Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 5, Informative) 734

by PAjamian (#49192595) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should I Let My Kids Become American Citizens?

I'm a US citizen living abroad with a dual-citizen son. I can tell you that there are advantages and disadvantages. The benefits are that they can travel freely to the US and live and work in the US without having to obtain a green card. Also they can travel on either of their pasports largely depending on which country they travel to and they will qualify to receive assistance from any US consulate or embassy when overseas. They will be legally entitled to vote in any federal elections in the US when they turn 18, although if they have never actually lived in the US in practice they can't because no state will allow them to register to vote in that particular state.

The disadvantages are that when they start working they will always have to file a tax return in the US, regardless of where they actually live. For the most part they will receive an exemption for US taxes for any income they receive while working overseas with the exception of self-employment income, if they are legally self-employed then they will have to pay self-employment tax in the US in addition to any tax they pay overseas (some, but not all foreign countries have a self-employment double-tax agreement with the US, though which mitigates this). For me to avoid this tax I had to form a foreign corporation and work for that corporation so I'm not legally self-employed.

Another disadvantage is that they will be required to register for the US selective service when they turn 18 (the draft). There has not actually been a draft since the Vietnam war, though, so this is not likely to become an issue, but it is certainly something to consider.

As stated by the parent they can always renounce citizenship later and avoid the tax and selective service issues, but this is expensive (about $2500USD).

Also speaking of expense, having to file two tax returns means additional accountants fees and additional paperwork, especially if the country you live in has a different tax year than the US (which is very common). Having to maintain two passports is another extra cost as well, but not very expensive when you spread the fees out over the life of the passport.

All of the above said, I made an informed decision to register my own son as a US citizen and I do agree that the benefits outweigh the down sides, but it's certainly not a "nothing to loose" situation, there are downsides and it pays to make an informed decision with full knowledge of them.

Comment: Re:Rock paper scissors (Score 1) 340

by PAjamian (#48772303) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player

The poker bot, as with any poker player will have a strategy and play a certain way under certain circumstances. The way to oppose it is to learn how the bot plays under those circumstances, exploit it to learn what is in the bot's hand in the initial betting rounds (pre-flop, flop and turn) and then use your river bet to make the bot react in a way that is favourable to you. The above is actually rather simplified, but even a "perfect" bot cannot play optimal poker against a foe that alters his game to take advantage of the bot's strategy.

The above, of course is made on the information in the parent article that the bot plays a "static fixed strategy" and it makes its decision based on a complex table. This means that the bot will never vary its game to try to fool the opponent into making the wrong decision, it will always make the "perfect" decision as determined by the table.

So yes, I do believe this bot can be beaten. It is likely little better than if it were to make it's decision based on calculating the odds of it having a winning hand.

The computer scientists who created the bot admit they are not poker players, this in itself is telling.

Comment: Re:Anti-Spam Measure? (Score 1) 245

by PAjamian (#48373261) Attached to: ISPs Removing Their Customers' Email Encryption

It's done to help with anti-spam in general on the internet. A large percentage of PCs (especially windows PCs) are compromised and blocking outbound port 25 is a standard measure by ISPs to prevent those from being used as spambots. If you have a legitimate need for outbound port 25 traffic then most ISPs will unblock it for you on request (if you have a static IP, that is). That said, even if they do you will still likely be listed on a number of different policy blacklists which you will then have to play whackamole with to get your email accepted by other servers on the internet. A much better approach is to use a relayhost or to get a cheap VPS to relay through.

Comment: Re:Most severs shouldn't be vulnerable (Score 2) 245

by PAjamian (#48365825) Attached to: ISPs Removing Their Customers' Email Encryption

For one it can't be hijacked as easily as these ISPs are doing.

...which they're *not* doing. This article is a farce written by someone who can't even configure his email client to use the correct port for submission. He's trying to use port 25 which is only for MX to MX communication and not for submission, he should be using 587 and if he did there would very likely be no problems.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe