Before issuing a TRO or emergency injunction, a court is supposed to require that a movant show likelihood of success on the merits. How did that happen here?
Even assuming all the legal things you say are correct, they don't protect H-1B visa holders, or their employers, from executive determination that the visa holder's entry is contrary to national security interests. You've only explained why a judge could block enforcement of the order as to permanent residents.
Why do you say "certainly"? Alien just means non-US citizen, and visas do not grant citizenship. It would be a very unusual visa that naturalized someone. One might even say unprecedented!
You first. If your head is so far up your ass that you can't tell when you're using a buzzword acronym with little exposure in the tech world and a lot of plausible meanings, you might be a tool.
Commercial use of your data -- such as making another game -- would violate established rights (e.g. right to publicity) in a way that would particularize harm to the person whose data was used without explicit consent. Note that the court threw the case out specifically because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that kind of harm, so the next case would be protected.
Alternatively, consider that almost any time you buy a ticket to a large attraction, there is fine print saying that the operator will have the right to use your image in promotional materials. In that context, 2K Games is not doing anything very novel.
BCM? Bravo Company, manufacturer of firearm parts so you can shoot your servers? Buzzword-Centric Methodology? The SourceForge "BCM" project, a file compression utility? Baylor College of Medicine? Bear Creek Mining? Bacau International Airport? Broadcom?
KDE's problems were not due to Git. They were due to a corrupt filesystem, a home-brew mirroring setup, and overworked admins.
If you're going to troll-ol-ol a blame vector for that, at least be remotely fair and blame Linux (or whatever OS their master server was running), open source, and the associated culture.
I asked questions because you are pretty incoherent. It seemed like you were trying to distinguish the protesters from Democrats -- anarchists in the US functionally act like extremist Democrats, and typically vote D, but maybe you were trying to say they're No True Democrat-man. That doesn't help your incorrect claim that most of the violent protests in the US were by Trump supporters rather than by Clinton supporters: The violent protesters preferred Clinton to Trump, and would have only voted for Stein (or anyone else) if their state was predictably going to go for Clinton.
That NBC story is astonishingly weak. You can find two law professors to support just about any bat-guano crazy idea; having legal theories that are outside the mainstream is almost a requirement to be a law professor. As the article quotes Trump correctly saying, the conflict-of-interest laws that motivate that lease term do not (and could not constitutionally) apply to the President. By its own language, the lease term they cite does not prevent lease-holders from running for, or being elected to, office. It only prohibits people who already hold office from taking or assuming an interest in the lease. It says no office-holder "shall be admitted to" the lease. Trump was "admitted to" the lease long before he started his campaign, when he did not hold any government office. If those partisan law professors (you did notice that one of them worked for Obama, right?) didn't mention anything more pertinent, you can bet they couldn't find anything more pertinent.
Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.
An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.
Perhaps the best examples of the ideological conformity that the left is pushing in the US comes from college campuses, where conservative and libertarian speakers are often threatened or assaulted -- and where campus authorities sometimes cancel their speeches because of the heckler's vote and concerns about safety or security. There are plenty of others, but often more polished by experience in how to get away with things.
A good example of pervasive government is California's Proposition 65, which requires businesses to conspicuously notify consumers if there are any of a very long list of substances that are "known to the State of California to cause" cancer and/or birth defects in a product or place of business in California. The list currently includes things like aloe vera extract, aspirin, boric acid, caffeine, carbon monoxide *and* dioxide... and I got tired after the letter 'C'. As a result, most products you can buy in the US have a Prop 65 warning -- which sometimes leads to confusion abroad when products intended for sale in the US make it to other countries. There are more burdensome and broader government regulations with equally unclear marginal benefits, but Prop 65 is easy to see as an excess.
While reasonable people might disagree about exactly what constitutes "pervasive" government, though, US "liberals" are in favor of a lot of government oversight to make sure companies aren't trying to cheat employees by doing things like making lunch breaks optional; they want to ensure education is run by government rather than by schools offering government-approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer; and so forth.
The AC you replied to before my first comment explicitly mentioned "violently rioting in the streets and punching people". Your examples are two non-violent, although both abhorrent and obnoxious, incidents. On the other hand, we had riots after the election and riots for the inauguration, all by anti-Trump people. I assume the "punching people" bit was a reference to when a racist asshole got punched on live TV by one of the anti-Trump rioters in Washington DC -- an act that was praised by a lot of other Trump critics. Would you like to try again, and explain why you think violent crime is predominantly committed by Trump supporters?
The Emoluments Clause is short: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." What is the clear violation? Did Vladimir Putin tell Russia to write a big check, payable to Donald J. Trump, that Trump then deposited?
In the US as well, the term "liberal" has been captured by people who want to enforce ideological uniformity and usher in pervasive government. Some critics of those goals see the contradiction as betraying a lack of mental acuity, leading to the contraction that you complain about.
Your earlier comment: "This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election." Your newer comment: "I merely state that the winners have not been cheering. They've been just as anry [sic] as before."
I will take that about-face as a retraction of your earlier claim that Trump's supporters are angrier now than before the election, an admission that Obama is a shining example of acting angrier after winning an election than before it, and a sign that your memory is either not here yet or has already gone.
I'm not sure where "Trumptard" came from -- I generally don't use the word, and I am no fan of Trump, so I wouldn't call either of us Trumptards.
The vast majority of violent crime that I have seen covered in the US media has either been perpetrated by anti-Trump activists, or hoaxes by anti-Trump activists. If non-US media gives you the impression that Trump's supporters are committing three times as much violent crime (against either people or property) as Trump's opponents, I think those media are grievously misleading you. It gives the impression that you're a conspiracy theorist falling for Fake News, especially when you suggest that US-based sources are actually covering up some truth that fits their ideology.
There is no Emoluments Act, and there's quite a lot of legal support for the idea that he has not violated the Emoluments Clause. Why are you pushing falsehoods?
Can you provide examples or support for why it you think it is "running about three-to-one the other way"? If those examples are mostly outside the US, why are they relevant to judging whether Trump and/or Clinton voters are acting badly?
Here in the US, Trump voters are mostly working-class people who don't have time to protest in the streets. They're not professionals like the leftist mob leaders, and they're not students or jobless like the leftist fodder. Pro-Trump demonstrators in the US haven't rioted, haven't engaged in widespread property destruction or assaults outside of riots, and haven't tried to block people from attending government functions. Anti-Trump demonstrators have done all of those things. Except for one truly horrible executive order on immigration, even the anti-Trump US media haven't found any organized or significant pro-Trump lawlessness.
Are you pre-teen, or are you senile? Because you sure don't seem to remember the last eight years.
I do not think the Trumpsters are angrier than before the election, but if they are, they will tell you they are just following the advice of someone who said "elections have consequences", "punch back twice as hard", "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", "if you don't like a particular policy or president, go out there and win an election", and similar victory-lap snark. It's not as if Trump supporters normalized poutrage as a political form, or torched some schlub's limo because said limo owner was trying to make a living, or whatever.
Modems aren't compressors, and filters are radically different from compression algorithms. Modems use filters, but also do other things, such as (nowadays) forward error correction. Speaking of which: Computationally efficient, near-Shannon-limit codes are another truly impressive development in tech.
I was referring to a legal aphorism, and you, "sweetheart", are still pounding the table. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, you might realize how neatly you fit the stereotype of a whiny leftist throwing a fit because the leftist doesn't understand the world.
"In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes", as the right likes to paraphrase Andy Warhol.
What happens when one of the primary strategies of a party is to delegitimize its opponents? Which Republican candidate did the more liberal parts of the media gave lots of positive coverage during the primaries, apparently in hopes he would win the nomination? It's a bit late now for liberals to complain that Republicans are racist, sexist, classist deplorables with foreign policy from the 1980s: When even moderate Republicans get painted with those brushes, immoderate ones will step in. Meanwhile, most of America remembers that Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, government-mandated racism, eugenics, fascist drives in the 1930s, totalitarian drives in the 2010s, and more.
If Trump abuses the power of the presidency, it will largely be possible because Obama broke his promises to rein in the "imperial" presidency. Obama spent eight years drastically expanding the power of the executive branch and of the president. Perhaps he, and other Democrats, should have remembered why he made those promises in the first place.
Your comment does a lot to convince me... that sabbedde is right. Merely calling names and proclaiming the other person is wrong suggests that you have no defensible point -- that you've resorted to pounding the table, because neither facts nor law are on your side.
Slashdot Mirror
If eating sounds make you angry, don't eat sounds!
Some people just take synesthesia too far.
Before issuing a TRO or emergency injunction, a court is supposed to require that a movant show likelihood of success on the merits. How did that happen here?
Even assuming all the legal things you say are correct, they don't protect H-1B visa holders, or their employers, from executive determination that the visa holder's entry is contrary to national security interests. You've only explained why a judge could block enforcement of the order as to permanent residents.
Why do you say "certainly"? Alien just means non-US citizen, and visas do not grant citizenship. It would be a very unusual visa that naturalized someone. One might even say unprecedented!
But what do they have to address buzzword-as-a-service requirements?
I'm not saying it's aliens, but... it's aliens.
You first. If your head is so far up your ass that you can't tell when you're using a buzzword acronym with little exposure in the tech world and a lot of plausible meanings, you might be a tool.
Commercial use of your data -- such as making another game -- would violate established rights (e.g. right to publicity) in a way that would particularize harm to the person whose data was used without explicit consent. Note that the court threw the case out specifically because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that kind of harm, so the next case would be protected.
Alternatively, consider that almost any time you buy a ticket to a large attraction, there is fine print saying that the operator will have the right to use your image in promotional materials. In that context, 2K Games is not doing anything very novel.
BCM? Bravo Company, manufacturer of firearm parts so you can shoot your servers? Buzzword-Centric Methodology? The SourceForge "BCM" project, a file compression utility? Baylor College of Medicine? Bear Creek Mining? Bacau International Airport? Broadcom?
KDE's problems were not due to Git. They were due to a corrupt filesystem, a home-brew mirroring setup, and overworked admins.
If you're going to troll-ol-ol a blame vector for that, at least be remotely fair and blame Linux (or whatever OS their master server was running), open source, and the associated culture.
I think it's safe to say that B != NB, that is, a battery is not the same thing as a not-battery.
I asked questions because you are pretty incoherent. It seemed like you were trying to distinguish the protesters from Democrats -- anarchists in the US functionally act like extremist Democrats, and typically vote D, but maybe you were trying to say they're No True Democrat-man. That doesn't help your incorrect claim that most of the violent protests in the US were by Trump supporters rather than by Clinton supporters: The violent protesters preferred Clinton to Trump, and would have only voted for Stein (or anyone else) if their state was predictably going to go for Clinton.
That NBC story is astonishingly weak. You can find two law professors to support just about any bat-guano crazy idea; having legal theories that are outside the mainstream is almost a requirement to be a law professor. As the article quotes Trump correctly saying, the conflict-of-interest laws that motivate that lease term do not (and could not constitutionally) apply to the President. By its own language, the lease term they cite does not prevent lease-holders from running for, or being elected to, office. It only prohibits people who already hold office from taking or assuming an interest in the lease. It says no office-holder "shall be admitted to" the lease. Trump was "admitted to" the lease long before he started his campaign, when he did not hold any government office. If those partisan law professors (you did notice that one of them worked for Obama, right?) didn't mention anything more pertinent, you can bet they couldn't find anything more pertinent.
Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.
An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.
Perhaps the best examples of the ideological conformity that the left is pushing in the US comes from college campuses, where conservative and libertarian speakers are often threatened or assaulted -- and where campus authorities sometimes cancel their speeches because of the heckler's vote and concerns about safety or security. There are plenty of others, but often more polished by experience in how to get away with things.
A good example of pervasive government is California's Proposition 65, which requires businesses to conspicuously notify consumers if there are any of a very long list of substances that are "known to the State of California to cause" cancer and/or birth defects in a product or place of business in California. The list currently includes things like aloe vera extract, aspirin, boric acid, caffeine, carbon monoxide *and* dioxide ... and I got tired after the letter 'C'. As a result, most products you can buy in the US have a Prop 65 warning -- which sometimes leads to confusion abroad when products intended for sale in the US make it to other countries. There are more burdensome and broader government regulations with equally unclear marginal benefits, but Prop 65 is easy to see as an excess.
While reasonable people might disagree about exactly what constitutes "pervasive" government, though, US "liberals" are in favor of a lot of government oversight to make sure companies aren't trying to cheat employees by doing things like making lunch breaks optional; they want to ensure education is run by government rather than by schools offering government-approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer; and so forth.
The AC you replied to before my first comment explicitly mentioned "violently rioting in the streets and punching people". Your examples are two non-violent, although both abhorrent and obnoxious, incidents. On the other hand, we had riots after the election and riots for the inauguration, all by anti-Trump people. I assume the "punching people" bit was a reference to when a racist asshole got punched on live TV by one of the anti-Trump rioters in Washington DC -- an act that was praised by a lot of other Trump critics. Would you like to try again, and explain why you think violent crime is predominantly committed by Trump supporters?
The Emoluments Clause is short: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." What is the clear violation? Did Vladimir Putin tell Russia to write a big check, payable to Donald J. Trump, that Trump then deposited?
In the US as well, the term "liberal" has been captured by people who want to enforce ideological uniformity and usher in pervasive government. Some critics of those goals see the contradiction as betraying a lack of mental acuity, leading to the contraction that you complain about.
Your earlier comment: "This is the sorest bunch of winners ever. I've never seen people who's canddates win, and they're angrier than before the election."
Your newer comment: "I merely state that the winners have not been cheering. They've been just as anry [sic] as before."
I will take that about-face as a retraction of your earlier claim that Trump's supporters are angrier now than before the election, an admission that Obama is a shining example of acting angrier after winning an election than before it, and a sign that your memory is either not here yet or has already gone.
I'm not sure where "Trumptard" came from -- I generally don't use the word, and I am no fan of Trump, so I wouldn't call either of us Trumptards.
The vast majority of violent crime that I have seen covered in the US media has either been perpetrated by anti-Trump activists, or hoaxes by anti-Trump activists. If non-US media gives you the impression that Trump's supporters are committing three times as much violent crime (against either people or property) as Trump's opponents, I think those media are grievously misleading you. It gives the impression that you're a conspiracy theorist falling for Fake News, especially when you suggest that US-based sources are actually covering up some truth that fits their ideology.
There is no Emoluments Act, and there's quite a lot of legal support for the idea that he has not violated the Emoluments Clause. Why are you pushing falsehoods?
Can you provide examples or support for why it you think it is "running about three-to-one the other way"? If those examples are mostly outside the US, why are they relevant to judging whether Trump and/or Clinton voters are acting badly?
Here in the US, Trump voters are mostly working-class people who don't have time to protest in the streets. They're not professionals like the leftist mob leaders, and they're not students or jobless like the leftist fodder. Pro-Trump demonstrators in the US haven't rioted, haven't engaged in widespread property destruction or assaults outside of riots, and haven't tried to block people from attending government functions. Anti-Trump demonstrators have done all of those things. Except for one truly horrible executive order on immigration, even the anti-Trump US media haven't found any organized or significant pro-Trump lawlessness.
Are you pre-teen, or are you senile? Because you sure don't seem to remember the last eight years.
I do not think the Trumpsters are angrier than before the election, but if they are, they will tell you they are just following the advice of someone who said "elections have consequences", "punch back twice as hard", "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", "if you don't like a particular policy or president, go out there and win an election", and similar victory-lap snark. It's not as if Trump supporters normalized poutrage as a political form, or torched some schlub's limo because said limo owner was trying to make a living, or whatever.
Modems aren't compressors, and filters are radically different from compression algorithms. Modems use filters, but also do other things, such as (nowadays) forward error correction. Speaking of which: Computationally efficient, near-Shannon-limit codes are another truly impressive development in tech.
I was referring to a legal aphorism, and you, "sweetheart", are still pounding the table. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, you might realize how neatly you fit the stereotype of a whiny leftist throwing a fit because the leftist doesn't understand the world.
init.d is a directory name, not a program. There were (and are) several SysV-style init programs for Linux.
Is that you, Poettering? Your usual level of knowledge is showing...
"In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes", as the right likes to paraphrase Andy Warhol.
What happens when one of the primary strategies of a party is to delegitimize its opponents? Which Republican candidate did the more liberal parts of the media gave lots of positive coverage during the primaries, apparently in hopes he would win the nomination? It's a bit late now for liberals to complain that Republicans are racist, sexist, classist deplorables with foreign policy from the 1980s: When even moderate Republicans get painted with those brushes, immoderate ones will step in. Meanwhile, most of America remembers that Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, government-mandated racism, eugenics, fascist drives in the 1930s, totalitarian drives in the 2010s, and more.
If Trump abuses the power of the presidency, it will largely be possible because Obama broke his promises to rein in the "imperial" presidency. Obama spent eight years drastically expanding the power of the executive branch and of the president. Perhaps he, and other Democrats, should have remembered why he made those promises in the first place.
Your comment does a lot to convince me... that sabbedde is right. Merely calling names and proclaiming the other person is wrong suggests that you have no defensible point -- that you've resorted to pounding the table, because neither facts nor law are on your side.