It's not a legal gray area. The United states has the absolute and legal authority to bar any non-US person from entering the country. This is common knowledge to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by our left-wing education system and media.
You keep conflating the Government's powers with the President's. The President's powers certainly overlap the Government's; but there are things that the President cannot (legally) do. For example, the President cannot create laws.
So, no, despite what Nixon said, just because the President does something, doesn't automatically make it legal. So, your statement "And there's an argument that his Constituitonal Executive Power supercedes any law" is patently and demonstrably bullshit.
I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.
You're full of shit.
There are many "International Airports" in the USA. For example, here in Indiana, there is Indianapolis International Airport (formerly Weir Cook Airport). That has been classified as an International Airport (with a Customs office and everything) for at least the last 25 years or so.
The same cisco that immediately changed their shipping routines after the NSA leaks? The same cisco that's setting up pentesting sites so customers can come analyze their devices before they deploy them?
I think you said Cisco but meant to say Apple.
Where is the proof that Apple has been in cahoots with the NSA/CIA, etc?
Cisco systems will pretend to audit their firmware for backdoors -- while simultaneously be reaching behind them for their NSA/CIA/FBI payout for their 'services to their Country'
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this:
Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
True. But Cox had a pretty damn good argument that burying them under a clearly frivolous and unduly burdensome blizzard of paper (emails), rather than clearly denoting the communications that were "legitimate" DMCA Complaints was clearly a tactic aimed not at stopping infringement, but rather to trick them into doing exactly what they did: Essentially ignoring ALL of RightsCorp's emails.
Personally, I would have filed a Counterclaim against Rightscorp for abusing the spirit of the DMCA's Notice Requirement, for the damages incurred by Cox in handling Rightscorp's NON-DMCA-Notice communications.
Afterall, it's not like Cox can handle all those FAKE-Notices for free.
Gotta love these justices who add their own interpretation into statutory law.
Um, "Interpreting the law" is what the Judicial Branch is all about.
And although I wholeheartedly disagree with the Jury's verdict, in this case not only was it not a JUDGE that decided, but the decision was unfortunately not likely the result of any deficiency in the handling of the case, and thus not likely to be reversed or vacated on Appeal.
They are not supposed to be the content police. Do you not see the obvious problem with this kind of logic? If they are liable for not blocking pirating users, then they are liable for not blocking pedophile users, and liable for not blocking ISIS users. All of a sudden, COX is now financially responsible for what each of its users does. This is a terrible precedent to set.
THIS!
You are EXACTLY correct. I hope Cox Appeals this wrongheaded decision. Too bad it's a jury verdict; because reviewing Courts are loathe to reverse jury decisions.
No, my niece's kid isn't old enough to be fixing the computer. *sighs* I am not a Mac user but my niece, bless her, wanted and got a Mac. This has meant many calls to help fix her Mac. I don't know anything about them. One of the first issues was MacKeeper but I managed to figure that one out.
She wanted to install AV (no, I do not know why) and MacKeeper would not let her. So, this went around for a while and finally I figured out MacKeeper wasn't Mac software. It took a bit of Google-fu and a few phone calls.
Tell her to stop thinking of her Mac as just a Windows machine with a different Logo, and she'll be fine. And then set her up with a nice, NON-ADMIN User Account, so she can stop ruining her own System by installing A/V CRAP that Mac Users simply don't need.
Then, for bonus points, Enable VNC (Screen Sharing) on her Mac (and Port-Forward Port 5900 to her machine), then YOU can log in with any VNC Client and Install stuff for her in a more, um, "controlled" manner...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a legal gray area. The United states has the absolute and legal authority to bar any non-US person from entering the country. This is common knowledge to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by our left-wing education system and media.
You keep conflating the Government's powers with the President's. The President's powers certainly overlap the Government's; but there are things that the President cannot (legally) do. For example, the President cannot create laws.
The president has absolute authority to bar any or all non-US persons from entering the country for any reason or no reason at all.
Prove it.
The supreme court ruled that all authority control immigration resides with the federal government.
The Federal Government, yes; but the President himself, not so much. We are not a Monarchy nor a Dictatorship.
And (thank God!) there are limits to what can be done with an Executive Order.
So, no, despite what Nixon said, just because the President does something, doesn't automatically make it legal. So, your statement "And there's an argument that his Constituitonal Executive Power supercedes any law" is patently and demonstrably bullshit.
The moral of this story is that intelligence isn't just a game of what you know about your enemy, it's also about what they know you know about them.
That type of logic always reminds me of this great TNG quote.
I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.
You're full of shit.
There are many "International Airports" in the USA. For example, here in Indiana, there is Indianapolis International Airport (formerly Weir Cook Airport). That has been classified as an International Airport (with a Customs office and everything) for at least the last 25 years or so.
percale
What do cotton sheets have to do with international travel?
Jimmy Carter had no problem unilaterally stopping all Iranian immigration/visas.
You can more easily ban people from a particular Country that from a particular Religion.
That's where Trump's idea falls off a cliff, Constitutionally-speaking.
vertiginous
Nice word!
The same cisco that immediately changed their shipping routines after the NSA leaks? The same cisco that's setting up pentesting sites so customers can come analyze their devices before they deploy them? I think you said Cisco but meant to say Apple.
Where is the proof that Apple has been in cahoots with the NSA/CIA, etc?
I think you said Apple, but meant Lenovo and HP.
Allow me to translate:
Cisco systems will pretend to audit their firmware for backdoors -- while simultaneously be reaching behind them for their NSA/CIA/FBI payout for their 'services to their Country'
EXACTLY what I came here to say.
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new, unlike curved edges and a single button that Apple patented. Fuck Apple.
INSIGHTFUL!?!?!???
Well, I guess we see the Apple Haters are out in force on this one...
Apple only put together purchased micro-electronics into cases they design
Care to support that statement, since Apple even designs their own SoCs, let alone the rest of the gadgets.
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new, unlike curved edges and a single button that Apple patented. Fuck Apple.
Ahem.
This independent Report from 2012, lists over 1200 Apple "mobile" Patents (which I'm sure has been added-to since then).
Obviously, there is a lot more than the Home Button and the Curved Corners here, eh?
This would leave such an easy path to proving it well enough to publish in the newspapers though.
And I'm sure that the .0001% of the population that REALLY understands the issues involved would be duly outraged.
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this: Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
True. But Cox had a pretty damn good argument that burying them under a clearly frivolous and unduly burdensome blizzard of paper (emails), rather than clearly denoting the communications that were "legitimate" DMCA Complaints was clearly a tactic aimed not at stopping infringement, but rather to trick them into doing exactly what they did: Essentially ignoring ALL of RightsCorp's emails.
Personally, I would have filed a Counterclaim against Rightscorp for abusing the spirit of the DMCA's Notice Requirement, for the damages incurred by Cox in handling Rightscorp's NON-DMCA-Notice communications.
Afterall, it's not like Cox can handle all those FAKE-Notices for free.
Gotta love these justices who add their own interpretation into statutory law.
Um, "Interpreting the law" is what the Judicial Branch is all about.
And although I wholeheartedly disagree with the Jury's verdict, in this case not only was it not a JUDGE that decided, but the decision was unfortunately not likely the result of any deficiency in the handling of the case, and thus not likely to be reversed or vacated on Appeal.
They are not supposed to be the content police. Do you not see the obvious problem with this kind of logic? If they are liable for not blocking pirating users, then they are liable for not blocking pedophile users, and liable for not blocking ISIS users. All of a sudden, COX is now financially responsible for what each of its users does. This is a terrible precedent to set.
THIS!
You are EXACTLY correct. I hope Cox Appeals this wrongheaded decision. Too bad it's a jury verdict; because reviewing Courts are loathe to reverse jury decisions.
I wonder how much it costs to coerce a programmer type to insert a few bits of code into your project.
The cost of an IRS Audit, or the threat of same.
I don't like her that much. She has that Apple Care, extended stuff, now. ;-) I like her *that* much.
LOL, Ok!
;-)
I just know how we all get roped-into those "Family Tech-Support" gigs...
I'm shocked that there are actually 13 million Mac users. How are they supposed to feel elite and stuff if there are that many of them.
Apple: you need to raise the prices some more.
Then I guess you'd be apoplectic to learn that, as of 2012 (the most recent figure I could find), there are actually 60 million Mac users worldwide.
MacKeeper is for all intents and purposes, Malware. Avoid at all costs.
ALL OS X "Anti-Malware" software is for all intents and purposes, Malware. Avoid at all costs.
FTFY.
No, my niece's kid isn't old enough to be fixing the computer. *sighs* I am not a Mac user but my niece, bless her, wanted and got a Mac. This has meant many calls to help fix her Mac. I don't know anything about them. One of the first issues was MacKeeper but I managed to figure that one out.
She wanted to install AV (no, I do not know why) and MacKeeper would not let her. So, this went around for a while and finally I figured out MacKeeper wasn't Mac software. It took a bit of Google-fu and a few phone calls.
Tell her to stop thinking of her Mac as just a Windows machine with a different Logo, and she'll be fine. And then set her up with a nice, NON-ADMIN User Account, so she can stop ruining her own System by installing A/V CRAP that Mac Users simply don't need.
Then, for bonus points, Enable VNC (Screen Sharing) on her Mac (and Port-Forward Port 5900 to her machine), then YOU can log in with any VNC Client and Install stuff for her in a more, um, "controlled" manner...
Considering Apple cannot design ANYTHING lately that doesn't piss off their customers, it's probably a good idea they don't try to start a TV service.
No, of course not. All they make is failure after failure; particularly in the Set-Top-Box market.
DiFi was the one who wanted to reclassify your Ruger 10/22 as an NFA weapon (i.e. machine gun). She is evil.
Oh, I know. How she gets re-elected is beyond belief.
Or is this tactic really that effective, so people continue to use it over and over?
The real problem is, that it is only ineffective on the people who DON'T vote...