Collective

Yes I have, and it works fine. CDBurnerXP uses the same standard file systems (ISO 9660/Joilet/UDF) as all the other burners listed here. All modern operating systems support these formats, though OSX may have trouble with ISO 9660 Level 3, which is Apple's fault. BSD/Linux/Windows have all been able to read ISO 9660 Level 3 since the 90's.

If you burn with that program, you will see nothing on the CD with any other OS than windows XP. Be warned. Completely untrue.

What do you mean by "close"? Do you get an error message/crash report box or do the program windows just disappear?

Read this. Each of the three main formats is suited to different uses (and PNG is good for more than just alpha transparency).

You should be able to do it using a GParted Live CD.

Men being more physically able doesn't mean that women are useless in combat, especially not when properly trained and properly armed. There's also a wide range of non-direct-combat roles that women could take and which make up a good proportion of the armed forces. Different countries have vastly different takes on which roles women are suitable for in the military, ranging from none at all through to anything goes, so these things are very much still up for debate. Beyond your question there's also the moral case that women who are able to fight should not be exempt from doing so simply because of their gender, something many supporters of a mixed-draft people base their opinion on. Further to that point it is often mentioned that there is a degree of overlap between the genders (that is to say that all men are not stronger/faster than all women). To some the moral argument overrides any perceived risk regarding the physical differences, something I'm not so sure about. My position, then, is that regardless of whether or not women are, as a rule, suitable for primary combat roles, that there are plenty of other roles they can fill and I don't see a good reason to exclude them in this age of equality. Your point about waivers strikes me as more of a technicality than a real concern; it's a process that would need to be made more efficient, yes, but it's not a show-stopper.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men? "soldiers at war without supplies" -> "I wasn't referring to a lack of supplies" ... what? You referred to the drafting of women soldiers as "purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces". What was that meant to suggest if not that women are/would exacerbate a problem in the armed forces? Male spouses have long been subject to the draft and nobody here is suggesting that a husband and wife with children both be drafted. What's more your "anthropological argument" wasn't about couples with children -- you were using common perceptions of men and women as an excuse to exclude all women from forced military service, regardless of whether or not they had dependants. That argument remains a non sequitur unless your intention is to claim that every woman would be required in the country to take care of her or someone elses children and that men would not be able to contribute to such childcare, in which case the argument ceases to be a non sequitur and becomes just plain old stupid. In summary, drafting women would not: [*:bgugbpye] negatively impact child care [*:bgugbpye] cause a supply shortage (by your own admission, it seems) [*:bgugbpye] make it more difficult for companies to manage their workforce [*:bgugbpye] pose a "problem" for the armed forces Beyond repeatedly highlighting your inability to grasp that drafting different people does not mean drafting more people you have not made even a cursory attempt to explain why any of those things would occur. So, do you actually have any valid arguments against the drafting of women, or are you going to continue clutching at straws and making increasingly incoherent and inconsistent responses?

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies. Sorry, but that argument is patently absurd. There is no logistical reason whatsoever why a draft involving both men and women need result in supply shortages. By drafting both sexes you vastly increase the number of available soldiers, which means you can also narrow the criteria in other areas. You could, for example, narrow the age range in which people are liable to be called up. In that example the population that could be relied upon by employers would simply change from "women" to "people over X years of age". The rest of your post is answered elsewhere - female soldiers are not a liability.

What if the world was facing a mass nuclear war across six continents? What use would a massive conscripted army be in that situation? Perhaps they could all join hands and sing for peace?

I'm not sure I see your point. A draft that included women wouldn't leave the country empty; there'd still be plenty of people 'at home making items', they just wouldn't all be female. A draft doesn't automatically mean calling up everyone eligible and shipping them off to war. What's the logic to that? Could I not equally say "societies will always be sexist therefore you should make me a sandwich"? We're supposed to be striving to end sexism, not to perpetuate it, and that means ignoring how the genders are 'anthropologically seen'. That's what got women the right to vote.

It seems we do have some wires crossed, so I'll go again. It doesn't have to be restricted to them, but I do believe that the biological father should be involved when possible and when there is no threat of harm (psychological or physical) to the children or those around them. A few points on the differences in the influence of father figures vs biological fathers are made in the paper I linked above, though it ultimately concludes that there is a need for further studies. I generally try to avoid anecdotal evidence, but really most of my thoughts/feelings on the issue come from my own experience and those of teenagers I've been (and, I suppose it's now fair to say, worked) around. I have seen many lives suffer greatly for the lack of a biological father being present, whether it's because they passed away, walked out, were denied access or even never present. In these extreme cases I've seen 'surrogate fathers' get summarily rejected and young people involved suffer from feelings of rejection, anger and even guilt that cannot be placated simply by the presence of another male figure. These are not cases where it would be fair to say that the lack of a biological father is merely a complicating factor - there are serious psychological issues that can arise surrounding fatherly abandonment. In your post above you posited that "the reason there is a discrepancy for the seeming loss of "father figures" is not because they are a father figure, but because it's very difficult to juggle the various aspects of parenting and a job with just one person." I'm not sure if you've withdrawn that statement or not, but I'd like to reiterate that the evidence from the paper I linked speaks otherwise, regardless of my own experiences. It was, I maintain, an incredibly naive statement. Another point I was trying to make is that there have been, and continue to be, cases where fathers are denied access unjustly (either by the courts or by the mothers). In the UK this has resulted in the formation of Families Need Fathers and the somewhat more vocal Fathers4Justice. In cases of mothers denying access there is frequently no punishment as judges fear the effect it could have on whatever stability the children still have.

I was expecting a certain amount of idiocy and misandry from you by now, but you can sleep tonight proud in the knowledge that you've exceeded my expectations. There has long been a consensus amongst experts that fathers play an important role in the development of children, to try and deny that is ridiculous arrogance from someone as criminally uninformed as yourself. You may as well deny that the Earth is round. Fathers involvement and children's developmental outcomes (2007) Even your own link states that "In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can ensure that the child to be adopted or placed in foster care is moving into an environment with adequate role models of all types." This will be my last response to you -- you have thoroughly exhausted my patience. QFT, except that thankfully the majority of feminists aren't like you.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption? The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father-figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth". As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both. If you're for lesbian adoption, why aren't you making the same arguments that they need a father figure in order to "come out ok"? I'm not arguing that father figures are necessary, just that they're preferable. Adoptions take place in situations where children don't have suitable custodians at all, never mind the ideal ones (whatever those may be). Anyway, since you seem to have a thing for straw men, here's one: Unlike you I'd be making the same points (in favour of mother figures) if the statistics on custody and visitation arrangements were reversed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption? The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth". As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both.

[citation needed] Your first link is just an overview of the second. The third doesn't seem to contradict anything I've posted or linked to. Of the statistics given in my post few were even covered by yours, never mind contradicted. Some of the claims I linked to were even supported, in particular that: [*:90f625u4]Around 44.5% of those with no visitation rights still financially support their children [*:90f625u4]Approximately 5 out of every 6 custodial parents are mothers The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.