Fungus among us.
He preached Torah?
Harrumph. He makes vague statements about Law, in writings committed 60 years after his crucifixion.
Sermon on the Mount is what he taught.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, congress does pretty much whatever it wants of late. Interstate commerce? nah... Intrastate commerce is so much more fun to regulate. Warrants to search? nah... so much more fun to just search as is convenient. Property rights? nah... they'll take your land for commercial reuse, it's potentially much more profitable. Ex post facto law? nah... sometimes, that's just the thing. Shall make no law? Oh HELL no. Rights that shall not be infringed? Oh, ho ho ho, isn't that quaint.
...but it should also be pointed out that when you bring said mined assets back into the USA, congress does have jurisdiction, and that's what this law primarily addresses, although it may also have direct implications for how US government crewed spacecraft will treat US citizen or corporation owned spacecraft carrying cargo.
So, you believe if I can take it from you by force, it's mine?
You should really read more carefully. Overzeetop said "get it and defend it."
"All things come to those who wait" -- however, they're the set of all things left around by those who got there first.
The only space law we really need: If you see a lawyer, SHOOT TO KILL.
There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however.
Sure there is. Radar-guided missiles. Etc.
(a Mac is a PC too, BTW).
It is now.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Not just recording. If you're trying to mix audio using the onboard audio chip on a PC, you're not going to get good results. It would mean you're plugging a set of headphones into a mini-stereo plug. If you're trying to mix even eight tracks from a DAW, unless you're just just remixing audio samples of already created music (which is fine by the way) you still have to have some way to input the music.
The problem is not the computer's ability to handle the audio data. The problem is the monitoring and if you're inputting control data via MIDI controllers. The audio hardware on a PC is just not able to handle it without horrible lag. You'll end up listening to what your fingers just played a second ago. Try and see what you're Macbook pro's audio subsystem is going to do with 40+ tracks of Kontakt samples in real time.
Why is this hard to understand? You can get pro-quality USB outboard audio for less than $100. You're already going to need some outboard gear (speakers, headphones, midi controllers and control surfaces), why are you freaking over a little 24-bit/96kHz audio interface that can be had for less than the price of your headphones?
Next you're going to tell me that you can create professional music on an iPad without external hardware.
Publisher SAGE announced it was retracting 60 papers from 2010–2014 in the Journal of Vibration and Control, which covers acoustics, all connected to Peter Chen of National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan.
You will note from the article, that the papers with questionable provenance were retracted in a public way.
What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?
I know more than one producer who uses plain old audio. Most music software has a "Render to audio file" feature that bypasses the audio subsystem completely.
And how would someone producing music that "bypasses the audio subsystem completely" know what music he's making if he cannot hear it? If someone told you that they produce professional-quality music using only the onboard audio hardware on their Mac or PC, they must think you are very gullible.
I believe you're mistaken. If you can point me to one professional music producer who uses only the onboard audio on his PC or Mac, I will refrain from calling you stupid.
It's a cartel. Put together to ensure the companies in that cartel are safe from patents from one another, while they will continue to use them against companies not in their cartel.
If this isn't illegal, it bloody well should be.
OK. Tell that to MPEG-LA. By your definition it's a cartel plus extortion. Have fun with that.
Asteroid mining is the only way we're going to build large structures in space anytime "soon". There's plenty of asteroids, this issue can be revisited later.
You make good points. See also: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg...
"The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.
Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.
Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.
We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past."
I think a "basic income" for all could be part of the solution, because a BI would make it possible for anyone to live like a graduate student and do independent research if they wanted.
Ever heard of "moving"? I don't own two houses, I've lived two different places in the past decade.
but the normal $2-5 per bulbs are garbage. I have to replace at least one every 6 months out of aprox 15 bulbs installed in my apt.
[...]I like the energy savings, and lower heat, but old ass bulbs are far more reliable.
FIrst, I buy the Home Depot discount bulk packs, in the 4 bulbs for $10 range. So yeah, comparing apples to apples here
Second, you have to replace ONE out of fifteen, every six months? Do you remember having incandescents at all? You have to replace all of them every six months (except maybe that one lonely attic light that you only use a total of 10 hours of per year), and the highest use ones, you could expect to replace every 2-3 months. People actually used to keep a six-pack of replacement bulbs around to deal with one or three dying at the worst possible time. Today? do people actually keep spare CFLs around? I don't, seems like a waste of space for how often I need one.
We apparently don't define "reliable" the same way.
The balast generally goes and then the bulb is toast. Sometimes they go grey first in the tube, but most are heavily yellowed from heat damage.
Ballasts go because of poor quality power, nothing more and nothing less (or putting a non-dimmable one on a dimmer circuit - same thing, just self-inflicted poor power quality). As for heat damage, Yes Virginia, some fixtures designed for burn-to-the-touch incandescents don't make suitable fixtures for CFLs. Specifically, if it has a heat shield on the base and a completely enclosing shade, yeah, you'll cook your CFLs nicely.