Yes, you don't eat anything, just drink lots of water. You can also begin and end fast with freshly squeezed fruit or vegetable juices, which is important when the fast is longer.
I created this app inspired by placebobutton.com website (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9686357). It somehow motivated me to do it after I pushed button titled "I will create placebo button android app today" :)
The app allows to share buttons and saves history of all buttons created. If you have any suggestions for this app - please let me know. I hope you will enjoy it and the button will bring you many benefits :)
You can, just follow these simple, but detailed instructions for Ubuntu users for upgrading vim:
https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe/wiki/Building-Vim-...
To not mess with system-installed vim: remove --prefix option and VIMRUNTIMEDIR, then build and install with sudo make install, which will put the files in /usr/local.
Why does YCM demand such a recent version of Vim? ~
During YCM's development several show-stopper bugs where encountered in Vim.
Those needed to be fixed upstream (and were). A few months after those bugs
were fixed, Vim trunk landed the 'pyeval()' function which improved YCM
performance even more since less time was spent serializing and deserializing
data between Vim and the embedded Python interpreter. A few critical bugfixes
for 'pyeval()' landed in Vim 7.3.584 (and a few commits before that).
It is reasonable if the government wants to kill the tor network and start censoring internet, by scaring people off running tor nodes. If they succeed in this case more countries may follow, so it is important to win this.
So given that attitude, how do you deal with the problem of exit node operators possibly performing illegal activities themselves? Should running an exit node give you blanket protection from any kind of investigation due to traffic coming out of your network?
I am a TOR exit operator and I strictly follow the guidelines established by the EFF. I never connect to my exit nodes for any purpose other than routine maintenance and when I do, it's well documented: times, purpose, etc. By minimizing my access, I remove myself from suspicion for any activity done through my node.
I believe the quote is "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", and it's not clear what essential liberty is being compromised here.
> Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws?
I don't think that is as clear cut as you make it out to be.
But yes, child porn, hate speech and a few other things might not be "essential for democratic discourse". I'm still not convinced censorship is the best tool to help fight the underlying problems. And I do believe the underlying problems (hate, violence, in some cases mental disease) should be dealt with -- I'm unconvinced the media files actually do much harm on their own -- due to the nature of their contents in general.
Now we need laws to limit speech that attacks and harms people (such as being able to prevent people from (legally) distributing pictures and film on the Internet against our will) -- and it is natural that government does that on behalf of those that are not adult and/or have guardians that can do it for them.
But there is a difference between that, and a blanket ban on media based on the imagery contained within.
Child porn would at least be relevant as evidence in a trial, and possibly (with victims not recognizable) in media cover of such a trial.
Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment anymore than shooting sprees are a legitimate exercise of the second amendment. The government has a legitimate interest in stopping such speech, just as it has a legitimate interest in prevent sprees.
So far, the people on your side of the argument have only been able to draw lines in the sand and insist that ISPs and exit nodes are the same. They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. Your comment adds no real world understanding of this fact: people don't want child porn to be traded over the Internet. Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, is uncompelling and lacks nuance.
> Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment
>They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech.
> Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free,
Sigh. Yet another senseless, dangerous, and borderline libellous misrepresentation.
Allow me to strongly state this in no ambiguous terms: I do not oppose laws banning the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography. People who participate in any of those acts should be arrested and given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. I support these laws. I am not, IN ANY WAY, saying, suggesting, or attempting to appear as though I am suggesting, that I think child pornography is protected speech.
Is this clear now?
What I am arguing [snip]
Edit: You know what? Forget it. I am not participating in this discussion at the risk of being so thoroughly misunderstood. Not with this topic. It is not worth it.
Well, you started off with such a contemptuous and condescending tone, but you missed a crucial distinction: nobody is saying that you don't support outlawing child porn, the question is whether or not you prioritize the preservation of hypothetical free speech (the case where speech is so constrained that Tor is the only/best avenue for free speech) over the enforcement of the laws which you feel compelled to declare support for.
So, less yelling, less sanctimonious wailing over how you're so misunderstood -- say how you think your priority of theoretical free speech isn't a de facto endorsement for transmission of child porn.
It does not have the effect of defending, nor the effect of endorsing.
It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement.
Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime?
This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys.
Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists.
I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.
B) You haven't shown that there is something gained by letting child porn traders go, which is worth the cost. With due process, courts and warrants, we know what the upside is -- it's not clear what real benefit Tor provides us in exchange for letting this kind of activity go on. (Well, to me it's clear what the supposed gain is, and that it's not a fair trade)
it's not clear what real benefit Tor provides us in exchange for letting this kind of activity go on
How about letting people in countries like Iran and China have a fighting chance of getting the word out about what's really going on there? Does that count?
How about letting people who are being stalked by creepy ex-spouses or ex-significant others have a chance of doing things online without being tracked? Does that count?
How about letting people who are afraid of reprisals speak inconvenient truths without being silenced? Does that count?
Basically you are saying these kinds of benefits aren't worth the chance of letting someone distribute child porn using Tor. That seems ridiculous to me.
I never said you endorse it. I said the position which you take has the effect of endorsing it. At the least, the position you appear to support requires a person to ignore this particular crime, or accept it as a necessary consequence. So far you have not explained why this particular feature is something society should accept.
In my opinion saying that there is something so valuable to be preserved that we should countenance the perpetration of a crime to achieve it, is endorsing that crime as a necessary component of the goal. People who endorse due process admit that allowing criminals to escape justice is a necessary feature, and in some sense are endorsing a system where some criminals avoid capture. So are free speech purists endorsing the necessity of a means for conveyance of child porn, so as to facilitate other speech.
That's not the same as saying that free speech purists endorse the porn itself, only the necessity of the freedom to transmit it.
What does the reality of what freedoms we actually enjoy have to do with what freedoms we should expect others to demand?
I may not have freedom of speech in the US, but I sure as hell can demand it. I expect to be given that freedom, even though I do not expect that will ever happen.
People have a choice. A person can demand freedoms while obeying existing laws, or they can ignore existing laws and demand freedoms while they're in jail.
Absolutist freedom of speech is not, even in the US, something that everyone wants. Most people are reasonably comfortable with governments restricting access to some items. The list of items and the amount of resistance varies, but restricting speech by preventing people distributing images of child sexual abuse is pretty much established.
I believe you are mischaracterizing the concerns people actually have. I am not particularly concerned about the absolute rights of pedophiles, but I am concerned by what I perceive to be the abridgement of the rights of innocents for the purpose of pursuing the distasteful elements of society. Law enforcement becomes much much easier when you are willing to inflict collateral damage. Uncompromising voices of opposition to that are a welcome foil to those who would see no end to the powers of authorities.
Once you have bitcoins in a wallet (and internet connection) you can send them to ANYONE in the world with a bitcoin wallet. It can't be more simple. And getting a wallet or wallet service is easy.
You also not need to read and agree to new terms of service every few months (how many people actually read them?). No need to worry you're account will be blocked, that the payment service will stop working and so on.
My paypal account was blocked and the money confiscated for fairly arbitrary reasons.
I opened a new account in a new country because paypal wouldn't allow me to change my address and a site wouldn't deliver to an address other than the paypal address.
An option to filter out offers by minimum price would be sufficient. Introducing price floors would decrease number of offers which the site doesn't have much yet.
I don't think this is such an effort to filter offers, you would just need once to setup a preference to not show certain type of offers you're not interested in (e.g. show only top 20%).
What do you mean by quality of the offers? Maybe you just want to eliminate cheap competition which has better quality/price ratio?
There may be demand for cheap services in developing countries and there may be people willing to work for such money there. Wouldn't you want to receive cheap service yourself? Cheap doesn't always need to mean poor quality.
If someone wants quality work done he is probably aware he won't get it for 1 BTC, but maybe it would be enough for him.
Bitcoin was created for freedom of exchange and any limitations would hurt the market.
As a general rule, you get what you pay for. Further, allowing anything on the site is going to lead to the same problem as all the others: as a developer you open the page to see an endless sea of requests to make a facebook clone for $5.
I don't use AdBlock, but FlashBlock which disables all flash content. I don't have anything against ads that's why I stopped using AdBlock, but I need to block the most annoying ads like fullscreen, sound, following mouse. I only whitelist sites like youtube and other which have "normal" ads.
Technologies: Java, C, C++, Android, Kotlin, SQL, Linux, Git, Python
Résumé/CV: http://bit.ly/2HMl6RE
Email: pawel at nadolski it
LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/pawelnadolski/
Github: https://github.com/pn
Stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/users/298345/paweł-nadolski
I am software engineer with over 13 years of experience open to new opportunities.