But immigration is a different beast entirely. From those I associated with while going through this process, of those that said they had a lawyer, many later regretted the choice to do so because they didn't believe the advice they received really assisted them in anyway and others claimed they in fact made the process harder than it needed to be due to the lawyer giving them incorrect advice.
Visajourney.com is a good forum for those going through US immigration - the question has been asked countless times on there and the answer from those that have been through the process is nearly always the same. A straight forward case does not need a lawyer; most people don't use a lawyer and are almost always fine. The exception is waiver cases and in said waiver cases, a standard immigration lawyer is not going to help. You need one that specialized in waivers and they will not be even close to cheap.
I don't anticipate that most of those going through the criminal courts will advise to not use a lawyer and it seems to be the exception, not the norm when they don't use one. It's apples and oranges.
-
On 8/1/2017 at 4:33 PM, Just_A_Guy said:
There was an LDS couple not too long ago that married in the US while the bride, a Russian national, was here in (IIRC) a tourist visa; and the result was that she had to return to Russia for nearly a year while her immigration issues were sorted out.
Lots of bad/inexperienced lawyers out there, to be sure. But if you can find a good one, $200-$500 is a small price to pay for a consult that saves you that kind of a problem. One cannot count on continued magnanimity from ICE, especially given the current political climate.
The first bit of research would tell them they can't do this. If they aren't going to even bother checking the basics of US immigration law then yes, hire a lawyer.
-
On 8/1/2017 at 5:29 PM, anatess2 said:
Words.
"Should Not". I did not say that. I am simply countering your statement that it is an absolute MUST to get one. It is not. That is entirely not the same as "Should not". The dumb kid who married a Venezuelan lady was dumb. Of course, any immigration attorney is better than a dumb kid. If you're a dumb kid, hire a lawyer. I'm not a dumb kid. I didn't hire one. But yes, I hired a travel agent to buy my tickets. I didn't have to, of course, and I wouldn't tell anybody - You have to get a travel agent or suffer the consequences, or some such.
Agreed.
Had I not been through the process myself and associated myself with dozens and dozens of others doing the same thing for a couple of years, some with and some without lawyers, I'd be arguing for getting a lawyer right now and telling everyone who disagreed with me that they were idiots for not getting legal counsel. It does seem counter intuitive, but of the immigration lawyers that are even close to affordable, most of them are like the quack doctors of the medical field. Those that are genuine and really know what they are talking about will likely cost everything you have and more and their expertise is generally only needed in waiver cases. But take this for what it is, advice from a stranger on the internet.
-
19 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:
I'll assume that you are a US citizen.
Your first phone call should be with an immigration attorney. If you are serious about this person this is not the time to be cheap. Hire a real attorney and make sure that you know 100% what you are getting into. Time and cost. You need to pump the brakes until you do this.
I'm not so sure that this is necessary. Having been through the process of applying for US residency and now about to go through the process again for US citizenship, my experience is that so called "immigration attorneys" are at best very expensive proof readers and in some cases their knowledge of US immigration is so poor that they actually make the process more difficult. Most people who hired them ended up saying it was an unnecessary waste of money.
In 99% of cases, everything an immigration lawyer can tell you can be found on the USCIS website. Just do the research and you'll be fine. Assuming you end up marrying this girl, make sure you collect as much evidence as possible to prove your relationship is bonafide and not a sham marriage. Keep things like text messages, facebook messages and photos. DO NOT ELOPE.
The exception to this is if you need to apply for a waiver for whatever reason. Lets hope you don't, but if you do, an immigration attorney that specializes in waivers is definitely what you need.
Outside of immigration, be prepared for your family to potentially express their displeasure at you having a relationship with a 'foreigner'. We had issues on both sides, with my family having a predisposition against Americans in general and her family accusing me of marrying her for a green card. Others went as far as to place bets on how many months/years our marriage would last. You may end up having to grow a pretty thick skin.
- Sunday21 and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
Some application software is available for Linux, some packages have equivalents, others can be emulated. Some you just can't use on a Linux OS. Choice of operating system is like choosing any other tool, just depends what you want it for.
Personally, I rarely use Linux on my personal workstation, it just doesn't do everything I need it to do. But I have used it for many servers. Linux is always my first choice for external DNS servers and web servers. I have also used certain Linux distros for penetration testing in the past.
-
As I get sent off for cremation, I want the song 'Firestarter' to be playing for the audience. As long as I get that, I'm happy.
-
The caller ID that you see can also be easily forged. Many telephony providers allow the customer to have control of the outgoing ANI/caller ID that will show up on the called persons phone, particularly if the customer making the call is a business.
I've been managing VoIP telephony systems for a few years now for various companies as part of my job and I can easily configure our systems to make a call to my cell phone or anyone else's phone and have the caller ID show up as any number I like, including numbers that don't comply with national standards here in the US, such as '012345'.
That's not to say that every telco the call passes through en route after the callers own telco will allow a blatantly forged caller ID, but in my experience, they do.
-
On 2/29/2016 at 7:55 PM, The Folk Prophet said:
This isn't relevant to the discussion as to whether seeing an R-rated movie in the US as a canary in the coal mine for members is a justifiable reason to do so. If there's no one going into the dangerous coal mines, then what's the canary for again? Don't go into the coal mines marked "DANGER". Whether the government's marking of the coal mines as dangerous or not is consistent is well beyond the point. Sure...take the canary into the coal mines that aren't marked "DANGER". But the ones that are already marked...we've already been counseled to stay out by the leaders of the church. So once again...what's the canary for? And how they mark their coal mines as to safety in England or other countries doesn't change a thing in the US as to which ones we should and should not enter.
"Research" is not the concern. Viewing is.
So is such counsel for US members of the church only? Or does it apply to all LDS members worldwide? Should British LDS members heed to the rating guidelines provided by the United States only, or that of their own country only, or both? Is a movie acceptable for a US LDS member to consider seeing because it's rating a PG-15 in the US despite higher rating in other locations, but not for a British LDS member to consider seeing the same movie because it's rated an 18 in the UK?
I'm terms of your analogy, would you consider going into a mine because the US rated it as safe, despite the warnings of it being dangerous by other countries? What about the other way around?
I'm glad you have such faith in the rating system provide by a single entity. But for me, I take into account many more factors before making a decision as I see the world as far less black and white than you do.
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
And I contend that you simply pointing him to the MPAA rating description that is so handily provided for us now-a-days would have been entirely sufficient as an answer.
Dear some-guy-on-IMDB: Based on this, what do you think? - Rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity
As to the need for members, it is my plain contention that no LDS person should be going to any R-rated movies at any time, ever, for any reason. That readily solves the need for any canaries there.
Now for PG-13, PG, and G movies, sure. I'll buy that reasoning as valid.
I don't see it as black and white as this. It's fairly common for church members in the US to boycott R rated movies, and this has rippled over to the UK where LDS members often avoid the closest UK film classification equivalent, an 18.
But then we have films rated 18 in the UK that are rated a PG-15 here and vice versa. So would that make it okay for LDS members in the US to consider viewing it, but not in the UK?
Every classification board makes a decision on rating using their own criteria and it's far from uncommon for them to come to different conclusions. Therefore I research each movie individually and use the local rating as only one of several factors contributing to my decision as to whether it would be suitable or not.
-
I had to provide the National Visa Center with an enhanced criminal record/police certificate from the UK and they performed further FBI "background checks" afterwards, before I was issued a US visa. Bear in mind that many of these immigrants come from countries where such records are either not kept, not kept in any centralized location, have long since been lost or destroyed through war or the government aren't going to cooperate with US embassy requests for such information. So unless an individual has garnered the attention of a foreign government that is included in FBI background checks, such checks will likely not help much.
-
Now, is he officially Moselim? I neither know nor care. It's his actions that interest me, and those acts advance Islam, not USmerican interests.
Lehi
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama supporter. But being a Muslim and acting like a Muslim are not the same thing and I will correct anyone who tries to imply that they are.
-
Right. But the only way you could assume JojoBag was being facetious is if you assumed that he knew O'bama to be other-than-Muslim and then stating the contrary as fact.
So, you have to assume that O'bama is not Mosilmin, other wise JojoBag could not be facetious.
Lehi
Mostly true, but it still wasn't the question you asked. In fact you just partially answered the question you actually asked.
-
And, in the end, does it matter since his actions advance the Mouselem agenda?
Lehi
The other reason that is matters is for the same reason those teenagers who recieve an email in their inbox, or on Facebook telling them that a virus is going around that will destroy the "zero sector" of their hard drive (this one has been doing the rounds since the 90's). They don't know if its true or not but decide the best course of action is to forward or repost it "just in case", assuming no harm comes from doing so, but in actuality do cause harm by spreading false information all over the Web. Real viruses do exist and are dangerous, but this one doesn't and passing it on just does more harm than good.
-
Actually you asked why I'd assume he is being facetious. As that is what I said I had assumed.But you didn't really answer the question I posed: Why assume O'bama is not a Moslemin?
You say that this claim is demonstrably false, but there is evidence to support it.
And, in the end, does it matter since his actions advance the Mouselem agenda?
Lehi
Happy to hear the evidence you have.
Yes, it matters. Spreading false information, at the least contributes to ruining the credibility of the person who made the claims, even if their other claims are valid and stand up to scrutiny.
-
Why would you assume that?
Whether he is Moslem or not, his actions benefit Muselemen countries and Mooslom expansion.
Lehi
The latter claim of yours is not the same as the one I responded to. He isn't Muslim. Trying to claim he is often has the side effect of ruining the credibility of any other claims mixed in with the statement, no matter how valid they might be. Let's not perpetuate demonstratively false information here.
-
However, that will never happen since we have a president who is a Muslim.
I'm assuming you are being facetious?
-
I'm going to put on my bar manager hat for a second and address this. The bar I manage has public WiFi available on the same connection we use for our business services (credit card transactions, web-based beer menu, Pandora, etc). Internet service can get pretty slow during peak hours, and there is potential for security issues as well. One of our other locations solved this by creating a separate connection for customers with its own unique password. Unfortunately, my ISP and router are different and we were unable to replicate that setup.
Long story short, there are practical advantages for a bar or cafe to not offer public wifi even if they have the capability to. But demand for it is so high that it is prudent for such a business to fabricate a cutesy excuse for their lack of wifi.
Yeah I'd be careful very careful about having credit card processing equipment on the same physical network as the public access wifi, even if the traffic is logically separated, although from your post I'm guessing that it isn't? There are some extremely strict rules that networks with credit card data passing through have to adhere to the point that many companies find it easier to simply use an analog phone line to send this data instead, with an air gap between this and their LAN.
-
When we first moved here I told my wife that the US does two things to a substandard level - chocolate and TV.
The BBC spoilt us a little in the UK and the commercials on most American TV channels ruin the experience for us. In some cases it appears the combined length of the consistently repeated adverts is longer than the movie or episode itself.
BBC channels broadcast in the UK don't have any commercials. The one disadvantage of that is the small albeit outdated BBC TV license fee.
So no, we haven't paid for any TV packages since we moved to the US, with the excepion of the small monthly fee we pay for netflix (which we don't pay in reality as we share an account with family). I actually did review this decision yesterday but the combined monthly fees for a cable TV service, the content of which I consider to be substandard was reason enough to continue the status quo.
-
My suits are all semi decent but inexpensive ones from the British equivalent of JC Penny.
I enjoy expensive clothing as much as the next person, but once you've had several suits ripped on the edges of server racks and powered on a high performance, but old router whilst standing behind it and come out covered in several year old dust blown out by the fan running at the max RPM, you quickly make compromises in choice of attire. I have to wear suits, but they will never cost me more than a couple of hundred dollars.
-
Don't make the mistake of assuming that a cause of all this is him no longer being attracted to you. Men who look at pornography often do so despite their active attraction to their spouse and his lack of affection is more likely than not a symptom of repeated pornography use as opposed to the other way around.
- Just_A_Guy, Jane_Doe and JojoBag
-
3
-
Between 2008 and 2014 I had a job that required a suit, plus the climate in the UK meant that jackets are generally worn at church throughout the year. So for six years, I'd been wearing a suit for six days per week and now I'm not comfortable wearing anything else to work or church. Since moving to Florida, I'm definitely the outlier when wearing a suit and people tend to just stare at me incredulously.In sunny Florida, the Bishopric wears suit jackets all year long. Most everybody else don't except for a few weeks in January/February when the suit jackets become their "coats". My 2 sons wear their suit jackets all year long, my husband don't. I don't really know why my kids wear jackets when they're one of the very few that do and we've never told them they need to.
Initially I was taken aback at how few people wear suits at church here.
-
-
-
Percieved mispronunciation of words dont bother me so much. There are so many regional variations and it irritates me a little when people here in the US attempt to correct my own pronunciation and then insist the way we pronounce certain words in the UK is simply wrong.
For the most part I attempt to pronounce words in the US variant as I am after all in the USA, with the exception of tomato, route/router and solder. I just can't get myself to use the American pronunciation of those words without shuddering.
Career Change
in Advice Board
Posted · Edited by Mahone
The CCNA route and switch is an excellent cert to get, even if you end up going down the systems path. Managing systems is that much easier if you also have a good understanding of the underlying network infrastructure and employers recognize this. Plus, in my experience, it’s rare that you find yourself in a position where you only do systems or only networking. There is almost always an overlap, even if that overlap is merely communicating proficiently and/or resolving disputes with the teams responsible for network infrastructure.
Unless you go down the dedicated networking career path, the CCNP is completely unnecessary, but fun to do if you have the time.
Let us know how it goes.