That sudden loss of pressure is all Hollywood. Suddenly losing all blood pressure would be bad, yet a pin prick doesn't kill you. Why? Because the pin prick is so tiny compared to the size of your body. A 9mm bullet hole in 50,000mm plane is similar. Some air leaks out, just like some blood leaks from a paper cut. Not enough to make any difference, though.
For actual scale, a bullet hole is about 1/5,000 the size of the plane. That's equal to a hole in your skin that is 1/100th of an inch. A typical hypodermic needle is 15 times that size.
Five of the items you listed are "mobilization for ___ war". You're far too smart to actually believe the US has stopped getting ready for war. The NAME of the war has changed, the activity has not.
Similarly for most of the other names in your list. FSA was the FDA, Social Security Administration, and a few other things. Has the FDA stopped? SSA? No, they moved the program from one department to another. Nothing stopped .
I'm kind of disappointed, cold fjord. You normally think before you post, but you're off your game on this one.
True indeed. In the last few elections, neither party had very attractive candidates make it past the primaries. Early on, McCain's long record of working across party lines made him very appealing. Then he went stupid and picked Palin apparently without spending any time with her, just based on demographics and "maverick" status for going against the party. Sure, demographically she's a good balance for him. He's old, she's young. He's male, she's female. He's experienced, she's clueless. Wtf - clueless is not okay.
No need for all of that. Bush II was a popular governor who reached across the aisle, so many people thought he'd be a decent president. It turned out that he wasn't Obama talked a good game, he sounded inspirational. People thought he might be good. It turns out he isn't very good. That happens.
I'm sure almost all of the liberals here would love to trade Obama for JFK, just like conservatives would have resurrected Reagan to replace Bush if the could, but the good presidents are dead. The liberals know that. They aren't stupid (most of them). Okay, a lot of the electorate is uninformed, but even most of the uniformed realize that Obama was an error. No need to rub it in. YOU probably voted for Bush Jr. Oops. Happens to the best of us
That is true only if you start from the premise that the vast majority of people are stupid. In this case, that the vast majority of programmers / testers are stupid.
Employment 40 hours per week is already an option for any programmer or tester who would participate. They look at it and guesstimate "running Nessus overnight will take 10 minutes of my time. If there are promising hits following up on the most likely will take... ".
One of three things must be true before a programmer participates:
A) These programmers (math types) see that it's worth taking a quick look, that it's a good value for their time.
B) They ENJOY finding errors, like solving a puzzle. It's a HOBBY.
C) 98% of programmers are morons who don't know it's a waste of their time. YOU, however, have it all figured out. You're so much smarter than all of those programmers all over the world.
I happen to know that B is true. I greatly enjoyed figuring out a bug I could use to take down Wikipedia.
Your absolute arrogance, your total belief that you and only you have any wisdom or intelligence, blinds you to all of the actual wisdom in the world. When you think you're smarter than everyone else, you learn nothing. You remain in everlasting ignorance; self-inflicted, permanent ignorance.
Yes, LibreOffice is Word compatible. Specifically, it scores better than Word 2011 on compatibility with three of the four.doc formats. See the Microsoft article "What happens when I save a Word 2007 document in the OpenDocument Text format?"
I experienced this myself when my mother couldn't open any of her old documents on her Win7 computer with MS Word. I opened them in LibreOffice for her and converted them to the latest version the.docx format.
A woman's body is hers, that much is obvious. Pretending that's the issue is disingenuous - you're smarter than that I think.
The question arises when a couple decides to conceive a child. When, if ever, is it okay for parents to dismember their children? That is the question.
While my wife is asleep, our baby is often awake, moving around inside of her. Our child probably has a different blood type than mom. We think it's pretty clear that our baby Milan is not an organ of mom's body, but a separate person , currently inside of mom. To us, it's pretty similar to the fact that I'm a separate person, even when I'm inside of mom.:)
One way we do it is to return a "fake" only occasionally. The person who gets their password wrong is very unlikely to see a fake. On the other hand, a bad guy who is trying out 100,000 possible keys will get 50 fakes.
This works especially well if the bad guy doesn't know it's designed to occasionally generate fakes. He thinks he actually did decrypt passwords, but the list he has is nolonger valid. Maybe it's out of date, he thinks, or maybe they are stored backward, or maybe we KNOW he stole the list and therefore we've changed all of the passwords. It was entertaining to read the cracker message boards when we first introduced that feature.
Now, the crackers who keep themselves informed know that we generate fakes, and it annoys them greatly. They don't yet know that we do TWO levels of fakes. A certain percentage of the fakes pass their extra level of checking they now have to do to weed out the fakes. In other words, they THINK they are weeding out the fakes, but they are actually only weeding out the level 1 fakes.
> Making bogus data come out without requiring specific software for decryption seems like a very hard problem.
I can think of ways right off. First, you can encrypt decoy data along with the actual plaintext. It's not that the decryption software CREATES the decoy data, the decoy is already there. Decryption uses part of the key to separate the real data from the decoy.
Given that the data format is known, there's another easy way - packing. Assume the proper format is like social security numbers: 000-00-0000
What you want to avoid is letting the attacker recognize from the format that 571-22-5557 is correct, while jdksfs8fgh is not. To do that, before encryption, pack the data. That means you strip out the hyphens and save the numbers as one byte per pair of digits (or even 6 bits per digit). So the actual decryption returns unformatted, random looking bytes. Those are then formatted using something like printf() to make the actual source plaintext. If the right key is used, they'll be unformatted bytes until printf is run. If the wrong key is used, again you get unformatted bytes until printf formats them. The output comes out in the same format whether the key is correct or not. In incorrect key will result in invalid data that looks just like valid data.
> I love the way you ignore that CNN is a major for-profit corporation
Not that it's all that relevant, but in fact I said "CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit". Did you miss that part?
> I see no difference in those cases.
The law does. The law is that an action (including building a site) for the purpose of profiting from infringement is different from an action undertaken for the purpose of covering the news. Come to think of it, that's a pretty darn good one-sentence summary of "fair use". If you have any interest in copyright at all, you might find the concept interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Yes indeed. I thought of Megaupload while writing about it. For some reason people get emotional about that case and have strong opinions, whether because they enjoy getting the content without paying those who produce it or for whatever reason. Apart from whatever else can be said about Megaupload, Kim bragged about getting rich by screwing over the production companies. He made it very clear that his goal and intent was make a bunch of money from copyright infringement, so it's a pretty clear case in that respect.
The courts have distinguished a site built for the purpose of facilitating copyright infringement vs another purpose, such as "help people find everything on the internet". They've ruled that "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" is a purpose that's useful to society, even though "the world's information" includes some infringing infringing resources.
> And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free
Thanks for answering that. At first I thought you had ignored the question about ~ murder, but indeed you answered "she is taking a human life when she does so". I find that very interesting. I've never had anyone tell me they think it's okay to take a human life to relieve temporary discomfort when you change your mind about something.
Obviously I've heard people say it's not a human life, or it's not murder. I let them explain the subtle difference between murder and abortion. Then I point out that they just spent five minutes groping about trying to find a distinction between what they advocate and murder. Maybe they are right, maybe abortion isn't EXACTLY murder. They are advocating "pretty much murder, but not exactly". They typically running from the room screaming, covering their ears with their hands, at that point.
I'm curious. Lack of sleep causes discomfort. For example, getting up to feed a baby who is hungry every few hours can make one grumpy. Is it okay to end a human life so mom can sleep better?
Also, does the fact that mom CHOSE to make a baby affect aanything? I mean if it were about CHOICE, we'd recognize that mom and dad chose to make a baby and their choice will affect them. Just like dad is now responsible for at least child support, is it not rational to say mom is responsible for at least offering the baby for adoption, if not raising her child? Is child support violating the father's rights when it recognizes that his deci sions have effects?
I believe in equal rights. I believe men and women have the right to make decisions, and their decisions have effects.
In re the whole libertarian thing, I've never seen a libertarian say it's okay to murder someone else. Flip a coin - some people see it as murder (or similar), some don't. I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
Most of the replies here assume that the US has banned providing courses to these countries. That's not the case. The embargos ban providing SERVICES to these countries. It's not that anyone thinks restricting education is a good idea. The law is just ham-fisted. "Don't provide any services to Syria" means ANY services, including educational services.
That law is ham-fisted is a good thing to keep in mind generally. "You may not hire anyone for less than $10 / hour" means the retarded kid can't be hired as an apprentice, for example, because his work only generates $6/ hour.
I butchered one sentence in my post. That should be:
More than once, I've had customers offer to pre-pay for services in order to get my company through a rough spot. They don't do that because we treat them poorly.
I've owned my own company for 20 years, most of providing services to business. In that time, I've seen a lot of competitors and customers come and go. My experience is that people like to do business with people who treat them right, so the good guys last. Assholes lose customers and partners pretty quickly.
Mostly , it's clear during hard times in an industry. I've had customers ask me more than once prepay a few thousand files to get my company through a rough spot. Once or twice, the employees have purposely waited a week or so to come pick up their paychecks because they knew cash was tight. People don't do that for assholes.
It may surprise you to learn this, but "bogus" is not a legal term. "In good faith" is. DMCA provides for ADDITIONAL liability if the notice is not in good faith. Meaning, it gives you an additional ground for suit for large values of bogus. DMCA does not undo other grounds such as tortious inference.
If the notice is very bogus, knowingly false, you can sue directly under DMCA itself. If the claim is less bogus, recklessly false, you can sue under tortious interference or a half dozen other grounds.
Imagine stolenmovies.com charges $5 / month for access. Within the protected member's area of stolenmovies.com, members see a Netflix style interface where they can browse and search for movies. When you actually click "play" to play a movie, it plays a short commercial, then redirects to http://randomhackedmachine.ru/...
In that case, stolenmovie.com would be infringing, criminal infringement even. Since the site infringes, one could use a DMCA notice to have it shut down for a day or two.
On the other hand, say CNN.com does a news story about Justin Boober dancing in the street with three strippers. CNN links to a YouTube page which embeds a video of this newsworthy event. That video turns out to be infringing. (modulo fair use) because it was uploaded without the videographers permission. The news story is not infringing.
There are several factors that are different. It largely comes down to intent. Stolenmovies.com is blatantly trying to unfairly profit from other people's work. CNN is covering the news. Both link to an infringing work, but for different reasons, with different intent. CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit. It would be weaker if they KNEW that the video was infringing.
You've got it backwards. DMCA applies very much to content added by the webmaster. DMCA specifies how a web hosting company ought to respond to complaints of copyright infringement in their servers / datacenter. Some sites with user-generated content have argued that they are effectively hosting the user content.
If the web host follows the procedure, they are immune from claims of contributory infringement and the like. The process is:
Copyright owner sends a sworn notice to the host, specifying exactly which content is theirs (infringing).
Web host chchecks that the NOTICE complies with the law - it's properly signed, etc.
Web host informs the webmaster and temporarily blocks the content.
The webmaster may reply saying it's not infringing. DMCA specifies this counter-notice should be signed, etc.
Web host puts the content back upon receipt of proper counter-notice.
Copyright owner could sue in federal court to try to get it taken down again.
Webmaster can sue if the original notice is bogus.
Unfortunately, many people aren't well informed about the counter notice and their right to sue someone who files a bogus notice.
Note that the web host does not make any judgement as to whether the claim is valid. They have no discretion about taking it down temporarily and putting it back up when they receive a notice under DMCA. Their only decision is whether or not they've actually received a DMCA notice. For example, "Slashdot stole my shit" is not a notice under DMCA. A good friend of mine, and long time customer, won a suit on the basis that the alleged DMCA notice was not in fact a proper notice under DMCA because it didn't specify exactly what was claimed to be infringing.
I will directly answer your question, and again request that you answer mine. You asked:
> you do not believe women should have equal > rights. Why not just say what you believe?
I believe you are confusing your own position with mine. I clearly stated I believe mothers and fathers have rights, as do children. You are the one advocating a heinous infringement on the rights of most of the people involved. It is YOUR position that only adult females rights should be respected.
Again, my question for you: When someone decides to do something that might cause themselves discomfort, does that mean they have the right to murder someone else to relieve their own discomfort?
How about "not exactly murder" - is it okay to dismember an innocent person in order to make yourself more comfortable, if you realize you've done something that makes you temporarily uncomfortable?
I answered your question clearly and directly. Are you capable of the same?
I thought of that non-quote as I wrote it, too. The subject does remind you of the saying. However, Jackson was supporting the exclusive power of Congress over Indian affairs, not snubbing Congress. Jackson also was not changing or refusing to enforce any law. He only observed that the officials in Georgia would likely disregard a court decision. If the court had ordered Jackson to do something, then it might be in some way comparable. However, the court ordered Georgia officials to release the men. President Jackson was a bystander.
> Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law.
In my opinion, the executive has limited discretion is decide that a law is intended to apply in one case, and is not intended to apply in another case. An example would be speeding to emergency room vs. speeding to a football game. In such an instance, the executive isn't denying the law itself, merely realizing the common sense fact that laws have intent behind them, a reason for being. The LEGISLATURE who wrote the speed limit law did not intend for it to hamper a rescuer in a life-and-death emergency, and the executive can recognize the legislative intent.
On the other hand, consider this law: ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP, if the ISP handles complaints in the proper way as specified by the law.
In my opinion, the executive cannot, as policy, delete the second half of the law. If they do, you end up with: ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP.
Disregarding the second half of the law would give phishing-spam-r-us.net magical legal protection, saying you can intentionally set up a datacenter devoted to defrauding people and you have an absolute defense against being sued for it. Those decisions of law are for Congress to make, not the president, in my opinion.
Similarly, imagine this law: The government must pay each parent of schoolchild $10,000 per year, and the parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school of their choice.
The president deletes the first half: parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school.
The law as passed gives parents choice of where their child goes to school, without actually changing funding since the funding is coming from tax money. If the president deletes the first half, it becomes a $10,000 tax on parents. The president does not have the authority to unilaterally create a tax like that.
Obama effectively did the last, creating a huge new tax. The law was: Everybody has to pay the health insurance companies. The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
Obama changed it to: The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
That's effectively a multi-billion dollar tax on those companies. It's not the president's job, and not within his power, to create new taxes. That's the job of Congress.
Did you read any of what I wrote? You certainly didn't get the point if so.
> A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy.
As it is by nursing an infant. Do you believe that justifies someone murdering the nursing infant? Obviously it would not, and therefore your comment is irrelevant, to anyone who believes abortion is murder.
> Her internal organs are pushed around
Yes, my wife describes it as feeling like she ate an entire pizza. Does that justify murder? Again, that's my point - to the ~ 50% of people who believe abortion is murder, or is very similar to murder, the fact that she decided to do something that makes her feel bloated and uncomfortable is pretty insignificant - compared to murder.
> She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery.
It seems that the amount of discomfort depends on how well she takes care of herself and other factors. My wife, for example, does exercises daily, eats right, and is feeling pretty good. Regardless, how does having your arms and legs torn off feel?
You are making the argument that it's better to rip the limbs from someone who has no say in the matter, than for she who chose try to get pregnant to experience some discomfort. See how that makes absolutely no sense to a lot of people?
Two options: A) She decided to have sex, and that make mean she ends up with some discomfort. B) She decided to have sex, so let's tear out a baby's intestines with a metal hook.
Of course, if you ignore the fact that abortion means tearing someone's arms and legs off, then what you said makes perfect sense.
Mixxx http://www.mixxx.org/ is one to look at. It has a bank of samplers, it does BPM detection and automatic beat matching, can be controlled by hardware such as a Hercules RMX, RePlay gain, automatic looping of X beat segments, etc.
It depends on what you want. Many years ago, when I did my "shopping" for software, I thought I wanted to beat match, do a lot of sampling, etc. In other words DJing as an artistic musical performance. Later, I found out that my clients aren't impressed by any of that. They are impressed when I get their wedding guests on the dance floor, which I can do by finding the right song at the right time, from a library of tens of thousands of songs, and by having ready access to historical playlists so I can see which sequences of songs worked well for the other events. In that respect a wedding D has completely different needs than a rave DJ. I actually have no use for mixing, beat matching, or sampling since I do weddings and the like.
It also depends of course on whether you want to use a hardware mixer, a software, or a hardware controller for a software mixer.
Having said all of that, Mixxx is pretty good all around. I use it sometimes. Other times, I use a hardware mixer, two instances of XMMS, "find", and some Perl scripts I whipped up. I've been a full time programmer for 16 years and I live at the command line, so whipping up some Perl scripts for playlist management made sense for me.
I'm glad you brought it up. I hadn't taken a close look at the most recent version of Mixxx in a while, not until you asked. It looks like they added some good stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
He said black powder. Black powder is potassium NITRATE aka kno3.
A little charcoal, a lot of potassium nitrate, and a pinch of sulfur.
That sudden loss of pressure is all Hollywood.
Suddenly losing all blood pressure would be bad, yet a pin prick doesn't kill you. Why? Because the pin prick is so tiny compared to the size of your body. A 9mm bullet hole in 50,000mm plane is similar. Some air leaks out, just like some blood leaks from a paper cut. Not enough to make any difference, though.
For actual scale, a bullet hole is about 1/5,000 the size of the plane. That's equal to a hole in your skin that is 1/100th of an inch. A typical hypodermic needle is 15 times that size.
Five of the items you listed are "mobilization for ___ war". You're far too smart to actually believe the US has stopped getting ready for war. The NAME of the war has changed, the activity has not.
Similarly for most of the other names in your list. FSA was the FDA, Social Security Administration, and a few other things. Has the FDA stopped? SSA? No, they moved the program from one department to another. Nothing stopped .
I'm kind of disappointed, cold fjord. You normally think before you post, but you're off your game on this one.
True indeed. In the last few elections, neither party had very attractive candidates make it past the primaries. Early on, McCain's long record of working across party lines made him very appealing. Then he went stupid and picked Palin apparently without spending any time with her, just based on demographics and "maverick" status for going against the party. Sure, demographically she's a good balance for him. He's old, she's young. He's male, she's female. He's experienced, she's clueless. Wtf - clueless is not okay.
No need for all of that. Bush II was a popular governor who reached across the aisle, so many people thought he'd be a decent president. It turned out that he wasn't Obama talked a good game, he sounded inspirational. People thought he might be good. It turns out he isn't very good. That happens.
I'm sure almost all of the liberals here would love to trade Obama for JFK, just like conservatives would have resurrected Reagan to replace Bush if the could, but the good presidents are dead. The liberals know that. They aren't stupid (most of them). Okay, a lot of the electorate is uninformed, but even most of the uniformed realize that Obama was an error. No need to rub it in. YOU probably voted for Bush Jr. Oops. Happens to the best of us
That is true only if you start from the premise that the vast majority of people are stupid. In this case, that the vast majority of programmers / testers are stupid.
Employment 40 hours per week is already an option for any programmer or tester who would participate. ... ".
They look at it and guesstimate "running Nessus overnight will take 10 minutes of my time. If there are promising hits following up on the most likely will take
One of three things must be true before a programmer participates:
A) These programmers (math types) see that it's worth taking a quick look, that it's a good value for their time.
B) They ENJOY finding errors, like solving a puzzle. It's a HOBBY.
C) 98% of programmers are morons who don't know it's a waste of their time. YOU, however, have it all figured out. You're so much smarter than all of those programmers all over the world.
I happen to know that B is true. I greatly enjoyed figuring out a bug I could use to take down Wikipedia.
Your absolute arrogance, your total belief that you and only you have any wisdom or intelligence, blinds you to all of the actual wisdom in the world. When you think you're smarter than everyone else, you learn nothing. You remain in everlasting ignorance; self-inflicted, permanent ignorance.
Yes, LibreOffice is Word compatible. Specifically, it scores better than Word 2011 on compatibility with three of the four .doc formats. See the Microsoft article "What happens when I save a Word 2007 document in the OpenDocument Text format?"
I experienced this myself when my mother couldn't open any of her old documents on her Win7 computer with MS Word. I opened them in LibreOffice for her and converted them to the latest version the .docx format.
For any women, or me, interested in cyber-security, the Texas A&M system has some free, online, college credit courses at http://teex.com/
A woman's body is hers, that much is obvious. Pretending that's the issue is disingenuous - you're smarter than that I think.
The question arises when a couple decides to conceive a child. When, if ever, is it okay for parents to dismember their children? That is the question.
While my wife is asleep, our baby is often awake, moving around inside of her. Our child probably has a different blood type than mom. We think it's pretty clear that our baby Milan is not an organ of mom's body, but a separate person , currently inside of mom. To us, it's pretty similar to the fact that I'm a separate person, even when I'm inside of mom. :)
That sounds a bit like inline-block.
One way we do it is to return a "fake" only occasionally. The person who gets their password wrong is very unlikely to see a fake. On the other hand, a bad guy who is trying out 100,000 possible keys will get 50 fakes.
This works especially well if the bad guy doesn't know it's designed to occasionally generate fakes. He thinks he actually did decrypt passwords, but the list he has is nolonger valid. Maybe it's out of date, he thinks, or maybe they are stored backward, or maybe we KNOW he stole the list and therefore we've changed all of the passwords. It was entertaining to read the cracker message boards when we first introduced that feature.
Now, the crackers who keep themselves informed know that we generate fakes, and it annoys them greatly. They don't yet know that we do TWO levels of fakes. A certain percentage of the fakes pass their extra level of checking they now have to do to weed out the fakes. In other words, they THINK they are weeding out the fakes, but they are actually only weeding out the level 1 fakes.
> Making bogus data come out without requiring specific software for decryption seems like a very hard problem.
I can think of ways right off. First, you can encrypt decoy data along with the actual plaintext. It's not that the decryption software CREATES the decoy data, the decoy is already there. Decryption uses part of the key to separate the real data from the decoy.
Given that the data format is known, there's another easy way - packing. Assume the proper format is like social security numbers:
000-00-0000
What you want to avoid is letting the attacker recognize from the format that 571-22-5557 is correct, while jdksfs8fgh is not. To do that, before encryption, pack the data. That means you strip out the hyphens and save the numbers as one byte per pair of digits (or even 6 bits per digit). So the actual decryption returns unformatted, random looking bytes. Those are then formatted using something like printf() to make the actual source plaintext. If the right key is used, they'll be unformatted bytes until printf is run. If the wrong key is used, again you get unformatted bytes until printf formats them. The output comes out in the same format whether the key is correct or not. In incorrect key will result in invalid data that looks just like valid data.
> I love the way you ignore that CNN is a major for-profit corporation
Not that it's all that relevant, but in fact I said "CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit".
Did you miss that part?
> I see no difference in those cases.
The law does. The law is that an action (including building a site) for the purpose of profiting from infringement is different from an action undertaken for the purpose of covering the news. Come to think of it, that's a pretty darn good one-sentence summary of "fair use". If you have any interest in copyright at all, you might find the concept interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Yes indeed. I thought of Megaupload while writing about it. For some reason people get emotional about that case and have strong opinions, whether because they enjoy getting the content without paying those who produce it or for whatever reason. Apart from whatever else can be said about Megaupload, Kim bragged about getting rich by screwing over the production companies. He made it very clear that his goal and intent was make a bunch of money from copyright infringement, so it's a pretty clear case in that respect.
The courts have distinguished a site built for the purpose of facilitating copyright infringement vs another purpose, such as "help people find everything on the internet". They've ruled that "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" is a purpose that's useful to society, even though "the world's information" includes some infringing infringing resources.
> And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free
Thanks for answering that. At first I thought you had ignored the question about ~ murder, but indeed you answered "she is taking a human life when she does so". I find that very interesting. I've never had anyone tell me they think it's okay to take a human life to relieve temporary discomfort when you change your mind about something.
Obviously I've heard people say it's not a human life, or it's not murder. I let them explain the subtle difference between murder and abortion. Then I point out that they just spent five minutes groping about trying to find a distinction between what they advocate and murder. Maybe they are right, maybe abortion isn't EXACTLY murder. They are advocating "pretty much murder, but not exactly". They typically running from the room screaming, covering their ears with their hands, at that point.
I'm curious. Lack of sleep causes discomfort. For example, getting up to feed a baby who is hungry every few hours can make one grumpy. Is it okay to end a human life so mom can sleep better?
Also, does the fact that mom CHOSE to make a baby affect aanything? I mean if it were about CHOICE, we'd recognize that mom and dad chose to make a baby and their choice will affect them. Just like dad is now responsible for at least child support, is it not rational to say mom is responsible for at least offering the baby for adoption, if not raising her child? Is child support violating the father's rights when it recognizes that his deci sions have effects?
I believe in equal rights. I believe men and women have the right to make decisions, and their decisions have effects.
In re the whole libertarian thing, I've never seen a libertarian say it's okay to murder someone else. Flip a coin - some people see it as murder (or similar), some don't. I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
Most of the replies here assume that the US has banned providing courses to these countries. That's not the case. The embargos ban providing SERVICES to these countries. It's not that anyone thinks restricting education is a good idea. The law is just ham-fisted. "Don't provide any services to Syria" means ANY services, including educational services.
That law is ham-fisted is a good thing to keep in mind generally. "You may not hire anyone for less than $10 / hour" means the retarded kid can't be hired as an apprentice, for example, because his work only generates $6/ hour.
I butchered one sentence in my post. That should be:
More than once, I've had customers offer to pre-pay for services in order to get my company through a rough spot.
They don't do that because we treat them poorly.
I've owned my own company for 20 years, most of providing services to business. In that time, I've seen a lot of competitors and customers come and go. My experience is that people like to do business with people who treat them right, so the good guys last. Assholes lose customers and partners pretty quickly.
Mostly , it's clear during hard times in an industry. I've had customers ask me more than once prepay a few thousand files to get my company through a rough spot. Once or twice, the employees have purposely waited a week or so to come pick up their paychecks because they knew cash was tight. People don't do that for assholes.
It may surprise you to learn this, but "bogus" is not a legal term. "In good faith" is. DMCA provides for ADDITIONAL liability if the notice is not in good faith. Meaning, it gives you an additional ground for suit for large values of bogus. DMCA does not undo other grounds such as tortious inference.
If the notice is very bogus, knowingly false, you can sue directly under DMCA itself. If the claim is less bogus, recklessly false, you can sue under tortious interference or a half dozen other grounds.
Imagine stolenmovies.com charges $5 / month for access. Within the protected member's area of stolenmovies.com, members see a Netflix style interface where they can browse and search for movies. When you actually click "play" to play a movie, it plays a short commercial, then redirects to http://randomhackedmachine.ru/...
In that case, stolenmovie.com would be infringing, criminal infringement even. Since the site infringes, one could use a DMCA notice to have it shut down for a day or two.
On the other hand, say CNN.com does a news story about Justin Boober dancing in the street with three strippers. CNN links to a YouTube page which embeds a video of this newsworthy event. That video turns out to be infringing. (modulo fair use) because it was uploaded without the videographers permission. The news story is not infringing.
There are several factors that are different. It largely comes down to intent. Stolenmovies.com is blatantly trying to unfairly profit from other people's work. CNN is covering the news. Both link to an infringing work, but for different reasons, with different intent. CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit. It would be weaker if they KNEW that the video was infringing.
You've got it backwards. DMCA applies very much to content added by the webmaster. DMCA specifies how a web hosting company ought to respond to complaints of copyright infringement in their servers / datacenter. Some sites with user-generated content have argued that they are effectively hosting the user content.
If the web host follows the procedure, they are immune from claims of contributory infringement and the like. The process is:
Copyright owner sends a sworn notice to the host, specifying exactly which content is theirs (infringing).
Web host chchecks that the NOTICE complies with the law - it's properly signed, etc.
Web host informs the webmaster and temporarily blocks the content.
The webmaster may reply saying it's not infringing.
DMCA specifies this counter-notice should be signed, etc.
Web host puts the content back upon receipt of proper counter-notice.
Copyright owner could sue in federal court to try to get it taken down again.
Webmaster can sue if the original notice is bogus.
Unfortunately, many people aren't well informed about the counter notice and their right to sue someone who files a bogus notice.
Note that the web host does not make any judgement as to whether the claim is valid. They have no discretion about taking it down temporarily and putting it back up when they receive a notice under DMCA. Their only decision is whether or not they've actually received a DMCA notice. For example, "Slashdot stole my shit" is not a notice under DMCA. A good friend of mine, and long time customer, won a suit on the basis that the alleged DMCA notice was not in fact a proper notice under DMCA because it didn't specify exactly what was claimed to be infringing.
I will directly answer your question, and again request that you answer mine. You asked:
> you do not believe women should have equal
> rights. Why not just say what you believe?
I believe you are confusing your own position with mine. I clearly stated I believe mothers and fathers have rights, as do children. You are the one advocating a heinous infringement on the rights of most of the people involved. It is YOUR position that only adult females rights should be respected.
Again, my question for you:
When someone decides to do something that might cause themselves discomfort, does that mean they have the right to murder someone else to relieve their own discomfort?
How about "not exactly murder" - is it okay to dismember an innocent person in order to make yourself more comfortable, if you realize you've done something that makes you temporarily uncomfortable?
I answered your question clearly and directly. Are you capable of the same?
I thought of that non-quote as I wrote it, too. The subject does remind you of the saying.
However, Jackson was supporting the exclusive power of Congress over Indian affairs, not snubbing Congress.
Jackson also was not changing or refusing to enforce any law. He only observed that the officials in Georgia would likely disregard a court decision. If the court had ordered Jackson to do something, then it might be in some way comparable. However, the court ordered Georgia officials to release the men. President Jackson was a bystander.
> Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law.
In my opinion, the executive has limited discretion is decide that a law is intended to apply in one case, and is not intended to apply in another case. An example would be speeding to emergency room vs. speeding to a football game. In such an instance, the executive isn't denying the law itself, merely realizing the common sense fact that laws have intent behind them, a reason for being. The LEGISLATURE who wrote the speed limit law did not intend for it to hamper a rescuer in a life-and-death emergency, and the executive can recognize the legislative intent.
On the other hand, consider this law:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP, if the ISP handles complaints in the proper way as specified by the law.
In my opinion, the executive cannot, as policy, delete the second half of the law. If they do, you end up with:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP.
Disregarding the second half of the law would give phishing-spam-r-us.net magical legal protection, saying you can intentionally set up a datacenter devoted to defrauding people and you have an absolute defense against being sued for it. Those decisions of law are for Congress to make, not the president, in my opinion.
Similarly, imagine this law:
The government must pay each parent of schoolchild $10,000 per year, and the parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school of their choice.
The president deletes the first half:
parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school.
The law as passed gives parents choice of where their child goes to school, without actually changing funding since the funding is coming from tax money. If the president deletes the first half, it becomes a $10,000 tax on parents. The president does not have the authority to unilaterally create a tax like that.
Obama effectively did the last, creating a huge new tax. The law was:
Everybody has to pay the health insurance companies. The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
Obama changed it to:
The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
That's effectively a multi-billion dollar tax on those companies. It's not the president's job, and not within his power, to create new taxes. That's the job of Congress.
Did you read any of what I wrote? You certainly didn't get the point if so.
> A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy.
As it is by nursing an infant. Do you believe that justifies someone murdering the nursing infant?
Obviously it would not, and therefore your comment is irrelevant, to anyone who believes abortion is murder.
> Her internal organs are pushed around
Yes, my wife describes it as feeling like she ate an entire pizza.
Does that justify murder? Again, that's my point - to the ~ 50% of people who believe abortion is murder, or is very similar to murder, the fact that she decided to do something that makes her feel bloated and uncomfortable is pretty insignificant - compared to murder.
> She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery.
It seems that the amount of discomfort depends on how well she takes care of herself and other factors. My wife, for example, does exercises daily, eats right, and is feeling pretty good. Regardless, how does having your arms and legs torn off feel?
You are making the argument that it's better to rip the limbs from someone who has no say in the matter, than for she who chose try to get pregnant to experience some discomfort. See how that makes absolutely no sense to a lot of people?
Two options:
A) She decided to have sex, and that make mean she ends up with some discomfort.
B) She decided to have sex, so let's tear out a baby's intestines with a metal hook.
Of course, if you ignore the fact that abortion means tearing someone's arms and legs off, then what you said makes perfect sense.
Mixxx http://www.mixxx.org/ is one to look at. It has a bank of samplers, it does BPM detection and automatic beat matching, can be controlled by hardware such as a Hercules RMX, RePlay gain, automatic looping of X beat segments, etc.
It depends on what you want. Many years ago, when I did my "shopping" for software, I thought I wanted to beat match, do a lot of sampling, etc. In other words DJing as an artistic musical performance. Later, I found out that my clients aren't impressed by any of that. They are impressed when I get their wedding guests on the dance floor, which I can do by finding the right song at the right time, from a library of tens of thousands of songs, and by having ready access to historical playlists so I can see which sequences of songs worked well for the other events. In that respect a wedding D has completely different needs than a rave DJ. I actually have no use for mixing, beat matching, or sampling since I do weddings and the like.
It also depends of course on whether you want to use a hardware mixer, a software, or a hardware controller for a software mixer.
Having said all of that, Mixxx is pretty good all around. I use it sometimes. Other times, I use a hardware mixer, two instances of XMMS, "find", and some Perl scripts I whipped up. I've been a full time programmer for 16 years and I live at the command line, so whipping up some Perl scripts for playlist management made sense for me.
I'm glad you brought it up. I hadn't taken a close look at the most recent version of Mixxx in a while, not until you asked.
It looks like they added some good stuff.