Interesting that this started in Washington state.
Trump seems to have the law on his side, but the 9th circuit court seems determined to ignore the law, ignore the clearly defined separation of powers, and legislate from the bench.
U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013 reads: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Note: "the President" the courts have absolutely no place in this. The matter is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
There seems to be substantial precedence in this matter. The US has banned immigration from various countries since 1882. Restricting immigration from various countries goes back further than that - I think all the way back to the 18th century.
Both president Obama, and president Carter, restricted immigration from Muslim countries.
This matter should have never come before the court.
> This is a deliberate attempt to shift control over immigration from the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch in order to grant foreigners a constitutionally protected “right” to enter the U.S. The 9th Circuit’s decision is way off-base. > The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases asking them to declare illegal the exercise of a power that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the other branches of government. This rule is referred to as the “Political Question Doctrine.” It preserves the separation of powers by keeping the courts from assuming functions that should be performed by the legislature or the executive. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to set the national security agenda, conduct foreign affairs, or craft our immigration policies. > Applying the Political Question Doctrine, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the powers to legislate and implement the conditions for admitting aliens into the United States belong, respectively, to Congress and the executive branch. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The power to pass laws governing who may enter and remain in the United States is implied in that power.
The 9th circuit court has a long, and sordid history of ultra-liberal activist judges, legislating from the bench.
From Lawfare:
> How to Read (and How Not to Read) Today’s 9th Circuit Opinion > "Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case."
It looks to me as though US District Judge James Robart in Seattle may be an activist judge, legislating from the bench. Or Robart may be influenced by Microsoft. Microsoft is unhappy about Trump's action because MS has some visa workers from those countries.
Some here think that that statement is over-emotional bashing, but it's not. I really mean it. Microsoft does proprietary better than Red Hat.
There are advantages to proprietary. An OS controlled by one group will be more coherent. Today's Linux, by contrast, is all over the map.
The downsides of a proprietary system is deliberate obfuscation, and vendor lock-in.
Red Hat is following Microsoft's playbook to the letter. Right down to the exact same propaganda, FUD, and astro-turfing. I followed MS business practices for decades, and to me, it's glaringly obvious.
From another forum:
> This sharper division between developers and users is also a goal of the freedesktop/systemd/gnome push. If you don't believe me, go look in/etc/udev and tell me humans are intended to touch anything in there. No line breaks, no comments, no reliable documentation other than the source. Same for dconf, although it least it, unlike the Windows Registry, has an explicit feature for help text as an option for each key... although it is pitiful how few actually have any supplied. Again, the assumption in actual use in the field is that dconf is for applications. Developers will write apps that store values in the 'registry' and those apps alone will manipulate them. If an app doesn't expose a knob to change one the user isn't supposed to manually tamper with it. > This reminds me of Microsoft paying De Icaza to attack Linux from the inside with the Mono trojan horse. Now, it is Red Hat (no doubt directed by their customer Fed Gov) directly attacking the simple, modular, do-one-thing-right Unix design philosophy and replacing it with the far-reaching, metastatizing blob that is SystemD. Why? To bake-in impossible to find, intentional backdoors and vulnerabilities as designed by Poettering and the rest of his paid-off coven.
Tolerant liberals, by the thousands, have threatened to assassinate the president. I am not sure if imminent threats of violence protected by the first amendment.
Not only is there a flood of threats against Trump himself, but there have also been threats to rape Trump's wife. There have also been a flood of insults against Barron Trump – a ten year old child.
Gotta love Madonna's threats to bomb the white house.
The hate speech and violence advocacy is not just a few bad apples, it is entirely mainstream. Thousands of tolerant liberals have threatened murder (certainly on twitter). The hate speech and violence advocacy is strongly encouraged by mainstream media, such as the Guardian. The Guardian clearly feels that violence is an acceptable form of political advocacy, as long as it comes from the left.
Here is a statement by peaceful liberal Godfrey Elfwick, of the Guardian:
> I'd rather punch 300 innocent people and 1 genuine Nazi, than punch no Nazi at all. --- Gedfrey Elfwick of The Guardian
Nasrine Malik, also from The Guardian, argues that physical violence against Trump supporters should be condoned because his voters are bigots.
FYI: physical violence, intimidation, and destruction, to advance a political goal is also known as “terrorism.”
> Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1] > The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
“When they go low, going high is not enough,” argues Malik, adding, “When Richard Spencer was punched in the street, it was a cathartic moment for many.”
Malik goes on to assert that “reasoned debate” is no longer sufficient when confronting “racists and misogynists”
Here is the video from The Guardian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3OPaNl3jU
Certainly the Guardian would find nothing wrong with this. It serves her right for having a political opinion that a leftist does not agree with:
The hypocrisy of the left is palpable. Although the tolerant liberals are responsible for the actual violence, the left claim that anybody who dares to express a opinion that the left does not approve of is somehow committing violence.
Yvette Felarca is one of the ring leaders of Berkeley riots. She claimed that Milo exercising his right to free to speech was “raping” and “killing” her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNGtI3Ezdvo
The Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, clearly condones the violence. He uses the usual liberal tactic of calling any differing opinion "hate speech."
> "Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable. Hate speech isn't welcome in our community." --- Jesse Arreguin
Peaceful liberals were violently attacking Milo's fans, but Milo is the "extremist".
In 2016, the left was screaming and crying about violence from Trump supporters. Clearly, the left does not condone violence to advance a political objective – unless the violence is coming from the left. Turns out, the violence at the Trump rallies was from thugs hired by the democrats.
The left booed and hissed at Trump when Trump suggested he might not accept election results. Hillary made some speech about how accepting elections was the cornerstone of our democracy, and everybody cheered. Until Hillary lost the election, then the Hillary supporters went out and violently r
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
More specifically: U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013
> "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect less people are watching broadcast news.
I think more people are getting their news from twitter, and youtube, and other internet sources.
MSM ratings, and credibility are tanking; as I understand it.
Seems to be a move towards low power devices. Cheap, low power, single board computers, like Raspberry Pi, and of course, mobile devices.
Maybe the industry is concentrating more on that sort of thing now?
If something is right out in the open, how is it private?
Probably longer. But I remember such articles in 1976.
Getting hard to take it seriously.
I used to come across nude beaches when I live in California.
There is a difference between those nudists, and the nudes in Playboy.
Most people are best not viewed nude. This may be especially true of nudists.
The woman featured in Playboy are exceptional, and then they are professionally made up and photographed, and then the photos are photoshopped.
Why?
Surprising that people think seafood is healthy.
The term "hacker" has no real meaning. Some people think of hackers as people who break into computer systems.
I could not get Plex to install on Debian.
Gave up in frustration, went to FreeBSD. Plex installs, and works, on FreeBSD.
IMO: Debian used to be great, but it sucks now.
Interesting that this started in Washington state.
Trump seems to have the law on his side, but the 9th circuit court seems determined to ignore the law, ignore the clearly defined separation of powers, and legislate from the bench.
U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013 reads: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Note: "the President" the courts have absolutely no place in this. The matter is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
There seems to be substantial precedence in this matter. The US has banned immigration from various countries since 1882. Restricting immigration from various countries goes back further than that - I think all the way back to the 18th century.
Both president Obama, and president Carter, restricted immigration from Muslim countries.
This matter should have never come before the court.
> This is a deliberate attempt to shift control over immigration from the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch in order to grant foreigners a constitutionally protected “right” to enter the U.S. The 9th Circuit’s decision is way off-base.
> The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases asking them to declare illegal the exercise of a power that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the other branches of government. This rule is referred to as the “Political Question Doctrine.” It preserves the separation of powers by keeping the courts from assuming functions that should be performed by the legislature or the executive. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to set the national security agenda, conduct foreign affairs, or craft our immigration policies.
> Applying the Political Question Doctrine, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the powers to legislate and implement the conditions for admitting aliens into the United States belong, respectively, to Congress and the executive branch. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The power to pass laws governing who may enter and remain in the United States is implied in that power.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-executive-orders-fall-victim-legislating-bench/
The 9th circuit court has a long, and sordid history of ultra-liberal activist judges, legislating from the bench.
From Lawfare:
> How to Read (and How Not to Read) Today’s 9th Circuit Opinion
> "Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4TaLeEXAAA0c4g.jpg
It looks to me as though US District Judge James Robart in Seattle may be an activist judge, legislating from the bench. Or Robart may be influenced by Microsoft. Microsoft is unhappy about Trump's action because MS has some visa workers from those countries.
If you want proprietary, go with MS-Windows.
Some here think that that statement is over-emotional bashing, but it's not. I really mean it. Microsoft does proprietary better than Red Hat.
There are advantages to proprietary. An OS controlled by one group will be more coherent. Today's Linux, by contrast, is all over the map.
The downsides of a proprietary system is deliberate obfuscation, and vendor lock-in.
Red Hat is following Microsoft's playbook to the letter. Right down to the exact same propaganda, FUD, and astro-turfing. I followed MS business practices for decades, and to me, it's glaringly obvious.
From another forum:
> This sharper division between developers and users is also a goal of the freedesktop/systemd/gnome push. If you don't believe me, go look in /etc/udev and tell me humans are intended to touch anything in there. No line breaks, no comments, no reliable documentation other than the source. Same for dconf, although it least it, unlike the Windows Registry, has an explicit feature for help text as an option for each key... although it is pitiful how few actually have any supplied. Again, the assumption in actual use in the field is that dconf is for applications. Developers will write apps that store values in the 'registry' and those apps alone will manipulate them. If an app doesn't expose a knob to change one the user isn't supposed to manually tamper with it.
> This reminds me of Microsoft paying De Icaza to attack Linux from the inside with the Mono trojan horse. Now, it is Red Hat (no doubt directed by their customer Fed Gov) directly attacking the simple, modular, do-one-thing-right Unix design philosophy and replacing it with the far-reaching, metastatizing blob that is SystemD. Why? To bake-in impossible to find, intentional backdoors and vulnerabilities as designed by Poettering and the rest of his paid-off coven.
I think there is still an #assassinatetrump tag.
Thousands of such threats are posted all the time.
On the hand, Twitter has recently disabled the account of a cartoonist, with 1.3 million followers, because he offended a feminist.
Any kind of anti-white hate is fine. Okay for Muslims to post hateful tweets against Jews, or anybody else, but it is not okay to offend Muslims.
Tolerant liberals, by the thousands, have threatened to assassinate the president. I am not sure if imminent threats of violence protected by the first amendment.
Not only is there a flood of threats against Trump himself, but there have also been threats to rape Trump's wife. There have also been a flood of insults against Barron Trump – a ten year old child.
Gotta love Madonna's threats to bomb the white house.
The hate speech and violence advocacy is not just a few bad apples, it is entirely mainstream. Thousands of tolerant liberals have threatened murder (certainly on twitter). The hate speech and violence advocacy is strongly encouraged by mainstream media, such as the Guardian. The Guardian clearly feels that violence is an acceptable form of political advocacy, as long as it comes from the left.
Here is a statement by peaceful liberal Godfrey Elfwick, of the Guardian:
> I'd rather punch 300 innocent people and 1 genuine Nazi, than punch no Nazi at all.
--- Gedfrey Elfwick of The Guardian
Nasrine Malik, also from The Guardian, argues that physical violence against Trump supporters should be condoned because his voters are bigots.
FYI: physical violence, intimidation, and destruction, to advance a political goal is also known as “terrorism.”
> Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
“When they go low, going high is not enough,” argues Malik, adding, “When Richard Spencer was punched in the street, it was a cathartic moment for many.”
Malik goes on to assert that “reasoned debate” is no longer sufficient when confronting “racists and misogynists”
Here is the video from The Guardian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3OPaNl3jU
Certainly the Guardian would find nothing wrong with this. It serves her right for having a political opinion that a leftist does not agree with:
https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/827039436596670464
The hypocrisy of the left is palpable. Although the tolerant liberals are responsible for the actual violence, the left claim that anybody who dares to express a opinion that the left does not approve of is somehow committing violence.
Yvette Felarca is one of the ring leaders of Berkeley riots. She claimed that Milo exercising his right to free to speech was “raping” and “killing” her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNGtI3Ezdvo
The Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, clearly condones the violence. He uses the usual liberal tactic of calling any differing opinion "hate speech."
> "Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable. Hate speech isn't welcome in our community."
--- Jesse Arreguin
Peaceful liberals were violently attacking Milo's fans, but Milo is the "extremist".
In 2016, the left was screaming and crying about violence from Trump supporters. Clearly, the left does not condone violence to advance a political objective – unless the violence is coming from the left. Turns out, the violence at the Trump rallies was from thugs hired by the democrats.
The left booed and hissed at Trump when Trump suggested he might not accept election results. Hillary made some speech about how accepting elections was the cornerstone of our democracy, and everybody cheered. Until Hillary lost the election, then the Hillary supporters went out and violently r
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
I have protesters quoted because they would more accurately be described as rioters, or terrorists.
If you think "terrorist" is too harsh, please see Title 22 of the US Code Section 2656f(d).
More specifically: U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013
> "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
> Humans can't survive without meat.
I assume you trolling, since that is clearly not true.
Let the user program in his/her own wake up word.
Seems to me that would technologically feasible.
When you consider the costs of text books, and lab fees.
Exactly! Trump has already been in office for four days, and he has not solved every problem in the world yet. What a total failure.
In the few days he has been in office, Trump has brought thousands of jobs to the USA, but clearly that is not good enough.
I figured the 3 or 4 they had left would be gone by now.
A lot easier target than an airplane. You could be miles away when the bomb goes off.
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
Would not be surprised to see people move away from youtube, facebook, and twitter, as well.