Lots of travelling lately. Just returned from a short trip to BeNeLux (here's a link for the non-Europeans) for a scientific conference, but am already on a week-long US domestic trip. I've been really lucky with my travel lately though (knock on wood). Without the usual mishaps (weather delays, mechanical problems, missing luggage, et cetera), travel is not tiring at all! I'm also very fortunate to be almost immune to jet lag. I don't know anyone who suffers less from it than I do. Summer time also makes it easier to travel light, and avoiding checking in any luggage.
For my trip to BeNeLux, I flew to Heathrow and then took the Eurostar fast train plus local train. Just had one day back home after a couple of days in upstate New York. The upper midwestener next to me on the plane thought I was from Buffalo. I swear I'm not trying to fool people, pulling some catch-me-if-you-can stunt! I'm always quite surprised and amused when people think I'm from any anglo-saxon country. Planes were pretty much packed and when we went shopping, the mall parking lot was 99% full. I heard the number of US domestic flights have been reduced by 20%, but still. Are we really in the worst economic slump in the US since the Great Depression? I'm getting mixed signals. Maybe people still go to the mall, but shop less?
I have a bunch of notes (harder to find public WiFi in Europe, so I wrote notes off-line several times) I'll clean up and post over the next week or so. At least that's the plan. I don't want to blab too much about me, I'm just not that interesting. Instead I'll try to write things up I figured out along the way that might be simultaneously somewhat useful to others and are not easily googleable.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
More on Guadeloupe, etc.
First European to visit was Christopher Columbus himself in 1493. Under French control since 1635, except for a few periods in British hands, and one stint 1813-1814 under Swedish rule! How did that happen?
There was indeed unrest during the early Spring of 2009, with demands for increased minimum wage. The tourism business was shut down for a couple of weeks, but the turmoil now seems to have dissipated. I read a couple of very positive travel reviews. I think Guadeloupe just bumped Belize off the top of my list of places I'd like to visit during late winter.
I found a nice page with travel info. Looks like Delta has the only nonstop flight from the US (Atlanta). American Airlines do have flights, but they have a connection in San Juan, Puerto Rico, with a pretty long layover. The airline code is PTP (Pointe A Pitre, the biggest city). The distance from MIA (Miami International Airport) to PTP is 2216 km / 1377 mi. From Europe, it's an eight hour flight from Paris.
It does seem like all EU law applies, including immigration legislation, so an EU passport should indeed allow you to work and live there permanently.
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon however, DOES require a visa for EU citizens who stay more than 30 days. So in summary, it looks like only Guadeloupe and Martinique meet the criteria of i) being close to the US and ii) letting an EU citizen work and stay permanently with no other documents required than an EU passport. Guadeloupe and Martinique seem similar (islands in the Caribbean, between 1,000 and 2,000 square kilometers of land area, populations just north of 400,000), but it seems the former has slightly better connections by air. You'll probably need to know French if you really want to live there though. Sounds like English is mostly spoken by those in the tourism industry.
A couple of the islands in the Netherlands Antilles might also move toward closer ties with the EU, perhaps even close enough to meet the criteria above in a couple of years?
Sorry for the font problems in this post, I can't make blogger not screw it up...
There was indeed unrest during the early Spring of 2009, with demands for increased minimum wage. The tourism business was shut down for a couple of weeks, but the turmoil now seems to have dissipated. I read a couple of very positive travel reviews. I think Guadeloupe just bumped Belize off the top of my list of places I'd like to visit during late winter.
I found a nice page with travel info. Looks like Delta has the only nonstop flight from the US (Atlanta). American Airlines do have flights, but they have a connection in San Juan, Puerto Rico, with a pretty long layover. The airline code is PTP (Pointe A Pitre, the biggest city). The distance from MIA (Miami International Airport) to PTP is 2216 km / 1377 mi. From Europe, it's an eight hour flight from Paris.
It does seem like all EU law applies, including immigration legislation, so an EU passport should indeed allow you to work and live there permanently.
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon however, DOES require a visa for EU citizens who stay more than 30 days. So in summary, it looks like only Guadeloupe and Martinique meet the criteria of i) being close to the US and ii) letting an EU citizen work and stay permanently with no other documents required than an EU passport. Guadeloupe and Martinique seem similar (islands in the Caribbean, between 1,000 and 2,000 square kilometers of land area, populations just north of 400,000), but it seems the former has slightly better connections by air. You'll probably need to know French if you really want to live there though. Sounds like English is mostly spoken by those in the tourism industry.
A couple of the islands in the Netherlands Antilles might also move toward closer ties with the EU, perhaps even close enough to meet the criteria above in a couple of years?
Sorry for the font problems in this post, I can't make blogger not screw it up...
EU territories close to the US
Here's a silly thought I had some time ago. Given how hard it is to get a green card to work and live permanently in the US, how close to the US could you move if you all you have is an EU passport? That is, which places close to the US would let an EU citizen immigrate with no other documents than an EU passport?
Staying within the next two time zones east of US Eastern Time Zone, and going from north to south, here's what I found so far.
Greenland is an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark, but left the EU in 1982 to keep EU fishing vessels away from its waters. The only EU citizens who can work and permanently live in Greenland, without first getting work and residence permits, are those from Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Oh, well. Nice, big piece of real estate, but it's pretty far from the US anyway. The currency is Danish krone and the time is two hours ahead of Eastern Time.
French overseas collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is the last remaining part of New France. If you have an EU passport, you MIGHT be able to permanently join the just over 6,000 fishermen, descendants of Bretons and Basques, on their 242 square kilometer archipelago, off the southern coast of Newfoundland. Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is as French as "metropolitan" France (a.k.a. the Hexagon, the European part of France), with one seat each in the French National Assembly and the French Senate, and the currency is Euro. However, to the best of my understanding, overseas collectivities can restrict immigration, and I haven't figured out if Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has. Looks like there's a nonstop flight to Montreal, as well as boat to Newfoundland. The time is two hours ahead of Eastern Time.
In the Caribbean there are two overseas departments of France, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Being overseas departments of France make Guadeloupe and Martinique two of seven "outermost regions" of the EU, where all EU laws should apply. Overseas departments are therefore supposed to have the same immigration laws as "metropolitan" France and the rest of the EU, but do ask for a second opinion before buying a one-way ticket! They both have the Euro as currency and are one hour ahead of Eastern Time.
The Guadeloupe archipelago has almost seven times more dry land than Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, 1,628 square kilometers and a population of over 400,000, mostly of African descent. Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy split off in 2007, with each of them now being an overseas collectivity, allowing them to restrict immigration. Martinique has slightly smaller land area than Guadeloupe, but roughly the same population. I need to learn more about Guadeloupe and Martinique. Where are they on a scale from Haiti to St. Bart? I do remember hearing about social unrest on Guadeloupe fairly recently. I also have no clue what the flight schedule to the US and France looks like.
So how about the two other former colonial powers in the Caribbean, the UK and the Netherlands?
Well, there are several British overseas territories, but it seems their immigration policies vary, but tend to be restrictive. More like the French overseas collectivities than departments. I did learn that some British overseas territories won't let you stay permanently even if you have a British passport! There's an odd asymmetry here, because all their inhabitants are full British citizens and are free to immigrate in the UK.
Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea are autonomous regions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but NOT part of the EU. Again some asymmetry, the inhabitants are full Dutch citizens, and therefore EU citizens. Aruba has a dry climate and almost no hurricanes. The land area is 193 square kilometers, with a bit above 100,000 population. Good connections to the US, with nonstop flights to several destinations in the south and
east of the US. The archipelago of Netherlands Antilles have a total land area of roughly 800 square kilometers, and a population of 183,000. Unfortunately Aruba is restrictive on immigration, not even allowing all Dutch citizens permanent residency. The different islands of the Netherlands Antilles seem to be moving apart politically, some toward full independence and others perhaps even toward becoming outermost regions of the EU, which would allow all EU citizens to immigrate.
So what I managed to find out tonight was that it looks like Guadeloupe and Martinique might be the two closest places to the US where you can live permanently with no other documents than an EU passport. I might do a follow-up some night I have nothing better do, or at least am too tired to do something more useful.
Staying within the next two time zones east of US Eastern Time Zone, and going from north to south, here's what I found so far.
Greenland is an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark, but left the EU in 1982 to keep EU fishing vessels away from its waters. The only EU citizens who can work and permanently live in Greenland, without first getting work and residence permits, are those from Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Oh, well. Nice, big piece of real estate, but it's pretty far from the US anyway. The currency is Danish krone and the time is two hours ahead of Eastern Time.
French overseas collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is the last remaining part of New France. If you have an EU passport, you MIGHT be able to permanently join the just over 6,000 fishermen, descendants of Bretons and Basques, on their 242 square kilometer archipelago, off the southern coast of Newfoundland. Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is as French as "metropolitan" France (a.k.a. the Hexagon, the European part of France), with one seat each in the French National Assembly and the French Senate, and the currency is Euro. However, to the best of my understanding, overseas collectivities can restrict immigration, and I haven't figured out if Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has. Looks like there's a nonstop flight to Montreal, as well as boat to Newfoundland. The time is two hours ahead of Eastern Time.
In the Caribbean there are two overseas departments of France, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Being overseas departments of France make Guadeloupe and Martinique two of seven "outermost regions" of the EU, where all EU laws should apply. Overseas departments are therefore supposed to have the same immigration laws as "metropolitan" France and the rest of the EU, but do ask for a second opinion before buying a one-way ticket! They both have the Euro as currency and are one hour ahead of Eastern Time.
The Guadeloupe archipelago has almost seven times more dry land than Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, 1,628 square kilometers and a population of over 400,000, mostly of African descent. Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy split off in 2007, with each of them now being an overseas collectivity, allowing them to restrict immigration. Martinique has slightly smaller land area than Guadeloupe, but roughly the same population. I need to learn more about Guadeloupe and Martinique. Where are they on a scale from Haiti to St. Bart? I do remember hearing about social unrest on Guadeloupe fairly recently. I also have no clue what the flight schedule to the US and France looks like.
So how about the two other former colonial powers in the Caribbean, the UK and the Netherlands?
Well, there are several British overseas territories, but it seems their immigration policies vary, but tend to be restrictive. More like the French overseas collectivities than departments. I did learn that some British overseas territories won't let you stay permanently even if you have a British passport! There's an odd asymmetry here, because all their inhabitants are full British citizens and are free to immigrate in the UK.
Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea are autonomous regions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but NOT part of the EU. Again some asymmetry, the inhabitants are full Dutch citizens, and therefore EU citizens. Aruba has a dry climate and almost no hurricanes. The land area is 193 square kilometers, with a bit above 100,000 population. Good connections to the US, with nonstop flights to several destinations in the south and
east of the US. The archipelago of Netherlands Antilles have a total land area of roughly 800 square kilometers, and a population of 183,000. Unfortunately Aruba is restrictive on immigration, not even allowing all Dutch citizens permanent residency. The different islands of the Netherlands Antilles seem to be moving apart politically, some toward full independence and others perhaps even toward becoming outermost regions of the EU, which would allow all EU citizens to immigrate.
So what I managed to find out tonight was that it looks like Guadeloupe and Martinique might be the two closest places to the US where you can live permanently with no other documents than an EU passport. I might do a follow-up some night I have nothing better do, or at least am too tired to do something more useful.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
End of "birthright citizenship"?
A Republican candidate for governor of Georgia wants to put an end to "birthright citizenship", according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The idea is that it would no longer be sufficient to be born in the US to get citizenship, at least one of your parents would also have to be a US citizen or permanent resident at the time of your birth.
I'm actually not particularly offended by this idea. I think it's a valid argument that illegal aliens shouldn't be encouraged to have an "anchor baby" to eventually get them green cards. On the other hand, a likely consequence would be a population of millions of stateless people born and living in the US, who can't even be deported anywhere if they get caught.
Of course not only illegal aliens give birth to US citizens. Temporary visitors, such as students and post docs, have kids here, who automatically get US citizenship. I know a couple of people in this situation. One of them had a son while in the US as a student for a year or two in the early seventies. They moved back home and when the son became 21 he filed for green cards for his parents. I think you can move to the US when you become 18, but have to wait until you're 21 to file for green cards for your parents, and a couple of years more to file for your siblings.
It makes a lot of sense actually. Especially post docs often have good health insurance, so why not have a baby while visiting the US! Effortlessly getting a green card, even if you have to wait for 21 years, is a pretty nice bonus! I have no idea if this is a factor for some visitors in their decision to have a baby here. When you're around 30, you don't tend to plan too much 20 years ahead. When I get an opportunity, I'll ask the people I know who did have kids here while visiting.
How far pregnant can you be and still get a visa waiver? If six months or more, you could come here on a visa waiver, stay for 90 days and bring your newborn US citizen with you home as a souvenir when the vacation is over! All perfectly legal, unless the visa-waiver rules say something about being pregnant. You'd of course have to buy health insurance before you come, or pay cash for the delivery. Has anyone actually done this? I should try to find the answer to that question some day, I'm really curious!
So now we have four relatively painless ways to get a green card. Have a US citizen in your close family. Marry a US citizen. Win the green card lottery. Have a baby while visiting the US, then wait 21 years.
I'm actually not particularly offended by this idea. I think it's a valid argument that illegal aliens shouldn't be encouraged to have an "anchor baby" to eventually get them green cards. On the other hand, a likely consequence would be a population of millions of stateless people born and living in the US, who can't even be deported anywhere if they get caught.
Of course not only illegal aliens give birth to US citizens. Temporary visitors, such as students and post docs, have kids here, who automatically get US citizenship. I know a couple of people in this situation. One of them had a son while in the US as a student for a year or two in the early seventies. They moved back home and when the son became 21 he filed for green cards for his parents. I think you can move to the US when you become 18, but have to wait until you're 21 to file for green cards for your parents, and a couple of years more to file for your siblings.
It makes a lot of sense actually. Especially post docs often have good health insurance, so why not have a baby while visiting the US! Effortlessly getting a green card, even if you have to wait for 21 years, is a pretty nice bonus! I have no idea if this is a factor for some visitors in their decision to have a baby here. When you're around 30, you don't tend to plan too much 20 years ahead. When I get an opportunity, I'll ask the people I know who did have kids here while visiting.
How far pregnant can you be and still get a visa waiver? If six months or more, you could come here on a visa waiver, stay for 90 days and bring your newborn US citizen with you home as a souvenir when the vacation is over! All perfectly legal, unless the visa-waiver rules say something about being pregnant. You'd of course have to buy health insurance before you come, or pay cash for the delivery. Has anyone actually done this? I should try to find the answer to that question some day, I'm really curious!
So now we have four relatively painless ways to get a green card. Have a US citizen in your close family. Marry a US citizen. Win the green card lottery. Have a baby while visiting the US, then wait 21 years.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Powell "shut down" the visa system
I was watching "Face the nation" yesterday morning and Colin Powell made my jaw drop. He explicitly admitted that he "shut down" the visa system when he was Secretary of State in the aftermath of 9/11. Here's a link to the full transcript of the interview on the CBS News web site (warning, it' a PDF). The quote below is the 3rd paragraph on page 10 of the transcript.
"And one point I have to make. It really comes out of the things that have been written lately. That is in the first year after 9/11, we did everything we could to stop the possibility of another 9/11. We put in place the PATRIOT Act. We used enhanced interrogation techniques. I shut down for the most part the visa system until we could fix it. But after about a year-and-a-half when it looked like things were relatively secure and we were doing a better job, then we started to relax the visa system once we fixed it because we can't keep moving in that direction with putting people in jail forever without resolving their cases. We're not letting people come to our country."
My spouse and I, and many of our friends and acquaintances, suffered from inexplicable delays in visa processing in the years after 9/11. This caused lots of stress and real hardship. We patiently accepted the explanations given at the time by the US government that due to the increased threat, more rigorous security checks were necessary. The common and often inexplicable delays were unintended, unfortunate and would go away when the new procedures had been streamlined.
According to Powell, it sounds like the US government was intentionally causing friction in the visa process to effectively shut it down and discourage foreigners to come here. Pretty disappointing news! I would have appreciated some honesty at the time, possibly to make alternative plans.
We already knew that it has become quite difficult to visit or move to the US. I'm not keeping up-to-date as much since I got my green card last year, but I know things are far from back to normal. Last fall I was involved in organizing an international scientific conference. We wanted to have it in the US, but Russian, Indian and Chinese scientist said they would boycott it because of the unacceptable delays in getting visas. They said only half of them would get their visas in time anyway. The conference was recently held in southeast Asia. Next time it will be in Europe. There are no plans to have it in the US, unless things change here. Not the end of the world, but long term it's not good for US science if no international confereces are held here.
We'll see if things significantly improve over the next couple of years, but I'm not too optimistic. People with visa problems can't vote, but their immigration lawyers not only vote, but more importantly they lobby! It's a pretty sweet way to make a living to charge people $200 an hour to help them navigate Kafkaesque visa and immigration processes. Probably well worth defending.
Sorry for my cynical mood today. Happy Memorial Day!
"And one point I have to make. It really comes out of the things that have been written lately. That is in the first year after 9/11, we did everything we could to stop the possibility of another 9/11. We put in place the PATRIOT Act. We used enhanced interrogation techniques. I shut down for the most part the visa system until we could fix it. But after about a year-and-a-half when it looked like things were relatively secure and we were doing a better job, then we started to relax the visa system once we fixed it because we can't keep moving in that direction with putting people in jail forever without resolving their cases. We're not letting people come to our country."
My spouse and I, and many of our friends and acquaintances, suffered from inexplicable delays in visa processing in the years after 9/11. This caused lots of stress and real hardship. We patiently accepted the explanations given at the time by the US government that due to the increased threat, more rigorous security checks were necessary. The common and often inexplicable delays were unintended, unfortunate and would go away when the new procedures had been streamlined.
According to Powell, it sounds like the US government was intentionally causing friction in the visa process to effectively shut it down and discourage foreigners to come here. Pretty disappointing news! I would have appreciated some honesty at the time, possibly to make alternative plans.
We already knew that it has become quite difficult to visit or move to the US. I'm not keeping up-to-date as much since I got my green card last year, but I know things are far from back to normal. Last fall I was involved in organizing an international scientific conference. We wanted to have it in the US, but Russian, Indian and Chinese scientist said they would boycott it because of the unacceptable delays in getting visas. They said only half of them would get their visas in time anyway. The conference was recently held in southeast Asia. Next time it will be in Europe. There are no plans to have it in the US, unless things change here. Not the end of the world, but long term it's not good for US science if no international confereces are held here.
We'll see if things significantly improve over the next couple of years, but I'm not too optimistic. People with visa problems can't vote, but their immigration lawyers not only vote, but more importantly they lobby! It's a pretty sweet way to make a living to charge people $200 an hour to help them navigate Kafkaesque visa and immigration processes. Probably well worth defending.
Sorry for my cynical mood today. Happy Memorial Day!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Ubuntu NBR 9.04 on Asus Eee PC 900
Finally got around to nuking the original Xandros OS on my Asus Eee PC 900 and installing Ubuntu NBR (Netbook Remix) 9.04 this morning. I was never too crazy about the Xandros Linux distro on the 900 (no firewall, no support for encrypted partitions, et cetera), but I was afraid to break WiFi or audio or something else, so I stuck with it for a year. Pretty lame of Asus not to offer an upgrade path for us early adopters.
I love the Netbook form factor for web surfing on the couch and for working while on travel. The Asus Eee PC 900 was the first 9" (well, at least 8.9") Netbook to hit the market a year ago. I had it on preorder on Amazon. As soon as there's a 10" Netbook weighing in at less than 1 kg, I'll buy it. I'm OK with a 9" screen, but the keyboard is just a bit too small for several hours of typing. I bought an Asus Eee PC 1000HA and an Acer Aspire One AOD150-1165 for two relatives a couple of months ago. Both have 10" screens (and bigger keyboards) and high-capacity batteries. I hear the 1000HA battery falls way short of expectations, but the Acer gets close to the promised 8-9 hours of battery life. They both have 160GB hardrives and weigh in at around 1.4 kg, a little bit heavy for my taste.
It was a fairly painless process to install Ubuntu NBR 9.04 on my old Asus Eee PC 900. The instructions on this page were quite helpful. I downloaded a USB image and put it on an old SanDisk Cruzer Freedom 1GB USB flash drive.
Booted the Eee from the USB flash drive by pressing Esc and choosing it from the from the three available volumes in the menu. Took it for a quick spin before I installed it to the internal flash drives. Only problem was that the Netbook Launcher was really sluggish. Some quick googling revealed that this is a known bug, fortunately with a workaround. I found a modified kernel that worked like a charm so far.
I vaguely remembered that the ext2 filesystem with the noatime mount option is supposed to give you better performance and longer lifetime for old flash drives ("Gen Zero Solid-State Drives"), like the ones in the Eee PC 900. Found some support for that folklore on this blog (the comments were probably even more informative than the blog post itself). Seems there's now a new relatime mount option that's the default, this other blog had a lengthier comparison of noatime and relatime. So I chose ext2 instead of the default ext3 filesystem in the Ubuntu installer, but after the install I modified /etc/fstab to use noatime instead of relatime to minimize the writes to the el-cheapo internal flash drives. Hopefully they'll now survive for another year or two.
Downloaded the latest modified kernel (linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb, with its header files linux-headers-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb as of this writing) and installed with "sudo dpkg -i linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb && sudo dpkg -i linux-headers-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb". Fired up the Synaptic GUI frontend to the apt package manager and marked the modified kernel and its header files as locked packages, so they won't get overwritten by the next kernel update. Hopefully the default kernel will get the bug fix soon.
Ubuntu still has the firewall off by default for some reason. Nowadays it's trivial to turn on with reasonable rules simply by typing "sudo ufw enable", but it would be nice if the installer did that for you.
Have been using Ubuntu on my primary work laptop for three years now and it worked pretty well. With me getting older and lazier, I'll probably choose the path of least resistance and stick with Ubuntu on all my computers, unless they really start to suck...
I love the Netbook form factor for web surfing on the couch and for working while on travel. The Asus Eee PC 900 was the first 9" (well, at least 8.9") Netbook to hit the market a year ago. I had it on preorder on Amazon. As soon as there's a 10" Netbook weighing in at less than 1 kg, I'll buy it. I'm OK with a 9" screen, but the keyboard is just a bit too small for several hours of typing. I bought an Asus Eee PC 1000HA and an Acer Aspire One AOD150-1165 for two relatives a couple of months ago. Both have 10" screens (and bigger keyboards) and high-capacity batteries. I hear the 1000HA battery falls way short of expectations, but the Acer gets close to the promised 8-9 hours of battery life. They both have 160GB hardrives and weigh in at around 1.4 kg, a little bit heavy for my taste.
It was a fairly painless process to install Ubuntu NBR 9.04 on my old Asus Eee PC 900. The instructions on this page were quite helpful. I downloaded a USB image and put it on an old SanDisk Cruzer Freedom 1GB USB flash drive.
Booted the Eee from the USB flash drive by pressing Esc and choosing it from the from the three available volumes in the menu. Took it for a quick spin before I installed it to the internal flash drives. Only problem was that the Netbook Launcher was really sluggish. Some quick googling revealed that this is a known bug, fortunately with a workaround. I found a modified kernel that worked like a charm so far.
I vaguely remembered that the ext2 filesystem with the noatime mount option is supposed to give you better performance and longer lifetime for old flash drives ("Gen Zero Solid-State Drives"), like the ones in the Eee PC 900. Found some support for that folklore on this blog (the comments were probably even more informative than the blog post itself). Seems there's now a new relatime mount option that's the default, this other blog had a lengthier comparison of noatime and relatime. So I chose ext2 instead of the default ext3 filesystem in the Ubuntu installer, but after the install I modified /etc/fstab to use noatime instead of relatime to minimize the writes to the el-cheapo internal flash drives. Hopefully they'll now survive for another year or two.
Downloaded the latest modified kernel (linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb, with its header files linux-headers-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb as of this writing) and installed with "sudo dpkg -i linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb && sudo dpkg -i linux-headers-2.6.28-11-generic_2.6.28-11.38lp349314apw1_i386.deb". Fired up the Synaptic GUI frontend to the apt package manager and marked the modified kernel and its header files as locked packages, so they won't get overwritten by the next kernel update. Hopefully the default kernel will get the bug fix soon.
Ubuntu still has the firewall off by default for some reason. Nowadays it's trivial to turn on with reasonable rules simply by typing "sudo ufw enable", but it would be nice if the installer did that for you.
Have been using Ubuntu on my primary work laptop for three years now and it worked pretty well. With me getting older and lazier, I'll probably choose the path of least resistance and stick with Ubuntu on all my computers, unless they really start to suck...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Cash in the US, followup
I've been back on US soil for two weeks, but only had one day at home before going on a domestic trip in the US southwest. At least one southwesterner was convinced I was a fellow American, from the upper midwest.
Filed my tax returns yesterday. Taxes in the US is a topic that deserves several posts, but that'll have to wait.
So I did bring some cash with my on my latest trip to Europe. This is what $10,000 in cash looks like:
The stack in the back is five bunches of 50 twenty-dollar bills each. The one in the front has as many fifties and hundreds I could get my hands on without getting weird looks. Oh, what the heck! Here they are from another angle:
This is the largest amount of cash you can bring with you out of the US without having to report it by filling out a form. A wee bit bulky for my taste!
It turned out to be quite convenient to have some dollar bills with us on travel. I also brought some traveler checks, but they are apparently rarely used in Europe anymore and have worse exchange rate than cash. Won't use them again. I paid around a 3% fee to exchange US dollars cash into European money, the same fee as when I pay with my credit card, but without the risk of fraudulent charges starting to appear a couple of months later.
We also made an excursion to a middle-eastern country. Unlike in the US, they prefer large-denomination US bills! For the local merchants, 15 hundreds were worth 76 twenties (not 75)! Not an enormous difference, roughly 1.3%, but I was pretty surprised. Euros would have worked in some places, but are still much less prevalent than the greenback.
So I'd definitely recommend bringing a small stack of US $100 bills when traveling to remote places, too bad they're so hard to get! Since last post, I cashed an 1100-dollar check at my bank and asked for hundreds. They again told me it's not safe for me to carry that much cash (yes, Mom). They also handed me a stupid leaflet and told me it was mandatory when a customer cashed a 1000-dollar check or larger. It was about check fraud, where someone mails you a check, tells you to cash it and wire some of the money back to them. As if fraud never happens with electronic payments!
I'm actually expecting things to get worse. I dread a future with only electronic money, easy to track by governments. I do value what little privacy we still have left.
Filed my tax returns yesterday. Taxes in the US is a topic that deserves several posts, but that'll have to wait.
So I did bring some cash with my on my latest trip to Europe. This is what $10,000 in cash looks like:
The stack in the back is five bunches of 50 twenty-dollar bills each. The one in the front has as many fifties and hundreds I could get my hands on without getting weird looks. Oh, what the heck! Here they are from another angle:
This is the largest amount of cash you can bring with you out of the US without having to report it by filling out a form. A wee bit bulky for my taste!
It turned out to be quite convenient to have some dollar bills with us on travel. I also brought some traveler checks, but they are apparently rarely used in Europe anymore and have worse exchange rate than cash. Won't use them again. I paid around a 3% fee to exchange US dollars cash into European money, the same fee as when I pay with my credit card, but without the risk of fraudulent charges starting to appear a couple of months later.
We also made an excursion to a middle-eastern country. Unlike in the US, they prefer large-denomination US bills! For the local merchants, 15 hundreds were worth 76 twenties (not 75)! Not an enormous difference, roughly 1.3%, but I was pretty surprised. Euros would have worked in some places, but are still much less prevalent than the greenback.
So I'd definitely recommend bringing a small stack of US $100 bills when traveling to remote places, too bad they're so hard to get! Since last post, I cashed an 1100-dollar check at my bank and asked for hundreds. They again told me it's not safe for me to carry that much cash (yes, Mom). They also handed me a stupid leaflet and told me it was mandatory when a customer cashed a 1000-dollar check or larger. It was about check fraud, where someone mails you a check, tells you to cash it and wire some of the money back to them. As if fraud never happens with electronic payments!
I'm actually expecting things to get worse. I dread a future with only electronic money, easy to track by governments. I do value what little privacy we still have left.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
How to move to the US
So you want to move to the US and get a green card (permanent residence permit) or even US citizenship, how do you it? Typically you'll need and advanced academic degree (MSc or PhD), and lots of patience, time, energy and money. I'm not claiming to give any legal advice here, for that you'll have to pay an immigration lawyer $100 to talk to you on the phone for half an hour.
Well, if you had a family member who's a US citizen you'd be one of the lucky few who'd be able to get a green card with minimal effort and suffering, and you probably wouldn't have googled your way to this page. If you're not so lucky, marrying a US citizen is by far the easiest way. My understanding is that it's best to get married in your home country and then go to the nearest US embassy or consulate with your US spouse and marriage certificate and file for a green card. You can also apply for a fiancé(e) visa to go to the US and get married there, but these seem to be hard and slow to get.
If you don't have a family member that's a US citizen, things get a lot harder. However, there's a shortcut that's worth trying, the famous green card lottery! Yes, this program is actually real and gives green cards to 50,000 people each year. All that's required to participate is that you're born in an eligible country and that you have finished high school. Of the EU countries, only Great Britain and Poland are currently ineligible (because too many people from those countries have immigrated in the US in the last five years). A strong word of warning here. There are hundreds of web sites trying to fool you that they are the official site for the green card lottery, or that they can increase your chances for a small fee. I've seen ads in European newspapers for frauds like these, but it's all bogus. Only apply yourself and directly at the official US government web site! Actually, you should google for it instead of clicking that link, I might be bogus too! The application period typically begins in early October each year, apply as early as possible. Your odds will depend on your country of birth, but is often around 1% or so. If you're married, your spouse should also participate to double your chances. I would warmly recommend people to start participating as soon as they've finished high school. I've met several people who got their green cards this way. Even if the chances are not great, it takes almost no effort, so it's still well worth it. A word of caution. They typically notify more like 80,000 people that they've won, but only the first 50,000 are actually guaranteed to get a green card. The remaining 30,000 are reserves who will be bumped up as some of the first 50,000 are unqualified or can't claim their green card for some reason. You won't be told where your are on the list, but if you're interview gets scheduled late, e.g. in August, you're probably a reserve, but you might still get lucky.
I only participated in the green card lottery once (and didn't win), so I had to get my green card the hard way. I got my PhD in Europe and then got a J1 (visiting scholar) visa to do a post doc in the US. It was pretty straightforward and only took a couple of months to get. Some J1 visa holders get the dreaded "two year rule", which forces you to stay out of the US for two years after the J1 expires. The two year rule can be waived by your home country, but that's a slow and painful process. If your J1 has the two year rule or not seems to mostly depend on your home country. You can have a J1 for up to three years. A disadvantage with the J1 is that it's intended for temporary visitors. So if you have any thoughts about trying to stay in the US, ban them from your mind while you have the J1! You're therefore not supposed to file for a green card while you have a J1, and if you do you could find yourself in trouble with immigration authorities. I do know a guy who had a J1 with the two year rule, but still filed for a green card and got it approved in just over a year, which is pretty fast. I have been told that it's OK to participate in the green card lottery while you have a J1 visa. Only after you win and file for the green card, you might be considered to be violating your J1 non-immigrant status.
I followed the rules and had no wicked thoughts about staying permanently in the US until two years into my post doc, when I got a job offer and my prospective employer filed for an H1B work visa for me. Once you have an H1B, you should file for the green card as soon as possible. You can have an H1B for up to six years, but being an H1B holder has several disadvantages, including being stuck with the same employer (if you change jobs you need to transfer the H1B visa to the new employer). Many green card categories require a permanent job. This requirement is easier to meet if you work for a company. If you're at a university, often only tenure track or tenure count as permanent.
A huge problem nowadays is that the annual H1B quota has been reduced back to 65,000 after having been up to 225,000 (if I remember correctly) when I first got mine. The first day you can file for an H1B is April 1. Last year close to 200,000 applications were filed that day and a third of those were randomly approved. Even if you were among the lucky third, you had to wait until October 1 to be allowed to start working. Fortunately universities are exempt from the annual quota, but then you have to live with the disadvantage of post doc and scientist positions not being considered permanent, making several green card categories difficult for university employees. I'll talk more about the different available green card categories in a future post.
There is also an extra quota of 25,000 (last time I checked) H1B visas for people who got their highest degree from a US university. It might therefore make sense to come to the US on an F1 (student) visa and get an MSc or PhD in the US. Like the J1, the F1 is a non-immigrant visa so you're not allowed to do anything to try to stay permanently while you have it. An advantage of the F1 compared to the J1 is that you're allowed to get a real job after you graduate and work there for a year. You can then work while you wait for the H1B to be approved. A nice thing about the J1 visa is that for the first two years of your post doc, your a non-resident alien in the eyes of the IRS (for tax purposes), so you don't have to pay social security taxes.
Filing fees for visas and green cards are becoming substantial. For F1/J1 I think you're sponsoring university / other academic institution typically will pay. For companies it varies. In my case they pay for the initial filing, but not for renewals. The filing fee for an H1B used to be $500, but to get the visa approved in less than six months you need to pay an extra premium processing fee of $1000. If you hire an immigration lawyer to help, they typically charge $200/hour for their time, plus extra for every mail and fax they send.
I plan to make a brain dump here of my green card knowledge and experience in the near future. If you file for an employment based green card it's likely to take at least two years and cost you something in the neighborhood of $10,000 ($6,500 for an immigration lawyer and the rest for filing fees). So get ready to participate in the next green card lottery, your best chance to avoid doing things the hard way!
Well, if you had a family member who's a US citizen you'd be one of the lucky few who'd be able to get a green card with minimal effort and suffering, and you probably wouldn't have googled your way to this page. If you're not so lucky, marrying a US citizen is by far the easiest way. My understanding is that it's best to get married in your home country and then go to the nearest US embassy or consulate with your US spouse and marriage certificate and file for a green card. You can also apply for a fiancé(e) visa to go to the US and get married there, but these seem to be hard and slow to get.
If you don't have a family member that's a US citizen, things get a lot harder. However, there's a shortcut that's worth trying, the famous green card lottery! Yes, this program is actually real and gives green cards to 50,000 people each year. All that's required to participate is that you're born in an eligible country and that you have finished high school. Of the EU countries, only Great Britain and Poland are currently ineligible (because too many people from those countries have immigrated in the US in the last five years). A strong word of warning here. There are hundreds of web sites trying to fool you that they are the official site for the green card lottery, or that they can increase your chances for a small fee. I've seen ads in European newspapers for frauds like these, but it's all bogus. Only apply yourself and directly at the official US government web site! Actually, you should google for it instead of clicking that link, I might be bogus too! The application period typically begins in early October each year, apply as early as possible. Your odds will depend on your country of birth, but is often around 1% or so. If you're married, your spouse should also participate to double your chances. I would warmly recommend people to start participating as soon as they've finished high school. I've met several people who got their green cards this way. Even if the chances are not great, it takes almost no effort, so it's still well worth it. A word of caution. They typically notify more like 80,000 people that they've won, but only the first 50,000 are actually guaranteed to get a green card. The remaining 30,000 are reserves who will be bumped up as some of the first 50,000 are unqualified or can't claim their green card for some reason. You won't be told where your are on the list, but if you're interview gets scheduled late, e.g. in August, you're probably a reserve, but you might still get lucky.
I only participated in the green card lottery once (and didn't win), so I had to get my green card the hard way. I got my PhD in Europe and then got a J1 (visiting scholar) visa to do a post doc in the US. It was pretty straightforward and only took a couple of months to get. Some J1 visa holders get the dreaded "two year rule", which forces you to stay out of the US for two years after the J1 expires. The two year rule can be waived by your home country, but that's a slow and painful process. If your J1 has the two year rule or not seems to mostly depend on your home country. You can have a J1 for up to three years. A disadvantage with the J1 is that it's intended for temporary visitors. So if you have any thoughts about trying to stay in the US, ban them from your mind while you have the J1! You're therefore not supposed to file for a green card while you have a J1, and if you do you could find yourself in trouble with immigration authorities. I do know a guy who had a J1 with the two year rule, but still filed for a green card and got it approved in just over a year, which is pretty fast. I have been told that it's OK to participate in the green card lottery while you have a J1 visa. Only after you win and file for the green card, you might be considered to be violating your J1 non-immigrant status.
I followed the rules and had no wicked thoughts about staying permanently in the US until two years into my post doc, when I got a job offer and my prospective employer filed for an H1B work visa for me. Once you have an H1B, you should file for the green card as soon as possible. You can have an H1B for up to six years, but being an H1B holder has several disadvantages, including being stuck with the same employer (if you change jobs you need to transfer the H1B visa to the new employer). Many green card categories require a permanent job. This requirement is easier to meet if you work for a company. If you're at a university, often only tenure track or tenure count as permanent.
A huge problem nowadays is that the annual H1B quota has been reduced back to 65,000 after having been up to 225,000 (if I remember correctly) when I first got mine. The first day you can file for an H1B is April 1. Last year close to 200,000 applications were filed that day and a third of those were randomly approved. Even if you were among the lucky third, you had to wait until October 1 to be allowed to start working. Fortunately universities are exempt from the annual quota, but then you have to live with the disadvantage of post doc and scientist positions not being considered permanent, making several green card categories difficult for university employees. I'll talk more about the different available green card categories in a future post.
There is also an extra quota of 25,000 (last time I checked) H1B visas for people who got their highest degree from a US university. It might therefore make sense to come to the US on an F1 (student) visa and get an MSc or PhD in the US. Like the J1, the F1 is a non-immigrant visa so you're not allowed to do anything to try to stay permanently while you have it. An advantage of the F1 compared to the J1 is that you're allowed to get a real job after you graduate and work there for a year. You can then work while you wait for the H1B to be approved. A nice thing about the J1 visa is that for the first two years of your post doc, your a non-resident alien in the eyes of the IRS (for tax purposes), so you don't have to pay social security taxes.
Filing fees for visas and green cards are becoming substantial. For F1/J1 I think you're sponsoring university / other academic institution typically will pay. For companies it varies. In my case they pay for the initial filing, but not for renewals. The filing fee for an H1B used to be $500, but to get the visa approved in less than six months you need to pay an extra premium processing fee of $1000. If you hire an immigration lawyer to help, they typically charge $200/hour for their time, plus extra for every mail and fax they send.
I plan to make a brain dump here of my green card knowledge and experience in the near future. If you file for an employment based green card it's likely to take at least two years and cost you something in the neighborhood of $10,000 ($6,500 for an immigration lawyer and the rest for filing fees). So get ready to participate in the next green card lottery, your best chance to avoid doing things the hard way!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
We recently bought tickets for the next visit to the Old Country in Europe. We'll be gone for 17 days this time. I'm quickly using up the vacation days I accumulated while waiting for our green cards to be approved. We also plan to make an excursion to places where ATMs are few and far between, and where it might be difficult to cash a traveler cheque or use a credit card. So we decided to go old school and bring some cash.
Now I was of course aware of the skepticism toward large-denomination bills ($50 and $100) in the US. I always tell friends and family to make sure the have at least some twenties with them when they come here, because fifties and hundreds are not accepted everywhere. I experienced this myself when I moved here. I think I brought $500 in cash with me, all fifties and hundreds, which is what you typically get when you exchange local currency for a couple of hundred dollars, in Europe at least. I tried to buy something at a convenience store (it might have been a phone card) and pay with a fifty. In the end they let me (I had no smaller bills), but the manager scrutinized the bill and then wrote his initials on it before putting it in the cash register. In Europe I've never seen anyone bat an eye lid when you hand over a $100 bill.
I normally get $100 at a time from the ATM, but when I'm traveling somewhere in the US I get $200 to avoid hotel ATM fees ($3.50 or so per withdrawal nowadays). In hindsight, I probably should have noticed that I always get twenty-dollar bills from the ATM, even when I withdraw $200. I was nevertheless quite surprised when I withdrew $500 and got 25 twenties! That's not very customer friendly! I like to count the bills I get and check the denomination. I've heard about people mistakenly getting a five-dollar bill instead of a ten or a twenty. It never happened to me, but I still like to check. Now, I'm not going to flip through 25 bills with people in line behind me. Not because I'm afraid to get mugged, but because I'm polite and respectful of other people's time. Bulging with 25 bills in it, my wallet could only be folded with some difficulty and be put back in my pocket.
Now this is an outrage! This is America and convenience is every consumer's right! Why was I inconvenienced in this way? The mystery must be solved, and the following weekend I snuggled up with google and a cup of coffee and went to work. These are my findings.
Executive summary: having large-denomination bills (fifties and hundreds) makes you a somewhat suspect person in the US. There are some good reasons for this, and some not-so-good ones (in my humble opinion).
President Nixon decided to get fifties and hundreds out of circulation in 1969 to make life more difficult for organized crime. I had guessed the War on Drugs might have something to do with it, but looks like it goes back even further. Nixon's thinking was that since banks could use the then cutting-edge technology of electronic money transfers, there was no longer a legitimate need to transfer large amounts of cash. By getting fifties and hundreds out of circulation the crooks would have to use 2.5-5 times as many suit cases to move their ill-begotten money around, making them easier to spot and arrest.
Another reason to avoid the large-denomination bills is that they are attractive targets for counterfeiters all over the world, with the US dollar being the predominant global currency. There's a fascinating article on Wikipedia about the Superdollar, a near-perfect fake $100 bill. Presumably making fake twenties is less profitable and more inconvenient (more suit cases to schlepp around again).
A third reason for the lack of fifties and hundreds is apparently that they make it more complicated and expensive to load cash into ATMs. Most ATMs are supposed to be able to handle up to four denominations, but the fear of costly mix-ups (people getting hundreds instead of tens for example) nowadays makes it uncommon for ATMs to have other denominations than twenties, and sometimes tens. In Europe, where large-denomination bills are physically larger, I guess the risk for mix-ups is minimal and the ATMs have small and large denominations. I've definitely gotten both 50- and 100-euro bills from European ATMs.
While googling, I also found a relatively recent article by David Gorman in The Providence Journal called "Demonetize the $100 bill". Mr. Gorman argues that only unseemly characters have a need for large-denomination bills and and that "If Washington retired the $100 and $50 bills; drug, terrorist and other criminal organizations would be left holding worthless paper or be smoked out of hiding if they attempted to redeem the billions of dollars in cash". Judging by their comments, his readers are split on the issue. A more recent blog post with a very similar suggestion got a more positive reception from its readers. A far-too-common type of response was "I never use hundreds myself, so anyone who does must be morally flawed in one way or another".
You can still go to the bank and ask them to exchange your stack of twenties for fifties and hundreds, but it seems the only legitimate reason for doing this is if you're a grandmother and want to give your grandkid a crisp hundred for their birthday. I of course had to do the experiment and tried to make a largish withdrawal in hundreds. I got a very nervous response and was asked what I would use the money for, was told that it wasn't safe for me to carry that much cash, and that they didn't have that many hundreds available. I quickly realized this was a bad idea and told them nevermind, I'll get travelers cheques instead.
More googling made me believe that casinos had ATMs with both twenties and hundreds. A week later or so I happened to pass relatively close to a casino and since it was time for lunch anyway I decided to stop by. I was doubly disappointed. They had a terrible-looking restaurant and their ATM only had twenties. Maybe your random Native-American casino doesn't count? I'll do more research when I'm in Nevada or get close to Atlantic City!
I can't help to wonder about the fact that large-denomination euro bills apparently were prominently displayed in a Jay-Z rap video (reported by Newsweek and many others). Are 500-euro bills in circulation on US streets? I have no clue, this is way outside my area of expertise, and I don't plan to pursue this particular area of research.
I probably will try to learn more about to what extent the euro is becoming a global currency. Is it accepted as widely as the US dollar at least in some parts of the world? I traveled in eastern Europe in the mid 90s and the D-Mark was preferred over the dollar. Do euros work in non-EU eastern Europe nowadays? I'll ask my Russian friends. How about the middle east and Africa?
There are many good reasons to pay with your credit card here in the US, but I can't help to think that it's a bit sad that large cash payments seem to get increasingly impractical. Paying cash is a way to protect yourself from credit fraud, I'm sometimes a bit uncomfortable handing over my credit card to the waiter at some hole-in-the-wall restaurant. There are also legitimate reasons to simply want anonymity sometimes!
Now I was of course aware of the skepticism toward large-denomination bills ($50 and $100) in the US. I always tell friends and family to make sure the have at least some twenties with them when they come here, because fifties and hundreds are not accepted everywhere. I experienced this myself when I moved here. I think I brought $500 in cash with me, all fifties and hundreds, which is what you typically get when you exchange local currency for a couple of hundred dollars, in Europe at least. I tried to buy something at a convenience store (it might have been a phone card) and pay with a fifty. In the end they let me (I had no smaller bills), but the manager scrutinized the bill and then wrote his initials on it before putting it in the cash register. In Europe I've never seen anyone bat an eye lid when you hand over a $100 bill.
I normally get $100 at a time from the ATM, but when I'm traveling somewhere in the US I get $200 to avoid hotel ATM fees ($3.50 or so per withdrawal nowadays). In hindsight, I probably should have noticed that I always get twenty-dollar bills from the ATM, even when I withdraw $200. I was nevertheless quite surprised when I withdrew $500 and got 25 twenties! That's not very customer friendly! I like to count the bills I get and check the denomination. I've heard about people mistakenly getting a five-dollar bill instead of a ten or a twenty. It never happened to me, but I still like to check. Now, I'm not going to flip through 25 bills with people in line behind me. Not because I'm afraid to get mugged, but because I'm polite and respectful of other people's time. Bulging with 25 bills in it, my wallet could only be folded with some difficulty and be put back in my pocket.
Now this is an outrage! This is America and convenience is every consumer's right! Why was I inconvenienced in this way? The mystery must be solved, and the following weekend I snuggled up with google and a cup of coffee and went to work. These are my findings.
Executive summary: having large-denomination bills (fifties and hundreds) makes you a somewhat suspect person in the US. There are some good reasons for this, and some not-so-good ones (in my humble opinion).
President Nixon decided to get fifties and hundreds out of circulation in 1969 to make life more difficult for organized crime. I had guessed the War on Drugs might have something to do with it, but looks like it goes back even further. Nixon's thinking was that since banks could use the then cutting-edge technology of electronic money transfers, there was no longer a legitimate need to transfer large amounts of cash. By getting fifties and hundreds out of circulation the crooks would have to use 2.5-5 times as many suit cases to move their ill-begotten money around, making them easier to spot and arrest.
Another reason to avoid the large-denomination bills is that they are attractive targets for counterfeiters all over the world, with the US dollar being the predominant global currency. There's a fascinating article on Wikipedia about the Superdollar, a near-perfect fake $100 bill. Presumably making fake twenties is less profitable and more inconvenient (more suit cases to schlepp around again).
A third reason for the lack of fifties and hundreds is apparently that they make it more complicated and expensive to load cash into ATMs. Most ATMs are supposed to be able to handle up to four denominations, but the fear of costly mix-ups (people getting hundreds instead of tens for example) nowadays makes it uncommon for ATMs to have other denominations than twenties, and sometimes tens. In Europe, where large-denomination bills are physically larger, I guess the risk for mix-ups is minimal and the ATMs have small and large denominations. I've definitely gotten both 50- and 100-euro bills from European ATMs.
While googling, I also found a relatively recent article by David Gorman in The Providence Journal called "Demonetize the $100 bill". Mr. Gorman argues that only unseemly characters have a need for large-denomination bills and and that "If Washington retired the $100 and $50 bills; drug, terrorist and other criminal organizations would be left holding worthless paper or be smoked out of hiding if they attempted to redeem the billions of dollars in cash". Judging by their comments, his readers are split on the issue. A more recent blog post with a very similar suggestion got a more positive reception from its readers. A far-too-common type of response was "I never use hundreds myself, so anyone who does must be morally flawed in one way or another".
You can still go to the bank and ask them to exchange your stack of twenties for fifties and hundreds, but it seems the only legitimate reason for doing this is if you're a grandmother and want to give your grandkid a crisp hundred for their birthday. I of course had to do the experiment and tried to make a largish withdrawal in hundreds. I got a very nervous response and was asked what I would use the money for, was told that it wasn't safe for me to carry that much cash, and that they didn't have that many hundreds available. I quickly realized this was a bad idea and told them nevermind, I'll get travelers cheques instead.
More googling made me believe that casinos had ATMs with both twenties and hundreds. A week later or so I happened to pass relatively close to a casino and since it was time for lunch anyway I decided to stop by. I was doubly disappointed. They had a terrible-looking restaurant and their ATM only had twenties. Maybe your random Native-American casino doesn't count? I'll do more research when I'm in Nevada or get close to Atlantic City!
I can't help to wonder about the fact that large-denomination euro bills apparently were prominently displayed in a Jay-Z rap video (reported by Newsweek and many others). Are 500-euro bills in circulation on US streets? I have no clue, this is way outside my area of expertise, and I don't plan to pursue this particular area of research.
I probably will try to learn more about to what extent the euro is becoming a global currency. Is it accepted as widely as the US dollar at least in some parts of the world? I traveled in eastern Europe in the mid 90s and the D-Mark was preferred over the dollar. Do euros work in non-EU eastern Europe nowadays? I'll ask my Russian friends. How about the middle east and Africa?
There are many good reasons to pay with your credit card here in the US, but I can't help to think that it's a bit sad that large cash payments seem to get increasingly impractical. Paying cash is a way to protect yourself from credit fraud, I'm sometimes a bit uncomfortable handing over my credit card to the waiter at some hole-in-the-wall restaurant. There are also legitimate reasons to simply want anonymity sometimes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)