I'm reading and stuff, but I'm not seeing a reason for appeal. Was there a technical error? I suppose there was that one bit about Alsup declaring APIs can't be copyrighted. I believe Alsup is right. But it doesn't advantage 'big software' in the least that people could be allowed to replace their software with something compatible... which, by the way, was something which I thought was established back when someone rewrote their own BIOS for a PC clone so long ago.
Oh I can think of more reasons than that. For example, Windows XP is far more exploitable as it exists almost exclusively as a 32bit OS. Keeping their people exploitable better ensures they can continue to do what "no US government would even consider doing to it's own citizens."
Also since China is extremely large, infrastructure change concerns are likely high on their list of concerns.
And yes, if they don't have to buy any new licenses at all they should be pretty good to go without spending any more money.
You are. He is actually stacking the odds against the prosecution by challenging (daring really) not to block the witness from appearing. Also, once again, it does the defense and the witness no good if a final decision in their favor is overturned on appeal based on a trvial technicality. Better that the prosecution's case is destroyed with strong evidence of their own misconduct. And to do that, very strong proof must be presented. If she arrives safely and provides testimony, that's good. If she is blocked again, it's still pretty good considering the judge gave explicit orders to allow her to fly. And, if she was smart enough to visit the US embassy with an airline/airport employee to sign an affidavit confirming the authenticity of the no-fly order as well as a statement confirming that the no-fly order was indeed received and honored, better still.
One major point of this case is to show the DoJ's and by extension the executive's unfair practices.
There should be little doubt that US executive department activities are harming the US and the world at large. Public exposure is the most important first steps in correcting the problem.
They'll either let her into the country to testify, or a terrorist attack will occur and she will become an unfortunate victim.
How about just google it? Or read a news story or two.
I'll simply ask you to google "Adam Kokesh." He has been charged with violation of that ban. As a form of protest, he went into DC with a shotgun, turned on a video camera, loaded and made ready his weapon and then posted it on the internet.
Please learn and stop presuming. The NRA is a lobby group. They are still fighting that and many other laws. Lobbyists are most effective at preventing new law and helping to write new law. That's what lobbyists do.
After all, there are factions within government and if one doesn't agree with another, you may find yourself the victim of an unfortunate accident. Only a tiny minority of government gets the secret service and paramilitary police protecting them you know.
Perhaps we are seeing some government players waking up to the reality that even THEY have good reason to fear the government they are participating in.
Well you have reached a relatively sharp but small demographic. Let's try to get this on the "consumer media." (I am creating new words which better describe what they are. Mainstream media just doesn't describe them any longer as they are losing their relevance for so many. But they still remain the consumer media as they still control the minds of so many consumers out there.)
This sort of lawlessness and unaccountability is precisely what Michael Cannon testified to congress about. He asserted that what this leads to no one wants to think about. But that by following this path to its conclusion can end no other way as in all of human history, no one has succeeded in that sort of domination and abuse..
If you asked me if this was possible 20 years ago, I would have said "Yes, and they have already done it. We have some freedoms, but no real control. We're happy and comfortable slaves by and large." And it was true. There was a middle class and we had ways and means to improve our lives if we really wanted to. Not that we had any hope of being a 1%er or anyone particiarly powerful, but we could all potentially live a good life with reasonable comfort, safety and the ability for the persuit of happiness.
These days, the greed of wanting more and/or the ambition of the 1%ers trying to squeeze more people into their circles or whatever the hell has gone wrong, they have gone off the rails and exceeded the limits which have brought their evil into the light while people aren't distracted by TV and shopping and sports and celebrities. Instead, people are suffering while things are getting worse and they are already looking for people to blame. Bad way to treat your slaves 1%ers. You were supposed to keep us happy and unaware. You failed.
Alsup is simply being careful as he should be. Not being careful opens doors for appeals which he seeks to avoid.
Question: Does the judge have the authority to command an army of paramilitary police with ACTUAL assault weapons and armored vehicles? The DoJ does.
Another question: Despite the courts ruling that the Washington DC ban on firearms was unconstitutional, the law continues to be enforced. What weight does a judge's ruling have any longer?
The government (the executive) follows the law when it's convenient. It breaks the law when the law is inconvenient. And no one is interested in countering it.
Infections are bad. Sometimes they are really bad. I can't say I have ever had a serious infection. Could be I've had an extremely lucky life in this first world country I live in. I'm sure that factors in there somewhere. I have had lots of cuts, scrapes, breaks and even a tear of an epic nature. (I was a young teen, running through a field and tripped on a fallen and very old barbed wire fence while wearing sandals. Ripped a very bad area on the top of my foot... looked like a skinned catfish.) I was in a hospital within 2-3 hours, got shots, stitches and released within a few minutes of that. I'm sure some antibiotics were used during that event.
Not going to deny that antibiotics can save lives and limbs.
But we've got to have some sense and wisdom about this stuff. We need some tests not just for natural antibody counts, but for artificial antibody (antibiotics) counts as well. Ideally levels for antibiotics should be at or very nearly zero at any given time. This best enables the body's own natural immune system to function which keeps people generally more healthy and keeps vaccines more effective. (Did you know that a vaccine is useless without a healthy immune system? That's right. You already knew it too! You know a vaccine is a deactivated virus. You know that the body's immune system will adapt itself around the foreign invader to build resistance to it. So naturally, the immune system has to be healthy for this plan to work effectively right?) So it is absolutely critical that antibiotics levels are monitored and minimized.
While I'm not decided on it, I have given some thought to the AIDS situation and wonder how much of it may actually be caused by things other than a virus attacking the immune systems of people. (Not saying AIDS doesn't exist!) We have lots and lots of reasons why a person might have a weakened or even disabled immune system not the least of which is overexposure to antibiotics. I am reminded of the increased rate of diabetes in the US and its lose connection with HFCS. Here we have a body's sugar handling systems getting burned out from handling too much HFCS resulting in a broken system, or diabetes. I have to wonder if there are things other than HIV which may be attacking or even overloading the immune systems of people which leads to a broken immune system? I'm not expert on the topic, but given the general demographic of people with such problems, it would seem to me there may be more to it than gay sex and needle sharing which is at the source.
Regardless of anything else, I think it should be very well accepted that maintaining a strong and healthy immune system should be focus #1 of maintaining health among humans. Creating new antibiotics to handle the super-bugs resulting from the over-use of older antibiotics and/or the persistence of antibiotics in our food and water doesnt seem like a smart answer.
This is about getting kids excited about making a video.
More importantly, why are we wasting time and resources asking children to propagandize implementations of technology in education for the sake of it rather than worrying about the quality of education, itself? If technology itself somehow inherently improved education, you wouldn't need to promote it. Steve Jobs understood this ages ago.
I used to think that technology could help education. I’ve probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I’ve had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What’s wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.
It’s a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I’m one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system.
I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school for a few years before high school. This private school is the best school I’ve seen in my life. It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers – so it’s not about money at the teacher level. I asked the state treasurer that year what California pays on average to send kids to school, and I believe it was $4,400. While there are not many parents who could come up with $5,500 a year, there are many who could come up with $1,000 a year.
If we gave vouchers to parents for $4,400 a year, schools would be starting right and left. People would get out of college and say, “Let’s start a school.” You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the businessperson of a school. And that MBA would get together with somebody else, and they’d start schools. And you’d have these young, idealistic people starting schools, working for pennies.
They’d do it because they’d be able to set the curriculum. When you have kids you think, What exactly do I want them to learn? Most of the stuff they study in school is completely useless. But some incredibly valuable things you don’t learn until you’re older – yet you could learn them when you’re younger. And you start to think, What would I do if I set a curriculum for a school?
God, how exciting that could be! But you can’t do it today. You’d be crazy to work in a school today. You don’t get to do what you want. You don’t get to pick your books, your curriculum. You get to teach one narrow specialization. Who would ever want to do that?
These are the solutions to our problems in education. Unfortunately, technology isn’t it. You’re not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school – none of this is bad. It’s bad only if it lulls us into thinking we’re doing something to solve the problem with education.
Lincoln did not have a Web site at the log cabin where his parents home-schooled him, and he turned out pretty interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings with technology.
It’s not as simple as you think when you’re in your 20s – that technology’s going to change the world. In some ways it will, in some ways it won’t
-- Steve Jobs
Knowing if something is right or wrong at the right time is key and is truly the issue with impulse control disorders. Typically this arises in no small part due to prioritization of feelings versus facts. Rage is a feeling. Perceived danger is a fact. One of these situation may call for the use of a firearm while the other does not. So which sort of mental disorder is also a matter which warrants scrutiny.
What you describe is someone making a reasoned decision of some sort. And you know, by that definition, it may well be the primary reason most high-level, powerful people, should be denied the right to bear arms. After all, aren't most corporate leaders, government leaders and military leaders sociopathic? Gives you something to think about when these people are attempting to disarm the rest of the population doesn't it?