I don't want whatever device to be creating extra sound in it's quest to cool more efficiently.
According to the article, by the time they are shrunk down enough to be usable in a computer, it'll just be ultrasound. Hopefully, it'll be ultra enough to be outside of even a dog's hearing range.
They said that Internet radio stations are entitled to use the statutory license rather than negotiate with copyright holders, for everything. And that whenever someone uses the statutory license, the money is handled by SoundExchange, regardless of whether the copyright holder is signed up with them or not, because that's what the law mandates. No one has said that there can't be other licenses.
I should think the illegal thing here is that artists for whom SoundExchange has collected royalties cannot get those royalties unless they pay up and join SoundExchange. And also, if the artist does not want SoundExchange to collect royalties on their behalf, SoundExchange does so anyway. Both these things strike me as illegal.
How is it not true? Citizenship in the US is hard to obtain, and we're easy! Other countries have lower caps, or require more stringent proof of special ability that no native has. And in the US, you can job-hop on a green card, but, from what I've heard, other countries don't have the equivalent of green cards. You either gain citizenship, or you are shipped out immediately if you lose your job or quit.
If as a mechanic you're ready to set up shop wherever, to the extent of considering it a benefit, why can't you, as a programmer, relocate to where the job gets "outsourced" to?
Unfortunately, while a mechanic can set up anywhere in the States, programming jobs get outsourced to other countries that are extremely difficult and expensive to get into. No relocation options there, unless you are really something special. Or you have a contact overseas.
That's the great thing about the fact that Apple controls all the hardware manufacturing - they could just build that functionality into each system they ship.
But then they're "using proprietary standards." Oh noes!
However, a god creating a universe is an entirely different case.... a god might create a universe such that the correctness of a particular moral code is characteristic of that universe.... In such a universe, simply because of how the universe was constructed, that particular de jure moral code would stand above all others. Does this present any logical inconsistencies? Then how can you rule it out? If you cannot rule it out, how do you know that the universe we live in is not like that?
I cannot rule it out, and this universe might well be constructed in that way. But my point is, it doesn't matter because each person, in the end, decides good and evil for himself, and acts on his own beliefs. And if a person or group decides that God is evil, then he is evil -- as far as that group is concerned. And it doesn't matter -- to that group -- that God is good by his own decree. They will act as they have decided.
Any other group that wants to defend God's goodness can try to cite God's own authority, but that authority has already been dismissed by the first group -- by God's authority, he is good, and God's accusers has already decided that he isn't. If God's defenders want to change the minds of the accusers, the defenders have to play by the accuser's rules. In other words, the defenders have to convince the accusers that they are wrong, and saying "because God says so" ain't gonna do the trick.
That is why I say that God cannot be said to be good by definition. His definition does not matter in the court of opinion.
Since we are discussing personal moral compasses and suchlike things, you'd really better describe exactly what value system you are using to determine whether or not something is morally wrong... Morally wrong according to your personal moral compass? But exactly what makes you think that your personal moral compass is superior to something else?
I feel I should disentangle a concept. A person's moral compass is his opinion on good and evil. To prefer a different moral compass than your own is a paradox, like saying you don't believe in what you believe. What actually happens is that your moral compass, your opinions, align with the opinions of another; in other words, you and the other party agree on good and evil. So when you ask me what makes me think my personal compass is superior to another, you are asking me why I think my opinions of good and evil are better than someone else's. That's how I read your question. And the answer is, I've worked on my opinions. My opinions are shaped by the society I live in, but I've noticed flaws, inconsistencies, and bad logic, and changed my opinions as needed. I trust my moral compass. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of flaws in the moral code that God has put forth.
Perhaps where your de facto morals disagree with the de jure morals, your de facto morals are wrong. You made several other errors like that...
What do you mean when you say my morals might be "wrong?" Logically wrong? Paradoxical? Well, it's possible. My system is not perfect, but I'm happy with it. Or do you mean factually wrong? Or morally wrong? Well, in this case, the two amount to the same thing. My de facto morals do not agree with God's de jure morals. This is true. But you make the same error you accuse me of. If my de facto morals disagree with God's de jure morals, is it my set that is morally wrong, or his? What standard is there to decide this?
Such things are generally decided by the decider's own moral framework. But here, we are two deciders, each with their own moral framework. Theoretically, we want to come to one decision. We can wrangle it out, each working from the basis of his own moral framework, until we come to a common decision [and in truth, we are doing just that with this thread], but let's say that won't work.
From my point of view, religion fills an important societal need. People like to feel that they belong, and religion allows them to belong to something infinitely greater than themselves.
Mod up!...because I agree entirely. I'm an atheist, but theism doesn't bother me a bit. Especially if they walk the walk.
This is a little bit silly. If there is a god, particularly the variety of god that most Christians would describe to you, then that god defines what is moral. So, if there is a deity that your particular moral system deems "not worthy of belief or worship", but this deity has defined morality such that it is worthy of belief and worship, then your moral system is wrong.
I'd like to dismantle this pernicious misbelief, that "God is good by definition, because he defines good." Good includes things like belief in Him, following the proper rituals, self-sacrifice, etc. And of course, He has also defined evil. Among things considered evil are non-belief in Him, homosexuality, witchcraft, usury, etc.
I don't consider homosexuality to be evil. I don't consider the rituals to be good. But if God has defined good and evil, how can I feel this way? The answer is obvious. I have my own standards of good and evil, that are not those of God. By those standards, I could consider God as evil according to my own moral compass (though I don't, as I don't believe in God 't'all).
So what God defines is de jure morality. There's a Book of Morality somewhere, and God has written various rules and guidelines in it. But, there is another source of moral guidance, what I will call de facto morality, the morality held by individuals. Each individual develops his own moral compass, influenced by parents, teachers, friends, heros... in short, under the influence of society.
I choose the terms de jure and de facto as a deliberate analogy to laws and regulations here on our Earthly sphere. We don't enforce everything in the book. Some things we don't enforce at all. These are things that we've generally agreed "don't really count" or "don't matter." The authorities may disagree. But are they right in disagreeing? Are not some de jure rules and regulations morally wrong? We often prefer de facto rules to de jure rules. The latter only outweighs the former when an authority is in charge, or for matters of contractual agreement where "if it ain't written down, it ain't." And some things are only regulated by de facto rules, things like politeness and honor.
So here on our Earthly sphere, de facto rules are more important than those de jure. Why should the same not be true when we speak of morality? If they are in disagreement, which morality guides you: the one you have, or the one someone else has? Or even worse, the one someone else wants you to have while he plays by different rules, as is the case with God?
So, no. God most emphatically does not define what is good and what is evil. And He has no immunity from the charge of being evil, if His behavior meets society's criteria for such. And He may indeed be unworthy of worship or belief, even for those who do believe in Him, for they, too, have a personal moral compass.
Now, anyone can get anywhere in the country in less than a day. You can send a message anywhere on the planet in milliseconds.
So it only makes sense that more an more things become standardized at the federal level instead of the state level, because the states are not nearly as distinct from each other as they were in 1798.
I don't see how that follows. Communication is faster, but so what? Why does speed equal more need for standardization?
In fact, I'd say it was the exact opposite: if communication had gotten slower over the centuries, then clearly something needs to be done to speed it up, and standardization would be the ticket. But that is not the case.
In other words, what is wrong with our current system, such that it needs fixing now more than ever?
Perhaps you feel that communication ought to be standardized because the states are more similar than ever? I don't see how that follows either. First, I for one prefer the states to be different, so I'm opposed to standardization on those grounds. Second, shouldn't this sort of standardization effort come from the states? If they don't want it, then maybe it doesn't need to be done. Alternatively, if some want it and some don't (as appears to be the case), why not leave it up to those who want it?
They're fighting for their last remnants of freedom from the feds. This isn't an altruistic action. The states will always fight for their own rights because if they don't, their jobs get made harder, and the fact that we happen to occasionally benefit doesn't do much to make it more noble.
Why can't an action be both noble and self-interested? Sure, the states have their own reasons for opposing the Federal ID program, but the fact is, they are opposing it, against possible punitive action by the Feds. The motivation doesn't matter. The results do. And according to the GP, the only states working on it are the NE and NW states, so yay them! Especially since I happen to live in Washington State.
In the Uplift universe, the mathematics of the advanced alien civilizations were based on integers. They did not have calculus, floating-point numbers, or infinities. Their mathematics were only intended for computers, which used discrete or quantized values that modeled atoms, etc., exactly.
It looks like we might be heading in that direction ourselves.:)
If I understand this properly, Microsoft stopped supporting existing DirectSound drivers, because these drivers ran in kernel space and were pretty buggy. Advanced sound card features accessible through the DirectSound API no longer work.
Why didn't HW developers already have Vista drivers ready to go? Did Microsoft forget to tell them that it was invalidating the old drivers? That doesn't seem likely.
Obviously, Microsoft must have some way of allowing sound-card drivers to talk to sound card hardware. Why didn't they just add a layer of indirection under DirectSound to have it use this mechanism, so that only minimal changes or a safe shim are needed for vendors' existing DS drivers?
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
That would make a nice ammendment to our Constitution, wouldn't it?
It would indeed. Congress would never go for it, but luckily, they don't have to. If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.
the company is notoriously secretive and known for not sharing future product details, much to the displeasure of IT professionals. Yet now, preannouncing is a mistake.
The IT professionals get pissy because they don't like being blindsided by new computers or operating systems. Why would they care about phones? The crowd dissing Apple for pre-announcing the iPhone is different from the IT crowd dissing Apple for not pre-announcing. True, Apple gets screwed both ways, but it is different people doing the screwing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Further assume that the need for #1 arises with a probability p."
That...is funny!
I should think the illegal thing here is that artists for whom SoundExchange has collected royalties cannot get those royalties unless they pay up and join SoundExchange. And also, if the artist does not want SoundExchange to collect royalties on their behalf, SoundExchange does so anyway. Both these things strike me as illegal.
Well, Al Gore has both invented the internets and ridden the mighty moon worm, so there is a connection of sorts...
How is it not true? Citizenship in the US is hard to obtain, and we're easy! Other countries have lower caps, or require more stringent proof of special ability that no native has. And in the US, you can job-hop on a green card, but, from what I've heard, other countries don't have the equivalent of green cards. You either gain citizenship, or you are shipped out immediately if you lose your job or quit.
Unfortunately, while a mechanic can set up anywhere in the States, programming jobs get outsourced to other countries that are extremely difficult and expensive to get into. No relocation options there, unless you are really something special. Or you have a contact overseas.
...whoah...
Well, that's true. Manga comics don't bother to retcon; when they contradict themselves, they just punt. The fans have to do the retcon themselves.
That's the great thing about the fact that Apple controls all the hardware manufacturing - they could just build that functionality into each system they ship.
But then they're "using proprietary standards." Oh noes!
Yeah, I was thinking that. Garbage collection, dude! It's a solved problem that just needs a GUI.
I cannot rule it out, and this universe might well be constructed in that way. But my point is, it doesn't matter because each person, in the end, decides good and evil for himself, and acts on his own beliefs. And if a person or group decides that God is evil, then he is evil -- as far as that group is concerned. And it doesn't matter -- to that group -- that God is good by his own decree. They will act as they have decided.
Any other group that wants to defend God's goodness can try to cite God's own authority, but that authority has already been dismissed by the first group -- by God's authority, he is good, and God's accusers has already decided that he isn't. If God's defenders want to change the minds of the accusers, the defenders have to play by the accuser's rules. In other words, the defenders have to convince the accusers that they are wrong, and saying "because God says so" ain't gonna do the trick.
That is why I say that God cannot be said to be good by definition. His definition does not matter in the court of opinion.
I feel I should disentangle a concept. A person's moral compass is his opinion on good and evil. To prefer a different moral compass than your own is a paradox, like saying you don't believe in what you believe. What actually happens is that your moral compass, your opinions, align with the opinions of another; in other words, you and the other party agree on good and evil. So when you ask me what makes me think my personal compass is superior to another, you are asking me why I think my opinions of good and evil are better than someone else's. That's how I read your question. And the answer is, I've worked on my opinions. My opinions are shaped by the society I live in, but I've noticed flaws, inconsistencies, and bad logic, and changed my opinions as needed. I trust my moral compass. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of flaws in the moral code that God has put forth.
What do you mean when you say my morals might be "wrong?" Logically wrong? Paradoxical? Well, it's possible. My system is not perfect, but I'm happy with it. Or do you mean factually wrong? Or morally wrong? Well, in this case, the two amount to the same thing. My de facto morals do not agree with God's de jure morals. This is true. But you make the same error you accuse me of. If my de facto morals disagree with God's de jure morals, is it my set that is morally wrong, or his? What standard is there to decide this?
Such things are generally decided by the decider's own moral framework. But here, we are two deciders, each with their own moral framework. Theoretically, we want to come to one decision. We can wrangle it out, each working from the basis of his own moral framework, until we come to a common decision [and in truth, we are doing just that with this thread], but let's say that won't work.
Then we are left with finding an objective p
Mod up!
I'd like to dismantle this pernicious misbelief, that "God is good by definition, because he defines good." Good includes things like belief in Him, following the proper rituals, self-sacrifice, etc. And of course, He has also defined evil. Among things considered evil are non-belief in Him, homosexuality, witchcraft, usury, etc.
I don't consider homosexuality to be evil. I don't consider the rituals to be good. But if God has defined good and evil, how can I feel this way? The answer is obvious. I have my own standards of good and evil, that are not those of God. By those standards, I could consider God as evil according to my own moral compass (though I don't, as I don't believe in God 't'all).
So what God defines is de jure morality. There's a Book of Morality somewhere, and God has written various rules and guidelines in it. But, there is another source of moral guidance, what I will call de facto morality, the morality held by individuals. Each individual develops his own moral compass, influenced by parents, teachers, friends, heros... in short, under the influence of society.
I choose the terms de jure and de facto as a deliberate analogy to laws and regulations here on our Earthly sphere. We don't enforce everything in the book. Some things we don't enforce at all. These are things that we've generally agreed "don't really count" or "don't matter." The authorities may disagree. But are they right in disagreeing? Are not some de jure rules and regulations morally wrong? We often prefer de facto rules to de jure rules. The latter only outweighs the former when an authority is in charge, or for matters of contractual agreement where "if it ain't written down, it ain't." And some things are only regulated by de facto rules, things like politeness and honor.
So here on our Earthly sphere, de facto rules are more important than those de jure. Why should the same not be true when we speak of morality? If they are in disagreement, which morality guides you: the one you have, or the one someone else has? Or even worse, the one someone else wants you to have while he plays by different rules, as is the case with God?
So, no. God most emphatically does not define what is good and what is evil. And He has no immunity from the charge of being evil, if His behavior meets society's criteria for such. And He may indeed be unworthy of worship or belief, even for those who do believe in Him, for they, too, have a personal moral compass.
Well...he's old. Come on, cut him some slack!
I don't see how that follows. Communication is faster, but so what? Why does speed equal more need for standardization?
In fact, I'd say it was the exact opposite: if communication had gotten slower over the centuries, then clearly something needs to be done to speed it up, and standardization would be the ticket. But that is not the case.
In other words, what is wrong with our current system, such that it needs fixing now more than ever?
Perhaps you feel that communication ought to be standardized because the states are more similar than ever? I don't see how that follows either. First, I for one prefer the states to be different, so I'm opposed to standardization on those grounds. Second, shouldn't this sort of standardization effort come from the states? If they don't want it, then maybe it doesn't need to be done. Alternatively, if some want it and some don't (as appears to be the case), why not leave it up to those who want it?
I reserve the right to commit a crime and run away to another state!
A-men to that, my brother!
Seriously. That's a good thing.
Yeah, not so much.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
This reminds me of David Brin's Uplift universe.
:)
In the Uplift universe, the mathematics of the advanced alien civilizations were based on integers. They did not have calculus, floating-point numbers, or infinities. Their mathematics were only intended for computers, which used discrete or quantized values that modeled atoms, etc., exactly.
It looks like we might be heading in that direction ourselves.
If I understand this properly, Microsoft stopped supporting existing DirectSound drivers, because these drivers ran in kernel space and were pretty buggy. Advanced sound card features accessible through the DirectSound API no longer work.
Why didn't HW developers already have Vista drivers ready to go? Did Microsoft forget to tell them that it was invalidating the old drivers? That doesn't seem likely.
Obviously, Microsoft must have some way of allowing sound-card drivers to talk to sound card hardware. Why didn't they just add a layer of indirection under DirectSound to have it use this mechanism, so that only minimal changes or a safe shim are needed for vendors' existing DS drivers?
Any DirectSound developers care to comment?
I think I'll e-mail my Governor.
Doesn't the submarine fleet operate by entirely different rules and customs than the rest of the Navy?
The IT professionals get pissy because they don't like being blindsided by new computers or operating systems. Why would they care about phones? The crowd dissing Apple for pre-announcing the iPhone is different from the IT crowd dissing Apple for not pre-announcing. True, Apple gets screwed both ways, but it is different people doing the screwing.
So to speak.
Hah. As opposed to Sprint and Verizon, who use yesterday's cellular technology? CDMA? Come on! Everyone else on the planet uses GSM.