i have a book of CDs i carry around, it has 98 cds in it..
Yeah, and how big is that? iPod hold just as much (if not more depending on compression) and is about the size of a deck of cards.
I do see you point, but at the same time you have to realize that the iPod puts all of that collection at your fingertips. If you want to listen to something else in the car, you have to fiddle around with the disc case, put one disc back, find another (in a *big* collection/case), remove and insert it, and then repeat if you want to listen to something else. iPod has everything at your finger tips.
You can make playlists with the iPod. Somethign you would have to burn a new disc for in your current solution.
And the iPod is *damn* fast at loading music. With you high speed connection, you can grab files, but nowhere near as fast.
Oh, and there are a few of us (very few -- just like there are very few that would have a Mac in addtion to our other computer(s)) that go places other than work or home or the car between. I find myself out in the big blue room from time to time and having tunes is a good thing. And there are probably even fewer of us that go out and do things like exercise (I've heard people talk of this "exercise") but those people would groove on the portability.
first time I've heard of a home router product supporting AOL
Could someone be a bit more clear here? I set up for my GF an Airport AP (as she has a iBook). She also has an AOL account and does most of her internet stuff through AOL.
I have *never* had an issue with getting her AOL connection to work with Airport when she is over.
But then again, I connect the AP to the LAN and have a DSL connection. Could the issue be with the authentication on a dial-up? (I have never used the modem half of it.) Or is it because I have a different machine doing the firewall/routing?
Thanks for the info on the devices. Didn't know so many products were using this already as it seems the production plant only started up about a year ago.
But I would like more specific info if people have it. Things like part numbers and specs and prices.
I searched the Sony-fukushima website and didn't find much.
Okay, so you mentioned the Rio Reciever. Taco mentioned the Audiotron.
Anyone out there have one of the SlimDevices?
There was a buzz when it was mentioned earlier. But I haven't heard from anyone that bought one since.
I rather like the idea of streaming from a computer over ethernet better than the HP solution of having the HD fixed in the device.
For one thing, I have much more storage on the computer. Most of my interacting with the MP3 files will be done on the computer anyway, and I already have a CD-R on it. I would suspect that I have greater control over playlists and the like from a computer than the HP device.
Then there is the issue of DRM which I have more control over on my computer. As this is a consumer device, I presume they expect that most people will rip their files in the device's CD-RW drive (although it includes a NIC for HomePNA, most consumers are the 12:00-blinking-set and may not even bother with that) at which time the file can be marked.
In fact, the only thing the HP device seems to do that one of the other products won't is act kinda like a WebTV for internet music (although the only connection is through a v.90 modem. *ICK!*).
That said, can I get a bit more input on the RioReceiver, the Auditron, and especially the SlimDevices from people that have them?
Re:Not just a full moon
on
All Hallow's Eve
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Full moon is a specific event (not just "a whole lotta light reflected from the surface."). For it to happen *exactly* on the 31st must mean that the first moon of the month was on or about Oct. 2nd.
So, yes, "all full moons on Halloween [would] be Blue Moons." Everytime it happens, that is the case. But the point is that it still doesn't happen that often.
Not only a full moon tonight...
on
All Hallow's Eve
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From the article: what's so unusual about a blue moon on Halloween is that it last shone over California in 1944. And there won't be
another until the year 2020
And: The blue moon was originally defined by the Maine Farmer's Almanac in 1819 as an extra full moon within any season. Later, however, the respected publication Sky and Telescope altered the almanac's definition and since then it has come to mean the second full moon within a single month.
I realize that it can be charged by connecting it to mains.
The reason I brought this up is that with 6-pin you can travel without having to carry yet *another* cord/cable/charger. I have enough in my laptop bag and don't need more. This will also allow you to charge in a situation where you don't have a wall socket, but your laptop has some extra juice you don't mind using up...
Re:A waste of time. Probably OEMed by someone else
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
iLink is 4-pin. FireWire is 6 pin.
They both run the protocol, but the Sony version isn't powered (as all they expect you to plug into it are devices with their own power supplies, like camcorders).
So you won't be able to charge the iPod on any iLink devices.
Most people I know with new Sony video cameras do not use Macs, and yet they are able to connect the camera's firewire port to their machines, which happen to be PCs with a firewire adapter.
One thing to check is if the laptop/computer/adapter is the 4-pin flavor or the 6-pin. The Vaio's (and other Sony products) use iLink (their name for IEEE 1394) that is only of the 4-pin kind, which is *unpowered.* (The thought being that devices, like camcorders, have their own power supply.)
From what I understand the iPod charges off of the IEEE 1394, which would require the 6-pin connector.
If you have FireWire on your PC, then yes it will connect.
But, the interface for the music portion is iTunes 2, which isn't available for Windows, so you would have a little trouble loading tunes that way.
In the "unused" space (not filled with music) on the drive, it behaves like a firewire drive and you can mount it on the desktop and use it for file storage. So, if you can read Mac disks (HFS+), then you should be able to mount that portion of the disk.
Don't know if you can thus load MP3's on it and use it on a non-Mac...
I presumed that this was all about setting up a local network *IN PARALLEL* to the internet. Some discussion was on sharing cable modems and the like. (at which point someone becomes responsible for traffic that bridges.)
I get the impression that this is about setting networks up INDEPENDENT of the internet.
I question exactly how functional this is. So I can Quake with 4 other kids in my block? So I can swap mp3's with every other house in my neighborhood? This kind of stuff only gets you so far, and once I have grabbed the mp3's that A) don't replicate my existing collection, and B) that I would want in the first place, the system becomes a lot less useful.
Sure, you can hook up your neighborhood LAN to the next neighborhood to the next (if they even are interested) but you have such a limited scope of interaction. You are still only dealing with a few people.
One of the things that made the internet so interesting (for all of its flaws) was that you could interact with so many different people and ideas. Any network like this, and you are limited to a very very small population (0.000000001%) but due to a mainly geographical distribution, they wind up being most of the people you were bound to interact with anyway.
Ideas like this may take off in areas of A) high density and B) high technology, but these are few and isolated spots (big cities mainly).
And don't forget the path of least resistance. There already is a solution that allows most people to network. A system like this NAN would have to offer something absolutely unique to provided incentive for people to participate. (And I discount internet access sharing as people have pointed out this is about being INDEPENDENT of the internet.)
Yeah great idea... Until one of the kids in the area decides he is going to be 31337 h4X0r and starts going after the pentagon or some such, and *you* get the knock on the door from The Nice Men in Suits(tm).
Or the MPAA watches 20 people download MATRIX II from *your* connection and gets your ISP to lock down your account.
Seriously, how do you prevent stuff like this? My house is close to our 2600 meeting, and I have thought of providing access for the meeting, until I am reminded that the feds used to collect logs off of the place we last used as a meeting place (and the owners of the cyber cafe finally kicked us out after they got fed up with the visits from The Nice Men in Suits(tm) every time we left).
Last thing I need is a bunch of people screwing around on my connection, getting me in trouble. (I can do that well enough on my own, thank you.)
Right as I hit the submit button, it occurred to me that on most systems you can switch apps with a passphrase dialog box open, thus using an intermediary app to paste text isn't needed. (If there is no one to look over your shoulder (Van Eckman) then a intermediary app does let you check your cut'n'paste spelling...   )
Yeah, but how many millions of phrases are on your computer? The one that is your passphrase doesn't have to be obvious. (ie, brute force attack with the entire contents of the drive should slow someone down.)
But, even better, you don't even have to leave the phrase laying about for longer than a few seconds. Just open up a web page, select the a few char of the password, and paste it to a temp file. Open up another page and copy another block of char and paste that to the file. Keep doing this until you have a complete password, copy it and close the file w/o saving.
Anything that is recording your input stream from the keyboard is just going to see you just web surfing a doing a lot of copy and paste.
I RMA'd it and they replaced it with a 7200 RPM drive
One nice thing about Mator is dealing with the "no questions asked" return policy. I had a FireWire drive act odd (would stop responding and I would have to unplug and replug it to "wake back up" -- no problem with the platters or data), and they just shipped me out a new drive that was BIGGER and FASTER. Only hassle was I had to pay the shipping on the return unit.
Not bad to get 20GB extra and step up to 7200RPM...
"7 defective 75 gxp's out of 6 in 9 months , draw your own conclusion..."
7 out of a total of 6 dead?? And the conclusion I am supposed to draw is that one of them failed so badly in a giant ball of flame that it is like it died twice???   )
On the other hand, my 75GXP 75GB seems to be fine. I can't get at it right now to see if it was made in Hungary or it is the suspect part number dtla307075.
minor problem that actual human beings are neither utility maximizers nor particularly rational
Not an issue at all. In fact, the problem is presuming either to be the case in the first place. I understand that this makes textbook formulas easier to deal with, but we usually shouldn't attempt to mould and simplify data to fit formulas.
there is no accepted way to measure "utility" so proof/falsification of these theories is essentially impossible
While I will agree that it is difficult to quantify "utility", that does not negate the fact that it *is* the primary motivating factor involved in any decision. What we are dealing with is PERCEIVED utility. Any choice acted upon is a de facto reflection on the perceived utility by the actor. Any situation where volition is exerted, there is valuation of the expected outcomes, and the mere fact that one is selected over another is proof that it had a higher "utility" or value to the actor.
Thus, the concept that utility must be measured in a context that is independent of the actor ("utility maximizers" and "accepted way to measure 'utility'") is necessarily flawed. So too is the notion that actors perform in a manner that is "particularly rational" -- if by "rational" you mean a framework that is independent of the internal process of the actor. (That is: The actor *believes* himself to act in a "reasonable" or "rational" manner. Whether or not it is either, is a non-related issue.)
Human beings act in a manner they perceive to bring them the largest value. Every human action is based in selfishness. (I think this term better fits that "greed.").
If it "is 'proven' in classical micro (but) turns out not to actually apply in practice" then there is a problem with the theory. Any theory which doesn't adequately predict results is fundamentally flawed and does NOT reflect the world it purports to make a knowledge claim thereof.
Here is a cross section of the subterranean sections of the WTC. Even though there are huge sections of the builings sitting below ground level, there is a lot more space underground and a good deal of it is intact. (Note the "slurry wall" as the "bathtub.")
Also if you look at the LIDAR maps they are colour keyed for depth and can give you a good indication of what is below ground. (Also mouse-over the thing that says "cross section" for another view.)
Oh, but it is *perfectly* safe to open.... I mean you *are* running a Windows-Free(tm) desktop, right?  )
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I was being sarcastic
I noted that "disclaimer" in the original text, but at the same time you quoted a lengthy passage (longer than any other I have noted you responded to) and then proceed to engage in commentary. I could not "write this off" as a joke as that would be contrary to your manner in responding to these issues. Sarcasm aside, it *was* being used to bolster a position.
that this idea of atheism is a somewhat recent phenomena
But it is not. Our *modern* expression of it is, but atheism itself isn't. Keep in mind the meaning of the word (and it doesn't matter when we applied a token to concept -- the concept is more universal than the token). Look at the root "theism." Properly understood, theism means "having an active belief in a god(s)." That means that anyone that makes claim to knowledge of or belief in a deity of any form is acting in a manner which would be called theism. Now look at the prefix "a" which, as you may or may not understand, represents a negation (not).
From this the understanding, "atheism" indicates one who does *NOT* have an active belief in god. Please be very clear on this: "NOT AN ACTIVE BELIEF." Notice it is not "has disbelief" (which is only a sub-set of the members of the set of (not)theists). This means that not only would the people labeled by the modern/popular use of the term (what you might say about me) are included in it but also is *anyone* who does not profess to a belief.
From this you can see that for as long as there have been those that have believed in god, there has been atheism. (Please note: I said "has been atheism" not "has been people that don't believe in god." The two statements are NOT equal. The second issue is one for historical accuracy.)
In fact, one might be able to argue that atheism has, in fact, existed prior to theism (as it requires no active belief), but I think that to be rather silly as, until there is theism, there is nothing to be (not)theism, so the term is somewhat meaningless.
"I am rational because I don't believe a particular thing
I invite you to reexamine your conception of rationality. One is not rational just because one does or doesn't believe in something -- One is rational because one thinks in a rational manner.
even if I have no proof of my position
Okay, I have said this like 25 times now, but I DO NOT *HAVE* TO HAVE PROOF OF ANYTHING (in this case). This is why I went into some length in discussion of epistemological principles.
We human beings are fallible. WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT. We don't automatically know things. We have specific manners in which we gain and validate knowledge. There are plenty of ways that aren't valid for gaining knowledge (they either lead directly to falsehood or are indirectly false by producing answers which may appear right, but not for valid reasons (therefore the answer truly isn't correct)).
We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise.
I feel I have to repeat the previous statement as this is something that just doesn't seem to be sinking in: We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise. If you need me to state it again, just to make it clear, *please* let me know and I will gladly reiterate.
Rather, we have to validate *everything* before we accept it a fact. You say I have no proof of my position (or I don't have a disproof of yours). That is just flat out invalid thinking. I am telling you that everything you claim *has* to be validated in order for you to claim it. (Otherwise you are making empty meaningless statements. They are disguised as if they had meaning and could convey information, but are in fact void of both.)
I put it to you yet again that the onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive.
other than logic,
Uh, what kind of alternate universe do you live in inside your head where you have something other than logic to validate rational thought? (HINT: outside of the scope of logic you have no rationality.)
where you are irrational because you believe in something you haven't proved to me but for which you claim to have similarly well-reasoned logic!"
Oh, you can claim that you have "similarly well-resoned logic" all you want -- IT DOEN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
You can claim that you are Napoleon all you want and that isn't true either.
similarly well-reasoned logic????
Where would I have *ever* indicated that? (You are putting words in my mouth to bolster your position.) I have done nothing but demonstrate that A) your arguments have *NO* similarity to mine, B) are not "well-reasoned" and C) are contrary to logic. In fact, if *ANYTHING* I have demonstrated that your arguments are NOT formed by rational, logical thought, and are rather a direct product of your desire to retain them.
You clearly stated previously that your belief state was in direct relation to the occurrence of characteristics you find desirable. (A point that didn't escape my notice that you ducked.) Your beliefs are based upon caprice, and any attempt to clothe them in the trappings of rational thought, does disservice to the entire concept of rationality.
Doesn't this assume a superior/inferior attitude?
No it does not. And to even suggest such indicates a desire to attempt to discredit my position by indicated it is derivative of hubris.
I would suggest that the proper way to evaluate any position is on the merits of the arguments themselves, and not any secondary concerns like the speaker or the intents of said speaker.
I *very* much want to keep this discussion focused on the content of the argument. While I don't mind a little name-calling (in fact, in any spirited discussion, I would expect it in the form of "playful jabs" between advocates, with all advocates understanding it as such), I do not want to allow a discussion to derail (and perhaps degenerate) because of it.
The point being that I have advanced a consistent position, backed up every one of my arguments, and attempted to demonstrate that they derive from a consistent logical framework. I have gone to great lengths to show that the positions I hold, I do not hold lightly. They are not whim. They are not half-thought concepts I just digested as a child without ever bothering to examine and validate them. They are "well-reasoned" and "logical."*
*[Okay, if they *weren't* well-reasoned and logical, they *why* would I hold them? Do you know anyone who says "I believe X to be true, but I know that is false or against everything else I know to be true"? (Outside of religious types, who, for the most part are the one class who gladly accept ideas as true that they know to be against rationality. ie, "God exists outside logic." or in other words (The Bard's) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.") One doesn't hold a position *nor* advance it without believing in it.]
If you think that having the courage of your convictions is somehow equated with a "superior attitude," then so be it, but I would have to think that this represents a misunderstanding on your part.
scientific arguments which I have heard to say "there is no God"
Well, once again, primary issue is to prove that there *IS* a god, not to prove that there *isn't.*
One, can, however, in the light of statements proffered to prove god, demonstrate the errors in said statements. But this is not proving that there is no god, but proving that arguments that say there is a god are flawed. There is a difference. The burden of proof is still on those who affirm the positive.
precluding Deity
This is the same error, over and over again. One doesn't have to disprove god. One has to prove god. You don't presume that what you *want* to be true is true. *YOU PROVE IT.*
usually by denying the possibility of that religious experiences can be real without conclusive evidence that they are not
And again, it is not anyone's responsibility to prove something isn't religious -- It is the responsibility of the person that claims it to be religious to prove that it is.
Oh, and keep in mind that if you attempt to use "religious experiences" as a proof of god, you are not entitled to assume that god exists. That is what is known as circular reasoning.
Goes like this:
God Exists.
God makes miracles.
X was a miracle.
      Therefore god must exist.
You just run around in a logical circle unable to prove anything. That will not be allowed.
So try Occam's razor
Before I even look at your list, remember that if you assume the notion that god exists, that opens up a whole holy host (pun intended) of new questions. The idea behind Occam's is to *simplify* the explanation, not create one that begs new questions.
But that being said, I can address each of your points to indicate that one doesn't need to go to more complex explanations. I will try to be brief:
a typhoon class storm dissipated And typhoon class storms *don't* dissipate on their own? Just because one happens to stop at a time that is fortuitous for you doesn't mean that is *why* it dissipated -- it just means that the two events are temporally related.
You would have a lot of trouble trying to justify that your needs/desires are what caused it to stop.
And you say nothing about all of the typhoons that didn't dissipate.
Look, this falls under synchronicity, which rather than reiterating on each point, let me address at the end of the discussion.
multiple cancers driven into remission for more than a dozen years until a mother finished raising a specific child (in fulfillment of a religious promise) And there have been plenty of times when cancer didn't go into remission when prayed for. Are you saying that these people were less pious or god loved them less??? That is proof alone that prayer is not the cause.
Let me add to this that I know of *many* cases where a person with a terminal condition (not just cancer) has survived long enough to see something happen. And few of these have been religious promises. Most have come from a profound love that drove a willingness to fight. The human body is an interesting thing, and to say that the mind is divorced from it, is to misunderstand the mind. Studies have indicated that the overall mental wellness of a person can profoundly affect their physical wellbeing. The mother that wants to live long enough to see her child raised (and I will argue that 99.9% of it is from a love of the child -- If my mother was only bound to my raising because it was a religious promise or duty, I would be offended. In fact, I think you insult all of the dying women you speak of by minimizing their love of their children, in order to rationalize your argument. I think you owe them a silent apology.), can under some situations hold an illness at bay.
And another way to look at it is spousal death. It is a well known fact, that once one elder spouse dies, the probability of the other dying within two years shoots through the roof. The explanation is that they surrender the will to live.
But why is it, that if you can attempt to use god to explain someone fighting for life, you don't seem to use god to explain people dying?
arriving just in time to offer critical assistance to someone I had never met
Okay, please provide exact figures for the number of people in danger praying in a 20 mile radius to you that you *DIDN'T* save. That alone should indicate to you that prayer is not causal, but rather incidental, to your actions. Your behavior is this situation relates to your preconceptions and your predilections. See synchronicity below.
detected liars in front of a jury
How the hell do you get divine intervention out of this??? Seriously, I am confused. Something this simple happens all the time without divine intervention.
It is a well established fact that people express their internal state physically. The manner in which a person carries themselves conveys a *lot* of information about them. Most of us are keyed into this at some level. Although we might not be able to articulate why we come to a conclusion about someone (a lot of our behavior in this regard is not internally examined -- we process information like this on a sub-conscious level) we perform this function thousands of times during the day to one degree or another.
There is nothing magical to this. It is just a vast body of experience with human interaction throughout life that allows us to subconsciously evaluate another's "body language."
You just happen to be adept at reading "liars' signals." (For example, there were studies that were conducted that indicate our eye position belies our internal state. People that lie will subconsciously look in a direction. How difficult is it to see that one can pick up on these cues on some level.)
You cannot explain why you "detect" like this only because you are unfamiliar with the subconscious automated process that you use. (Like walking, which took us a long time to learn, it is something we perform without thinking about it. But just because you are not aware of every impulse to move every muscle, doesn't mean that you don't walk.)
Add to this the notion that people at trial are most likely under more stress than they normally would be and would even exaggerate their behaviors, making them easier to pick up on.
understood the unspoken thoughts of a person who I did not know very well
See the item above about being able to pick up on cues and process them on a subconscious level. You seem to be a fairly sympathetic person. You, from what I can tell, seem to be predisposed to empathy in some form. As such, you are going to be more disposed to pick up on certain cues than the rest of us would be. (And I am sure that the rest of us have things we are more sensitive to that you are -- we each have that which we are good at.)
From what you tell me, I would be surprised if you *weren't* able to pick up info from people in trouble. But there is nothing magical about this either. You are just a good listener and are perceptive in an empathetic manner.
It doesn't matter that you can't articulate the process that you use (as there are thousands of complex behaviors we engage in that we cannot articulate because we haven't bothered to examine them). That doesn't change the fact that you use them.
I ask that in the coming months, when you have an empathetic reaction to people, you stop and ask why you have that feeling. It is tough because we don't bother to think about our reactions ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). I (and others I know) have done this, and it is amazing what you discover about yourself. You can learn to watch your reactions and analyse them. It is difficult at first, but after a while, things start to "click." ("Oh, yeah... When I see someone do/say/whatever X then impression Y pops into my head.") You will be amazed at what you learn about yourself, and by making the action conscious you find that you are better able to refine and strengthen it. It seems you have a gift (let's call it a skill) and I would think it your responsibility to strengthen it.
seen healthy, normal infants born when the medical doctors insisted that the only possibility was brain damage
And how many brain damaged babies do you see born when the doctors think them to be normal? Is this a proof of god? I take it you have never see a doctor make a mistake before, therefore god must be the explanation.
I think this a germane place to bring this up, but why is it that religious people only credit the things they *want* to happen to god, and never the bad things. Why is a healthy baby proof of god, but a sick one somehow doesn't pertain? Why is it a typhoon that dissipates an act of god but the one that kills thousands isn't?? Why is it that "god will save those in the WTC crash", but god has nothing to do with the buildings collapsing???
People rationalize things in the name of god. As "god" is very much a subjective construct, people are free (not bound by reality) to randomly apply the concept according to whim. (That is the power of god for people. It is a whim that can be applied on a whim to make people feel better. But wishing doesn't make it so...) People will always use the example of things they want to happen that do as proof of god, when all they are saying is that a whim was made to pass, and they want more to do the same.
That does NOT prove a thing, and, in fact, is just more circular reasoning.
So I said I would mention synchronicity. The notions I put forth here come from a reading of Jung when I was back in high school. It has been that long since I have read Jung, and no longer know how much of the following argument it his, and how much I have mutated over time into my own comprehension. If I have absolutely mutilated his thoughts, I apologize to the man, but thank him for the planted seed that brought forth fruit in my head.
Synchronicity, in my take, is an expression of cognition. Simply put, it is that we are more likely to perceive that which we are predisposed of to perceive. Let me try a simple example:
Let us say you break your leg. You are hobbling down the street on your crutches, when you notice someone staring in a store window with a cast on their arm. You continue hobbling, and later notice someone across the street that is also on crutches and has a foot in a cast. Your immediate reaction is to think "My god! There are certainly a lot of people who have been breaking things of late. I wonder what is causing this?" But, in fact, there may *or* there may NOT be more people with broken limbs. What is happening is that, otherwise, you wouldn't notice a broken limb or if you did you would forget it. But, because you have one currently, it speaks to your experience, and therefore the stimuli becomes more salient in your environment. But the fact that you notice it more doesn't mean it is happening more --
It just means you are noticing it more.
The same thing can be said of *all* of your perceptions above. You only notice them because you are more inclined to notice them as they fit the framework of your expectations.
You want to see things, you *will* see things.
Notice how you never discuss the negatives of any of the above situation. You discard them as non-significant because they don't fit your pre-conceptions. I will tell you right now that there are *many* more mothers that would like to live long enough to raise their children and don't than there are those that fight of an illness. But somehow you ignore all of these as they don't reinforce your preconceptions.
And we are back at the point of circular reasoning. You expect to see things (presume the conclusion of your argument) and for some reason you think yourself surprised when they happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and how big is that? iPod hold just as much (if not more depending on compression) and is about the size of a deck of cards.
I do see you point, but at the same time you have to realize that the iPod puts all of that collection at your fingertips. If you want to listen to something else in the car, you have to fiddle around with the disc case, put one disc back, find another (in a *big* collection/case), remove and insert it, and then repeat if you want to listen to something else.
iPod has everything at your finger tips.
You can make playlists with the iPod. Somethign you would have to burn a new disc for in your current solution.
And the iPod is *damn* fast at loading music. With you high speed connection, you can grab files, but nowhere near as fast.
Oh, and there are a few of us (very few -- just like there are very few that would have a Mac in addtion to our other computer(s)) that go places other than work or home or the car between. I find myself out in the big blue room from time to time and having tunes is a good thing.
And there are probably even fewer of us that go out and do things like exercise (I've heard people talk of this "exercise") but those people would groove on the portability.
THe device has its place.
Nope. No inputs other than Firewire (which is also the power/charging).
Now if you can figure out how to run a mic off of firewire, you might have something, but I don't the board can handle encoding.
Check out the ipodhack site metioned above and see if someone comes up with a solution...
(Oh, and, Yes, you *can* boot off of it.)
Could someone be a bit more clear here? I set up for my GF an Airport AP (as she has a iBook). She also has an AOL account and does most of her internet stuff through AOL.
I have *never* had an issue with getting her AOL connection to work with Airport when she is over.
But then again, I connect the AP to the LAN and have a DSL connection.
Could the issue be with the authentication on a dial-up? (I have never used the modem half of it.)
Or is it because I have a different machine doing the firewall/routing?
Oh yeah, $150 million meant a *whole lot* to a $6 BILLION dollar company with $1.2 BILLION CASH.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah -- IHBT TFP HAND...)
But I would like more specific info if people have it. Things like part numbers and specs and prices.
I searched the Sony-fukushima website and didn't find much.
Anyone have any more info on the battery? Part Numbers? Availability? Cost? Ect?
Anyone out there have one of the SlimDevices?
There was a buzz when it was mentioned earlier. But I haven't heard from anyone that bought one since.
I rather like the idea of streaming from a computer over ethernet better than the HP solution of having the HD fixed in the device.
For one thing, I have much more storage on the computer. Most of my interacting with the MP3 files will be done on the computer anyway, and I already have a CD-R on it. I would suspect that I have greater control over playlists and the like from a computer than the HP device.
Then there is the issue of DRM which I have more control over on my computer. As this is a consumer device, I presume they expect that most people will rip their files in the device's CD-RW drive (although it includes a NIC for HomePNA, most consumers are the 12:00-blinking-set and may not even bother with that) at which time the file can be marked.
In fact, the only thing the HP device seems to do that one of the other products won't is act kinda like a WebTV for internet music (although the only connection is through a v.90 modem. *ICK!*).
That said, can I get a bit more input on the RioReceiver, the Auditron, and especially the SlimDevices from people that have them?
So, yes, "all full moons on Halloween [would] be Blue Moons." Everytime it happens, that is the case. But the point is that it still doesn't happen that often.
From the article:
what's so unusual about a blue moon on Halloween is that it last shone over California in 1944. And there won't be another until the year 2020
And:
The blue moon was originally defined by the Maine Farmer's Almanac in 1819 as an extra full moon within any season. Later, however, the respected publication Sky and Telescope altered the almanac's definition and since then it has come to mean the second full moon within a single month.
That's a fairly clear indicator he is a reader...
all the cool tech toys that they sell at ThinkGeek
Obligitory ThinkGeek plug. Another sign.
Okay, first let me put on my Asbestos suit.
(Score:-1, Flamebait) /. thing on its own, taken with the other clues, it adds up.
Okay, so this isn't *exactly* a
I have given O'Reilly LOTS of my money
Okay, again not a /. reference on its own, but who out there on /. *doesn't* have your own Zoo?
So have I just lost all of my cool points, or what?
Hmmmm....
Here he really should have said "Karma" not "cool". I am begining to wonder...
I don't have a huge problem with Katz
Oh! Well that does it! I think this is all the proof we need that he really *isn't* a /. reader!       ;)
The reason I brought this up is that with 6-pin you can travel without having to carry yet *another* cord/cable/charger. I have enough in my laptop bag and don't need more.
This will also allow you to charge in a situation where you don't have a wall socket, but your laptop has some extra juice you don't mind using up...
They both run the protocol, but the Sony version isn't powered (as all they expect you to plug into it are devices with their own power supplies, like camcorders).
So you won't be able to charge the iPod on any iLink devices.
One thing to check is if the laptop/computer/adapter is the 4-pin flavor or the 6-pin. The Vaio's (and other Sony products) use iLink (their name for IEEE 1394) that is only of the 4-pin kind, which is *unpowered.* (The thought being that devices, like camcorders, have their own power supply.)
From what I understand the iPod charges off of the IEEE 1394, which would require the 6-pin connector.
If you have FireWire on your PC, then yes it will connect.
But, the interface for the music portion is iTunes 2, which isn't available for Windows, so you would have a little trouble loading tunes that way.
In the "unused" space (not filled with music) on the drive, it behaves like a firewire drive and you can mount it on the desktop and use it for file storage. So, if you can read Mac disks (HFS+), then you should be able to mount that portion of the disk.
Don't know if you can thus load MP3's on it and use it on a non-Mac...
It is bad enough that the OS is buggy.
Now you also have to worry about Case failure due to bugs (termites)...
I presumed that this was all about setting up a local network *IN PARALLEL* to the internet. Some discussion was on sharing cable modems and the like. (at which point someone becomes responsible for traffic that bridges.)
I get the impression that this is about setting networks up INDEPENDENT of the internet.
I question exactly how functional this is. So I can Quake with 4 other kids in my block? So I can swap mp3's with every other house in my neighborhood? This kind of stuff only gets you so far, and once I have grabbed the mp3's that A) don't replicate my existing collection, and B) that I would want in the first place, the system becomes a lot less useful.
Sure, you can hook up your neighborhood LAN to the next neighborhood to the next (if they even are interested) but you have such a limited scope of interaction. You are still only dealing with a few people.
One of the things that made the internet so interesting (for all of its flaws) was that you could interact with so many different people and ideas. Any network like this, and you are limited to a very very small population (0.000000001%) but due to a mainly geographical distribution, they wind up being most of the people you were bound to interact with anyway.
Ideas like this may take off in areas of A) high density and B) high technology, but these are few and isolated spots (big cities mainly).
And don't forget the path of least resistance.
There already is a solution that allows most people to network. A system like this NAN would have to offer something absolutely unique to provided incentive for people to participate.
(And I discount internet access sharing as people have pointed out this is about being INDEPENDENT of the internet.)
Until one of the kids in the area decides he is going to be 31337 h4X0r and starts going after the pentagon or some such, and *you* get the knock on the door from The Nice Men in Suits(tm).
Or the MPAA watches 20 people download MATRIX II from *your* connection and gets your ISP to lock down your account.
Seriously, how do you prevent stuff like this?
My house is close to our 2600 meeting, and I have thought of providing access for the meeting, until I am reminded that the feds used to collect logs off of the place we last used as a meeting place (and the owners of the cyber cafe finally kicked us out after they got fed up with the visits from The Nice Men in Suits(tm) every time we left).
Last thing I need is a bunch of people screwing around on my connection, getting me in trouble. (I can do that well enough on my own, thank you.)
Right as I hit the submit button, it occurred to me that on most systems you can switch apps with a passphrase dialog box open, thus using an intermediary app to paste text isn't needed. ;)
(If there is no one to look over your shoulder (Van Eckman) then a intermediary app does let you check your cut'n'paste spelling...    
Yeah, but how many millions of phrases are on your computer? The one that is your passphrase doesn't have to be obvious. (ie, brute force attack with the entire contents of the drive should slow someone down.)
But, even better, you don't even have to leave the phrase laying about for longer than a few seconds. Just open up a web page, select the a few char of the password, and paste it to a temp file. Open up another page and copy another block of char and paste that to the file. Keep doing this until you have a complete password, copy it and close the file w/o saving.
Anything that is recording your input stream from the keyboard is just going to see you just web surfing a doing a lot of copy and paste.
One nice thing about Mator is dealing with the "no questions asked" return policy. I had a FireWire drive act odd (would stop responding and I would have to unplug and replug it to "wake back up" -- no problem with the platters or data), and they just shipped me out a new drive that was BIGGER and FASTER. Only hassle was I had to pay the shipping on the return unit.
Not bad to get 20GB extra and step up to 7200RPM...
7 out of a total of 6 dead?? And the conclusion I am supposed to draw is that one of them failed so badly in a giant ball of flame that it is like it died twice???     ;)
On the other hand, my 75GXP 75GB seems to be fine.
I can't get at it right now to see if it was made in Hungary or it is the suspect part number dtla307075.
Not an issue at all. In fact, the problem is presuming either to be the case in the first place. I understand that this makes textbook formulas easier to deal with, but we usually shouldn't attempt to mould and simplify data to fit formulas.
there is no accepted way to measure "utility" so proof/falsification of these theories is essentially impossible
While I will agree that it is difficult to quantify "utility", that does not negate the fact that it *is* the primary motivating factor involved in any decision.
What we are dealing with is PERCEIVED utility. Any choice acted upon is a de facto reflection on the perceived utility by the actor. Any situation where volition is exerted, there is valuation of the expected outcomes, and the mere fact that one is selected over another is proof that it had a higher "utility" or value to the actor.
Thus, the concept that utility must be measured in a context that is independent of the actor ("utility maximizers" and "accepted way to measure 'utility'") is necessarily flawed. So too is the notion that actors perform in a manner that is "particularly rational" -- if by "rational" you mean a framework that is independent of the internal process of the actor. (That is: The actor *believes* himself to act in a "reasonable" or "rational" manner. Whether or not it is either, is a non-related issue.)
Human beings act in a manner they perceive to bring them the largest value. Every human action is based in selfishness. (I think this term better fits that "greed.").
If it "is 'proven' in classical micro (but) turns out not to actually apply in practice" then there is a problem with the theory. Any theory which doesn't adequately predict results is fundamentally flawed and does NOT reflect the world it purports to make a knowledge claim thereof.
Even though there are huge sections of the builings sitting below ground level, there is a lot more space underground and a good deal of it is intact. (Note the "slurry wall" as the "bathtub.")
Also if you look at the LIDAR maps they are colour keyed for depth and can give you a good indication of what is below ground. (Also mouse-over the thing that says "cross section" for another view.)
Oh, but it is *perfectly* safe to open.... ;)
I mean you *are* running a Windows-Free(tm) desktop, right?   
I noted that "disclaimer" in the original text, but at the same time you quoted a lengthy passage (longer than any other I have noted you responded to) and then proceed to engage in commentary. I could not "write this off" as a joke as that would be contrary to your manner in responding to these issues. Sarcasm aside, it *was* being used to bolster a position.
that this idea of atheism is a somewhat recent phenomena
But it is not. Our *modern* expression of it is, but atheism itself isn't. Keep in mind the meaning of the word (and it doesn't matter when we applied a token to concept -- the concept is more universal than the token). Look at the root "theism." Properly understood, theism means "having an active belief in a god(s)." That means that anyone that makes claim to knowledge of or belief in a deity of any form is acting in a manner which would be called theism. Now look at the prefix "a" which, as you may or may not understand, represents a negation (not).
From this the understanding, "atheism" indicates one who does *NOT* have an active belief in god. Please be very clear on this: "NOT AN ACTIVE BELIEF." Notice it is not "has disbelief" (which is only a sub-set of the members of the set of (not)theists). This means that not only would the people labeled by the modern/popular use of the term (what you might say about me) are included in it but also is *anyone* who does not profess to a belief.
From this you can see that for as long as there have been those that have believed in god, there has been atheism. (Please note: I said "has been atheism" not "has been people that don't believe in god." The two statements are NOT equal. The second issue is one for historical accuracy.)
In fact, one might be able to argue that atheism has, in fact, existed prior to theism (as it requires no active belief), but I think that to be rather silly as, until there is theism, there is nothing to be (not)theism, so the term is somewhat meaningless.
"I am rational because I don't believe a particular thing
I invite you to reexamine your conception of rationality. One is not rational just because one does or doesn't believe in something -- One is rational because one thinks in a rational manner.
even if I have no proof of my position
Okay, I have said this like 25 times now, but I DO NOT *HAVE* TO HAVE PROOF OF ANYTHING (in this case). This is why I went into some length in discussion of epistemological principles.
We human beings are fallible. WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT. We don't automatically know things. We have specific manners in which we gain and validate knowledge. There are plenty of ways that aren't valid for gaining knowledge (they either lead directly to falsehood or are indirectly false by producing answers which may appear right, but not for valid reasons (therefore the answer truly isn't correct)).
We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise.
I feel I have to repeat the previous statement as this is something that just doesn't seem to be sinking in: We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise. If you need me to state it again, just to make it clear, *please* let me know and I will gladly reiterate.
Rather, we have to validate *everything* before we accept it a fact. You say I have no proof of my position (or I don't have a disproof of yours). That is just flat out invalid thinking. I am telling you that everything you claim *has* to be validated in order for you to claim it. (Otherwise you are making empty meaningless statements. They are disguised as if they had meaning and could convey information, but are in fact void of both.)
I put it to you yet again that the onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive.
other than logic,
Uh, what kind of alternate universe do you live in inside your head where you have something other than logic to validate rational thought? (HINT: outside of the scope of logic you have no rationality.)
where you are irrational because you believe in something you haven't proved to me but for which you claim to have similarly well-reasoned logic!"
Oh, you can claim that you have "similarly well-resoned logic" all you want -- IT DOEN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
You can claim that you are Napoleon all you want and that isn't true either.
similarly well-reasoned logic????
Where would I have *ever* indicated that? (You are putting words in my mouth to bolster your position.) I have done nothing but demonstrate that A) your arguments have *NO* similarity to mine, B) are not "well-reasoned" and C) are contrary to logic. In fact, if *ANYTHING* I have demonstrated that your arguments are NOT formed by rational, logical thought, and are rather a direct product of your desire to retain them.
You clearly stated previously that your belief state was in direct relation to the occurrence of characteristics you find desirable. (A point that didn't escape my notice that you ducked.) Your beliefs are based upon caprice, and any attempt to clothe them in the trappings of rational thought, does disservice to the entire concept of rationality.
Doesn't this assume a superior/inferior attitude?
No it does not. And to even suggest such indicates a desire to attempt to discredit my position by indicated it is derivative of hubris.
I would suggest that the proper way to evaluate any position is on the merits of the arguments themselves, and not any secondary concerns like the speaker or the intents of said speaker.
I *very* much want to keep this discussion focused on the content of the argument. While I don't mind a little name-calling (in fact, in any spirited discussion, I would expect it in the form of "playful jabs" between advocates, with all advocates understanding it as such), I do not want to allow a discussion to derail (and perhaps degenerate) because of it.
The point being that I have advanced a consistent position, backed up every one of my arguments, and attempted to demonstrate that they derive from a consistent logical framework. I have gone to great lengths to show that the positions I hold, I do not hold lightly. They are not whim. They are not half-thought concepts I just digested as a child without ever bothering to examine and validate them. They are "well-reasoned" and "logical."*
*[Okay, if they *weren't* well-reasoned and logical, they *why* would I hold them? Do you know anyone who says "I believe X to be true, but I know that is false or against everything else I know to be true"? (Outside of religious types, who, for the most part are the one class who gladly accept ideas as true that they know to be against rationality. ie, "God exists outside logic." or in other words (The Bard's) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.") One doesn't hold a position *nor* advance it without believing in it.]
If you think that having the courage of your convictions is somehow equated with a "superior attitude," then so be it, but I would have to think that this represents a misunderstanding on your part.
scientific arguments which I have heard to say "there is no God"
Well, once again, primary issue is to prove that there *IS* a god, not to prove that there *isn't.*
One, can, however, in the light of statements proffered to prove god, demonstrate the errors in said statements. But this is not proving that there is no god, but proving that arguments that say there is a god are flawed. There is a difference. The burden of proof is still on those who affirm the positive.
precluding Deity
This is the same error, over and over again. One doesn't have to disprove god. One has to prove god. You don't presume that what you *want* to be true is true. *YOU PROVE IT.*
usually by denying the possibility of that religious experiences can be real without conclusive evidence that they are not
And again, it is not anyone's responsibility to prove something isn't religious -- It is the responsibility of the person that claims it to be religious to prove that it is.
Oh, and keep in mind that if you attempt to use "religious experiences" as a proof of god, you are not entitled to assume that god exists. That is what is known as circular reasoning.
Goes like this:
      Therefore god must exist.
You just run around in a logical circle unable to prove anything. That will not be allowed.
So try Occam's razor
Before I even look at your list, remember that if you assume the notion that god exists, that opens up a whole holy host (pun intended) of new questions. The idea behind Occam's is to *simplify* the explanation, not create one that begs new questions.
But that being said, I can address each of your points to indicate that one doesn't need to go to more complex explanations. I will try to be brief:
a typhoon class storm dissipated
And typhoon class storms *don't* dissipate on their own? Just because one happens to stop at a time that is fortuitous for you doesn't mean that is *why* it dissipated -- it just means that the two events are temporally related.
You would have a lot of trouble trying to justify that your needs/desires are what caused it to stop.
And you say nothing about all of the typhoons that didn't dissipate.
Look, this falls under synchronicity, which rather than reiterating on each point, let me address at the end of the discussion.
multiple cancers driven into remission for more than a dozen years until a mother finished raising a specific child (in fulfillment of a religious promise)
And there have been plenty of times when cancer didn't go into remission when prayed for. Are you saying that these people were less pious or god loved them less??? That is proof alone that prayer is not the cause.
Let me add to this that I know of *many* cases where a person with a terminal condition (not just cancer) has survived long enough to see something happen. And few of these have been religious promises. Most have come from a profound love that drove a willingness to fight. The human body is an interesting thing, and to say that the mind is divorced from it, is to misunderstand the mind. Studies have indicated that the overall mental wellness of a person can profoundly affect their physical wellbeing. The mother that wants to live long enough to see her child raised (and I will argue that 99.9% of it is from a love of the child -- If my mother was only bound to my raising because it was a religious promise or duty, I would be offended. In fact, I think you insult all of the dying women you speak of by minimizing their love of their children, in order to rationalize your argument. I think you owe them a silent apology.), can under some situations hold an illness at bay.
And another way to look at it is spousal death. It is a well known fact, that once one elder spouse dies, the probability of the other dying within two years shoots through the roof. The explanation is that they surrender the will to live.
But why is it, that if you can attempt to use god to explain someone fighting for life, you don't seem to use god to explain people dying?
arriving just in time to offer critical assistance to someone I had never met
Okay, please provide exact figures for the number of people in danger praying in a 20 mile radius to you that you *DIDN'T* save. That alone should indicate to you that prayer is not causal, but rather incidental, to your actions.
Your behavior is this situation relates to your preconceptions and your predilections. See synchronicity below.
detected liars in front of a jury
How the hell do you get divine intervention out of this??? Seriously, I am confused. Something this simple happens all the time without divine intervention.
It is a well established fact that people express their internal state physically. The manner in which a person carries themselves conveys a *lot* of information about them. Most of us are keyed into this at some level. Although we might not be able to articulate why we come to a conclusion about someone (a lot of our behavior in this regard is not internally examined -- we process information like this on a sub-conscious level) we perform this function thousands of times during the day to one degree or another.
There is nothing magical to this. It is just a vast body of experience with human interaction throughout life that allows us to subconsciously evaluate another's "body language."
You just happen to be adept at reading "liars' signals." (For example, there were studies that were conducted that indicate our eye position belies our internal state. People that lie will subconsciously look in a direction. How difficult is it to see that one can pick up on these cues on some level.)
You cannot explain why you "detect" like this only because you are unfamiliar with the subconscious automated process that you use. (Like walking, which took us a long time to learn, it is something we perform without thinking about it. But just because you are not aware of every impulse to move every muscle, doesn't mean that you don't walk.)
Add to this the notion that people at trial are most likely under more stress than they normally would be and would even exaggerate their behaviors, making them easier to pick up on.
understood the unspoken thoughts of a person who I did not know very well
See the item above about being able to pick up on cues and process them on a subconscious level. You seem to be a fairly sympathetic person. You, from what I can tell, seem to be predisposed to empathy in some form. As such, you are going to be more disposed to pick up on certain cues than the rest of us would be. (And I am sure that the rest of us have things we are more sensitive to that you are -- we each have that which we are good at.)
From what you tell me, I would be surprised if you *weren't* able to pick up info from people in trouble. But there is nothing magical about this either. You are just a good listener and are perceptive in an empathetic manner.
It doesn't matter that you can't articulate the process that you use (as there are thousands of complex behaviors we engage in that we cannot articulate because we haven't bothered to examine them). That doesn't change the fact that you use them.
I ask that in the coming months, when you have an empathetic reaction to people, you stop and ask why you have that feeling. It is tough because we don't bother to think about our reactions ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). I (and others I know) have done this, and it is amazing what you discover about yourself. You can learn to watch your reactions and analyse them. It is difficult at first, but after a while, things start to "click." ("Oh, yeah... When I see someone do/say/whatever X then impression Y pops into my head.") You will be amazed at what you learn about yourself, and by making the action conscious you find that you are better able to refine and strengthen it. It seems you have a gift (let's call it a skill) and I would think it your responsibility to strengthen it.
seen healthy, normal infants born when the medical doctors insisted that the only possibility was brain damage
And how many brain damaged babies do you see born when the doctors think them to be normal? Is this a proof of god? I take it you have never see a doctor make a mistake before, therefore god must be the explanation.
I think this a germane place to bring this up, but why is it that religious people only credit the things they *want* to happen to god, and never the bad things. Why is a healthy baby proof of god, but a sick one somehow doesn't pertain? Why is it a typhoon that dissipates an act of god but the one that kills thousands isn't?? Why is it that "god will save those in the WTC crash", but god has nothing to do with the buildings collapsing???
People rationalize things in the name of god. As "god" is very much a subjective construct, people are free (not bound by reality) to randomly apply the concept according to whim. (That is the power of god for people. It is a whim that can be applied on a whim to make people feel better. But wishing doesn't make it so...) People will always use the example of things they want to happen that do as proof of god, when all they are saying is that a whim was made to pass, and they want more to do the same.
That does NOT prove a thing, and, in fact, is just more circular reasoning.
So I said I would mention synchronicity. The notions I put forth here come from a reading of Jung when I was back in high school. It has been that long since I have read Jung, and no longer know how much of the following argument it his, and how much I have mutated over time into my own comprehension. If I have absolutely mutilated his thoughts, I apologize to the man, but thank him for the planted seed that brought forth fruit in my head.
Synchronicity, in my take, is an expression of cognition. Simply put, it is that we are more likely to perceive that which we are predisposed of to perceive. Let me try a simple example:
The same thing can be said of *all* of your perceptions above. You only notice them because you are more inclined to notice them as they fit the framework of your expectations.You want to see things, you *will* see things.
Notice how you never discuss the negatives of any of the above situation. You discard them as non-significant because they don't fit your pre-conceptions. I will tell you right now that there are *many* more mothers that would like to live long enough to raise their children and don't than there are those that fight of an illness. But somehow you ignore all of these as they don't reinforce your preconceptions.
And we are back at the point of circular reasoning. You expect to see things (presume the conclusion of your argument) and for some reason you think yourself surprised when they happen.