That's what I thought, but my graphics card spits out audio, and it's only got DVI outs. It shocked me as well. I haven't researched how it is doing it yet.
My setup is a PC with a Gigabyte GTX 460. It only has DVI outputs on the back. Upon installing the card, it installed "nvidia high definition audio drivers", and I switched back to my previous default, which was using onboard sound with a seperate connection. However, recently I took my PC over to my parent's, and connected it to their TV. I'm assuming that beause no audio jacks were plugged in it reverted back to the nvidia driver, and sound automatically worked.
To clarify :
DVI output alone used. No audio jacks connected (actually, only DVI, mouse, keyboard and power connected - I didn't even bother connecting the network).
A simple older DVI to HDMI cable used, _not_ one bought with the gtx 460.
Having done a little research I found this on Wikipedia : Some ATI and NVIDIA video cards with DVI outputs offer HDMI audio output, though this is done using the DVI connector pins in a non-standard way, using a special custom DVI to HDMI adapter to route the audio out to the HDMI on the correct pins. Many of these cards now offer HDMI ports alongside DVI ports.
Note I don't have a custom DVI to HDMI adapter, nor any special hardware. The sound just worked. Like I said before, I was shocked it did since I assumed it couldn't. When I got back to my house, I tried it with my monitor (which does not have DVI, only HDMI, hence the old cable), and it worked with this too.
I don't really know how it's working, and I don't really need the feature, but I guess some people might.
A very small proportion of the plant matter we eat has this property. Basically, anything that is grown in a field does not want us to eat it and never intended so.
I really don't understand the revenue stream of porn now... it's impossible not to find free porn if you look for it, of just about all types. I was worrying about who will still produce porn when no one is willing to pay, but the plethora of home made stuff now set my mind at ease.
Meh - if finding your partner attractive is shallow, then I'm shallow. To be honest, being with someone you don't find attractive is way more shallow in my opinion.
The point being made was that this law does not seem to make anything new illegal, except borderline cases. It was already illegal to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud people. Technically, loads and loads of stuff that goes on online could be classed as illegal prior this law anyway. If I recieved through the post some of the threats I've recieved online, I'd be worried.
The intent to harm is almost impossible to prove. If from your example, the sender of the e-mails believes (or claims to believe) that the marriage is bad for both parties, and that they are doing good by sending the e-mails, it doesn't fall under the remit of the law.
I think that's actually mean, as opposed to median. However, base starting salaries for GPs are about £60,000. I'd estimate that the median income is probably just under £100,000, but I could well be wrong.
Previously, you said: the state should not punish them simply for doing something that might increase the odds of them causing harm, if no actual harm was caused.
Recklessness is doing something that might increase the odds of causing harm, but does _not_ necessarily cause harm.
If I am running around blindfolded swinging my fists wildly and people are having to dodge out of the way to avoid getting hit, then likewise I should be stopped before I actually hit anybody.
There's no guarantee that _any_ harm will be caused here. You're just increasing the likelyhood of harm. Your definition of recklessness is just different from the government's. They would claim (and with some justification) that being over the DUI limit _always_ lowers reaction time, thus recklessly endangers others.
As someone who has visited A+E a few times, I have to (generally) agree.
The times I've been into A+E I (and those I've been in with) have generally been seen quickly and well (though once by a doctor who was obviously _very_ tired, but I could see that he still knew what he was doing). The one time I was kept waiting I wasn't going to go in, but I was very drunk, it was a wound on the back of my head I couldn't see, and a few people told me to go in (I'm occasionally vaguely rational when I'm drunk, and I thought I'd better take other people's advice because I knew the alcohol could be killing the pain and disrupting other symptoms). I sat there for 4 hours to be told it was a graze, but that wasn't really a problem with A+E.
Anyway, given the choice between the NHS and another system... I'd choose the NHS, despite some of its failings.
The NHS has for some time been dependent on the goodwill and vocational motivation of it's healthcare professionals, because they sure as hell ain't motivated by the working conditions, pay, and benefits.
The average pay for a GP in the UK is over £100,000 per year (linked like that because I'm not sure if/. will mangle pound signs in links). I'm not saying that GPs should not get that amount, but that is around 5 times the median for the UK. £100,000 is about the _total_ income tax of 30 taxpayers on that median pay.
But the state should not punish them simply for doing something that might increase the odds of them causing harm, if no actual harm was caused.
I presume you're against all speeding laws too then? And laws restricting the use of firearms in built up areas (firing an AK-47 wildly into the air in Time Square will not necessarily do any actual harm.)?
In the UK, at least, the taxes and fees and fines paid by motorists far exceed that spent on road infrastructure. So if you don't drive, you don't contribute to the roads, and you get a nice reduction in your own tax bill because of the excess motorists are injecting into the economy.
If you are claiming you can do whatever you like with your own little bit of government infrastructure, just because you funded it... it seems you've entirely missed the point of collective ownership.
So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?
Wait, so we were supposed automagically guess that you meant something you didn't say? When someone questions what you did say, you turn snarky. In my opinion, GP was making a genuine point, not nitpicking. Something that is productive and useful is clarity.
Labels pay to get their music played, pay to get their albums in major music retailers, etc.
And..... this is the crux of the problem with the industry. Labels _pay_ to get their music played. Seriously, labels are paying for you to listen to their music.
This does two things:
1 : It drives out music whose publishers could not afford the payments.
2 : It drives up the price of purchasing music from those who've paid for airplay.
BMI is an awful way to judge obesity, especially for tall people. Anyone who's tall, and not skinny as fuck will drop into overweight at least. I used to be 2 metres, 100kg... 100/2^2 = 25 BMI (yup, that's how BMI is calculated - I just used to have very convenient statistics), which is the borderline for overweight. This was when I was 18-21 or so... well toned, not muscular at all hardly - no weights, all the sports I did were aerobic rather than muscle gaining. Now, I'm about 20kg heavier, some of that is fat, but I also do a physical job that has increased my muscle mass... I'd guess 50/50. I personally couldn't hit 100kg again, unless I lose some muscle.
The thing is though, I know I'm carrying around a bit of excess fat now. Lots of people that claim BMI is useless are making excuses - just because the system is flawed, doesn't mean you're not too fat.
Basically, I agree with just about everything you just said.
it is possible to discover the direct empirical consequences of things that are not just hard to observe, but absolutely unobservable by any means whatsoever
The major point I was making, and previous poster above was making, was that empirical consequences are observable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be empirical.
I guess this is more a semantic problem than any other. Basically, my point was that empirical = observable.
Yes, of course it does, as quantum theory, which is based on the notion that there are unobservables (the wavefunction under a potential barrier during tunneling, for example) demonstrates.
You seem to be missing the point. Observing evidence is not just watching something. _All_ evidence is observed. Just because you can't "see" something, doesn't mean you can't observe its effects. From wikipedia : "To date, Bell's theorem is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence".
Now, string theory, on the other hand has nowhere near the same kind of evidence to back it up. Also, it predictive powers are lacking, and it is very difficult to test. Recent tests such as the one in TFA have shown predictions from much of string theory to be wrong.
Yeah, good luck with that. Authors, songwriters, and other artists in the current system generally either end up being very rich or penniless.
There is no inherent right as an artist of any kind to have your works protected. The copyright system has become so pervasive that we see it as an industry, rather than as what it is intended for.
What it was intended for was to _enable_ works to enter the public domain. Honestly, it was. By allowing limited copyright, you encouraged holders to publicly publish as opposed to privately, since renumeration worked better.
Now it's got warped into a century long dynastic money grabbing machine, and it doesn't work.
Copyright is a government granted monopoly on an artist's behalf.
Also, please do not get plagiarism confused with copyright. If you release a work as completely public domain, no one can plagiarise it still. If they try to, and sell it, it is fraud.
In the UK, the law that applies is the sale of goods act. The only real recourse the consumer has is with the retailer.... I'm not sure how the law applies if the retailer goes out of business. Essentially, the law states that the item bought must be fit for purpose unless otherwise described. If it breaks, or doesn't work, you're entitled to a refund, which makes a lot of manufacturer's warranties out there worthless. There are different timescales for different types of goods.... AFAIK the rule of thumb for electronic goods is no shorter than 1 year.
Seriously, I'm a little shocked by looking at those first two judgements. I really did think that people in the US had more rights over their land than we do in the UK. "Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon."
That is a massively scary precedent... it implies growing or producing _anything_ for yourself is liable to federal intervention.
I don't think we have these kind of systems in the UK - If you want to sell anything, you're in the loop, and there are animal welfare issues too... but apart from that, you can do what you like with your land, as long as you don't annoy your neighbours.
in the fridge upstairs there are several 2 litre cartons of milk.
Are you sure about that? All milk I've bought recently, from supermarkets and other places, in the UK is labelled metrically, but is in pints. I'd guess your 2 litre cartons of milk will actually be about 2.3 litres, if you're from the UK.
American imported drinks bottles, such as coke, pepsi and sprite, etc, have been 500ml for years, which is slightly ironic.
I do know that the change to metric is basically inevitable, and personally I generally welcome it. I was just pointing out the absurdities of _laws_ requiring the metric system resulting in stupid quantities.
I was about to post something similar to this, after reading the knee-jerk reactions to your original post. To me, it was patently obvious you were making a point about Time's selection criteria, not comparing Zuckerberg's negative influence to that of Hitler or Stalin. I'm suprised most missed it.
Note however I'd disagree with excluding Gandhi and MLK from doing/saying/believing something "for worse", in my opinion. The former was demonstrably racist on numerous occasions, the latter I know little about (I'm English), but "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." is something I'd have huge problems with, as an atheist, and as someone who understands why some remain neutral.
Basically, my point is that no one is perfect. I'm not denigrating the good that Gandhi or MLK did... I believe both were undeniably overall very strongly positive. There's always a few flaws though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather play on the full screen anyway.
I may be missing something here, but why the fuck did you buy a portable gaming device then? You know their one big selling point? They're portable.
Errr, it's not. DVI is video only, no audio.
That's what I thought, but my graphics card spits out audio, and it's only got DVI outs. It shocked me as well. I haven't researched how it is doing it yet.
My setup is a PC with a Gigabyte GTX 460. It only has DVI outputs on the back. Upon installing the card, it installed "nvidia high definition audio drivers", and I switched back to my previous default, which was using onboard sound with a seperate connection. However, recently I took my PC over to my parent's, and connected it to their TV. I'm assuming that beause no audio jacks were plugged in it reverted back to the nvidia driver, and sound automatically worked.
To clarify :
DVI output alone used. No audio jacks connected (actually, only DVI, mouse, keyboard and power connected - I didn't even bother connecting the network).
A simple older DVI to HDMI cable used, _not_ one bought with the gtx 460.
Having done a little research I found this on Wikipedia : Some ATI and NVIDIA video cards with DVI outputs offer HDMI audio output, though this is done using the DVI connector pins in a non-standard way, using a special custom DVI to HDMI adapter to route the audio out to the HDMI on the correct pins. Many of these cards now offer HDMI ports alongside DVI ports.
Note I don't have a custom DVI to HDMI adapter, nor any special hardware. The sound just worked. Like I said before, I was shocked it did since I assumed it couldn't. When I got back to my house, I tried it with my monitor (which does not have DVI, only HDMI, hence the old cable), and it worked with this too.
I don't really know how it's working, and I don't really need the feature, but I guess some people might.
A very small proportion of the plant matter we eat has this property. Basically, anything that is grown in a field does not want us to eat it and never intended so.
I really don't understand the revenue stream of porn now... it's impossible not to find free porn if you look for it, of just about all types. I was worrying about who will still produce porn when no one is willing to pay, but the plethora of home made stuff now set my mind at ease.
Meh - if finding your partner attractive is shallow, then I'm shallow. To be honest, being with someone you don't find attractive is way more shallow in my opinion.
The law is about impersonating actual individuals. You're still allowed to impersonate fictional 13 year old girls looking for sex.
The point being made was that this law does not seem to make anything new illegal, except borderline cases. It was already illegal to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud people. Technically, loads and loads of stuff that goes on online could be classed as illegal prior this law anyway. If I recieved through the post some of the threats I've recieved online, I'd be worried.
The intent to harm is almost impossible to prove. If from your example, the sender of the e-mails believes (or claims to believe) that the marriage is bad for both parties, and that they are doing good by sending the e-mails, it doesn't fall under the remit of the law.
--
Barack Obama
I think that's actually mean, as opposed to median. However, base starting salaries for GPs are about £60,000. I'd estimate that the median income is probably just under £100,000, but I could well be wrong.
unless the speed is demonstrably reckless
Previously, you said :
the state should not punish them simply for doing something that might increase the odds of them causing harm, if no actual harm was caused.
Recklessness is doing something that might increase the odds of causing harm, but does _not_ necessarily cause harm.
If I am running around blindfolded swinging my fists wildly and people are having to dodge out of the way to avoid getting hit, then likewise I should be stopped before I actually hit anybody.
There's no guarantee that _any_ harm will be caused here. You're just increasing the likelyhood of harm. Your definition of recklessness is just different from the government's. They would claim (and with some justification) that being over the DUI limit _always_ lowers reaction time, thus recklessly endangers others.
As someone who has visited A+E a few times, I have to (generally) agree.
The times I've been into A+E I (and those I've been in with) have generally been seen quickly and well (though once by a doctor who was obviously _very_ tired, but I could see that he still knew what he was doing). The one time I was kept waiting I wasn't going to go in, but I was very drunk, it was a wound on the back of my head I couldn't see, and a few people told me to go in (I'm occasionally vaguely rational when I'm drunk, and I thought I'd better take other people's advice because I knew the alcohol could be killing the pain and disrupting other symptoms). I sat there for 4 hours to be told it was a graze, but that wasn't really a problem with A+E.
Anyway, given the choice between the NHS and another system... I'd choose the NHS, despite some of its failings.
The NHS has for some time been dependent on the goodwill and vocational motivation of it's healthcare professionals, because they sure as hell ain't motivated by the working conditions, pay, and benefits.
The average pay for a GP in the UK is over £100,000 per year (linked like that because I'm not sure if /. will mangle pound signs in links). I'm not saying that GPs should not get that amount, but that is around 5 times the median for the UK. £100,000 is about the _total_ income tax of 30 taxpayers on that median pay.
the Judge Dredds
Is he like Judge Dredd, but Jamaican?
But the state should not punish them simply for doing something that might increase the odds of them causing harm, if no actual harm was caused.
I presume you're against all speeding laws too then? And laws restricting the use of firearms in built up areas (firing an AK-47 wildly into the air in Time Square will not necessarily do any actual harm.)?
In the UK, at least, the taxes and fees and fines paid by motorists far exceed that spent on road infrastructure. So if you don't drive, you don't contribute to the roads, and you get a nice reduction in your own tax bill because of the excess motorists are injecting into the economy.
If you are claiming you can do whatever you like with your own little bit of government infrastructure, just because you funded it... it seems you've entirely missed the point of collective ownership.
I have a giant 8' bean bag to relax on, a 65" TV to play on, and an audio system worth more than my Mustang.
You've got a $500 audio system? Personally, with that TV I'd have got something better.
Bill Clinton has such an excellent what ? No, wait... don't tell me. I'm absolutely certain I don't want to know.
So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?
Wait, so we were supposed automagically guess that you meant something you didn't say? When someone questions what you did say, you turn snarky. In my opinion, GP was making a genuine point, not nitpicking. Something that is productive and useful is clarity.
Labels pay to get their music played, pay to get their albums in major music retailers, etc.
And..... this is the crux of the problem with the industry. Labels _pay_ to get their music played. Seriously, labels are paying for you to listen to their music.
This does two things :
1 : It drives out music whose publishers could not afford the payments.
2 : It drives up the price of purchasing music from those who've paid for airplay.
BMI is an awful way to judge obesity, especially for tall people. Anyone who's tall, and not skinny as fuck will drop into overweight at least. I used to be 2 metres, 100kg... 100/2^2 = 25 BMI (yup, that's how BMI is calculated - I just used to have very convenient statistics), which is the borderline for overweight. This was when I was 18-21 or so... well toned, not muscular at all hardly - no weights, all the sports I did were aerobic rather than muscle gaining. Now, I'm about 20kg heavier, some of that is fat, but I also do a physical job that has increased my muscle mass... I'd guess 50/50. I personally couldn't hit 100kg again, unless I lose some muscle.
The thing is though, I know I'm carrying around a bit of excess fat now. Lots of people that claim BMI is useless are making excuses - just because the system is flawed, doesn't mean you're not too fat.
Basically, I agree with just about everything you just said.
it is possible to discover the direct empirical consequences of things that are not just hard to observe, but absolutely unobservable by any means whatsoever
The major point I was making, and previous poster above was making, was that empirical consequences are observable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be empirical.
I guess this is more a semantic problem than any other. Basically, my point was that empirical = observable.
Yes, of course it does, as quantum theory, which is based on the notion that there are unobservables (the wavefunction under a potential barrier during tunneling, for example) demonstrates.
You seem to be missing the point. Observing evidence is not just watching something. _All_ evidence is observed. Just because you can't "see" something, doesn't mean you can't observe its effects. From wikipedia : "To date, Bell's theorem is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence".
Now, string theory, on the other hand has nowhere near the same kind of evidence to back it up. Also, it predictive powers are lacking, and it is very difficult to test. Recent tests such as the one in TFA have shown predictions from much of string theory to be wrong.
Yeah, good luck with that. Authors, songwriters, and other artists in the current system generally either end up being very rich or penniless.
There is no inherent right as an artist of any kind to have your works protected. The copyright system has become so pervasive that we see it as an industry, rather than as what it is intended for.
What it was intended for was to _enable_ works to enter the public domain. Honestly, it was. By allowing limited copyright, you encouraged holders to publicly publish as opposed to privately, since renumeration worked better.
Now it's got warped into a century long dynastic money grabbing machine, and it doesn't work.
Copyright is a government granted monopoly on an artist's behalf.
Also, please do not get plagiarism confused with copyright. If you release a work as completely public domain, no one can plagiarise it still. If they try to, and sell it, it is fraud.
IANAL
In the UK, the law that applies is the sale of goods act. The only real recourse the consumer has is with the retailer.... I'm not sure how the law applies if the retailer goes out of business. Essentially, the law states that the item bought must be fit for purpose unless otherwise described. If it breaks, or doesn't work, you're entitled to a refund, which makes a lot of manufacturer's warranties out there worthless. There are different timescales for different types of goods.... AFAIK the rule of thumb for electronic goods is no shorter than 1 year.
Seriously, I'm a little shocked by looking at those first two judgements. I really did think that people in the US had more rights over their land than we do in the UK. "Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon."
That is a massively scary precedent... it implies growing or producing _anything_ for yourself is liable to federal intervention.
I don't think we have these kind of systems in the UK - If you want to sell anything, you're in the loop, and there are animal welfare issues too... but apart from that, you can do what you like with your land, as long as you don't annoy your neighbours.
in the fridge upstairs there are several 2 litre cartons of milk.
Are you sure about that? All milk I've bought recently, from supermarkets and other places, in the UK is labelled metrically, but is in pints. I'd guess your 2 litre cartons of milk will actually be about 2.3 litres, if you're from the UK.
American imported drinks bottles, such as coke, pepsi and sprite, etc, have been 500ml for years, which is slightly ironic.
I do know that the change to metric is basically inevitable, and personally I generally welcome it. I was just pointing out the absurdities of _laws_ requiring the metric system resulting in stupid quantities.
I was about to post something similar to this, after reading the knee-jerk reactions to your original post. To me, it was patently obvious you were making a point about Time's selection criteria, not comparing Zuckerberg's negative influence to that of Hitler or Stalin. I'm suprised most missed it.
Note however I'd disagree with excluding Gandhi and MLK from doing/saying/believing something "for worse", in my opinion. The former was demonstrably racist on numerous occasions, the latter I know little about (I'm English), but "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." is something I'd have huge problems with, as an atheist, and as someone who understands why some remain neutral.
Basically, my point is that no one is perfect. I'm not denigrating the good that Gandhi or MLK did... I believe both were undeniably overall very strongly positive. There's always a few flaws though.