Some changes Obama unilaterally decided on include eliminating the funding source, the mandate, and declaring his union buddies don't have to comply with the law. (Equal protection clause, anyone?).
You say "you alleged". Leaders of his own party have said his overreach into writing his own law, rather than going to congress, is an impeachable offense; "no question about it, not even close", democrat congressmen have said. You like the guy, that's fine, I get that. Be honest with yourself, though, he's not perfect, not anywhere close to perfect. One of those imperfections is that he's thoroughly confused about his role vis-a-vis congress.
There are over 1,000 posts mentioning amsynth, many of them comparing other modeling synths, on linuxmusician.com . As I mentioned a couple of times, this isn't really my area of expertise, but there are hundreds of people on linuxmusician who can give better answers than I can.
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first. (As per the Constitution.)
Wilson started military action in World War I first, then later asked Congress to recognize that he'd already taken us to war.
Similarly Truman sent troops to Korea without asking for Congressional authorization.
Obama went into Libya after Congress, both parties, specifically told him not to. DEMOCRAT congressman Dennis Kucinich called this "an impeachable offense". Obama's own party leaders said: "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
Are you not getting the difference between a president carrying out a law passed by congress (Bush in Afghanistan) versus disregarding Congress and doing what they please (Truman) versus declaring they will defy Congress and do precisely what law makers have said they must not do (Obama)? His own party says "it's not even close".
Monroe chose a certain interpretation of the bill _as_he_signed_it_into_law. The same is true of any Bush signing statements - they are commentary on the new law at the time the law is enacted.
With Obamacare, the law was passed, then a year later Obama declared he was going to ignore it - and then declared brand new law to replace it, just making something up unilateraly and declaring it to be the law of the land.
Thanks for that. I realized shortly after posting that troops may not have actually arrived under Kennedy. He did authorize the use of troops with Executive Order 11111. Eisenhower, like Kennedy, had some stones.
We're getting way off topic, but Ds have for decades generally opposed any kind of "welfare to work" or job training requirements for receiving public funds. Clinton did sign the bill that republicans passed in 1996, but since then Obama has been undoing it, removing or relaxing the requirement to eventually get job training or start working in order to continue to receive handouts.
So based on their record, what democrats have been doing since at least the days of Reagan, the Democrat view has been more "keep giving a man fish and don't expect him to learn how to fish".
> But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama)
ROTFL. Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises".
One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own. Obama's unilateral changes to Obamacare such as delaying the employer mandate for a year is a new kind of imperial presidency. Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.
That's not what I said. What I said is that there is probably one (not "a lot") that the submitter would be happy with, based on their needs. For any given use case, there is probably one that is approximately as good as any you mentioned.
Especially given that the submitter said would be happy with something they made themselves!
> can you give a few pointers?
See the subject line of my post, which you replied to. If you posted about your use case and what is important to you, the Linux music community could point you to the solutions that meet your needs.
You mentioned programming your own synth, which would be open source. I'd bet there is an open source synth that is 98% what you want. Since it's open source, you can just do the 2% that it's missing - no need to write your own 100%.
Several people mentioned Mac. I'm a hardcore FOSS guy. I used FOSS exclusively for 15 years. Mac devices like the iPhone reminded me why proprietary stuff can be so annoying. Then I was presented with a Mac Pro. Actually using the Mac changed my view. It's good, and it's what professional creatives use - for a reason. Don't let any negative experiences with iOS portable devices put you off of Mac computers. It's as if OSX and iOS are made by two different companies. Additionally, Mac OSX is Unix, so it'll run most any Linux programs.
No, the real time kernel was available by 2008 and soon after the drivers and other important elements for real time were adapted.
You DO want to use a kernel compiled for real time, last I checked. You certainly CAN introduce latency if you're also using it as a typical desktop, but if you either start with a studio distribution or build it as a studio machine you should be fine.
As a DJ, I've come across some tools and some complete distributions that will likely fit your needs, but I don't know quite enough to make specific recommendations. I do know that there are alot of Linux music production tools that are way above my head, pro quality stuff. The folks at Linuxmusician.com and Linuxaudio.org would know exactly what you're talking about and be able to make specific recommendations. I looked at a couple distributions that are complete audio workstations on boot. They included a lot of fancy tools that were way more than I needed.
As you may know, music production on Linux uses JACK to hook together any software components you want. That means any editor tool can work with any midi source, for example, because they are plugged together using jack.
Two popular software packages are Ardour and Traktion, but really the Linux music community at sites focused on music production under Linux will have much better answers for you.
That's funny. You're poking fun at me, and still I find it funny.
Of course, in reality Republicans say "teach a man to fish, you've fed him for a lifetime" as opposed to Democrat proposals to "give a man a fish, to feed him for a day". So libraries are exactly the kind of thing conservatives prefer. The Democrat version of a library is to mail out books to anyone making under $30K, after spending $8 trillion to translate all books into every known language. Libraries are unacceptable because most of the books are in English and Spanish, which is unfair to the illegal alien from Tinyistan.
> Chinese phones have BigBrother software intended for tracking Chinese citizens. This spyware probably won't work well from US providers.
I suspect the Chinese have noticed that they're shipping millions of phones to their #1 rival, the US. Notice are set up in English. It's beyond trivial for the Chinese to set export phones to English language and US region backdoor.
Indeed, that's the difference. When they had to show up with a warrant for a specific individual and have agents sit and listen, they did that for high value suspects. Now it's all of us, all the time, who are the targets.
The NSA has 15 such cases that they feel like telling congress about. These are a few of the cases where the target caught on or the employee was otherwise busted. Given Snowden, it's reasonable to think NSA employees can do a lot without being caught.
As a rough guesttimate, maybe 1 / 20 who snoop on the woman they fantasize about get caught. How many of those are reported to Clapper? One in four? How many does Clapper want to tell Congress about? Maybe 1/4 of the ones he knows about?
So as a rough guess, 15 X 20 X 4 X 4 = 2,400 NSA employees have been spying on women they have a crush on.
There are two kinds of witnesses, material witnesses and expert witnesses. Material witnesses saw, heard, or found something. Expert witnesses explain what someone else saw, heard, or found. In other words, material wwitnesses provide evidence. Expert witnesses explain evidence. This isn't my opinion, this has been law since 1782, when Smeaton explained the silt in Wells Harbour.
In this case, he wasn't called as a material witness. The PLAINTIFF decided he was an expert witness, not a material witness. In other words it was the PLAINTIFF who said he was there to explain evidence, not provide evidence. You'll note he was paid handsomely for his services. If a material witness is paid, that's called bribery and it's punishable by 15 years prison under 18 USC 201. So which is it? Was the witness paid to testify as evidence, which makes the plaintiff guilty of bribery, or was he an expert witness, paid to explain independently existing evidence? You can't have it both ways. He did not in fact explain any evidence brought before the jury, so either a) there is no evidence or b) his testimonial evidence is the result of felony bribery. Believe whichever you wish.
You mentioned fingerprints and bloody clothes as evidence. You'll notice a fingerprint examiner points to poster-sized copies of the fingerprints, showing the jury "this part matches, and this part, and this part." Then the jury can take the fingerprints into deliberations with them. The jury decides if they agree that the prints match. It's the fingerprints that are evidence, not the examiner's opinion. The examiners opinion is an opinion ABOUT the evidence. That's where this case fell down. The plaintiff didn't bring any evidence for the jury to see, they just paid someone to give an opinion. If that opinion were based on something other than getting paid, the plaintiff's lawyer should have brought that something into court for the jury to see.
There are two kinds of witnesses, material witnesses and expert witnesses. Material witnesses saw, heard, or found something. Expert witnesses explain what someone else saw, heard, or found. In other words, material wwitnesses provide evidence. Expert witnesses explain evidence. This isn't my opinion, this has been law for hundreds of years, since before the American revolution.
He wasn't called as a material witness.The PLAINTIFF decided he was an expert witness, not a material witness. In other words it was the PLAINTIFF who said he was there to explain evidence, not provide it.
I'd rather have Google and Samsung cooperating, making things like flexible, unbreakable phones than have them waste that money on patent lawsuits back and forth .
The current market slide started Friday morning. This deal was announced two days later, on Sunday. I suspect the Sunday announcement did not cause anything to happen two days before.
Wow that's a bunch of complete nonsense. You haven't read TFS, TFA, the opinion, or any of the other comments, have you?
Since you seem to only read my comments, here's a quick summary. The judge allowed an "expert" witness to take the stand to show the evidence to the jury and explain it, as expert witnesses do. The expert witness didn't show any evidence and didn't explain in any evidence. He just said "in my opinion plaintiff should win". That's nice and all, but it's not evidence.
The law requires that you prove your case with evidence, not just have your brother-in-law say "I want him to win". Either the guy had no case, or he had a completely incompetent attorney because he didn't present any case to the jury. If EA copied the source code, you show the jury the copied source and have the expert witness explain which parts are "special", which show copying, such as identical variable names. Then the jury can decide based on the evidence that the expert shows them. "I think they might have" isn't evidence that they did.
TThe judge didn't disallow the expert witness, he simply noticed that the expert witness didn't present any evidence. (Which makes him a more of a character witness; expert witnesses are experts in analyzing and explaining a particular type of evidence. Here, he didn't analyze or explain any evidence for the jury.)
I don't know how far "in the past" you're talking about, or where, but this article is about present day California. These days, the prison guard union donates twice as much to Democrats than they do to Republicans, and the Democrats show their appreciation.
The modern republican party was defined by Ronald Reagan . A former president of a California union, Reagan knew about what unions do behind closed doors and he is well known for union busting as a result. See for example the air traffic controllers. Unions, respecially government unions, basically stand for the opposite of what the modern republican party stands for. Republicans essentially believe that whoever works hard for something should get / keep what they worked for. The basic premise of any union is that it doesn't matter who works hard and who goofs off -everyone gets the same pay, the same benefits, etc. In the case of government unions, it ddoesn't even matter if you bother to SHOW up. If you've bee around long enough to have influence in the union they call that "tenure" and it makes you untouchable, no matter how bad you slack off. That's the opposite of what Republicans think is a good idea.
Agreed. I recently learned that the legal definition of a derivative work is narrower than what I had thought. You CAN, under copyright law, start from someone else's work and "make it your own".
Slashdot Mirror
> However, the site linuxmusician.com says "This domain is for sale".
http://linuxmusicians.com/
Some changes Obama unilaterally decided on include eliminating the funding source, the mandate, and declaring his union buddies don't have to comply with the law. (Equal protection clause, anyone?).
You say "you alleged". Leaders of his own party have said his overreach into writing his own law, rather than going to congress, is an impeachable offense; "no question about it, not even close", democrat congressmen have said. You like the guy, that's fine, I get that. Be honest with yourself, though, he's not perfect, not anywhere close to perfect. One of those imperfections is that he's thoroughly confused about his role vis-a-vis congress.
amsynth is one analog modeling synth. https://code.google.com/p/amsy...
There are over 1,000 posts mentioning amsynth, many of them comparing other modeling synths, on linuxmusician.com .
As I mentioned a couple of times, this isn't really my area of expertise, but there are hundreds of people on linuxmusician who can give better answers than I can.
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first. (As per the Constitution.)
Wilson started military action in World War I first, then later asked Congress to recognize that he'd already taken us to war.
Similarly Truman sent troops to Korea without asking for Congressional authorization.
Obama went into Libya after Congress, both parties, specifically told him not to. DEMOCRAT congressman Dennis Kucinich called this "an impeachable offense". Obama's own party leaders said:
"It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
Are you not getting the difference between a president carrying out a law passed by congress (Bush in Afghanistan) versus disregarding Congress and doing what they please (Truman) versus declaring they will defy Congress and do precisely what law makers have said they must not do (Obama)? His own party says "it's not even close".
Monroe chose a certain interpretation of the bill _as_he_signed_it_into_law. The same is true of any Bush signing statements - they are commentary on the new law at the time the law is enacted.
With Obamacare, the law was passed, then a year later Obama declared he was going to ignore it - and then declared brand new law to replace it, just making something up unilateraly and declaring it to be the law of the land.
Thanks for that. I realized shortly after posting that troops may not have actually arrived under Kennedy.
He did authorize the use of troops with Executive Order 11111. Eisenhower, like Kennedy, had some stones.
We're getting way off topic, but Ds have for decades generally opposed any kind of "welfare to work" or job training requirements for receiving public funds. Clinton did sign the bill that republicans passed in 1996, but since then Obama has been undoing it, removing or relaxing the requirement to eventually get job training or start working in order to continue to receive handouts.
So based on their record, what democrats have been doing since at least the days of Reagan, the Democrat view has been more "keep giving a man fish and don't expect him to learn how to fish".
> But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama)
ROTFL. Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises".
One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own. Obama's unilateral changes to Obamacare such as delaying the employer mandate for a year is a new kind of imperial presidency. Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.
That's not what I said. What I said is that there is probably one (not "a lot") that the submitter would be happy with, based on their needs. For any given use case, there is probably one that is approximately as good as any you mentioned.
Especially given that the submitter said would be happy with something they made themselves!
> can you give a few pointers?
See the subject line of my post, which you replied to.
If you posted about your use case and what is important to you, the Linux music community could point you to the solutions that meet your needs.
That lady with the dragon tattoo seems like a spy.
I'll keep an eye on her.
You mentioned programming your own synth, which would be open source. I'd bet there is an open source synth that is 98% what you want. Since it's open source, you can just do the 2% that it's missing - no need to write your own 100%.
Several people mentioned Mac. I'm a hardcore FOSS guy. I used FOSS exclusively for 15 years. Mac devices like the iPhone reminded me why proprietary stuff can be so annoying. Then I was presented with a Mac Pro. Actually using the Mac changed my view. It's good, and it's what professional creatives use - for a reason. Don't let any negative experiences with iOS portable devices put you off of Mac computers. It's as if OSX and iOS are made by two different companies. Additionally, Mac OSX is Unix, so it'll run most any Linux programs.
No, the real time kernel was available by 2008 and soon after the drivers and other important elements for real time were adapted.
You DO want to use a kernel compiled for real time, last I checked. You certainly CAN introduce latency if you're also using it as a typical desktop, but if you either start with a studio distribution or build it as a studio machine you should be fine.
As a DJ, I've come across some tools and some complete distributions that will likely fit your needs, but I don't know quite enough to make specific recommendations. I do know that there are alot of Linux music production tools that are way above my head, pro quality stuff. The folks at Linuxmusician.com and Linuxaudio.org would know exactly what you're talking about and be able to make specific recommendations. I looked at a couple distributions that are complete audio workstations on boot. They included a lot of fancy tools that were way more than I needed.
As you may know, music production on Linux uses JACK to hook together any software components you want. That means any editor tool can work with any midi source, for example, because they are plugged together using jack.
Two popular software packages are Ardour and Traktion, but really the Linux music community at sites focused on music production under Linux will have much better answers for you.
That's funny. You're poking fun at me, and still I find it funny.
Of course, in reality Republicans say "teach a man to fish, you've fed him for a lifetime" as opposed to Democrat proposals to "give a man a fish, to feed him for a day". So libraries are exactly the kind of thing conservatives prefer. The Democrat version of a library is to mail out books to anyone making under $30K, after spending $8 trillion to translate all books into every known language. Libraries are unacceptable because most of the books are in English and Spanish, which is unfair to the illegal alien from Tinyistan.
> Chinese phones have BigBrother software intended for tracking Chinese citizens. This spyware probably won't work well from US providers.
I suspect the Chinese have noticed that they're shipping millions of phones to their #1 rival, the US.
Notice are set up in English. It's beyond trivial for the Chinese to set export phones to English language and US region backdoor.
Indeed, that's the difference. When they had to show up with a warrant for a specific individual and have agents sit and listen, they did that for high value suspects. Now it's all of us, all the time, who are the targets.
The NSA has 15 such cases that they feel like telling congress about. These are a few of the cases where the target caught on or the employee was otherwise busted. Given Snowden, it's reasonable to think NSA employees can do a lot without being caught.
As a rough guesttimate, maybe 1 / 20 who snoop on the woman they fantasize about get caught. How many of those are reported to Clapper? One in four? How many does Clapper want to tell Congress about? Maybe 1/4 of the ones he knows about?
So as a rough guess, 15 X 20 X 4 X 4 = 2,400 NSA employees have been spying on women they have a crush on.
Give it a rest already.
There are two kinds of witnesses, material witnesses and expert witnesses.
Material witnesses saw, heard, or found something. Expert witnesses explain what someone else saw, heard, or found.
In other words, material wwitnesses provide evidence. Expert witnesses explain evidence.
This isn't my opinion, this has been law since 1782, when Smeaton explained the silt in Wells Harbour.
In this case, he wasn't called as a material witness. The PLAINTIFF decided he was an expert witness, not a material witness. In other words it was the PLAINTIFF who said he was there to explain evidence, not provide evidence. You'll note he was paid handsomely for his services. If a material witness is paid, that's called bribery and it's punishable by 15 years prison under 18 USC 201. So which is it? Was the witness paid to testify as evidence, which makes the plaintiff guilty of bribery, or was he an expert witness, paid to explain independently existing evidence? You can't have it both ways.
He did not in fact explain any evidence brought before the jury, so either a) there is no evidence or b) his testimonial evidence is the result of felony bribery. Believe whichever you wish.
You mentioned fingerprints and bloody clothes as evidence. You'll notice a fingerprint examiner points to poster-sized copies of the fingerprints, showing the jury "this part matches, and this part, and this part." Then the jury can take the fingerprints into deliberations with them. The jury decides if they agree that the prints match. It's the fingerprints that are evidence, not the examiner's opinion. The examiners opinion is an opinion ABOUT the evidence. That's where this case fell down. The plaintiff didn't bring any evidence for the jury to see, they just paid someone to give an opinion. If that opinion were based on something other than getting paid, the plaintiff's lawyer should have brought that something into court for the jury to see.
There are two kinds of witnesses, material witnesses and expert witnesses.
Material witnesses saw, heard, or found something. Expert witnesses explain what someone else saw, heard, or found.
In other words, material wwitnesses provide evidence. Expert witnesses explain evidence.
This isn't my opinion, this has been law for hundreds of years, since before the American revolution.
He wasn't called as a material witness .The PLAINTIFF decided he was an expert witness, not a material witness. In other words it was the PLAINTIFF who said he was there to explain evidence, not provide it.
I'd rather have Google and Samsung cooperating, making things like flexible, unbreakable phones than have them waste that money on patent lawsuits back and forth .
The current market slide started Friday morning. This deal was announced two days later, on Sunday.
I suspect the Sunday announcement did not cause anything to happen two days before.
Wow that's a bunch of complete nonsense. You haven't read TFS, TFA, the opinion, or any of the other comments, have you?
Since you seem to only read my comments, here's a quick summary. The judge allowed an "expert" witness to take the stand to show the evidence to the jury and explain it, as expert witnesses do. The expert witness didn't show any evidence and didn't explain in any evidence. He just said "in my opinion plaintiff should win". That's nice and all, but it's not evidence.
The law requires that you prove your case with evidence, not just have your brother-in-law say "I want him to win". Either the guy had no case, or he had a completely incompetent attorney because he didn't present any case to the jury. If EA copied the source code, you show the jury the copied source and have the expert witness explain which parts are "special", which show copying, such as identical variable names. Then the jury can decide based on the evidence that the expert shows them. "I think they might have" isn't evidence that they did.
TThe judge didn't disallow the expert witness, he simply noticed that the expert witness didn't present any evidence. (Which makes him a more of a character witness; expert witnesses are experts in analyzing and explaining a particular type of evidence. Here, he didn't analyze or explain any evidence for the jury.)
I don't know how far "in the past" you're talking about, or where, but this article is about present day California. These days, the prison guard union donates twice as much to Democrats than they do to Republicans, and the Democrats show their appreciation.
The modern republican party was defined by Ronald Reagan . A former president of a California union, Reagan knew about what unions do behind closed doors and he is well known for union busting as a result. See for example the air traffic controllers. Unions, respecially government unions, basically stand for the opposite of what the modern republican party stands for. Republicans essentially believe that whoever works hard for something should get / keep what they worked for. The basic premise of any union is that it doesn't matter who works hard and who goofs off -everyone gets the same pay, the same benefits, etc. In the case of government unions, it ddoesn't even matter if you bother to SHOW up. If you've bee around long enough to have influence in the union they call that "tenure" and it makes you untouchable, no matter how bad you slack off. That's the opposite of what Republicans think is a good idea.
Agreed. I recently learned that the legal definition of a derivative work is narrower than what I had thought. You CAN, under copyright law, start from someone else's work and "make it your own".