Sometimes you aren't recording the voice and instruments at different times, sometimes you're using your DAW software to create the monitor mixes the performers are cueing to.

Once you've recorded everything latency doesn't matter but people do need the live mixing to be in sync.

(That said, people trying to do this at 96k should probably just do this in hardware...)

Doesn't Rust use refounts?

Wel, by definition, if something is copyrighted it's "released," you have to publish something in order to obtain a copyright.

Maybe everybody having their own idiosyncratic language isn't a copyright thing, but it's a pretty standard business tactic for vendors, for everyone from IBM to Apple. IBM or Control Data were happy to give you source code with their distribution, because they were pretty satisfied that you'd never be able to run the code on anything but their gear.

Nowadays shops like Microsoft or Google just create incompatible extensions to Java to keep people targeting their runtime infrastructure. Or Apple just up and creates a Rust clone (an arguably much improved one, but still pretty redolent of the original).

I don't know if the GC problem is that terrible. Apple's clone of Rust, Swift, manages to work without a garbage collector and it's pretty straightforward, you just have to use type annotation to mark retain loops, other than that the memory model Just Works.

Well, except that my point was that libertarians ARE mostly shadows of the major political coalitions and that pure ideology is pretty irrelevant. If you can assign an ideology a coordinate or a quadrant on some graph (who exactly is placing the origin?), that ideology is probably pretty meaningless.

Political beliefs don't exist on lines of real numbers. They're usually more categorical than that.

The Nolan chart can map political attitudes to points on a graph, but you can't make any kind of induction based on the graph representation-- just because two points are close together doesn't mean they represent people or attitudes that are politically compatible, and just because a cluster of points might exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that those points for a coherent ideology, let alone a viable political constituency.

(The whole point of the Nolan Chart was to prove that libertarianism is distinct and doesn't fit into the neat boxes of American political discourse. The Nolan chart is a worldview that tries to prove libertarians exist, and aren't just meaningless shadows of the major political coalitions.)

In other words ya got nothing...

It's important to point out, that there's nothing necessarily wrong with bias, the real issue should be with inaccuracy. It's not enough to say that this or that news report is biased, you actually have to show how it is wrong.

It was quite common for people to obtain all of their news from biased, or at least "politically informed" viewpoints, news sources, etc. throughout the 19th century and into the middle of the 20th century, and the results were not an utter calamity. people used to be responsible for reading news from several different sources, much like they are now on the Internet, and then forming their own opinions from the consensus, or at least their appreciation of the consensus.

The fetish for "balance "in journalism only started in the 1950s, afternoon national television networks in the United States started airing news broadcast, and the government and activists feared that three national news networks simply didn't give enough opportunities for people to hear a multitude of opinions. Thus, the early journalists who worked in television attempted to create a certain "tone" or ideological conceit that was apparently neutral.

Of course, "balanced" journalism is just as ideologically-biased as anything else, it's simply biased towards the belief that there are two sides to every issue and these two sides are of equal merit. And since the deeper a complex issue is covered, the more likely the reporter's perspective is likely to show through, a "balanced" journalist is likely just not going to delve too deeply into issues. Because, in the end, appearing fair is more important than telling the truth.

in my opinion, a reporter isn't worth his salt unless he has some kind of deep-seated values and beliefs, and the problem with a lot of cable journalism is they simply deny this from the outset, and this leads to bland, uninformative infotainment. Which is why we have TDS.

Just speaking for myself, I was born in 1979.

It's pretty clear that Stewart has had a profound effect upon how people born after 1980 get their news. He's probably the US's most relevant and well known cultural critic and satirist. Some people bring up Twain but I'm not sure he's there (yet) -- Rosewater demonstrated that Stewart's got something more to say but he's not ready to go into Mysterious Stranger territory.

On the other hand he's flatly more historically relevant, and has made a more indelible impression than H. L. Menken. Time and other outlets have compared him to Walter Cronkite with zero fucking irony, and it's a fair cop.

Comedy Central used to be the network that had Mystery Science Theater and the odd stand-up anthology. And then one day they got South Park, and it became the network with South Park.

And then Craig Killborn was an ass to his boss one too many times, and they hired Jon Stewart, and then Comedy Central became the network with The Daily Show (and later Colbert). And the occasional screening of Mean Girls and nauseating repeats of Tosh.0.

The Larry Willmore show is pretty good and manages to be original despite the general glut of news satire out there right now, but I suspect it's not enough.

Note - first off, I am not sure about AQ, but this is an INDUSTRY STANDARD practice to suppress noise generation. In that case you only ground one side of the cable

Right, but (1) You don't do this for digital cable, and (2) ground-lifting has nothing to do with signal direction, it has to do with interrupting ground loops in equipment distant from the patch panel. The grounds are lifted on the send side of some patches, the receive side of others...

perhaps we should spend a few minutes contemplating what it is we plan to call an actual intelligence, once we get that far.

An essential characteristic of intelligence is that we don't know how it works. Thus a computer program can never be intelligent, and the essential definitions of intelligence are pushed back over an horizon every time a test is beaten. Thus TFA.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I use GnuPG to secure some archival things in the cloud.

I'd consider giving some money to it if it was actually usable for its first and
most important function, namely, securing emails. It works perfectly, but it's
deployment is utterly lacking, no major vendors have gotten far enough behind it to
enable it by default, and even knowledgable users don't do something as simple as
sign their emails, to at least advertise to others that they have a key.

Also I live in LA, I can see ICANN from my office window, and there are basically no
opportunities to get your key signed. GPG has no community.

These aren't technical problems with GPG, they're problems with how it's marketed
and how it's positioned in platforms. In my opinion, GnuPG needs users a lot more
than it might need $60k in emergency funds. Get the users and the funding will likely
be obviated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlTUP/sACgkQdILWxHwGqZcRfwCcDco8z5LG0gS2JR7LvifOEE1U
eJUAn1ZbFlj9V7t/Es380X6tEen5RBWs
=TrGp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----