It just gets worse for Microsoft's new console. They spy on you, control who you let borrow, restrict how you can sell the game, and now they are forcing indie developers to split profit with a partner in the form of an unnecessary publisher. The adage for Microsoft products is that they get it right on rev. 3, but here it seems they've bombed it. Big time.
Link to Original Source
1. He's Australian not American
2. He's announced he hacked these people previously
3. He's already been raided
4. He wants more attention
And can some lawyer explain what a 'prenda law'is?
Sure, it's a law firm named Prenda Law.
I find your solution to short circuit this law to be both pedantic and juvenile.
I love it.
Maybe. National security issues often times result in bad decisions (Korematsu - sorry George Takei) and scary rationale. For example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, returned to the US, then denied habeas rights. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer all said if Hamdi took up arms he can be detained for the duration of hostilities under the AUMF. Souter and Ginsburg concurred but said he should be tried via criminal law. Stevens and Scalia said screw you. Either suspend habeas (which you can't) or criminally charge him. And then Thomas said Hamdi is a combatant and the judiciary is not allowed to question the executive power (ed. Yikes!).
Scalia's dissent, joined by Stevens, should have been a 9-0 ruling. Like I said, national security issues befuddle the Court. In Korematsu the Court effectively abdicated its power and simply said we don't know war matters so the military can do what it wants. That's double plus ungood.
Of course, we have knew members on the Court, but even the remaining ones are hard to tell where'd they'd fall.
Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.
Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.
But I don't make the rules.
Here's the transcript from the launchpad.
Robot #2: "Uh oh, he froze up again."
Robot #3: "Try control, alt, delete!"
Robot #4: "Jiggle the cord!"
Robot #5: "Turn him off and on!"
Robot #6: "Clean the gunk out of the mouse!"
Fry: "Call technical support!"
Robot #2: "Ok, ok, he's back online."
Two cases like that actually. First is Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. and the second is Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982). Artic was selling Defender like ROMs with extremely similar code (we're talking pixels here) on them so others could make bootleg copies. Their argument was that the code or presentation was not copyrightable. The visible element or attract screen, Artic said, was not "fixed." The court, in both cases, held that it was fixed because the code was in the chips from which it can be perceived using the other game components.
Those cases, at least Williams, is still taught in law school today.
Gary Johnson is likely to be the Libertarian candidate this year. I can't say if he meets your criteria or not so here's the address:
I'm not sure he gets what net neutrality really is, but he's old. So, you know how that is.
Turns out I was wrong. I made myself sad. Here's the technology that might actually transform space flight.
The guy who invented it is an ex-Astronaut and VASIMR (or its tech underpinnings) was his PhD thesis at MIT for Applied Plasma Physics. I guess what I'm saying is he isn't a crank.
Probably. I left in 2006, but at that time there was talk a microwave was going to be installed. I don't know if they did or not.
Then I would've had to carry it around with me everywhere. Anything other than your A-3 bags (life support stuff in case you were shot down or went to a different environment) you had to carry with you. There was a chance you wouldn't be coming back to that location so we had to carry all our stuff with us every time we flew. Bringing a microwave sounds like a good idea (as does bringing an inflatable mattress) until you have to drag it around.
Why would the pilots be wearing flight gloves all the time? I don't remember seeing any of them wear their gloves much at all. The buttons and dials are so small a glove wouldn't be wise to use. I know I took mine off when I did the flight deck pre-flight.