Your nearest GPS satellite is over 10,000 miles away (and had to travel around the planet to get into orbit). I'm not sure the distance or the journey have much to do with accuracy, but I dunno, maybe you know more about this than Matt Blaze.

Didn't the Beatles move to the US to avoid The Taxman? I guess it's ok to come to the US to avoid taxes, but you shan't dare leave...

I guess I wasn't completely clear. Yes, you can appeal most anything. And, in fact, a judge can even overrule a jury and say no, they got the facts wrong (SCO asked the judge to do just that in their case, but of course the judge turned them down). Let's just say that if the jury finds that Google did not violate the hypothetical copyright (fair use, not copied as a whole, etc), Oracle's routes for appeal are much more limited. A higher court could say that there was something wrong in the jury instructions or something else that lead the jury down the wrong path, but at worst, an appellate court will just require a new jury. The appellate court won't say "the jury was wrong, Google did violate the copyright."

And also realize that the judge has clearly telegraphed his intentions here. IF the jury says Google violated the copyright of the API, he will almost certainly then rule that the API is not copyrightable (at which point Oracle will most likely appeal and argue that the judge was wrong).

First, if the jury finds that google did NOT violate the hypothetical API copyright, Oracle's case ends there. You can't appeal the finding of the jury, so that matter could be settled immediately and completely and saving the appeal court's resources.

If, instead, the judge immediately declares that the API is not copyrightable, that decision can (and will) be appealed. If he is later overturned (no matter how unlikely), that would then require a NEW jury trial to then decide if google actually violated the copyright. Since the jury has already heard the evidence and has other things to decide, why not let them make that decision right now.

So yes, this seriously saves resources and this judge really seems to understand things.

• VCRs receive signals broadcast over the public airwaves.
• VCRs replay (i.e. rebroadcast) the signal to your television through a wire.
• VCRs cost money.

Why not force us all to exercise, then?

I suppose you're against universal education too?

Anyways, the issue is protecting the common good. The argument for compelling vaccinations is not because it protects you, but because it protects the herd. You could drop dead for all I care, but please don't take me and thousands of others out with you. (And I don't mean that as a personal attack, despite your repeated ad hominems directed at me, but as an honest expression of my belief that you should be perfectly free to kill yourself).

This is all very weird, too, because you're not really arguing for YOUR right to refuse vaccinations, but rather for your right to prevent OTHERS (i.e. your children) from getting vaccinations. And all because of "perceived" (not real) harms. You don't mind someone forcing or preventing children from getting vaccines, you just want the right to prevent your children from getting them, despite the fact that it will cause real and measurable (not perceived) harm to everyone else's children.

You're using a law not currently on the books,

Really?

which caused people to either leave the country in droves, or lose a bullshit war (much like the current ones),

The draft was also used in WW II. In fact, the country was founded with conscription.

Of course, your original point was that it was somehow "not the duty" of the government to compel behavior "expense of perceived harm." This notion of "perceived" harm is crazy enough, but I just wanted to point out that governments can clearly compel citizens to pay the ultimate price.

Whether or not the government chooses to use one of its tools is a matter of policy, but there's no question that the government has the right to compel behavior that will serve the common good. Or are you saying that the Constitution does not allow the government to "provide for the common defence [sic]" or "promote the general Welfare"?

What? It's not the government's duty to force people to protect each other at the expense of perceived harm?

Yes, there is no way that the government could ever compel someone to risk their lives to save others.

Also, some towns do have mandatory gun laws. The fact that most don't is not because "it's not the government's duty" but simply because the government did not choose to make it a requirement. The fact that the government has not taken some action so far does not mean that it is forever prohibited from said action.

How would this be any different from any of the other Good Samaritan laws?

This case was about a man who was suspected of having unpaid fines. He had, in fact, already paid the fines and had the documentation to prove it with him at the time of his arrest.

People don't go to prison for petty offenses, they go to jail.