What power does the President have to actually enact any tax related policy they have on their platform?
The president's veto and the vice-president's tie-breaking-vote (in the senate only) shift the number of votes required to pass/defeat a bill from 67/51 (without the white house) to 50/34 (with the white house) in the senate, and from 290/218 to 218/146 in the house, so you could say the white house has the power of 17 senators and 72 representatives.
And sure, a 3rd party could emerge if there was an issue with a clear moral choice of great national importance where the nation was at the brink of civil war.
FTFY. Do you think you could handle the transition to a third party better next time?
Try reading the paper before lambasting it.
Well I have read the paper and it is absolutely ridiculous. If the attacker can inject JavaScript or HTML or whatever into the connection it doesn't matter whether the site is Web 1.0, Web 2.0 or Web 3.14159 because the session is compromised anyway. If you want web security you'll need TLS.
I'm wondering what kind of agenda the author has in writing this, actually.
page 3 This technique has been found by S. Di Paola and is called Prototype Hijacking. It represents the state of the art in hijacking techniques applied to the Javascript language.
page 6 This new kind of attack has been called AICS and has been thought by S. Di Paola and G. Fedon and developed by S. Di Paola.
page 8 Stefano Di Paola. Senior Security Engineer of proved experience, works since many years as an IT consultant for private and public companies. He teaches Database Programming and Information Security at the University of Florence. Since 1997 is a well known security expert; he found many of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in recent releases of MySQL and PHP. From 2004 his researches focused mainly on Web security. Actually he is part of OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project) team and he's the focal point of Ajax security for the Italian Chapter.
Giorgio Fedon. Currently employed as senior security consultant and penetration tester at Emaze Networks S.p.a, delivers code auditing, Forensic and Log analysis, Malware Analysis and complex Penetration Testing services to some of the most important Companies, Banks and Public Agencies in Italy. He participated as speaker in many national and international events talking mainly about web security and malware obfuscation techniques. During his past job he was employed at IBM System & Technology Group in Dublin (Ireland).
Actually he is part of Owasp (Open Web Application Security Project) Italian Chapter.
Well, how many lost jobs are acceptable? Can you give a number? If we raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour and lay off 15% of the workforce, is that good?
Can you give a number? If "we" repeal the minimum wage to lower the unemployment rate and leave millions of the poorest people in the nation to outbid each other into slavery, is that good?
It's a bit late to be replying to this but what the hell...
In the quoted passage, he is condemning the notion of an absolute liberty of conscience and speech in all situations.
No, not at all. The "heresy" that Pius condemned did recognize due limits: "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." Your "extreme example" of suicide bombers - violators of the public peace - is simply irrelevant.
Pius condemned this "heresy" not because it promoted violations of the public peace - which it didn't - but because it was (and still is) "most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls". The words are right there for you to see but you just don't want to see them. The "heresy" Pius condemned was not absolute liberty of conscience and speech without regard for public peace, but absolute liberty of conscience and speech without regard for the Catholic religion.
In this context Pius condemns the "heresy" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society" and also the "heresy" that "a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way" - where the expression of these ideas did not violate the public peace - as already noted - but was merely fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the "salvation of souls".
You know, Quanta Cura concurs with the Bible - Deuteronomy 13 for instance. Your pointing out that the Catechism contradicts Quanta Cura and the Bible on this matter does not help your cause.
Oh! Look! A Catholic apologist! Say, perhaps you could explain this proclamation against civil liberties by your "infallible" Pope Pius IX:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
Why not? The erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of jouissance, not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equivalent to the square root of negative one of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
Sure, just like you can discuss the theory of evolution on creationist websites as long as you say that there are gaps in the theory of evolution and that creationism is science, you can discuss democracy in China as long as you say that there are gaps in democracy and that freedom is slavery anyway - otherwise your comments will be deleted.
If you tell someone "This is the truth" then what you get is someone who believes what he hears. If you show someone how to find the truth, what you get is someone who can make his own descision about what he is told.
So... give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll dig up Tiktaalik.
Darwin proposed an evolutionary chain for the development of the eye well over a century ago, and evolutionary biology has demonstrated that the eye evolved early and often. (There's a pithy quote to that effect, but I can't recall to whom it should be attributed.)
"Release early. Release often."
The evolution of the eye proves that the gods^WIntelligent Designers are open source developers.
First off, evolution actually fits better with Christian theology than young-earth creation, because it depicts "creation" as an ongoing process rather than a one-off event.
Uh huh. Would you be saying this if science had shown that the earth is only six thousand years old, that the various species on earth are unrelated, and that abiogenesis is fundamentally impossible?
This is known as the Browk Window theory in Economics - that is, by running around breaking windows I create work for glaziers.
This fallacy works for (more) traditional religions, too. As the story goes, the gods caused (or permitted) the tsunami, with all of its consequent misery, in favour of the outpouring of "charity" that would result.
Not satisfied with breaking only windows, the gods break even their own rules on this:
Romans 3:8 Why not say, then, "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Some people, indeed, have insulted me by accusing me of saying this very thing! They will be condemned, as they should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama isn't running in 2013.
What power does the President have to actually enact any tax related policy they have on their platform?
The president's veto and the vice-president's tie-breaking-vote (in the senate only) shift the number of votes required to pass/defeat a bill from 67/51 (without the white house) to 50/34 (with the white house) in the senate, and from 290/218 to 218/146 in the house, so you could say the white house has the power of 17 senators and 72 representatives.
Prove it.
woosh. "2012" too subtle?
Einstein is dead. Jesus is alive.
And sure, a 3rd party could emerge if there was an issue with a clear moral choice of great national importance where the nation was at the brink of civil war.
FTFY. Do you think you could handle the transition to a third party better next time?
O RLY?
The future light cone.
Try reading the paper before lambasting it. Well I have read the paper and it is absolutely ridiculous. If the attacker can inject JavaScript or HTML or whatever into the connection it doesn't matter whether the site is Web 1.0, Web 2.0 or Web 3.14159 because the session is compromised anyway. If you want web security you'll need TLS.
I'm wondering what kind of agenda the author has in writing this, actually.
page 3
This technique has been found by S. Di Paola and is called Prototype
Hijacking. It represents the state of the art in hijacking
techniques applied to the Javascript language.
page 6
This new kind of attack has been called AICS and has been thought by S.
Di Paola and G. Fedon and developed by S. Di Paola.
page 8
Stefano Di Paola. Senior Security Engineer of proved experience, works
since many years as an IT consultant for private and public companies.
He teaches Database Programming and Information Security at the
University of Florence. Since 1997 is a well known security expert; he
found many of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in recent releases of
MySQL and PHP. From 2004 his researches focused mainly on Web security.
Actually he is part of OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project)
team and he's the focal point of Ajax security for the Italian Chapter.
He is the creator of http://www.wisec.it/
Giorgio Fedon. Currently employed as senior security consultant and
penetration tester at Emaze Networks S.p.a, delivers code auditing,
Forensic and Log analysis, Malware Analysis and complex Penetration
Testing services to some of the most important Companies, Banks and
Public Agencies in Italy. He participated as speaker in many national
and international events talking mainly about web security and malware
obfuscation techniques. During his past job he was employed at IBM
System & Technology Group in Dublin (Ireland).
Actually he is part of Owasp (Open Web Application Security Project)
Italian Chapter.
English, does not have an adequate word for this kind of struggle, but ironically Arabic does: jihad.
Why not crusade?
Well, how many lost jobs are acceptable? Can you give a number? If we raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour and lay off 15% of the workforce, is that good?
Can you give a number? If "we" repeal the minimum wage to lower the unemployment rate and leave millions of the poorest people in the nation to outbid each other into slavery, is that good?
It's a bit late to be replying to this but what the hell...
In the quoted passage, he is condemning the notion of an absolute liberty of conscience and speech in all situations.
No, not at all. The "heresy" that Pius condemned did recognize due limits: "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." Your "extreme example" of suicide bombers - violators of the public peace - is simply irrelevant.
Pius condemned this "heresy" not because it promoted violations of the public peace - which it didn't - but because it was (and still is) "most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls". The words are right there for you to see but you just don't want to see them. The "heresy" Pius condemned was not absolute liberty of conscience and speech without regard for public peace, but absolute liberty of conscience and speech without regard for the Catholic religion.
In this context Pius condemns the "heresy" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society" and also the "heresy" that "a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way" - where the expression of these ideas did not violate the public peace - as already noted - but was merely fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the "salvation of souls".
You know, Quanta Cura concurs with the Bible - Deuteronomy 13 for instance. Your pointing out that the Catechism contradicts Quanta Cura and the Bible on this matter does not help your cause.
Oh! Look! A Catholic apologist! Say, perhaps you could explain this proclamation against civil liberties by your "infallible" Pope Pius IX:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
Why not? The erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of jouissance, not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equivalent to the square root of negative one of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
... I pray and have experienced the power of prayer where science fails...
Care to share?
You can discuss democracy in China.
Sure, just like you can discuss the theory of evolution on creationist websites as long as you say that there are gaps in the theory of evolution and that creationism is science, you can discuss democracy in China as long as you say that there are gaps in democracy and that freedom is slavery anyway - otherwise your comments will be deleted.
Nope. What can you tell me about it?
Google Is Your Friend.
If you tell someone "This is the truth" then what you get is someone who believes what he hears. If you show someone how to find the truth, what you get is someone who can make his own descision about what he is told.
So... give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll dig up Tiktaalik.
Darwin proposed an evolutionary chain for the development of the eye well over a century ago, and evolutionary biology has demonstrated that the eye evolved early and often. (There's a pithy quote to that effect, but I can't recall to whom it should be attributed.)
"Release early. Release often."
The evolution of the eye proves that the gods^WIntelligent Designers are open source developers.
First off, evolution actually fits better with Christian theology than young-earth creation, because it depicts "creation" as an ongoing process rather than a one-off event.
Uh huh. Would you be saying this if science had shown that the earth is only six thousand years old, that the various species on earth are unrelated, and that abiogenesis is fundamentally impossible?
I don't think the isp has enough employees to implement that kind of filter.
A'right. Where do I sign up?
All your base are belong to us.
This fallacy works for (more) traditional religions, too. As the story goes, the gods caused (or permitted) the tsunami, with all of its consequent misery, in favour of the outpouring of "charity" that would result.
Not satisfied with breaking only windows, the gods break even their own rules on this:
Must be some kind of clash of civilizations...
Yeah... soon there'll be embassies burning because of these screenshots.
Google information liberation management team
Google Inc. "Do no evil."
Do no evil, eh? Then how come I get a popup with "Receiving corrupt data." when I load http://www.google.cn/ using Konqueror?