text:
Q: Using OpenCV projectPoints to overlay real world data on a photo I have a photograph and matching camera position (x,y,z), orientation (yaw, pitch and roll), camera matrix (Cx,Cy, Fx,Fy), and radial and tangential correction parameters.  I would like to overlay some additional 3d information on the photo which is provided in the same coordinate system.  Looking at a similar post here I feel I should be able to do this OpenCV projectPoints function as follows;
#include "opencv2/core/core.hpp"
#include "opencv2/imgproc/imgproc.hpp"
#include "opencv2/calib3d/calib3d.hpp"
#include "opencv2/highgui/highgui.hpp"

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

int ProjectMyPoints()
{
    std::vector<cv::Point3d> objectPoints;
    std::vector<cv::Point2d> imagePoints;

    // Camera position
    double CameraX = 709095.949, CameraY = 730584.110, CameraZ = 64.740;

    // Camera orientation (converting from Grads to radians)
    double PI = 3.14159265359;
    double Pitch = -99.14890023 * (PI / 200.0),
        Yaw = PI + 65.47067336 * (PI / 200.0),
        Roll = 194.92713428 * (PI / 200.0);

    // Input data in real world coordinates
    double x, y, z;
    x = 709092.288; y = 730582.891; z = 62.837; objectPoints.push_back(cv::Point3d(x, y, z));
    x = 709091.618; y = 730582.541; z = 62.831; objectPoints.push_back(cv::Point3d(x, y, z));
    x = 709092.131; y = 730581.602; z = 62.831; objectPoints.push_back(cv::Point3d(x, y, z));
    x = 709092.788; y = 730581.973; z = 62.843; objectPoints.push_back(cv::Point3d(x, y, z));

    // Coefficients for camera matrix
    double CV_CX = 1005.1951672908998,
        CV_CY = 1010.36740512214021,
        CV_FX = 1495.61455114326009,
        CV_FY = 1495.61455114326009,

        // Distortion co-efficients

        CV_K1 = -1.74729071186991E-1,
        CV_K2 = 1.18342592220238E-1,
        CV_K3 = -2.29972026710921E-2,
        CV_K4 = 0.00000000000000E+0,
        CV_K5 = 0.00000000000000E+0,
        CV_K6 = 0.00000000000000E+0,
        CV_P1 = -3.46272954067614E-4,
        CV_P2 = -4.45389772269491E-4;

    // Intrisic matrix / camera matrix

    cv::Mat intrisicMat(3, 3, cv::DataType<double>::type);
    intrisicMat.at<double>(0, 0) = CV_FX;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(1, 0) = 0;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(2, 0) = 0;

    intrisicMat.at<double>(0, 1) = 0;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(1, 1) = CV_FY;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(2, 1) = 0;

    intrisicMat.at<double>(0, 2) = CV_CX;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(1, 2) = CV_CY;
    intrisicMat.at<double>(2, 2) = 1;

    // Rotation matrix created from orientation
    rRot.at<double>(0, 0) = cos(Yaw)*cos(Pitch);
    rRot.at<double>(1, 0) = sin(Yaw)*cos(Pitch);
    rRot.at<double>(2, 0) = -sin(Pitch);

    rRot.at<double>(0, 1) = cos(Yaw)*sin(Pitch)*sin(Roll) - sin(Yaw)*cos(Roll);
    rRot.at<double>(1, 1) = sin(Yaw)*sin(Pitch)*sin(Roll) + cos(Yaw)*cos(Roll);
    rRot.at<double>(2, 1) = cos(Pitch)*sin(Roll);

    rRot.at<double>(0, 2) = cos(Yaw)*sin(Pitch)*cos(Roll) + sin(Yaw)*sin(Roll);
    rRot.at<double>(1, 2) = sin(Yaw)*sin(Pitch)*cos(Roll) - cos(Yaw)*sin(Roll);;
    rRot.at<double>(2, 2) = cos(Pitch)*cos(Roll);

    // Convert 3x3 rotation matrix to 1x3 rotation vector
    cv::Mat rVec(3, 1, cv::DataType<double>::type); // Rotation vector
    cv::Rodrigues(rRot, rVec);

    cv::Mat tVec(3, 1, cv::DataType<double>::type); // Translation vector
    tVec.at<double>(0) = CameraX;
    tVec.at<double>(1) = CameraY;
    tVec.at<double>(2) = CameraZ;

    cv::Mat distCoeffs(5, 1, cv::DataType<double>::type);   // Distortion vector
    distCoeffs.at<double>(0) = CV_K1;
    distCoeffs.at<double>(1) = CV_K2;
    distCoeffs.at<double>(2) = CV_P1;
    distCoeffs.at<double>(3) = CV_P2;
    distCoeffs.at<double>(4) = CV_K3;

    std::cout << "Intrisic matrix: " << intrisicMat << std::endl << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Rotation vector: " << rVec << std::endl << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Translation vector: " << tVec << std::endl << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Distortion coef: " << distCoeffs << std::endl << std::endl;

    std::vector<cv::Point2f> projectedPoints;

    cv::projectPoints(objectPoints, rVec, tVec, intrisicMat, distCoeffs, imagePoints);

    for (unsigned int i = 0; i < imagePoints.size(); ++i)
         std::cout << "Image point: " << imagePoints[i] << std::endl;

    std::cout << "Press any key to exit.";
    std::cin.ignore();
    std::cin.get();

    return 0;
}

The rotation matrix is taken from this post as follows

and is converted to a Rodriques vector as described here. I had assumed the translation was for removal camera position and hence put the camera in the translation vector.  Problem is, it doesn't work.  If I zero out the translation I get coordinates close to pixel coordinates but not exactly similar (i.e. using a conformal transformation to compare the shapes shows high residuals).  Any idea how to go about fixing this.  FWIW, the target coordinates should be
1   1448    1680,
2   1393    1578,
3   1052    1605,
4   1053    1702
as shown below;

My feeling is I'm missing something obvious but any help greatly appreciated


text:
Home Civil Rights New York Pelham
Pelham Civil Rights Lawyers
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum
Civil Rights Lawyer Serving Pelham, NY
Free Consultation! Successful & Dedicated Civil Rights Lawyer! Skilled Advocacy!
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum represents employees in class action and individual wage/hour cases, individual discrimination cases and other employment matters, such as severance negotiations. Maimon has successfully taken on... Read More »
Grace Hyun Esq.
Free Consultation! Exceptional Civil Rights Lawyer! Aggressive Legal Advocacy!
Grace Hyun specializes in the areas of civil litigation and has extensive experience in representing individuals and businesses in legal matters involving employment law, personal injury, premises liability,... Read More »
Denise Schulman
Free Consultation! Dedicated & Aggressive Civil Rights Lawyer! Skilled Advocacy!
Denise Schulman joined the Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP in 2009 and became a partner of the firm in 2017. In 2015, Denise was selected as a Rising Star by New York Super Lawyers. Denise graduated cum laude from New... Read More »
Jason L. Solotaroff
Success and Experience Defending the Underdog! Call Today for Skilled Advocacy!
I am an experienced and skilled Attorney at Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP. I am committed to advocating for the underdog in Civil Rights, Employment Law and Criminal Law matters. I have successfully represented... Read More »
Tejash V. Sanchala
Scarsdale, NY Civil Rights Attorney
Brooklyn Law SchoolNew York UniversityConnecticut, New Jersey, New York, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and U.S. Supreme CourtNational Trial Lawyers, Above the Bar Awards and Westchester County Bar AssociationWestchester County Human Rights Commission , Westchester County Bar Association...What Does Sexual Harassment Look Like and What is the difference between an Independent Contractor and an Employee?
Edward Anthony Ruffo
Bronx, NY Civil Rights Attorney
St. John's University School of LawColumbia UniversityNew York, 2nd Circuit and U.S. Supreme CourtNational Association of Distinguished Counsel, Brooklyn Bar Association, American Bar Foundation, NAOPIA...Brooklyn Bar Association, National Association of Distinquished Counsel...Plaintiff Medical Mapractice Depositions
Mayo Bartlett
White Plains, NY Civil Rights Attorney
Pace Law SchoolSyracuse UniversityConnecticut and New YorkSuper Lawyers, Avvo and The National Trial LawyersAfrican American Men of Westchester, Legal Aid Society of Westchester County...A Day at the Museum
Dominic Louis Chiariello
Glen Cove, NY Civil Rights Attorney
Fordham UniversityFordham UniversityNew YorkQueens County Bar , Nassau County Bar...
Gerald Chiariello
Fordham University School of LawOxford University - Brasenose College and Georgetown UniversityNew YorkCity of Glen CoveNew York State Trial Lawyers, Queens County Bar...
James Michael Maloney
Port Washington, NY Civil Rights Attorney
New York University School of Law and Fordham University School of LawState University of New York - Maritime College at Ft. SchuylerNew York, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New Jersey, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of TexasMaritime Law Association of the United States, Fordham University School of Law, Fordham University School of Law and Sea-Land ServiceMaritime Law Association of the United States and Marine Society of the City of New YorkPetition for Certiorari, American Petroleum & Transport, Inc. v. City of New York, Fighting for Basic Human Rights in the Workplace: A Conversation with Lewis Maltby...
Ira S. Newman
Great Neck, NY Civil Rights Attorney
New York University School of Law and New York University School of LawNew York, U.S. Supreme Court, United District Court Southern District of New York, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, United States District Court for the Western District of New York and 2nd CircuitMartindale-HubbellNassau County Bar Association and New York State Trial Lawyers AssociationReducing the Risk of Bank Director Liability and A Guide for Complaining New Yorkers
Kevin Abessi
Albany Law SchoolUnion College and Vanderbilt UniversityNew YorkState Bar of New York and State Bar of New Jersey
Peter Joel Schaffer
University of DenverWestern State CollegeConnecticut, New York, U.S. District of Connecticut, 2nd Circuit, EDNY and SDNYBronx County Bar Association and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Brian Seth Orlow
Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law CenterCity University of New York - Queens CollegeNew YorkNew York State Bar and New York State Trial Lawyers Association
Josef Nussbaum
Free Consultation!Dedicated Legal Representation for New York Workers' Rights!
Josef Nussbaum has been an associate with Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP since 2011. He represents employees in employment litigation in federal and state court and before administrative agencies. Josef handles wage and... Read More »
Aggressive & Dedicated Civil Rights Lawyer! Skilled Advocacy! Pursuing Justice!
New York State Bar
William Betz
New York Law SchoolNew York, 2nd Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court, Mariana Islands and 9th CircuitNew York State Bar"For the Retention of Diversity Jurisdiction"
Tara Fappiano
Tuckahoe, NY Civil Rights Attorney
St. John's University School of LawFordham UniversityUSDC of EDNY, SDNY and DNJ, New Jersey, Connecticut and New YorkState Bar of New York, new york state bar association...
Robert M. Schechter
Albany Law SchoolState University of New York - AlbanyDistrict of Columbia, New York, U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and United States Tax CourtDC Bar
John Tait
Fordham University School of LawPace University2nd Circuit, 9th Circuit, New Jersey and New YorkState Bar of New York
Edward H. Kyle III
Manhasset, NY Civil Rights Attorney
St. John's University School of LawNew York and United States District Court - Southern District of New YorkNassau County Bar Association and National Hispanic Bar AssociationSymbolism and the Thirteenth Amendment: The Injury of Exposure to Governmentally Endorsed Symbols of Racial Superiority
Leo Glickman
New York, NY Civil Rights Attorney
Brooklyn Law SchoolBoston University and London School of EconomicsNew YorkAll Stars for Hope and Stonewall Democratic ClubNew York City Campaign Finance Law and Parrish's Lawyer Clears Things Up
Cory Michael Garcia
New York Law SchoolBoston CollegeNew YorkNew York State Bar Association and Bronx Bar Association
Dan O'Phelan
William Mitchell College of Law and Macalester CollegeSt. John's University and University of Cambridge EnglandAlaska, Hawaii, 9th Circuit, New York and U.S. Supreme CourtNew York State Bar Association, Hawaii State Bar...
Welton Kemilious Wisham
Seton HallNew YorkNew York State Bar
Mishael Minnie Pine
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law and Columbia Union CollegeNew Jersey and New YorkNew York Academy of Trial Lawyers and Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity
New York Civil Rights Attorney
National Lawyer's Guild National Police Accountability Project and National Employment Lawyers Association/New York
Lucas Buzzard
Free Consultation! Aggressive Advocacy! Dedicated to Justice for Employees!
Lucas Buzzard previously clerked for the Hon. Peter W. Hall of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and served as a law clerk at the Second Circuit's Staff Attorney's Office. Lucas graduated... Read More »
The LII Lawyer Directory contains lawyers who have claimed their profiles and are actively seeking clients. Find more Pelham Civil Rights Lawyers in the Justia Legal Services and Lawyers Directory which includes profiles of more than one million lawyers licensed to practice in the United States, in addition to profiles of legal aid, pro bono and legal service organizations.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This outdoor garden bench reflects its surroundings by growing in size from the ground to a suitable seat height were you can feel part of the environment. The curve in the bench provides an organic form, which more easily integrates into the organic feel in a garden. The redwood is left unfinished in order to allow the physical environment to age the piece naturally over time.


text:
Federal government approves Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, subject to conditions
November 29, 2016 The Goat News and Views
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced conditional approval of Kinder Morgan's plans to expand their pipeline which will almost triple capacity from about 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day – and Kinder Morgan says could begin construction by September 2017.
Though Kinder Morgan says the pipeline's route will deviate slightly from the existing route built 60 years ag, which runs through the Robson Valley from Edmonton to Burnaby. The new pipe will essentially run from Jasper along Highway 16 toward Rearguard Station and the Junction, before veering south to the West of Valemount.
The approval, according to the Feds, is subject to 157 binding conditions addressing potential Indigenous, socio-economic and environmental impacts, including project engineering, safety and emergency preparedness.
A press release from Kinder Morgan notes they will continue to seek all necessary permits, and they are planning to begin construction in September 2017, with an in-service date for the twinned pipeline expected in late 2019. The company says other next steps include a final cost estimate review with shippers committed to the Project and a final investment decision by the Kinder Morgan Board of Directors
"This project has evolved substantially as a result of the scrutiny it has undergone and the input received from communities, Indigenous and Metis groups and individuals," says Ian Anderson President of Kinder Morgan Canada. "No voice has gone unheard, and we thank everyone who has helped make this Project better."
The project also faces five conditions from BC's provincial government.
In July 2012, Clark set five conditions for the project: completion of environmental reviews, world-leading practices for oil spill prevention, cutting-edge land and water cleanup programs, meeting concerns of First Nations and a fair share of profits.
The province has given the federal government's new oceans protection plan a thumbs up if additional resources for marine spill response are offered, though Clark said Tuesday that the five Provincial conditions have not yet been met.
The government also made three other pipeline decisions this week: The Government directed the National Energy Board (NEB) to dismiss Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipelines Project application. The government says it has determined that the project is not in the public interest, given that it would result in crude oil tankers transiting through the sensitive ecosystem of the Douglas Channel, which is part of the Great Bear Rainforest.
Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Jim Carr also announced a moratorium on crude and persistent oil tankers along B.C.'s north coast.
The area affected spans the Alaska–B.C. border, down to the point on B.C.'s mainland adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, and includes Haida Gwaii.
The Federal Government says via its statement, that it made this decision following consultations with stakeholders including Indigenous groups and communities.
"Canadians expect the Government of Canada to help grow the economy while protecting the environment," says Canada's Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau.
"This tanker moratorium is another example of how this can be achieved, and shows our commitment to establishing a world-leading marine safety system meeting the needs of all Canadians," he says.
The Federal Government will introduce legislation to implement the moratorium by the spring of 2017.
The federal government did approve Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project, subject to 37 binding conditions that will address potential Indigenous, socio-economic and environmental impacts. This $4.8-billion project will replace 1,067 kilometres of existing pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, to Gretna, Manitoba, "to enhance its safety and integrity." The project will generate significant economic benefits, the government says, including $514.7 million in federal and provincial government revenues and 7,000 new jobs during construction. It also provides a vital link to the North American refinery market for Canadian oil.
In March, the Simpcw First Nation signed a Mutual Benefits Agreement with Kinder Morgan relating to the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
Last year, Kinder Morgan announced a contribution of $185,000 to Valemount as part of a group of community benefit agreements, should their application be approved.
Valemount has earmarked the funds for four main projects: The water intake project; updating the emergency plan; the mountain bike park and bridge construction; and support for students in trades, technology and environmental programs related to the pipeline industry.
Whether or not the funds stay allocated to those projects, time will tell.
Kinder Morgan has estimated the project to cost $6.8-billion, while at the same time creating 15,000 new jobs during construction.
The expansion will also provide access to global markets and generate significant direct economic benefits, including $4.5-billion in Federal and Provincial government revenues, according to the Federal Government.
In order to approve the expansion, the Federal Government says it considered a wide variety of information and data, including the National Energy Board's (NEB) recommendation report, Environment and Climate Change Canada's assessment of upstream greenhouse gas emissions, the views of Canadians and enhanced consultations with Indigenous peoples.
— With RMG files
UPDATED: Province conditionally approves Trans Mountain
Going with the flow (of oil)
Feds look to offload pipeline while resuming construction
Kinder Morgan reveals hiring, work-camp details
Letter: Workers and communities waiting on the sidelines
Valemount Chamber promotes local biz
A holiday re-gift


text:
Home > Blog > Keira Knightley and Ellie Bamber dazzle in fairytale inspired gowns as they attend the star-studded UK premiere of new Disney film The Nutcracker and The Four Realms
They are talented actresses known for their daring looks on the red carpet as they arrived at the UK premiere of their new Disney film The Nutcracker and The Four Realms at London's Vue Westfield on Thursday.
Keira, 33, who plays the Sugar Plum Fairy in the flick, dressed to impress in an off-the-shoulder frothy lace gown, which cinched in at her slender waist with a satin pink sash.
Steal the show in a Chanel dress like Keira's
It's safe to say Keira Knightley stole the show when she attended the premiere of The Nutcracker and The Four Realms in London. The actress was decked out in a Chanel gown, which featured an off-the-shoulder neckline, cinched waist and billowing ruffle skirt.
This look oozes fairytale glamour and, with the festive season just around the corner, it's certainly inspiring our party outfit ideas. Bravo to stylist Leith Clark for adding Nicholas Kirkwood heels too. It hails from the Chanel Spring 2015 Couture show, making it positively vintage!
Of course that means it's not avaulable to buy, so instead we've scoured the web for shoulder-baring dresses like Keira's and listed our favourite finds below. Whether you splurge on Roberto Cavalli or bag a bargain at Boohoo, you're bound to be belle of the ball. Team your chosen gown with nude accessories for a refined finish.
The Pirates of the Caribbean star's raven tresses were styled sleek and straight and gathered into an elegant chignon, while smoky shadow, liner and scarlet lipstick accentuated her striking features. She was joined at the premiere by co-star Ellie Bamber, who plays Louise in the film, with the 21-year-old actress looking sensational in a flirty strapless ballgown.
The skintight bodice was decorated with multicoloured crystals, with a blush pink leather belt accentuating her trim waist. The dazzling gown flared out into a rose puffball skirt comprised of soft feathers. The star boosted her height with metallic stilettos.
Her ginger tresses were pulled into a sleek updo while her pretty features were adorned with a radiant dusting of make-up. The Disney interpretation of E.T.A. Hoffman's story-turned Tchaikovsky ballet stars Mackenzie Foy, 17, as Clara.
Ellie Bamber, who plays Louise in the film, with the 21-year-old actress looking sensational in a flirty strapless ballgown
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is set to hit cinemas on November 2 and also stars Helen Mirren, Richard E. Grant and Morgan Freeman. The young girl is led into a mysterious world by a golden thread given to her by her godfather, played by Morgan Freeman at his annual Christmas party.
Clara embarks upon a mission to find a special key to unlock a priceless possession of her late mother's which leads her to a mystical parallel world, where she meets the Sugar Plum Fairy played by Keira Knightley. Clara uncovers three Realms within the mysterious place: Land of Snowflakes, Land of Flowers and Land of Sweets.
Mackenzie Foy, 17, looked stylish in a one shoulder polka dot gown
The young girl must brave the ominous Fourth Realm, home to the tyrannical Mother Ginger, played by a flame-haired Dame Helen Mirren, in order to retrieve the special key in a bit to restore harmony to the unstable world. In addition to the video clip, Disney also released the official poster for the film, which set to be released on 2 November. The movie was directed by Lasse Hallström (who previously directed Chocolat, starring Johnny Depp) and Joe Johnston (who directed the original Jumanji film, which stars the late Robin Williams).
Blog, Entertainment, UK News
Over 60,000 children to get emergency education after Indonesia tsunami
Pat Obilor Launch her first Book 'Life of a Media girl'.
Kanye West has claimed he lost $2 billion in a single day as companies have continued...
Entertainment Uncategorized World News


Download PDF Decision Making by the Child Protection Team of a Medical Center.
********** The medical system, and more specifically hospitals, play an important role in the early detection of and emergency responses to cases of child abuse and neglect. The hospital is a primary point of entry for many children suspected of being abused, sexually or otherwise (Hibbard & Zollinger, 1992; Smith, Losek, Glaeser, & Walsh-Kelly, 1988). Hospitals provide preliminary protection for the child, access to professional resources, opportunity for professional involvement, and appropriate referrals and treatment.


Product Detail | Canex Building Supplies Ltd. Concrete & Accessories | Canex Building Supplies Ltd.
Since moving to the new location in 2009, the Masonry division increased its product offering in concrete accessories. Whether it is concrete cleaners, stains and sealers or concrete repair and restoration products, we have a lot to offer in this area. We also carry a full line of dry mixes for a variety of applications.


From logo designs and websites to registration forms and business cards, great design is imperative. Custom design is one part of the equation that sets your brand apart from the competition. You must invest in it and ensure that it leaves a positive impression on audiences.
Are you Wasting your Investment in Newswire Distribution?
Written by Bogdan / Comments Off on Are you Wasting your Investment in Newswire Distribution?
The term dissertation meansyou are at the end of your educational career. It is the project that Ph.D.candidates have to submit before attaining their doctoral degree. This project is severe and has its significance. You need appropriate guidance to complete your project and to avoid mistakes. The order of the dissertation writing content is complicated.
When it comes to finding one particular font in a sea of fonts, life can be pretty harsh. Unless you have a graphic designer friend with an impressive memory, you'll probably have to find a way to identify it by yourself.
With or without the numbers, FRIENDS is one of the most known and viewed TV show of all times. A yougov.com survey that took place between 10th and 12th February 2018 revealed that 69% of Americans have watched at least one episode and 22% of those declared they simply loved it.


text:
Live In: 0:00:00 Watch Live Stream
CALVARY ESPAÑOL
Contact Ministry Leaders
Share This Message:
Marital Maturity
Rich Jones
Paul takes the opportunity in 1 Corinthians 7 to address the issue of spiritual maturity as it relates to marriage. This chapter is filled with practical spiritual application and it's good for everyone to understand spiritual maturity so it can be applied to every area of life. Marriage is important for everyone to understand from a spiritual perspective. Many people are married, or would like to be, so these verses are very practical for us today.
All 1 Corinthians Messages
As we come to chapter 7, we begin a new section of Paul's letter where he is answering some questions they sent to him, probably as a response to his first
letter.
The first questions had to do with marriage, sexuality in marriage and being single. The church was in Corinth and as we discussed last week, that city
was the "Amsterdam of the ancient world." It was the very center of immorality in the Roman Empire. The temple of Aphrodite, goddess of beauty and
love, was right there in Corinth and immorality was part of the culture of the day. The temple of Aphrodite today, otherwise known as the Internet,
is still a part of our modern culture.
The response of the church was in two extremes. One group, who were mere men, or spiritually immature, needed strong correction and a better understanding
of the heart of God. They were not spiritually appraising this thing rightly. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit? Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? God forbid it. May never be!"
There was another group, however, who took the other extreme and believed that since sexuality was the root of all such immorality, then the best response
should be to exclude sexuality in every form, and that included the idea that there should be no sexuality even in marriage.
Paul responds with correction of that view as well. In other words, Paul is saying, abstaining from sexuality in marriage is a terrible idea.
This chapter is filled with practical spiritual application and it's good for everyone to understand spiritual maturity so it can be applied to every area
of life. Marriage is important for everyone to understand from a spiritual perspective. Many people are married, or would like to be, so these verses
are very practical.
Where do we get our ideas on marriage? Mostly from our culture and often that's not much help at all.
Some kids were asked, "How do you decide who to marry?"
"You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports – and keep the chips and dip coming."
— Allen, age 10
"No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides at all way before, and you get the find out later who you're
stuck with." –Kirsten, age 10
Another child was asked how to stay happily married…
"Be a good kisser. It might make your wife forget that you never take out the trash." — Erin, age 8
I. Let Marriage be held in Honor
That phrase actually comes from a verse in Hebrews, but it captures Paul's thoughts very well.
The question they asked Paul was probably, "Is it good for a man not to touch a woman at all, even if they're married?"
"It's good for a man not to touch a woman outside of marriage," Paul is saying, but then comes the correction, because they took it too far.
A. Don't deprive one another
Paul says that sexual intimacy in marriage is a good thing. It's a blessing from God to be enjoyed and you should not deprive one another from that
blessing.
Paul then gets very practical. Because of immoralities, he said, it's good to have a healthy sexual relationship. Good character and spiritual maturity
is still required, but a good, healthy relationship and marriage is very helpful.
He even takes it one step further and says that neither spouse has authority over their own body. The husband does not have authority over his own
body, and neither does the wife. In light of the culture of that day, that's really a remarkable statement.
The words in the Greek suggest that each has an obligation to give the affection that is due.
App – The sense you get is that there were some who were withholding sexual affection on the grounds that they were being holy, but this certainly didn't help the other person to be holy, in fact, it pushed them towards immorality. "Stop depriving one another," Paul responds.
In verse 5, Paul makes an exception for the purpose of prayer — but only for a short time and by agreement, lest Satan tempt you.
Proverbs 3:27, Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, went it is in your power to do it.
That probably wasn't the original intent, but it works.
It's important that we recognize Satan's great strategy when it comes to sexuality. He will do everything he can to encourage sex outside of marriage and everything he can to discourage sex within marriage. It's a victory for him either way.
B. It is better to marry than to burn
In verse 7 Paul is suggesting that remaining single can be a good thing. However, Paul also recognizes that being single and content is a gift from
God and that not everyone has that gift.
If a person does not have control over their strong sexual desires, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire, Paul
is saying.
Later in this chapter Paul makes the point that a person who is not married is able to give more single hearted devotion to the Lord. (Verse 32)
Verse 28 – If you should marry, you certainly have not sinned, Paul is saying, "Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I'm trying to spare you." A
lot of people find Paul's comment quite humorous, probably because it's so close to reality.
In other words, marriage is not easy; it requires a huge investment of heart and soul and sometimes the troubles of marriage can be gut-wrenching.
Illus – A couple from another church asked if they could come in and talk about their marriage. After a few minutes I said, "I think I know your problem." I said to the wife, "You don't feel loved," and then I said to the husband, "You don't feel respected." "Wow, that's amazing," they said, "how did you know?" Answer – that's where they all fall short!
C. Love God first
Verse 35 – Paul's goal, he says, is to promote what is honorable and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
In other words, your love for God should be first.
The person who is married is concerned for their spouse in how they may please them, or at least they should be. What I've found, however, is that
God can use that concern for your spouse to make you a better person, to make you more godly.
Illus – When my son, Sasha, graduated from training for Special Forces, I flew out to North Carolina for the ceremony and then we drove back together. Let's just say it was a man's kind of trip. When I'm with my wife, she wants me to drive "like my mom's in the car."
The point Paul is making is that both the single person and the married person should be concerned how to please the Lord. The interests of a married
person are divided and so it's easier to have single hearted devotion if you're single.
That being said, it's also easy to be single and yet lack devotion to the Lord because they're not content in their singleness.
The key is to learn the secret of being content.
Philippians 4:11-13, I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am…I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
But being content in marriage requires godly character and spiritual maturity as well.
II. God Honors Marriage
In the next section, Paul gives several principles and instructions that show us that God honors marriage.
These are great principles of wisdom that everyone should understand whether they're married or not because they give us the ability to appraise things
spiritually.
A. God hates divorce
I know there are a lot of people who have experienced or are experiencing divorce and I'm certainly not here to make you feel badly about the past,
my heart is to speak about what God wants for your future.
I think everyone here who has been divorced would join me in speaking to the importance of strengthening marriage and being spiritually mature so you
can avoid divorce in the future.
The number one reason given for divorce today is "irreconcilable differences." There are always going to be differences; do they have to be irreconcilable?
Illus – As Ruth Graham once said, "The best marriages are made of two great forgivers."
Verse 10-11 — The wife should not leave her husband and the husband should not send away his wife.
The Jewish rabbis had two opposing views. Rabbi Shammai taught that there was virtually no justifiable reason for divorce. Rabbi Hillel held a liberal
view and taught that a man could divorce for any reason at all. According to him, if a wife made the coffee too strong that would be grounds for divorce, or if she burnt the toast, or didn't please him in this way or that; he could divorce her.
The Jewish leaders presented the debate to Jesus. Interestingly, Jesus had just finished speaking about forgiveness. But He responded to the question
by saying, "Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your heart, but from the beginning it has not been this way."
Jesus then one on to explain that adultery is the only allowance for divorce. However, here in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul adds that if an
unbelieving spouse leaves, let him leave, the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, because God has called us to peace.
B. God has called us to peace
Verse 15 – Paul gives several principles to build his case in these verses.
If you're married to an unbeliever and he or she consents to live with you, let it be and do not send them away simply because they're an unbeliever.
Paul says in several places that Christians should not be unequally yoked; they should marry a believer. That being said, what if you find yourself
in that condition anyway? Then let it be, if they want to stay, let them stay, God has called us to peace.
Illus – My wife knows of a woman who came to the Lord and, misunderstanding the scriptures, left her unbelieving husband. He then wanted nothing to do with the Lord; how tragic.
Verse 16 – For how do you know whether you will save your unbelieving husband or wife? In other words, bless and love your unbelieving spouse, you
never know what might happen.
You are a temple of the Holy Spirit and marriage is created by God. Therefore it is covered by God's favor. An unbelieving spouse is therefore blessed
by it and the children also are sanctified.
C. Walk in the condition you were called
Verse 17 — Paul writes many verses to make this point over and over. As God has called each, in this manner let him walk.
You can't undo the past. Instead of thinking that you will walk for the Lord when your station changes, walk for the Lord in the place you are right
Many people have troubled pasts, but whether you're married, single, divorced, widowed, remarried, or whatever, what matters is what you do now.
Verse 29 – The time is short, Paul is saying, use the time that you have now for the Lord. Maybe in the past you wasted your life, but the time is
short, use the time you have to live for the Lord, have a sense of urgency.
The verses that follow mean; live in the perspective of eternity. Don't let your possessions possess you, you'll honor your wife more when you live
for the Lord.
Luke 14:16-24 We have been invited to the banquet of the King…
Hebrews 11:8-10, By faith Abraham…lived as an alien in the land of promise… for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
1 Corinthians 7:1-40 NASB
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own
wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The
wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but
the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so
that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men
were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for
it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her
husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband
is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but
now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called
us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man
called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that
condition in which he was called.
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord
while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves
of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then
that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be
released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.
Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now
on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though
they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of
it; for the form of this world is passing away.
32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who
is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried,
and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about
the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what
is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what
he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will,
and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in
marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband
is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think
that I also have the Spirit of God.
DonateLike this sermon?
If you enjoyed the sermon and would like to financially support our teaching ministry, we thank you in advance for partnering with us in sending forth the word.
We have a service in progress. Would you like to join our live stream? Join The Live Stream No Thanks
Meeting at Calvary Chapel Worship Center: 6550 SE Alexander Street
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (503) 642-2003 questions@calvary-hillsboro.org
© 2020 Calvary Chapel Hillsboro. All Rights Reserved. Sitemap
Chicago Website Design & Development: Chicago Digital


The Jones Act is a maritime law enacted by Congress that provides protection to persons who are members of the crew of a vessel. This law applies to inland river workers as well as offshore workers who work on jackups, semi-submersibles, lay barges, drill ships, tugs, towboats, crew boats, tankers, cargo ships, fishing vessels, chemical ships, research vessels, diving vessels, cruise ships or other floating, movable structures.
The Jones Act is an Act of Congress, which governs the liability of vessel operators and marine employers for the work-related injury or death of an employee. It is a federal cause of action, meaning that the United States Congress intended for all seamen's injuries throughout the nation to be guided by the same liability standards. Although the Jones Act protects seamen, it is not the same as workers' compensation. It does not require payment regardless of fault. In order for a worker to recover under the Jones Act, a worker must prove some negligence or fault on the part of the vessel's owners, operators, officers, and/or fellow employees or by reason of any defect in the vessel, its gear, tackle, or equipment. The Jones Act provides an injured seaman a remedy against his or her employers for injuries arising from negligent acts of the employer or co-workers during the course of employment on a vessel. This means that the employer must do something unreasonable or fail to perform a reasonable act that would have prevented injury in order for the seaman to win his claim.
Claims brought under the Jones Act can also be against a vessel's owner that a vessel was unseaworthy.
One of the central questions in any maritime injury case is whether the injured party is a seaman, since only a seaman can recover under the Jones Act. A seaman is a member of the crew of a vessel or someone who is assigned to a vessel or a fleet of vessels. For example, those who work on tankers, freighters, jack-up rigs, semi-submersibles, towboats, tugs, supply boats, crew boats, barges, lay barges and fishing vessels are members of the crew and are considered seamen. Those who are crewmembers on movable or jack-up drilling rigs are seamen. Officers and crew are all considered seamen. Longshoremen, pilots, and those who work on fixed platforms are not seamen, but have other maritime remedies available for their injuries. Often there is a dispute as to seamen status and whether the seaman was working on a vessel when he was injured. It is very important to allow the maritime attorney to study the facts surrounding the accident and the "vessel" to help make the determination of seaman status.
(c). The duration of a worker's connection to a vessel and the nature of the worker's activities, taken together, determine whether a maritime worker is a seaman because the ultimate inquiry is whether the worker in question is a member of the vessel's crew or simply a land-based employee who happens to be working on a vessel at a given time.
(d). A distinction must be made between sea-based workers and land-based workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in navigation. Land-based maritime workers do not become seamen because they happen to be working aboard a vessel when they are injured, and seamen do not lose Jones Act protection where the course of their service to a vessel takes them ashore. In evaluating the employment-related connection of a maritime worker to a vessel in navigation, courts should not employ a "snapshot" test for seamen status, inspecting only the situation as it exists at the instant of injury; but rather, the total circumstances of an individual's employment must be weighed to determine whether he has a sufficient relation to the vessel.
(e). Jones Act coverage (seaman status) depends not on the place where the injury is inflicted, but on the nature of the seaman's service, his status as a member of the vessel, and his relationship as such to the vessel and its operation in navigable waters.
If a seaman becomes injured on a vessel, regardless of the fault of the vessel or its operators, his or her legal remedy is called maintenance and cure. "Maintenance" is a small daily compensation designed to provide the food and shelter that would have been provided to the seaman while aboard the vessel. Today, maintenance rates range from $7 to $35 per day. "Cure" is the obligation of the seaman's employer to provide medical treatment, prescription drugs, nursing services, hospitalization, rehab and therapy, until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. Maximum medical improvement means that the seaman's condition will not improve any further or he is permanently disabled. When a seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, the vessel owner's obligation to pay maintenance and cure ceases, regardless of whether the seaman can return to work or not. The seaman has a right to his choice of physicians and does not have to accept treatment by his employer's choice of physician. If an employer refuses to pay maintenance and cure, the employer can be held liable for damages and attorneys' fees.
The vessel owner owes the seaman a strict and absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. A seaworthy vessel is one that is reasonably fit for its intended use, it should be a safe place to work and live. A seaworthy vessel should be equipped with appropriate safety gear and equipment, safe recreation facilities, and a competent crew. The duty owed to a seaman is more rigorous than the seaworthiness promised in a contract for the carriage of marine cargo. In addition to holding a seaman's employer responsible for the negligent acts of its employees and officers, a seaman can recover if he can prove that the vessel was unseaworthy and that he was injured as a result. A vessel that is unseaworthy does not mean that it is in danger of sinking. A vessel is unseaworthy if a piece of equipment breaks or is inoperable, the vessel's crew is too small or incomplete, not adequately trained, or a condition such as oil, grease or rust exists where it is not intended to exist and the unseaworthy condition is a direct cause of injury to the seaman. In other words, negligence focuses on acts of the seaman's employer, and unseaworthiness focuses on the condition or inadequacy of the vessel itself. Unlike the Jones Act claims, which is against the seaman's employer, an unseaworthiness claim is made against the vessel's owner. In many cases those actions will be against the same party. An unseaworthiness claim will bring the owner into a lawsuit as an additional source of recovery for the seaman. As with the Jones Act, an unseaworthiness claim must be filed within three years of the injury, and must be combined with a Jones Act claim.
The Statute of Limitations in a Jones Act case is generally three (3) years from the date of the injury. There are exceptions to this general rule, such as seaman assigned to vessel owned, operated, or contracted by the United States government. Actions against the vessel owner for unseaworthiness, must also be brought within three (3) years from the date of the seaman's injury.
Wages lost from the time of the injury to the time of trial.
Wage loss in the future.
Medical expenses in the past and in the future.
Pain, suffering and mental anguish in the past and in the future.
If an injury causes the death of a seaman, the surviving widow or husband and children of the employee become the beneficiaries under the Jones Act. If the worker does not have a spouse or children, then the beneficiaries include the employee's parents. A personal representative such as an executor is entitled to bring an action that the worker (had he lived) would have possessed against his employer. The worker's cause of action against the employer does not die with the worker. In death cases, damages go to the seaman's survivors.
What should an injured maritime worker do?
If injured, immediately report the injury to the appropriate person. Make sure the accident report is COMPLETE. If there was a dangerous condition or problem that caused or contributed to your injury, then state it on the accident report and photograph it if at all possible. Get a copy of what you signed.
Get co-workers to write a statement as to what the conditions were at the time of the accident.
Obtain statements from witnesses to your accident.
Get the names, addresses and phone numbers of all of the co-workers that may become witnesses for you. Trying to obtain these months later, can sometimes be even more difficult.
Get medical attention immediately from the doctor of your OWN choosing. Many times the company will try to get you to go to their doctor or clinic and get you immediately back to work. Sometimes this tactic can not only be dangerous to your health, if you are not well, but also plays into their hands that you really weren't injured anyway. Resist a doctor of their choosing! Rather, find a doctor who has treated other injured friends or co-workers and who understands the physical requirements of your job.
Select an attorney who understands the JONES ACT. Many attorneys advertise and represent that they do Jones Act and Maritime injury cases, when in fact, most of these attorneys don't know even know what the Jones Act is, how it applies, or what to do to protect their client's rights under the law.
Mr. Willis is a Board Certified Personal Injury Trial Lawyer, certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and practices only personal injury trial law. Attorney David Willis never has and never will represent a corporation or insurance company. He is damn proud to represent the injured worker!
If you have a question regarding your Jones Act, maritime personal injury claim or the wrongful death of a friend or family member, call and talk to an experienced offshore maritime injury attorney now.


text:
Flights Arkansas
Flights Little Rock
Flights to San Pedro Sula from Little Rock
Flights Little Rock - San Pedro Sula fly from Little Rock to San Pedro Sula at the best prices in the market. Flights from Little Rock (Little Rock-Bill and Hillary Clinton) to San Pedro Sula (San Pedro Sula-La Mesa) with Destinia. To search for availability and reserve your flight Little Rock - San Pedro Sula look at the box above and select the departure and return date as desired. You can also buy several airplane tickets Little Rock (Little Rock-Bill and Hillary Clinton airport) - San Pedro Sula (San Pedro Sula-La Mesa airport) at the same time, by selecting the adults, children and babies travelling. You can filter the type of flight if you only want direct flights to Little Rock - San Pedro Sula, multiple destinations or flight stopovers.
Little Rock and San Pedro Sula are 2181 kilometres away from each other, with an estimated flight time of 03:07 h (this may vary depending on the weather or air routes)
Airports near San Pedro Sula
All San Pedro Sula airports
Flights to San Pedro Sula
Flights to San Pedro Sula (Honduras) most sought after by users, in the following chart we show the flights from some important cities to San Pedro Sula (Honduras) .
Houston - San Pedro Sula
Top destinations in Honduras
Book your flights now from San Pedro Sula (Honduras) to the most important cities in the world. The box below contains flights from San Pedro Sula (Honduras) to the most important cities.
Flights to La Ceiba
Flights to Puerto Lempira
Flights to Roatan Island
Flights to Tegucigalpa
Flights to Utila
Previsión del tiempo para hoy: Little Rock
Previsión del tiempo para hoy: San Pedro Sula
Hotels in San Pedro Sula


Patron – Judith Weir (Master of the Queen's Music) An award winning Minerva Scientifica Performance Programme perfect for music and science festivals, exhibitions and conferences as well as traditional arts venues, schools and rural touring, with optional Outreach Projects on Singing and Science (in collaboration with NovoScience) for all ages.
Frances sings spectacular stories, highlighting outstanding achievements by female scientists whose pioneering work has transformed all our lives.
Hildegard von Bingen (1098 – 1179) herbalist, healer, poet, astronomer, composer…..
Ada Lovelace (1815 – 1852) mathematician and pre-computer programmer!
The live performance works are interspersed with the pre-recorded voices of members of the public; the (living!) composers; Debbie James, Curator and Joe Middleton, Manager of The Herschel Museum of Astronomy; Dr. Gillian Sales, Curator of the Museum of Life Sciences, King's College London and Judith Weir and features the voice of science historian Dr Patricia Fara, Cambridge University.
How many women scientists can you name?
How many women composers can you name?
Superwomen of Science Workshops complement the performance programme through a deeper understanding of the music and the science involved. Each workshop is tailored to suit your audience and will include elements of voice work, scientific discussion, composition, women in science recordings for use in the performance and fun! We have special Cross Curricular Composition & Performance Workshop(s)for Schools – developed with Schools (Key Stage 3 – 5) by electric voice theatre and scientists from King's College London.


If you are planning to starting a business and want to deliver a delightful customer experience, this should be your first read. This book will change your perception of customer servicing and importance of company culture once and for all.
Tony Hsieh takes us through his journey as an entrepreneur from selling buttons at age of 8 to zappos being acquired by amazon at valuation over $1.2 Bn in 2009.
He honestly explains the mistakes he has made during LinkExchange, (his previous venture) and struggles he faced everyday in making zappos cash positive.
Following sections from the book are must read.


text:
An A to Z of Theory | Alain Badiou: On Badiou Versus Deleuze
In the tenth and final instalment of his series on the French thinker, Andrew Robinson compares and contrasts Badiou's work with one of Robinson's favourite theorists, and Badiou's béte noire: Gilles Deleuze.
In Theory, New in Ceasefire - Posted on Friday, April 17, 2015 18:45 - 1 Comment
By Andy McLaverty-Robinson
"For Badiou, there is a meaningful distinction between being and nothingness, whereas for Deleuze, nothingness is an erroneous conception of differences in types of being."
In previous columns, I have explored the ontology, theory of the state, theory of the Event, and political views of Alain Badiou. In this final essay, I compare and contrast Badiou's work with one of my favourite theorists, and Badiou's béte noire: Gilles Deleuze.
Badiou accuses Deleuze of being covertly "transcendentalist" or authoritarian, but I suggest that this is a misreading of Deleuze's position. I also argue that the relationship to the qualitative is the most important political difference between the two theorists.
Badiou versus Deleuze
Badiou has worked hard to produce a philosophical schism between his own approach and that of Deleuze. He seems to take Deleuze as a favoured adversary, though his treatment of Deleuze in his most recent works is less dismissive. He wrote several early pieces, such as "The Flux and the Party", attacking Deleuze's thought, followed by a book, "Deleuze: The Clamour of Being", which attacked Deleuze as a transcendentalist.
Philosophical dispute is a strange matter here. In Badiousian theory, the choice of a philosophy is a decision. There is no real basis for choosing one option over another. One can only pick a side and then follow through its effects. This makes it very hard for Badiou to argue against other theorists. But that doesn't stop him doing so! Actually, Badiou seems to be caught in a constant contradiction between his claim that Truths, Events, and alignments have no ground, and his provision of definite criteria to select between them.
Badiou's critiques of Deleuze, and even his framing of where the dispute between himself and Deleuze lies, are largely rejected by Deleuzians. Badiou tends to read Deleuze both as if the latter uses Badiou's method – deriving his entire theory from first principles on which he decides – and by applying Badiou's categories as if they are immanent to Deleuze's own theory.
Most importantly, Badiou accuses Deleuze of transcendentalism (or 'Platonism'). Badiou accuses Deleuze of having a "philosophy of the One". Such a philosophy defies the structure of set theory, and its break with mathematical theology. In other words, Badiou accuses Deleuze of establishing a 'trunk' (termed a 'One' in Badiou's work). Of course, this runs against the grain of Deleuze's work, which in its own terms is resolutely immanentist and opposed to 'arborescence'. The fact that Deleuze's theory has a secret trunk is only visible through Badiou's philosophy.
Most Deleuzians do not recognise this critique. Rejection of trunks and transcendence is central to Deleuze's project. Badiou's accusation relies on a misreading of certain passages of Deleuze's work on Spinoza (referring to the 'univocity of being'). Deleuze endorses Spinoza's view that differences are all expressions of various kinds of an underlying process of becoming or differenciation (production of difference). For Badiou, this means that Deleuze treats the underlying process – becoming or 'life' – as a 'One' or trunk. Having decided that Deleuze treats 'life' as a transcendent value, Badiou suggests that we are judged externally by how well we conform to this ideal.
The mistake Badiou makes is clear. Basically, it involves identifying the field of becoming, as a continuous process, as a 'trunk' or 'One'. In Deleuzian theory, life is not seen as a principle of judgement, but as something internal. Each is 'judged' by their own becoming. As Todd May argues, each difference expresses but does not resemble the general field of difference. Badiou is mistaken in treating the molecular field of becoming in Deleuze's work as if it is a unitary being.
Similarly, Jon Roffe argues that Deleuze rejects the One-Many dichotomy, instead using a concept of substantive multiplicity. Furthermore, particular beings are never reduced to the univocity of being in general. 'Beings' express 'being' in the same way (and is equally valid as an expression of Being), but they don't have a common substance. In another account, David Smith, who works on Deleuze, Badiou and maths, has suggested that, since Badiou believes that only a set-theory approach can avoid the One, he declares any other approach to involve the One in advance.
Hence, Badiou's framing of the disagreement is misleading. Nevertheless, there is a real dispute here. Badiou believes that being 'as such' exists, whereas Deleuze believes that being is an effect of becoming. For Deleuze, Events are part of a continual field, whereas for Badiou, they are not. For Badiou, there is a meaningful distinction between being and nothingness, whereas for Deleuze, nothingness is an erroneous conception of differences in types of being.
From a Deleuzian point of view, Badiou is 'transcendent' (or arborescent). Badiou constantly re-establishes the state and the count-for-one by unfolding each Event into a new situation. This is a way of 'saving' transcendence from the subversive power of immanence, by channelling immanence into a widened field which remains transcendent. Indeed, Badiou sometimes uses explicitly transcendental terms – the Event is the 'transcendentally discontinuous', for example.
Badiou criticises Spinoza's view that the underlying force of becoming expresses itself in infinite modes. He claims that there is no evidence for the existence of such modes. If they exist, they are necessarily a void for humans. A Deleuzian response might be that infinite modes cannot be thought, but they can be felt. According to Hallward, Badiou's view of infinity is much less inclusive than Spinoza's. This arguably leads to a situation where the Event is exceptional for Badiou.
Another major difference occurs on the question of negativity or lack. Badiou believes in an ontological primacy of the void. Deleuze refuses any such primacy. For Badiou, this makes Deleuze unable to think about radical transformation and change. For instance, Badiou takes Deleuze's concept of univocity as evidence that he represses the reality of social antagonism. And he argues that the unsensed or unknown can only interact with language by punching holes in it.
Badiou insists on negativity, against what he sees as pure positivity in Deleuze. He accuses Spinoza (and by extension Deleuze) of failing to distinguish between belonging (to a situation) and being included (in its subsets). This takes away the possibility of negativity in Badiou's sense. It makes it impossible to theorise the excluded part, or to carry out an Event.
Badiou believes that being and nothingness exist. Distinct things also exist. For Deleuze, in contrast, nothingness is a subjective misperception of difference. What exists is a kind of chaotic continuity. Deleuzian Events happen in this field of continuity, not in a void.
Deleuze and Badiou adopt very different strategies – one might even say different psychological orientations – as to how to handle the excess of life over systematisation. Badiou handles this excess by declaring it unthinkable, and mapping its structural place. Deleuze handles it by treating life as thinkable, but only in a non-representative, expressive way.
For Badiou, the underlying reality is a void. We have seen this in his presentation of inconsistent multiplicity. Because inconsistent multiplicity is a void in maths, Badiou assumes it is a void in being. Deleuze, in contrast, believes that multiplicity is simply unrepresentable in maths. Its actual nature is a kind of processual becoming which cannot be represented. It only appears as a void within maths because maths is a representational system.
One incisive critique of Badiou is launched by Ėric Alliez, a co-author of Guattari. Alliez basically argues that what is wrong with Badiou's work is its orientation to scarcity and negativity. Alliez alleges that Badiou's conception of the multiple is set up so as to assert the universality of the signifier (or trunk) against a multiplicity of lines of flight. Badiou seeks to abolish or ignore difference so as to produce a One, or trunk.
Alliez suggests that, politically, Badiou's approach is construction without expression – the building of assemblages without the channelling of living forces to provide the assemblages with life. For Alliez, Badiou requires a scission/decision in order to guarantee the transcendental status of the Signifier (or the master-signifier or trunk). It is needed to separate oneself from the 'living autonomy of desire'. A truth defined as arising from nothing is used to substitute for the reality of becoming. Badiou's opposition to the 'party of desire' suggests that he is part of a party of lack, the One, knowledge, and war (or scarcity).
Sometimes, Badiou portrays the difference between his theory and Deleuze's in terms of the role of structure. In his early work, Badiou portrays Deleuze as theorising force alone – an instance of the 'leftist deviation' (obscurantism in Badiou's current terminology).
In The Flux and the Party, Badiou suggests that the politics of desire stems from a misunderstanding of the May 1968 uprising as simply unforeseeable and therefore an irruption of desire. He calls Deleuze's theory 'Kantian' and 'moralist' because of the belief in something within the self which escapes social causality by the dominant system. Against Deleuze and Stirner, he argues that, without separating primary and secondary contradictions, all domination is treated as equivalent, reduced to something abstract, and revolution is replaced by subjective withdrawal.
He also objects to the resistance which the politics of desire puts in the way of any post-revolutionary dictatorship, claiming that this resistance entails refusing to deal with the question of the state. (Of course, refusal to seize state power does not really entail refusal to theorise or destroy the state). In earlier Maoist pieces, Badiou even accuses Deleuze of being a 'proto-fascist' and an 'enemy of the people'.
The two approaches also involve very different uses of the term Event. Deleuze's use of the term 'event' refers to a singularity. This is a point at which something different happens, as distinct from ordinary points. The singular term 'Event' is also used to refer to the general field of difference in which individual events occur.
In his theory of becoming, Deleuze treats truth as an unfolding of something which is already present in the existing field. A Deleuzian reality is continuous. An event or revolution in Deleuze emerges continuously from some aspect of the present field. Since Deleuze does not believe in a constitutive gap, he does not need a concept of an Event to fill the gap.
There are 'singularities' – points where things come to a head, spill over, or split in two – in Deleuze's work. These include points where an affect suddenly erupts after steadily increasing. It involves moments when something which has an existence in the actual returns to the field of the virtual and of becoming, and changes into something else.
A Deleuzian event does not involve subjective ruptures and interventions in Badiou's sense. For Badiou, this means that Events and revolutions are impossible for Deleuze. Badiou sees Deleuze's 'micro-revolutions', which happen within individuals and small groups, as occurring at the level of the parts of the situation. Such revolutions cannot alter a situation, but only the place of a part within it. For Badiou, a true Event is always a break with the becoming of an existing object. This reading seems to ignore the role of differenciation, or difference-production, in Deleuze's thought.
As Hallward argues, for Badiou the ordinary and the unique are inseparable, whereas for Deleuze, everything is at once ordinary and unique. For Deleuze, something new comes from the actualisation of something virtual. For Badiou, an Event is actual without being virtual. In fact, in Badiou's ontology, things are defined by their actual ontological position. There is no underlying virtual. Temporality in Deleuze's sense is absent from Badiou's theory. Badiou handles time in terms of Events and periodisations. Arguably, he retains a spatial view of time, supplemented by the Event as occasional eruption of the temporal.
In Deleuze, the virtual actualises itself in the world. Events come from the order of time (the virtual), but are actualised in space. In a Deleuzian approach, Events are the moments when someone becomes passionately attached to something, or alters their deep attachments, or gives existential meaning to their world. The absence of definite and distinct Events in Deleuze's work means that a 'subject' or 'militant' in Badiou's sense is not necessary. (Williams suggests that this is why the quarrel with Deleuze is so sensitive for Badiou).
For Badiou, in contrast, the world is rearranged by an Event. The Event never merely alters an existing world. Badiou seems to think that we need a particular, traumatic reason to enter the field of becoming. We only enter the field of becoming when we are radically excluded.
In Deleuze, all Events connect into a single great Event, which is the process of becoming and differenciation of all existence. However, this does not make them into a transcendental One. Each specific differenciation expresses a general process of differenciation, not a unity. Deleuzian Events occur within the 'multiple' as a non-denumerable field, whereas Badiousian Events occur outside the 'multiple' as theorised by Badiou (i.e. within a count-for-one).
James Williams lists six differences between Badiou and Deleuze on the nature of Events:
1. Events as rare or ubiquitous
2. Why can't Events be given a clear spatial location? For Badiou it is because they come from the excluded part, for Deleuze because they are processes of becoming
3. Events are related to or else prior to Truths
4. Logical unfolding of an Event, vs Events as non-logical
5. Events as organising and ordering moments, or as experimental, creative moments
6. Events as unfolding and decision, versus Events interrelated in complex ways
Badiousian Events are either-or. In politics, art and science, they are always macro-scale. In Deleuze, Events can be small, micro-scale. They involve changes in connections or intensity. What seems to be a cumulative alteration causes a rupture, beginning in the domain of affect.
In Badiou there are fixed objective states which Events transform. In Deleuze, there is never really a fixed objective state to begin with. Such a state is an illusion, concealing real processes of becoming. Since everything is always in becoming, Events cannot be specified at a particular time or place, but unfold unevenly. Any representation always misrepresents an Event. Indeed, Deleuze would probably see Badiou's current theory of the Event as reifying Events, treating an ongoing process as a fixed moment. For Deleuze, change is constant and ongoing.
Williams analyses these differences through a discussion of a John Cheever novel, which involves an affair and a relationship break-up which are connected to a female character's dissatisfaction with patriarchal family relations.
From a Badiousian viewpoint, the story amounts to the effects of an excluded part, the Evental statement of which would be gender equality. The micro-dynamics of the relationships of the novel are localised effects of this social torsion. However, the Event cannot be achieved within the novel, because the existing structure resists it, and none of the characters are true subjects. From a Deleuzian viewpoint, there are a series of changes in the affective states of characters in the novel, each of which are Events. On this view, the main character undergoes changes which amount to micro-level Events.
On a related note, Deleuze treats newness as ontologically fundamental. Badiou argues that mathematical ontology cannot handle inconsistent multiplicity – and so excludes it from ontology, strictly speaking. It returns in the form of the Event. But this shows that Badiou does not treat newness as ontologically fundamental. He treats it as a limit to ontology. In Deleuze, the force of transformation emerges from repressed forces of becoming which are trapped beneath, or captured by, the dominant system. In Badiou, the force of transformation comes from a site which is both present and yet unrecognised.
Badiou believes there is a choice between an 'organicist' or 'vitalist' field of animals and life-flows, or a mathematical field of abstract, decisive forces. He takes Deleuze to choose the 'animal' field, failing to distinguish humans from animals. Deleuze pursues a kind of general contemplation of the chaotic diversity of the universe which Badiou rejects. The claim that everything is interrelated and in flux is true in set theory of ordinal (countable) sets. However, Badiou maintains that this is true only for 'natural' sets, and not 'historical' sets (which are not countable). A theory like Deleuze's therefore speaks only of natural sets.
Badiou accuses Deleuze of being a 'sophist'. This is Badiou's label for constructivists and deconstructionists. Of course, Deleuze's theory does not reduce everything to language. In many ways, Badiou is more of a sophist than Deleuze or even Derrida. He frequently uses redefinitions and polemical wordplay to misrepresent his opponents. Part of the reason he calls Deleuze a sophist is that he misunderstands the word 'sense' in one of Deleuze's works. He takes it to mean language, when it mainly means affect.
Badiou seems to believe that an Event needs to be recuperated, or brought into a system of representation, in order to survive. There can be no absolute deterritorialisation. In other words, a permanently Evental situation cannot be created. Deleuze, in contrast, believes that a constantly Evental world of 'absolute deterritorialisation' is possible.
Deleuze, like Badiou, uses a lot of concepts borrowed from maths. For example, the idea of singularity – a point where something changes, distinct from regular points – comes from maths. However, Deleuze is more interested in calculus than in set theory. This makes a lot of difference. Calculus was the transformation in practical maths which set theory later systematised, or 'axiomatised'. For Deleuze, the practical shift was the real revolution. Calculus has far more of a relationship to practical scientific questions than set theory does. Badiou accuses Deleuze of taking an "intuitionist" position on maths.
For Deleuze, the problematic is primary over the axiomatic. Axiomatics are treated with suspicion in Deleuze's work. Capitalism is an axiomatic. It expands by adding axioms, and orders itself by subtracting axioms. In maths, axiomatics are seen as a type of 'royal science'. This is Deleuze's term for types of knowledge which have trunks and serve power. The 'minor' or 'nomadic science' within maths is problematic. Axiomatics constantly tries to incorporate and repress problematics. But problematics are actually constitutive. They are the force of becoming within maths. Events are always 'problematic', rather than being derived from axioms or theorems.
Often, problematics come from practical sciences associated with movement – masonry, metallurgy and so on. These are fields which refuse "maths for maths' sake" and which have some kind of contact with time. They involve notions, such as movement and flow, which are banned from maths theory. David Smith suggests that problematics are the point at which maths has contact with existence. Badiou's exclusion of this zone corresponds to his refusal to consider existence in his austere ontology.
Even in maths, things have to be tested to see what happens. Calculus, for instance, had its origins in geometrical problems. It arose as a kind of intuition which could not be theorised within the maths theories of its day. It was only later that set theory separated calculus from its origins and presented it as if it was derived from its axioms. One might even say that set theory captured the calculus by axiomatising maths theory. The invention of the impossible number "i" – which for Badiou is the Event of set theory – is from a Deleuzian point of view, the inscription or capture of the Event.
In Deleuze's work, axiomatics are seen as a kind of imposition of order within maths. It is a stopping point rather than a cutting edge. And it is always running up against undecidable propositions – the trace of its suppression of problematics.
From Deleuze's point of view, Badiou adopts the position of 'royal science'. Badiou talks about discrete sets instead of continuous multiplicities. When he admits the problematic field at all, he admits it only as the 'void' from which Events emerge – a position which sees the problematic only from within the realm of the discrete. In other words, Badiou does not see the problematic field itself. He only sees its impact on the axiomatic field. His entire theory of the Event is an attempt to get around this blockage. Badiou's theory of the subjective source of Truth is unnecessary if truth is seen as arising from problematics. In effect, Badiou sees the Event from the system's point of view.
Badiou's dismissals of Deleuze as lacking robustness and severity echo the position of axiomatics towards problematics. If Deleuze is right, then the axiomatic as a mode of social life is one of several modes. There are at least four in Deleuze's thought: indigenous 'coding', statist-despotic 'overcoding', the capitalist 'axiomatic' and the schizorevolutionary or autonomist 'decoding' (which involves 'connections' instead of axiomatic 'conjugations'). If this is the case, Badiou cannot deal adequately with forms of life in either 'coded' or 'overcoded' social groups. Worse still, he is unable to pass beyond the capitalist way of arranging social life. A post-Evental world is necessarily restored as axiomatic – which is to say, as a variant of the capitalist way of organising social life. Every Badiousian revolution restores capitalism. Perhaps such revolutions even aid capitalism in bringing more and more spheres of life into the field of the axiomatisable and denumerable.
In What Is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari argue that all science arrests the flow of becoming rather than giving it consistency. Even Cantor's set theory arrests the flow of becoming. They argue that Badiou confuses the task of philosophy – creating concepts – with the task of science – creating functions.
One disagreement comes to the question: What do we do with things we can't count? Badiou thinks that non-denumerable sets are still sets. This is consistent with set theory. So Badiou still sees uncountable things as inside maths. This is crucial to his claim that "mathematics is ontology". Deleuze, in contrast, thinks of uncountable things as outside maths – the same way unspeakable things are outside language. He sees maths as an incomplete system which is ultimately dependent on a deeper level of unrepresentable becoming.
Part of the disagreement here is that Badiou thinks that maths is not representing and, therefore, doesn't have a One. Deleuze thinks that maths is representing, and that it usually has a One (the number one). Saying that things are a non-denumerable set implies that they are units in the set (i.e. ones), even if we can't actually count them. It reduces them to a particular order of representation. In line with Bergson, this order of representation is seen as similar to language. It reduces time to space, or becoming to being, in the same way.
Badiou sees this argument as an 'intuitionist' misunderstanding of set theory. He thinks this criticism treats set theory as an abstraction from applied maths (i.e. from counting things), when really it's more ontologically basic. However, if things are constantly in becoming, and the boundaries between different "elements" are blurred and undefinable, it is hard to see how they could be countable objects at all. Set theory attempts to present inconsistent multiplicity in a consistent way. But Deleuze would probably question the value of such consistency, at least in the socio-political sphere.
So, suppose we have a social situation where we can't count something. We don't know how many people live in a shanty-town, because the people evade censuses to avoid control, or register multiple identities to receive benefits. Or we can't count the economic importance of subsistence economies and informal social support networks, because these networks are never commodified. For Badiou this just means that they are uncountable sets. They can still be analysed as sets and, ultimately, the aim seems to be to recognise them – to bring them inside a numerical order.
For Deleuze, in contrast, they fall outside the dominant order of ontology. The shanty-town residents gain a certain power – of becoming against being – by being over- or under-recorded. The subsistence or informal economy has qualitative importance because it isn't counted – it's less alienated, more immediate. Deleuze wishes to both preserve the uncountability of certain phenomena, and to use their uncountability as a source of social counter-power.
Deleuze is far more interested in a multiplication of accounts of empirical particularities than is Badiou. For Deleuze, the comprehension of particular beings or becomings is continuous with appreciation of the continuity of the entire field of becoming. Hence, Deleuze's philosophy is very inclusive. It passes across different areas of being very easily. In contrast, Badiou's approach depends on subtracting the particularity of being. Even Badiou's followers, such as Hallward, suggest that he has too little to say about empirical situations.
Badiou's philosophy subtracts from the qualitative. According to Hallward, both Deleuze and Badiou separate terms and relations. Badiou studies only terms. Deleuze studies only relations. The difficulty with using maths in philosophy is that maths distances itself from direct experience. It has to do so in order to achieve its own kind of abstract thought. However, this raises problems when maths is applied to reality. It means that maths abstracts from realities in which direct experience is central.
This is a matter of persistent debate within the social sciences, with many progressive theorists, particularly in sociology, objecting to mathematical representations as such. Theorists such as Garfinkel, Mead, Weber and Schutz, who draw on the phenomenological philosophies of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, argue that social reality is mainly composed of meanings held by social actors. These meanings cannot be reached through maths, but only through qualitative methods. They and their followers have repeatedly debated with sociologists committed to maths, such as Durkheim and the functionalists.
Badiou is not, to be sure, a quantitative sociologist. In fact, he seems uninterested in empirical investigations of this type. Nevertheless, the qualitative sociological objection to mathematising sociology largely applies to Badiou's work. In this debate, Deleuze would be decidedly on the qualitative side. One might say in this regard that, while Badiou believes there are no significant barriers to the mathematisation of sociopolitical realities, in fact the qualitative nature of such realities poses an insuperable hurdle to their mathematisation. Deleuze insists on including experience and existence within the field of philosophy, whereas Badiou excludes it (at least from ontology).
Whereas Badiou unfolds the actual from the formal, Deleuze assumes that the formal is an incomplete representation of the actual and the virtual. The abstract also exists as a generative force in Deleuze, in the form of "assemblages" or "machines" which are realised in the actual. But these machines are not mathematical in type.
Deleuze's refusal to separate politics, as a sphere, from philosophy, art or science is another point of concern for Badiou. Deleuze treats reality as a continuous field, whereas Badiou divides it into distinct fields with their own logics and projects.
For Deleuze, time is a field of creativity. In contrast, Badiou's view of time is discontinuous. Time is restarted with each Event, and the Event itself is outside time. Deleuze uses a Bergsonian view of time as qualitative. The "past" is a field of virtual formations which can be searched and tapped to actualise something new. In contrast, Badiou works mainly with the futur antérieur, and treats time as radically ruptural.
Badiou maintains that, because Deleuze sees everything as part of the field of becoming, there is no room in his theory for anything radically new. Something can't come out of nothing in Deleuze's theory. It always comes from the already-existing field of becoming. It is true that Deleuze rejects the idea of nothingness. But he also has an account of the emergence of novelty. Basically, Deleuze believes that becoming is a process of difference-production or 'differenciation'. Novelty comes from the emergence of new differences in this process. There's an excess of effects over causes which is due to the input of the qualitative.
In contrast, Deleuze would question whether Badiou's approach really produces newness. Firstly, the emergence of anything new can only happen from a structurally predefined site. Secondly, it affects only the presentation of elements, not their nature. And thirdly, the basic ontological structure of a Badiousian "world" is not changed by any possible Event. The denial of radical deterritorialisation, and of the possibility of a world which is not arranged axiomatically, would seem to Deleuze a denial of radical newness.
I would suggest that, from a political point of view, Deleuze's approach is more relevant to actual Events than Badiou's. Rebellion against a dominant situation does not necessarily take the form Badiou assumes it does. It can also involve rebellion by a repressed substance, against a dominant representation or inscription.
There are Deleuzian processes of becoming in operation beneath what appear to be Badiousian Events. The Russian Revolution or the Paris Commune or the Cultural Revolution are not sudden, one-off occurrences out of nothing. They build on pre-existing processes in which new world-views are articulated, dissident subjects emerge, and latent problems build-up towards a point of explosion. The Russian Revolution, for instance, makes little sense aside from existing forms of labour and peasant radicalism in Russia, the demands for land, food and peace, the history of peasant rebellions, the rise – and failure – of democratic movements, and the history of narodism. Lenin's break with Kautsky did not in itself make the revolution. Furthermore, this break itself came from cumulative processes of differential evolution within the socialist movement. Is there really an "Event" of the Russian Revolution which is distinct from these various processes?
Badiou would find such an objection to be reactionary, reducing the Event to the previous situation. But a recognition of underlying processes of becoming, which produce a real differenciation, does not require a refusal to recognise novelty. It simply suggests that the 'Event' is an ongoing process, a series of micro-events in which newness and difference are constantly emerging. This process sometimes produces macro-Events, but these Events do not have the ex nihilo creative force which Badiou ascribes to them. They are more like the point where a quantitative pressure turns into a qualitative break – like the point when there is enough water to burst a dam. This is what is argued in the third of Barrett's responses to objections to anarchism. These shifts can occur in the balance of social forces, but also psychologically – for instance, in the balance of "anxiety" and "courage".
For the rest of the essays in this series please visit the In Theory page.
Andy McLaverty-Robinson is a political theorist and activist based in the UK. He is the co-author (with Athina Karatzogianni) of Power, Resistance and Conflict in the Contemporary World: Social Movements, Networks and Hierarchies (Routledge, 2009). He has recently published a series of books on Homi Bhabha. His 'In Theory' column appears every other Friday.
« Previous: Comment | The Maajid Nawaz Scandal: With 'Feminists' Like These, Who Needs The Patriarchy?
Next: Comment | Lutfur Rahman Verdict: An Overview »
Aug 30, 2016 4:17
Just came across your articles on Deleuze and Agamben. Very helpful to a non-academic. I've been an isolated 'Deleuzian' ever since I read Anti-Oedipus in the 90's. Felt a natural affinity to him. Badiou not so much. Thank you for your work. Jim Ryan


Where do you need Asphalt Repair & Maintenance?
Post details of your Asphalt Repair & Maintenance requirement in moments, completely free.
We will find Asphalt Repair and Maintenance professionals in your area and do the legwork to contact them on your behalf.
Receive fast, free Asphalt Repair & Maintenance quotes from the best Asphalt Repair and Maintenance professionals near you.
Review proposals, compare Asphalt Repair & Maintenance prices and choose the best local Asphalt Repair and Maintenance professionals for your job.
Submit a review to help others find recommended Asphalt Repair and Maintenance professionals.
Diamond Solutions is a full service asphalt and parking lot maintenance company. They offer a variety of services including pothole repair, signage, line striping, and sealcoating. Let the Diamond Crew recommend the repair that works best for you and visit their website today!
Jetpatcher equipment can be used for repairing many types of asphalt road defects ! Pot Holes , Utility Cuts, Wheel Path Rutting, Edge Breaks, crack sealing, Speed Bumps and Depressions Jetpatcher uses a simple four stage process. The trouble are is cleaned and prepared, sealed, cured and ready for traffic in one smooth operation .permanent repairs are made with bithmen emulsion, lasting as long as repairs using hot rolled asphalt. Emulsion is safe and won't harm the environment. Experience minimum traffic delays with most repairs complete in under 15 minutes. Repairs are ready to be driven over very soon after they have been made.
When it comes to Residential Asphalt, Asphalt Contractor and Commercial Asphalt, no one compares to North Texas Paving LLC. With years of combined experience, North Texas Paving LLC has worked hard to build the trust of our clients in Dallas, Forth Worth and Denton and beyond. Visit our website to learn more. Or better yet, click the link and call us today!
For projects large and small Bark can help you find asphalt repair and maintenance professionals near you. Whatever the scale of your project from filling in a few hole to resurfacing whole driveways Bark will help you get the best quotes from rated asphalt repair and maintenance professionals today for free.


text:
Q: How to force traffic on specific network adapter I'm developing a console app to act as a client for my web-api, such as google drive, and sky drive and etc... And I ran into a edge case: my pc has 2 connections: a Ethernet and a wifi.
The Ethernet is behind a proxy and the wifi is open.
The problem here is that the ethernet is behind a proxy, that blocks the public address for my alpha tests (in windows azure).
Since windows seems to always believe only in the ethernet, which is frustrating because if it would only try the wifi, it would work... I was wondering what can i do to force to open the socket using my second network adapter (wifi).

A: Combining Shtééf's anwser to How does a socket know which network interface controller to use? and the MSDN Socket reference gives the following:
Suppose the PC has two interfaces:

*

*Wifi: 192.168.22.37

*Ethernet: 192.168.1.83

Open a socket as follows:

*

*first, use Socket.Bind(EndPoint) to select the local network interface to use;

*then, use Socket.Connect(EndPoint) to connect to the remote service.

`
using System.Net.Sockets;
using System.Net;

void Main()
{
    Socket clientSock = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);

    int anyPort = 0;
    EndPoint localWifiEP = new IPEndPoint(new IPAddress(new byte[] { 192, 168, 22, 37 }), anyPort);
    EndPoint localEthernetEP = new IPEndPoint(new IPAddress(new byte[] { 192, 168, 1, 82 }), anyPort);

    clientSock.Bind(localWifiEP);

// Edit endpoint to connect to an other web-api
// EndPoint webApiServiceEP = new DnsEndPoint("www.myAwsomeWebApi.org", port: 80);
    EndPoint webApiServiceEP = new DnsEndPoint("www.google.com", port: 80);
    clientSock.Connect(webApiServiceEP);

    clientSock.Close();
}

NOTE: Using a Socket like this is somewhat low level. I could not find how to easily use Sockets —bound to a local endpoint— with higher level facilities such as HttpClient or the WCF NetHttpBinding.
For the latter you could look at How to use socket based client with WCF (net.tcp) service? for pointers how to implement your own transport.

A: You will need to bind the outbound socket connection to the correct network interface, see this SO post:
How does a socket know which network interface controller to use?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Gallimard has acquired the World French rights of Jukka Viikilä's Finlandia Prize winning novel Watercolours from a Seaside City.
Gallimard, founded in 1911, is the largest independent publishing house in France. Throughout the 20th century, Gallimard has published such authors as Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre and Marcel Proust, and is also the home of 2008 Nobeal laureate Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio.
Watercolours from a Seaside City (2016) is a fictive diary of a German architect, Carl Ludwig Engel, who was commissioned by the Russian emperor to build the capital of Finland in the beginning of the 19th century. The novel has been praised of its lyrical touch and aphoristical observations of life. The novel has so far sold over 43,000 copies in Finland.
Jukka Viikilä (b. 1973) is a poet, writer, and dramaturge.