#hively

[tissitwiitit]

Jakso 14

JassenKumivene @JassenKumivene

Hei, mulla on hyvä idea tatuoinniks: TIS6IT! Eiku... #tisuomi

[linuxlife]

Linux Life Episode 45

Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to my little world of Linux. So I have been a bit busy with family business so I have not had much time with Linux for the last few weeks or so.

Well since we last had words I seem to be having a few problems with Linux. While none are majorly damaging they can be a bit of a pain. Firstly VLC will lock up tight when loading up videos occasionally. The only way to recover it is to switch to another terminal and then to kill the process using PS and kill -9 instructions.

Why it does this I can’t seem to ascertain as it doesn’t seem to leave a log explaining what is causing it. It is not always doing so which is confusing. If it did it with every video or a particular type but is not the case. So is it a glitch with VLC or the video driver unknown.

Also the Show Desktop application crashes at the same time normally so is it VLC or a MATE issue? It could even be a NVIDIA issue.

I really don’t have a clue. As I said it’s not the end of the world as normally a reboot sorts it but it is annoying.

I guess I could use something else for video such as Kodi but it is a bit of an odd sheep when it comes to its bizarre UI setup. However if VLC keeps bugging out I might have no choice but to find a different video player.

I have also had a few issues with certain RSS readers. I decided to try a couple but they have proved to be a bit of a problem. First I tried FeedReader which I managed to add the feeds reasonably easy but every time I updated the feed it would crash upon me. Only way to kill it was using the above process.

So I removed it and have been running RSS Guard, now it was a pain working out how to add the feeds but with a bit of persistence I finally managed it. However it does not seem to update itself automatically. Also it seems to have issues picking up the feeds straight away.

Maybe there is a decent RSS reader. Not that I really need an RSS reader but I try and keep up with various podcasts. Making it easier than trawling through Twitter to find the latest news.

So I will continue to look to find one that does the job with the least problem. If anyone has any recommendations feel free to let me know.

So I decided to download the complete torrent collection from the Mod Archive. Reason being I decided to see what Linux was like regarding tracker music playback. Even though there is only a few mods I actually like. I now probably have about quarter of a million of them.

Now I am not a newbie when it comes to MOD trackers but it seems there is now many new formats I had never even heard of.

Sure there was the usual MOD, S3M, XM, IT files even the odd MED. I was even aware of the 669 files as I am that old I can remember them.

However then there was AHX, MTM, FAR, MO3, MPTM, STM, MTM, ULT, HVL, DSM, PLM, OKT and others I had no idea how to play them.

Now Schism Tracker ( Modern day Impulse Tracker) will play quite a lot of these formats but there was a few it wouldn't.

I was amazed at how many tracker formats VLC can playback.

OpenMPT (previously ModPlug player) seems to play virtually anything thrown at it but although you can install it on Linux it just runs the Windows version through Wine.

However AHX and HVL were not covered by any of the above players

Both files are used by the Hively Tracker which I did not even know existed. Then again I stopped following tracker software after SkaleTracker died. So I am hardly on the cutting edge of tracker software.

So back to Hively Tracker first I ran the Windows version using Wine. Just to see what they were. Sure enough it's just another tracker.

However on their site was a version for 64 bit Linux but it was for Debian. Now long time readers will remember Pencilsheep (A weak Photoshop clone which died) was only available in .DEB format.

So off I went and found Debtap again which converts Debian files into a format useable by Arch.

Sure enough converted file but would not let it install via Pacman due to needing a dependency of the deja vu fonts core.

Now they were installed just not where Debian installs them. Bit of fiddling I install Hively Tracker using the Pacman -Udd command which basically instructs it to install and ignore the dependencies.

So now installed native to Linux I try and open it. Nope, however a quick check using terminal it is looking for the font in a specific directory in the /usr/share/fonts directory.

Bit of root file copying to where it expects to see the fonts. Now Hively Tracker is working fine under Linux so I was able to delete the Windows version.

Bit of a fiddle but it now can play AHX and HVL files without starting Wine.

However I still need to use OpenMPT for most of the other obscure ones. So I am still using a Windows application. One that is listed in the AUR but it's still a Windows app running through Wine.

Now all I need is about 10 years of free time and infinite patience to sit through all the MOD Tracker files I have (about 35GB worth)...

Who would have thought MOD Music was so complicated?

Anyway that's enough waffle for this episode, so until next time ... Take care.

[room-where-it-happens]

I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of “sex discrimination” that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch. We should not leave the impression that we are merely the obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963– 1965), carrying out their wishes. We are not. We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.

Concurring opinion of Judge Posner in the Hively case being quite blunt and honest about how judges - both liberal and conservative - actually interpret law.

[completelyunsolictedthoughts]

Winning With a Bad Rationale Is Still Winning, But Is It Durable?

American legal history is littered with cases where a court came to the “correct” result with a questionable rationale. In some cases, the rationale doesn’t matter because the result will never be overturned: legal scholars argue over whether the Brown v. Board companion opinion in Bolling v. Sharpe correctly read equal protection analysis into the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, but that result is never getting overturned. But some cases have genuinely suffered for having fuzzy rationales: that Roe v. Wade described the abortion right with vague gestures at several different constitutional provisions rather than grounding it in the Equal Protection right of women to bodily autonomy made it more susceptible to challenge and eventually modification to the Casey “undue burden” standard. It remains to be seen how the legal fight for LGBTQ rights will play out, but if court results continue their current (generally helpful) trends I can only hope that courts find durable rationales. To this point, the rationales behind the Supreme Court’s LGBTQ rights opinions have been a mixed bag. Of course, any recognition of rights was a welcome change from the Bowers court upholding the power of states to criminalize sodomy. But for every Romer (a fairly straightforward application of Equal Protection analysis which was helped by Colorado’s inability to show a rational basis for its constitutional amendment restricting anti-discrimination laws) there is a Windsor (a muddle of Equal Protection, Due Process, and federalism whose emotional and moral high notes read better in the New York Times than the US Reports). I sincerely hope that Windsor and Obergefell take the path of Brown v. Board so that we can all joke about Justice Kennedy’s fuzzy reasoning in the knowledge that marriage equality will never be overturned. But especially given the prospect of Trump appointees joining the bench, securing rights might require more than just reaching the correct result— using a clear and correct rationale is as important as ever.

The most recent iteration of this is the 7th Circuit oral argument over whether (as the EEOC has found) the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of employment discrimination “because of sex” applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation. There are three primary arguments that the anti-discrimination advocates make in favor of the EEOC. The first argument is based on Loving v Virginia: bans on interracial marriage are racial discrimination not because you are black/white/etc but because you are unable to marry the person you intend to because of their race. Similarly, being discriminated against for marrying someone of your gender is gender discrimination not because of your gender but because of your partner’s gender. The second argument is based on Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, in which the Supreme Court found that sex stereotyping (i.e. firing someone because they don’t act like the stereotypical person of their gender) is a form of sex discrimination. By this argument, sexual orientation is a form of sex stereotyping because you are expected to be attracted to people of the opposite gender. The third argument is that gender identity and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, and that to prohibit sex discrimination without also prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination would be impossible.

I believe in the courts’ ability to build a durable anti-discrimination rationale from the Loving or sex stereotyping rationales, but not from the inextricability rationale. Finding that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination based on Loving and sex stereotyping would be both straightforward and rooted in Supreme Court precedent. And courts have shown a willingness to go along with these rationales: Judge Easterbrook (a prominent Reaganite) seemed convinced by the Loving rationale at the 7th Circuit oral argument, and the sex stereotyping rationale has made its way into landmark opinions like Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion in Ter Veer v Billington. But I have no faith in courts durably applying the inextricability rationale. At the 7th Circuit argument, Judge Posner used the inextricability rationale to ask “why are there lesbians” and launch into a half-baked theory about how lesbianism is genetically inherent in being a woman. One could imagine courts adopting the inextricability rationale with bad social science or arguments that stray far from the law. If so, such a holding would be susceptible to being reversed or seriously curtailed if future courts found better social science or decided not to make legal opinions based in social science.

Far be it from me to tell the plaintiffs fighting against employment discrimination which arguments to advance in support of their arguments: their job is to win their case by any means they can. And they surely know that a Loving or sex stereotyping rationale would be more durable: they obviously know how to litigate these issues way better than I do. It’s ultimately up to the courts to craft a durable rationale for sexual orientation discrimination being sex discrimination: I hope they do so.

[earlsings]

View this post on Instagram

This is in my own home state of Indiana, which brings you VP-elect Mike Pence. Ugh #lgbtequality #stophomophobia #Repost @lambdalegal with @repostapp ・・・ Kim Hively was fired because she's a lesbian. Today, we were at the #7thCircuit Court of Appeals in #Chicago arguing that that that shouldn't happen. It's 2016. Hardworking employees should not have to live in the closet in order to keep their jobs. We’re on the case—because being fired for who you love is not just wrong, it’s against the law. Learn more & see the full video at the link in our bio. #LGBT #LGBTQ #EmploymentRights #EmploymentLaw #Hively