Sorry, you need to read the fine print.
While gov't can't CREATE copyright, they most certainly can HOLD it. Materials created by CONTRACTORS and not FEDS can be copyrighted with that copyright held by the gov't.
"We had a lot of tablets on our floor, and the tablets were being broken just by being dropped. And tractors are very tall machines when you're climbing on and off," Gullick says. "So we were looking for a solution that offered them more information in a more timely manner."
Hands-free devices can offer major benefits.
I'm not sure of the extent, but Bosch has reached a tentative settlement with the U.S. courts as well. As a Jetta diesel owner who accepted the buyback, I just received a postcard from the courts saying I'm automatically included in the Bosch settlement, unless I actively opt out. They'll be sending me a check for up to $350 once (if) the settlement is accepted by the courts. The hearing is on May 11.
Dude, please! Grammar!
Twitter is a proper noun, so capitalize it. And there should be a comma between "Twitter" and "right". There should also be a comma between "petty" and "little", as they both are adjectives describing "bitch". And finally, some punctuation after the second sentence. From your tone I'd suggest an exclamation point, but a period could also be acceptable if you want to imply exasperation instead of passion.
If the C-Suite wants to give the responsibility to IT for security decisions, they can start by losing their "I have to have this cool gadget, but there is no business justification" toys.
They can also stop demanding to be exceptions to any security policy that inconveniences them, like full-disk encryption, local administrative rights, multi-factor authentication and complex passwords.
If it keeps on rainin' levee's goin' to break
If it keeps on rainin' levee's goin' to break
When the levee breaks I'll have no place to stay.
Mean old levee taught me to weep and moanâ¦
This is also a geek website. Or, at least, it used to be.
ROT-13 is your sevraq!
You and he are quite possibly correct.
After reading thru the TRO, it seems to rest on a violation of due process, which itself would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of only citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In short, the President seems to have the authority to such restrictions, however he must still follow due process. Anyone already issued valid visas, green cards, etc. can't be summarily barred by fiat and those permits can't be revoked without following the legal process.
Responding to myself because I was in error. The relevant section speaks to permanent allegiance, not temporary.
At this point we've strayed from the original comment, which was the judge didn't know the law and are down to opinions about whether the extent of the TRO was too broad.
I certainly see your point, but take a different position. i see the TRO as the only effective remedy simply because the Administration has been issued confusing and contradictory guidance so nobody really knows what it means. The TRO gives them time to get their shit together, and it can be lifted literally minutes after the Administration issues clear guidance that satisfies the judge in not being potentially illegal.
As you pointed out, the language of the EO itself seems to be perfectly fine (in our humble, non-legal scholar opinions). It is just the guidance given in its enforcement that seems to have caused all of the chaos and legal troubles.
From your own quote they owe allegiance, even though only temporary.
The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence. Carlisle v. U.S.
That quite possibly may be good enough, and would seem to need further clarification by the courts, which in turn along with the economic harm to the complainants, along with the demonstrated confusion by the Executive Branch, seems enough to justify the TRO.
Not without digging through court precedent, and I'm not that motivated. I can see there is ambiguity, but will let the lawyers fight this one out and do all the research. I am interested in how it comes out, though it is mostly just idle curiosity.
Third paragraph in the introduction section presented by the AG of WA directly address the impact on legal, permanent residents.
Note the AG only requested restraint on portions of the order. First paragraph, second to last sentence.
I followed the link to the PDF in the summary. Filename AGOWA-Trump-TRO.pdf
Not until I read the order itself and see some details on what the complainants presented.
Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!