...or one of the dozens of bodily orifices available.
If you live in Texas, those will be the ones left after the clerk has opened fire on you with a bloody great gun after stuffing the first six orifices. Not to mention you could stuff your accomplices orifices. I'll stop now before this gets out of hand.
At the risk of coming off as a low-down thief (aren't we all...), why on earth would anyone pay for candy at the candy store? If the clerk isn't watching and you're looking to stuff your pockets full of candy, I see no incentive when you can get the jelly beans you want, as many as you want, FOR FREE by stuffing them in your pockets or one of the dozens of bodily orifices available.
There are, as I see it, some advantages to buying the candy (directly support candy manufacturers, etc.), but what's the incentive to buy this unless the customer is so clueless that they don't even know about pockets?
Re:Completely illegal in MA, and hence, at MIT
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 1
We're talking lawyers, not engineers. It says that any device from which an electric current is directed to incapactitate someone is illegal. Pretty clear.
The word "directed" here is fine. The current is directed from the jacket to the body of the attacker. Even if this weren't the case, lawyers interpret the spirit of the law. Very poor lawyers will sometimes try to focus on the letter of the law if they get desperate, but it's very clear what the intent of this law is here. If it comes down to haggling over the meaning of words, you've lost your case already.
Last time I used the OpenStep development tools, it was on NT 4. They were discontinued before Win2k came out. They also cost over $4000. Not only that, but there were OpenStep implementations for SunOS and HPUX as well. Do a google search for OpenStep developer tools and you might find something.
You can download GNUStep from gnustep.org if you want a cross-platform implementation of the OpenStep APIs. Of course, Cocoa has many API improvements in both Foundation and AppKit over OpenStep. It appears that GNUStep plans on picking these up eventually.
Alas... mine has the same issue. Your story is exactly what I was afraid of. After waiting over a month for the PowerBook to arrive, when I first ordered it in February, I didn't feel like sending it straight back for another month of service, On mine, the aluminum is also bent beside the latch. This is how it arrived... it's bent even when it's cold.
However, I thought about it and figured that what with me throwing it in my backpack every day, dropping it on the floor, and generally knocking it around, a bit of a bend won't really make much of a difference. It just adds character.
My last PowerBook (a Pismo) made it in a backpack through Mexico, Cuba, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and all the way back up to the US and Canada getting smashed around on chicken buses, pickup trucks, boats, and planes the whole way, but survived intact. If this one is as resistant, then I'm happy, bends and all.
Rather than send it in to Apple, you can sort of fix the wobbliness when needed... Just push it down on your knee and staighten it out. Worked ok for me. In general it's not that big of a problem though. Of course, do it at your own risk and all that...
I guess when you spend all that money to buy all the military hardware you need to become a super-power, you've got to make concessions to other *ahem* social services. But hey, who needs spelling when you've got ICMBs?
That's a really sad statement on the state of American "freedom" of speech. I honestly hope that it's incorrect for the sake of your country. For the record, I believe it is incorrect. Most Americans that I've met would stand up for someone's right to express his opinion even if it is in disagreement with most Americans' views. That is what freedom of speech is about. That you can always express your opinion, no matter how much others might disagree with it. Anything else is censorship.
If you believe in a system that doesn't provide for the allowance for all dissenting opinions, then you'd better go back and have a look at that document those gentlement drafted up way back in the late 1700s.
Protesting US action does not imply support for Saddam Hussein. It implies support for a diplomatic solution.
Why does the threat need to be immediate?
Why can't the police shoot guys who look like they might one day commit an assault or murder? Why can't they shoot them even if they have evidence of past crimes? As you say, it would be much more difficult for them to deal with the situation later. But we have these laws for a reason.
Don't be ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with preventing the slaughter of thousands. First off, let's see any evidence that there was any immediate risk of "thousands" of people being slaughtered either within Iraq of elsewhere. If the US government truly cared about preventing the slaughter of thousands, then why haven't US forces been sent to countries where that has been happening over the past ten years, such as Algeria or Sierra Leone? In the end, they'd save a hell of a lot more lives than they will in Iraq. If you want to talk about a much more menacing country, have a look at what's going on in North Korea at the moment. Iraq is a powerless regime. Disarmament through diplomatic means could have prevented "the slaughter of thousands" without killing innocent people. The US never had any intention of giving diplomacy a chance.
And now we see what have been the largest protests in human history in streets around the world. I've lived and worked in the US, and many of my best friends are American. But I do not for one minute support American foreign policy on this, or a lot of other wars the US has been involved in. That's not to say every war the US has participated in has been a mistake. But this one is, and it seems a majority of people on the planet feel that way.
Sorry, a quick addendum. The Canadian division responsible for the incident in Somalia was the Canadian Airborne Regiment, not the "1st Airborne". The unit has since been disbanded.
Have a look at the US's track record of war crimes and see how proud you are of your country. The US government looks remarkably good in comparison to the current Iraqi regime, but pathetic when its record stands alone. CIA led assassinations and abductions in Central and South America, and in the rest of the world; several against democratically elected leaders that it considered unfavourable (see Guatemala, Iran). The armament of dictatorships (see Iraq in the '80s). Flying military troops in and out of nations in planes with Red Cross markings (see Nicaragua); another war crime. Assassinations of political leaders that are not part of the military chain of command , yet another war crime. Installation of dictators in place of US-removed dictators (see Iran). Invasion and attempted invasion of countries that do not pose an immediate threat (see Cuba, Panama, Iraq).
Yes, the best thing in a war is to get right in and win it. That should be obvious to almost anyone. But not by ignoring international law and by commiting human rights violations. While we're only two days into this mess, and there's no evidence of war crimes committed by either side yet, it should be clear why so many oppose the current US led strikes, and doubt that this will be a war without completely unnecessary atrocities. The US doesn't exactly have a clean track record here.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the current Iraqi government is brutal and repressive. That doesn't mean that war is the answer. Look how much good it's done for the Israelis and Palestinians. Look at what US regime-change did for Iran. You can see why people have so little confidence in the US government here.
As a Canadian, I'm proud that my country is refusing to take part in this war. At the same time, I'm not for a moment absolving the Canadian military of war crimes either. In Somalia the 1st Airborne was without question guilty of war crimes as well. And as much as that was an embarrassment to our country, it cannot compare to what the unarmed Somali teenager who was roasted alive over a fire had to go through as he begged for his life, screaming the only word he knew about the men who tortured and killed him: "Canada".
I don't think anyone who has seen a country in the aftermath of a war would be so quick to ignore the alternatives. When war happens, innocent civilians die. It should be an absolute last measure when everything else has failed... not in the middle of weapons inspections.
Guess I'm not mindlessly pro-american enough? Trying to get both sides of a story rather than believing everything the US government tells me like a sheep is apparently trolling.
Both sides have been accused of war crimes in the first gulf war. Neither side was innocent. Have a read here.
I remember reading just recently that one or more US soldiers have stepped forward recently claiming that they had participated in igniting oil wells under orders during the first gulf war. I wish I had a link to this story (which may be a total fabrication, who knows). If anyone else has a link to a reliable source on this, it would make interesting reading.
No, it didn't. So I guess that makes it ok then, does it? Invading other countries, and assassinating their leaders is either wrong or right, whether someone else does it or not. Assassinating foreign leaders is a war crime, unless it's a time of war and they're part of the chain of military command.
You can't expect the US to keel over and play dead.
Yeah, damn those Guatemalans for democratically electing a leader the US didn't like. We want bananas, cheap! And damn those Iranians for democratically electing someone we didn't like too. Things went so much better after the US restored the Shah to power. And damn those Venezuelans for putting that Chavez guy in power, while we're at it; the guy doesn't fit with US oil policy.
Nope, can't just roll over and play dead when it looks like another country has chosen a leader that doesn't fit with US interests. I'm sure Guatemala was gonna be a huuuuuuuuge threat to the US with all those... pineapples and bananas... and avocados.
You'd have to start calling the US, France.
France is playing dead? By standing up for what its citizens and most others around the world feel is right? By saying straight up what so many other other leaders are afraid to? That this war is an act of cowardice. That there was no immediate threat to the US? That giving weapons inspections more time would not have resulted in any attack against the US or its citizens, but would potentially have allowed a peaceful resolution?
Try visiting a country going through war and see how you feel about that comment after seeing the atrocities. Even one under the control of a repressive dictator. You'll find that you'll be far more determined to find a diplomatic solution after you've been in a couple churches whose insides are riddled with bullet holes.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I find it odd that your linked document describing Saddam Hussein's war crimes, it carries on about atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq war, but fails to mention that this was wholly supported by the US. The US helped fund and provide arms to Saddam Hussein during that conflict.
Now, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is a good guy (he's not) or that he isn't guilty of what he's being accused of in this document (there is very convincing evidence he is guilty of much of it), but the US certainly bears a lot of guilt in this case too.
Don't fool yourself. The US government doesn't give a crap about human rights violations or democracy for the people. If it did, we'd see action from the US in Sierra Leone (ranked last place in the last UN Human Development Report) or in the Democratic republic of Congo, or in a ton of other countries. If it did, we wouldn't see the US installing and/or supporting dictatorships all over the planet. US foreign policy is based on what's good for the US, not what's good for the countries it deals with. If a democratically elected government gets in the way (eg. Guatemala), and a US-sympathetic dictator is more convenient (Armas), so be it. A few human rights abuses never hurt anyone, right?
The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill.
Really? Any country that overthrows (or tries to) governments, repressive or otherwise, that don't fit with its policies makes me ill. The US has been directly involved in political assassinations and and regime changes in the following countries in the last few decades: Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq... and I'm only at the I's.
Any country who sends its armed forces flying in and out of another country in planes with Red Cross markings (a war crime) makes me ill. I'm referring to Nicaragua here (see http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c10-s05.html for more info).
Let's look at Guatemala as an example. The people come out from under a brutal dictatorship and hold the first free elections in years to elect Arbenz. Not much later, in 1954, the US government, who feel he might turn out to be a communist, overthrow him and install the dictator Armas, leading to 37 years of civil war. Any country who subjects another country -- in this case, one with a democratically elected government -- to this kind of horror makes me ill. And over bananas, no less.
I think a lot of Americans would question their government's foreign policy more if they got out and saw the results of its actions. It was definitely an eye-opener for me; seeing the effects of war first hand makes it a little tougher to justify it so easily in your mind.
Have a look at the US's record of repression:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/printable.php?Docum en tID=2180
Ok. I'm not an American and I don't particularly care one way or another about what the guy claimed. While the quote does make it sound like he's taking credit for creating the Internet, it's obviously just a poor choice of wording on his part. For what it's worth, Vint Cerf had this to say on the whole issue, which does support Al Gore's (poorly worded) assertion.
I agree it's nice to have a choice. For me, a 17" laptop is simply not an option. Even the 15" powerbook is, for my purposes, a little too large. I ended up buying the 12" PowerBook, because it's small and fits in a daypack with a digital camera.
Last summer, I spent 2 and a half months travelling through Mexico, Cuba, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras, back up through the States to Canada by land. Everything my wife and I needed for this trip fit into our knapsacks. At the time, I had a 15" PowerBook G3 (Pismo), and I would have traded it for even the lowest end iBook at the time. Size matters, and so does weight, when you're using a laptop to record your travels.
The 12" Powerbook is the ideal size and weight for what I need it for -- travel photography, writing notes and exams for the English classes I was teaching, and developing Cocoa apps (I'm an engineer by training). For development, a bigger screen is nice, but being able to write your apps in a hammock is better.
Wow, you do a fantastic job of taking text completely out of context. Try reading and understanding the entire licence next time. Section 2.2 clearly indicates that you may publicly deploy your code so long as the source is also made available.
Before anyone falls for nonsense like what was posted above, I would encourage you to read the licence yourself.
The APSL is an open source licence. A major difference between it and a BSD-style licence is that you have to make your changes publicly available if you distribute binaries. But hey, there are lots of licences like that... the GPL for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-read my comment and you'll see that you just re-argued my exact point. I agree with you.
...or one of the dozens of bodily orifices available.
If you live in Texas, those will be the ones left after the clerk has opened fire on you with a bloody great gun after stuffing the first six orifices. Not to mention you could stuff your accomplices orifices. I'll stop now before this gets out of hand.
Too late...
Great minds think alike.
At the risk of coming off as a low-down thief (aren't we all...), why on earth would anyone pay for candy at the candy store? If the clerk isn't watching and you're looking to stuff your pockets full of candy, I see no incentive when you can get the jelly beans you want, as many as you want, FOR FREE by stuffing them in your pockets or one of the dozens of bodily orifices available.
There are, as I see it, some advantages to buying the candy (directly support candy manufacturers, etc.), but what's the incentive to buy this unless the customer is so clueless that they don't even know about pockets?
We're talking lawyers, not engineers. It says that any device from which an electric current is directed to incapactitate someone is illegal. Pretty clear.
The word "directed" here is fine. The current is directed from the jacket to the body of the attacker. Even if this weren't the case, lawyers interpret the spirit of the law. Very poor lawyers will sometimes try to focus on the letter of the law if they get desperate, but it's very clear what the intent of this law is here. If it comes down to haggling over the meaning of words, you've lost your case already.
Last time I used the OpenStep development tools, it was on NT 4. They were discontinued before Win2k came out. They also cost over $4000. Not only that, but there were OpenStep implementations for SunOS and HPUX as well. Do a google search for OpenStep developer tools and you might find something.
You can download GNUStep from gnustep.org if you want a cross-platform implementation of the OpenStep APIs. Of course, Cocoa has many API improvements in both Foundation and AppKit over OpenStep. It appears that GNUStep plans on picking these up eventually.
Alas... mine has the same issue. Your story is exactly what I was afraid of. After waiting over a month for the PowerBook to arrive, when I first ordered it in February, I didn't feel like sending it straight back for another month of service, On mine, the aluminum is also bent beside the latch. This is how it arrived... it's bent even when it's cold.
However, I thought about it and figured that what with me throwing it in my backpack every day, dropping it on the floor, and generally knocking it around, a bit of a bend won't really make much of a difference. It just adds character.
My last PowerBook (a Pismo) made it in a backpack through Mexico, Cuba, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and all the way back up to the US and Canada getting smashed around on chicken buses, pickup trucks, boats, and planes the whole way, but survived intact. If this one is as resistant, then I'm happy, bends and all.
Rather than send it in to Apple, you can sort of fix the wobbliness when needed... Just push it down on your knee and staighten it out. Worked ok for me. In general it's not that big of a problem though. Of course, do it at your own risk and all that...
ICMBs [..] worlds oceans [...] COMPLEATLY
I guess when you spend all that money to buy all the military hardware you need to become a super-power, you've got to make concessions to other *ahem* social services. But hey, who needs spelling when you've got ICMBs?
That's a really sad statement on the state of American "freedom" of speech. I honestly hope that it's incorrect for the sake of your country. For the record, I believe it is incorrect. Most Americans that I've met would stand up for someone's right to express his opinion even if it is in disagreement with most Americans' views. That is what freedom of speech is about. That you can always express your opinion, no matter how much others might disagree with it. Anything else is censorship.
If you believe in a system that doesn't provide for the allowance for all dissenting opinions, then you'd better go back and have a look at that document those gentlement drafted up way back in the late 1700s.
Protesting US action does not imply support for Saddam Hussein. It implies support for a diplomatic solution.
Why does the threat need to be immediate?
Why can't the police shoot guys who look like they might one day commit an assault or murder? Why can't they shoot them even if they have evidence of past crimes? As you say, it would be much more difficult for them to deal with the situation later. But we have these laws for a reason.
Don't be ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with preventing the slaughter of thousands. First off, let's see any evidence that there was any immediate risk of "thousands" of people being slaughtered either within Iraq of elsewhere. If the US government truly cared about preventing the slaughter of thousands, then why haven't US forces been sent to countries where that has been happening over the past ten years, such as Algeria or Sierra Leone? In the end, they'd save a hell of a lot more lives than they will in Iraq. If you want to talk about a much more menacing country, have a look at what's going on in North Korea at the moment. Iraq is a powerless regime. Disarmament through diplomatic means could have prevented "the slaughter of thousands" without killing innocent people. The US never had any intention of giving diplomacy a chance.
And now we see what have been the largest protests in human history in streets around the world. I've lived and worked in the US, and many of my best friends are American. But I do not for one minute support American foreign policy on this, or a lot of other wars the US has been involved in. That's not to say every war the US has participated in has been a mistake. But this one is, and it seems a majority of people on the planet feel that way.
Sorry, a quick addendum. The Canadian division responsible for the incident in Somalia was the Canadian Airborne Regiment, not the "1st Airborne". The unit has since been disbanded.
The victim was Shidane Abukar Arone.
CBC Newsworld report
Click here for the Somalia Inquiry Report.
Canadian Airborne Regiment Unofficial Homepage To get their side of the story.
Every story has two sides, and those who are truly interested in this case should be willing to consider both of them before making up their mind.
Have a look at the US's track record of war crimes and see how proud you are of your country. The US government looks remarkably good in comparison to the current Iraqi regime, but pathetic when its record stands alone. CIA led assassinations and abductions in Central and South America, and in the rest of the world; several against democratically elected leaders that it considered unfavourable (see Guatemala, Iran). The armament of dictatorships (see Iraq in the '80s). Flying military troops in and out of nations in planes with Red Cross markings (see Nicaragua); another war crime. Assassinations of political leaders that are not part of the military chain of command , yet another war crime. Installation of dictators in place of US-removed dictators (see Iran). Invasion and attempted invasion of countries that do not pose an immediate threat (see Cuba, Panama, Iraq).
Yes, the best thing in a war is to get right in and win it. That should be obvious to almost anyone. But not by ignoring international law and by commiting human rights violations. While we're only two days into this mess, and there's no evidence of war crimes committed by either side yet, it should be clear why so many oppose the current US led strikes, and doubt that this will be a war without completely unnecessary atrocities. The US doesn't exactly have a clean track record here.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the current Iraqi government is brutal and repressive. That doesn't mean that war is the answer. Look how much good it's done for the Israelis and Palestinians. Look at what US regime-change did for Iran. You can see why people have so little confidence in the US government here.
As a Canadian, I'm proud that my country is refusing to take part in this war. At the same time, I'm not for a moment absolving the Canadian military of war crimes either. In Somalia the 1st Airborne was without question guilty of war crimes as well. And as much as that was an embarrassment to our country, it cannot compare to what the unarmed Somali teenager who was roasted alive over a fire had to go through as he begged for his life, screaming the only word he knew about the men who tortured and killed him: "Canada".
I don't think anyone who has seen a country in the aftermath of a war would be so quick to ignore the alternatives. When war happens, innocent civilians die. It should be an absolute last measure when everything else has failed... not in the middle of weapons inspections.
Guess I'm not mindlessly pro-american enough? Trying to get both sides of a story rather than believing everything the US government tells me like a sheep is apparently trolling.
Both sides have been accused of war crimes in the first gulf war. Neither side was innocent. Have a read here.
I remember reading just recently that one or more US soldiers have stepped forward recently claiming that they had participated in igniting oil wells under orders during the first gulf war. I wish I had a link to this story (which may be a total fabrication, who knows). If anyone else has a link to a reliable source on this, it would make interesting reading.
The former USSR didn't have clean hands either.
No, it didn't. So I guess that makes it ok then, does it? Invading other countries, and assassinating their leaders is either wrong or right, whether someone else does it or not. Assassinating foreign leaders is a war crime, unless it's a time of war and they're part of the chain of military command.
You can't expect the US to keel over and play dead.
Yeah, damn those Guatemalans for democratically electing a leader the US didn't like. We want bananas, cheap! And damn those Iranians for democratically electing someone we didn't like too. Things went so much better after the US restored the Shah to power. And damn those Venezuelans for putting that Chavez guy in power, while we're at it; the guy doesn't fit with US oil policy.
Nope, can't just roll over and play dead when it looks like another country has chosen a leader that doesn't fit with US interests. I'm sure Guatemala was gonna be a huuuuuuuuge threat to the US with all those... pineapples and bananas... and avocados.
You'd have to start calling the US, France.
France is playing dead? By standing up for what its citizens and most others around the world feel is right? By saying straight up what so many other other leaders are afraid to? That this war is an act of cowardice. That there was no immediate threat to the US? That giving weapons inspections more time would not have resulted in any attack against the US or its citizens, but would potentially have allowed a peaceful resolution?
Try visiting a country going through war and see how you feel about that comment after seeing the atrocities. Even one under the control of a repressive dictator. You'll find that you'll be far more determined to find a diplomatic solution after you've been in a couple churches whose insides are riddled with bullet holes.
I find it odd that your linked document describing Saddam Hussein's war crimes, it carries on about atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq war, but fails to mention that this was wholly supported by the US. The US helped fund and provide arms to Saddam Hussein during that conflict.
Now, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is a good guy (he's not) or that he isn't guilty of what he's being accused of in this document (there is very convincing evidence he is guilty of much of it), but the US certainly bears a lot of guilt in this case too.
Don't fool yourself. The US government doesn't give a crap about human rights violations or democracy for the people. If it did, we'd see action from the US in Sierra Leone (ranked last place in the last UN Human Development Report) or in the Democratic republic of Congo, or in a ton of other countries. If it did, we wouldn't see the US installing and/or supporting dictatorships all over the planet. US foreign policy is based on what's good for the US, not what's good for the countries it deals with. If a democratically elected government gets in the way (eg. Guatemala), and a US-sympathetic dictator is more convenient (Armas), so be it. A few human rights abuses never hurt anyone, right?
The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill.
m en tID=2180
Really? Any country that overthrows (or tries to) governments, repressive or otherwise, that don't fit with its policies makes me ill. The US has been directly involved in political assassinations and and regime changes in the following countries in the last few decades: Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq... and I'm only at the I's.
Any country who sends its armed forces flying in and out of another country in planes with Red Cross markings (a war crime) makes me ill. I'm referring to Nicaragua here (see http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c10-s05.html for more info).
Let's look at Guatemala as an example. The people come out from under a brutal dictatorship and hold the first free elections in years to elect Arbenz. Not much later, in 1954, the US government, who feel he might turn out to be a communist, overthrow him and install the dictator Armas, leading to 37 years of civil war. Any country who subjects another country -- in this case, one with a democratically elected government -- to this kind of horror makes me ill. And over bananas, no less.
I think a lot of Americans would question their government's foreign policy more if they got out and saw the results of its actions. It was definitely an eye-opener for me; seeing the effects of war first hand makes it a little tougher to justify it so easily in your mind.
Have a look at the US's record of repression:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/printable.php?Docu
Ok. I'm not an American and I don't particularly care one way or another about what the guy claimed. While the quote does make it sound like he's taking credit for creating the Internet, it's obviously just a poor choice of wording on his part. For what it's worth, Vint Cerf had this to say on the whole issue, which does support Al Gore's (poorly worded) assertion.
If you read the previous posts, you may see the reason for the mispelling.
You're not too sharp, are you? Read the post again.
Hey, it's spelled copyright... I always insure that I run my posts through a spell checker before submitting.
I agree it's nice to have a choice. For me, a 17" laptop is simply not an option. Even the 15" powerbook is, for my purposes, a little too large. I ended up buying the 12" PowerBook, because it's small and fits in a daypack with a digital camera.
Last summer, I spent 2 and a half months travelling through Mexico, Cuba, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras, back up through the States to Canada by land. Everything my wife and I needed for this trip fit into our knapsacks. At the time, I had a 15" PowerBook G3 (Pismo), and I would have traded it for even the lowest end iBook at the time. Size matters, and so does weight, when you're using a laptop to record your travels.
The 12" Powerbook is the ideal size and weight for what I need it for -- travel photography, writing notes and exams for the English classes I was teaching, and developing Cocoa apps (I'm an engineer by training). For development, a bigger screen is nice, but being able to write your apps in a hammock is better.
You only really need to have tabs when there isn't an easy way to switch between windows
Cmd-` not good enough for you? Works in any Mac OS X application. Cmd-tab between applications.
Does this sound like a good license to you?
Wow, you do a fantastic job of taking text completely out of context. Try reading and understanding the entire licence next time. Section 2.2 clearly indicates that you may publicly deploy your code so long as the source is also made available.
Before anyone falls for nonsense like what was posted above, I would encourage you to read the licence yourself.
The APSL is an open source licence. A major difference between it and a BSD-style licence is that you have to make your changes publicly available if you distribute binaries. But hey, there are lots of licences like that... the GPL for instance.