You know what's funny, buddy? You make one comparison between an older Audi and a newer Jetta, and you get people who assume that you didn't know that Audi and VW are one and the same!
Of course, the hazard is, it may not be obvious to some that the comparison between an Audi 200 and a 2002 Jetta would be more apt than, say, a comparison between a hummingbird and a Boeing 747, hence the reason the comparison was made in the first place!
Some cars are harder to park too, so you've got to take that into consideration. I can understand how some people have a problem with this.
My old Audi 200, for example, it's super easy to park. For such a large car it had a remarkably tight turning radius. I was very suprised to find out that it turns sharper than a new Jetta, for example, a lesson that naturally came when it was time to park my girl's car downtown.
It's nearly unfathomable to me how some Germans could design a car with a much shorter wheelbase (by almost 8 inches, IIRC) and shorter length (a difference of 20 inches) can turn worse than a much bigger car. The Audi 200 would do U turns that the Jetta turns into a three point turn, and it would slide into parking spots like it was coated with Crisco, while the Jetta needed a shoehorn and thinner paint.
I'm sure it's because the Audi has a longitudinal engine arrangement, and the newer VW has a transverse arrangement--so there's just not enough room for the wheels to turn any further, without running into the engine and accessories, that is... But still, can't they do better?
Oh, sure, and there's no doubt that such hoping would be very comforting. But I take favor with Sam Clemens on this one: "Lord save us all from a hope tree that has lost the faculty of putting out blossoms."
Your logic dances around two or more important facts, the first being: many, dare I say Most, adults "just don't get computers", and therefore they don't understand many possible dangers of kids using computers, and secondly, these days the levees aren't exactly overflowing with what you call "responsible parents", and whether or not they ever did in the past is up for question.
They're all pissed off because they finally had nothing to keep them bound to the computer (did the WOW servers go down, as an April fools joke?), so I think they all went out and got sunburnt. I sure know I'm cranky when I get sunburnt.
What I'm talking about is why didn't they just make a new "format" that uses the old format, instead of making us pay for these new exotic lasers. This format would still require a new player, but it would still only need a red wavelength laser.
Actually that's what HD-DVD started out to be, before it got bastardized. They were supposed to be basically regular DVDs (or they used the same wavelength laser at any rate) with MPEG4 encryption, plus some more resiliant DRM. Though, HD-DVD is still supposedly going to be able to use red lasers to read HD-DVD content produced through modified DVD production lines, so that's a good thing. HD-DVDs should therefore cost almost nothing more to produce.
Personally, if the format is a good format, and it has good support, and they come out with some HD-DVD burners soon, I'll embrace it. The prices will drop, and everyone will have it eventually, just like CD drives, CD burners, DVD drives and DVD burners... And then we'll be onto something else like Super HD-DVDs, then Mega HD-DVDs and then Hyper HD-DVDs (now with Holographic Technoloby®.)
Ive heard before that marketing can be nearly 2/3rds of the cost of some drugs... That's crazy!
The thing that has really bothered me though, was the time I witnessed two pharmaceuticals salesmen harassing doctors (my doctor being one of them) into pushing their new drugs. It was really funny, my doctor avoided them like the plauge. He saw them coming and did a 180! Doctors are busy, and I don't think they should be tasked with doing the job of these salesmen. Doctors shouldn't be in the business of selling drugs, especially if they get kickbacks. They should prescribe whatever it is they believe will work best for the patient (and I believe that most doctors do the right thing) but they should not prescribe a similar drug that will afford them a new Porsche if they prescribe it enough.
Still, what's the point of flirting with any woman (or man, if that's your cup of tea) if you don't actually give a shit about them? Neither I, nor anyone else most likely, want a sycophant for an S.O.
I still think you're hung up on the idea that having self-esteem makes you feel like you're superior to everyone... It dosen't. You can love yourself and still love everyone else, as the people they are, and without any pretenses. In fact, I'd argue that it's a requirement for one to love and know himself to truely love humanity. Having self-confidence is about building charisma, or personal-magnetism, it's about building good energy in yourself, at the core of your person. It dosen't mean that having confidence makes you think you can walk on water, it's much, much more humble than that. It is in fact entirely possible to be confident, have self-esteem, and still be humble even though they're words that tend to contradict eachother by definition.
Having confidence allows you to be rejected and not be scrarred emotionally: suppose you ask for a number and are rejected, your internal dialogue may go something like this "I know I'm a good person, and I'm deserving of good things... And it's too bad for her that she's more interested in men with adolescent behaviour problems, because I could have shown her a better time"... People without confidence tend to be defeatists, i.e. they're not willing to try to get more phone numbers if they've been hurt by rejection. Confidence is like a bullet proof vest for rejection, and having it allows you to move on.
I've been on both sides of the fence, I used to have very little confidence, and I've been working on my self-esteem for a long time. I've been taking dancing classes, attend Toastmasters events, working on my physical well-being, etc. Having it is definitely better than not.
I'd just be happy if they cut it out with the commercials they put on TV just to tell us that they spend incredible amounts of dough on projects to find the pharmaceutical equivalent to the needle in the haystack--and of course on TV commercials so that we can be convinced on how much money they spend trying to do good. What I'd really love to hear is how much they spend on advertisements, versus how much they spend on R&D. I want to see that one on TV during the Wheel of Fortune, so all of the senior population can collectively crap their Depends Adult Diapers and then storm the White House.
It's like a year ago when the energy crunch with natural gas really began to start... Our public utility began running lots of commercials about how their workers are dedicated to fixing problems and that they're good guys, etc. Of course, they're the only and single source of electricity and natural gas to anyone who would be watching... So what's the point? Grandmas all over the city can't pay their bills because of rising costs, and the public utility is blowing millions on inane advertisements that serve no purpose... It's not like anyone is going to say, "Boy howdy, they look like a good energy company, I'll switch over right away!", because they *don't have a choice* A letter to the editor and a bunch of newspaper stories sorted that one out in a hurry.
Maybe if the pharmaceuticals actually made a product that did what it claimed, didn't cause your heart to blow up, didn't cause your bladder to bleed and your anus to grow life more intelligent than the management of the drug companies responsible for the product in the firs place--they just might sell meds without having to sell them.
You think the NSX is the acme of all things mechanical? Wow. I've dropped turds that performed and looked better. The only wise choice you've made thus far was to post as an AC to spare yourself from humiliation. NSX? Hah. They were cool when they first came out
Take a gander at all of the 6 cylinder sports cars you find, and you'll find that the Germans make cars (naturally aspirated Porshce 911 Carrera, BMWs, and Audi B5 platform S4 twin turbo) that not only have stronger engines than the NSX, despite being just a tad larger but have just a little more weight! Then the extra weight shouldn't be a suprise, as two of the three have comfortable room for FOUR AVERAGE PEOPLE, and despite being made of STEEL, one of them actually having (4) doors!
You know why they've stopped making NSXs? They've finally realized that their pathetic midengine offering was being out performed as a sports car by cars costing many thousands less, having more people and luggage room, and being infinitely more drivable at the same time! They've gone back to the drawing boards to make a car that is less sucky!
You can keep your 90 grand jap POS... I could go out and by an Evo or an Subaru Impreza STI for about the same and not have to do a bit of anything, and still be faster around the corners. Furthermore, It's only a tiny bit faster than a stock M3--I'd much rather get a $50,000 kraut burner, slap some stiffer and lower suspension and better tires on it, throw out the back seats, and proceed to humiliate your dream car in the straights, and in the corners.. And best of all, not look like a tool doing it.
I know why you posted AC--simply to spare yourself the humiliation your stupidity will bring upon you.
No, it's called self-confidence, self-respect, self-regard, self-esteem, dignity, etc.. Women can smell it like mountain lions smell fear.
Arrogance is when you think you're god's gift to mankind, but everyone else thinks you're a wanker because of it, pretty much the same as conceit, which implies a bit more superiority complex than plain old arrogance, I think... Self-confidence is when you walk into a room and draw everyone's attention without even trying, or otherwise consciously doing anything to attract their attention i.e. simply because of the personality you exude. It happens, it's real, and it's entirely a mental issue... That is to say, a poor, fat person can have and use it just as well or better than some Fabio lookalike that just drove up in a Ferrari.
The idea is, having confidence in oneself implies keeping that feeling inside and letting it out only subconsciously or psychically, while the more negative alternatives imply letting it out more directly through your mouth and/or mannerisms and persona.
Things lke wheel bearing assemblies are usually custom designed for each application, so similar parts from the same supplier could have different specs and tolerances.
But you see, this isn't usually true. I've been involved with a few companies that make stuff like electric motors, bearings and other things that have automotive applications, among others. They've more or less got a catalog of parts that you can pick or chose from, and if you really do need something custom engineered it's gonna cost a buttload.
And the thing is, these suppliers won't ship a part with a part number that's been liscensed to a manufacturer, except to that manufacturer, even if there is an identical part with a different part number. It's because they've got agreements with these manufacturers that say they won't ship that part number to anyone but the factory or a parts warehouse for that company... So it's not unusual that a wheel bearing, for instance, will cost more for if you say it's for a Lexus than the exact same part for a Toyota, or a for a Cadillac versus the same part in a Chevy, and so on, but the only difference are the numbers etched into it.
They say that the part has been custom engineered, but the reality is, more often than not, that the part has been previously designed, and the manufacturer just picks one off the shelf with the specs they need. This is especially true of electric motors in industrial machinery, etc.
I think most people would agree that a Honda Accord is better quality - as in, less prone to falling to bits in normal use - than any modern Audi or BMW.
I don't agree with that at all. All cars today are so similarly designed, with bits here and there often engineered by the same people, and even come out of the same plant. Durability wise, you'd be hard pressed to find a car that just doesn't keep up with any other.
You have to recognize that People buy Hondas because they want an affordable car that will get them where they need to go, sip gas, and preferably never complain about misuse. People buy BMWs and Audis because they want a car that will get them were they need to go, with more style, comfort, and a more zoom. The problem is when people with the Honda mindset buy cars with German prices--they expect them to run like a rocket and forget about the mechanical bits at the same time. When you buy a $50,000 BMW you would expect that they do something as simple as changing the oil at regular times, right?
In many cases you'd be dead wrong. I've seen plenty of $50000+ Porsches that had all of their valves bent because their asshole owners neglected to have the timing belt changed at the appropriate time, same with BMWs and Audis. I've seen Porsches that had their pistons melted because someone wanted to save 30 cents on gas. I've seen it all. People are incredibly lazy. Aside from abuse and lack of maintenance, what can go wrong in a modern car? Hardly anything, I say. The fact is, people who abuse their BMWs and Audis are much more vocal them people who abuse their Hondas because they pay a premium for parts and labor... And this is where the difference lies. You can afford to abuse a Honda, and you'll pay when an Audi screws up.
I see plenty of mid 80's Audis and BMWs that are still going strong, 20 years and 250,000+ miles later--and probably a greater percentage of them are still drivable, compared to their Honda or Toyota counterparts. Toyota trucks, though... They're just indestructible, even if the body has all gone away.
And Snapper has just sold me a lawnmower because I fucking hate Wal*Mart, and love any company that has the cohones to resist them. I don't even have that much of a lawn to mow! Viva La Resistance!
He's not saying there's no such thing as life, which is easily falsified. He's saying the concept "life" is arbitrary, and that the boundaries of that concept are arbitrary: there are seven specific conditions you need to meet to be officially alive.
Are you daft? The conditions by which we classify life are not arbitrary; they're based on empirical knowledge that is easily observed here on our home planet! It's not like these conditions were plucked out of the air. Do we know life to exist anywhere else but here? No! How can we classify some form of life that we haven't experienced yet unless we had prior knowledge of it? When we encounter something that is discernable, as life, and it don't fit our theories, we should have to change them--correct?
For all we know there are beings in Alpha Centauri arguing this exact same point, but every creature big and small has wings... That is to say, every organism they've encountered from bacteria on up to sentient beings have wings. So their definition of life may very well include the condition of wings. Could you say that their perspective is wrong? Could you say that perspective is arbitrary, when it would appear from their perspective that their definitions are based entirely in reason, principle and pragmaticism? Hardly, I think. The value of their science will be evaluated when they meet life that doesn't fit their definitions.
If you describe a flexible definition based on the facts as we know them as arbitrary then you've jumped the philosophical shark. If you do that you've then got to take the philosophical leap to describe everything as arbitrary, so forgive me if I don't chose to take much stock in people who are so incongruous that their arguments boil down to philosophical Nihilism--that is, unless they're (unsuccessfully) trying to be funny, or they haven't yet achieved normality after an encounter with an infinite improbability drive, and they're currently walking around as Frederich Nietzsche with a bowl of Petunias on his head...
I think what comes out of Stallman's mouth would be a lot worse for OSS's image than what he wears....And yet he's done more for the OSS movement than any number of monkeys at keyboards^W^W^Wanonymous cowards ever will.
You could, oh I don't know, *think* about scientific theory rather than regurgitate information from your schooling. You could also think before posting a needless troll, but I digress.
If we all had to think of everything ourselves, we'd fucking still be wandering around the east bumfuck plains of Africa chasing some stupid antelope that's laughing its ass off because everyone else was back at the cave trying to invent the goddamn spear all over again. I dunno about you, but I like to learn from someone who knows something more than I do. The fact is, some of us are better at thinking than others, and I like to take advantage of them, because it means that I'll learn much more than I could have otherwise. It's not my fault that your statement of ignorance was begging to be enlightened--and re: the troll accusation: It takes one to know one! Heehee *snort*
p.s Learning is the way of the human, and teaching is the way of the geek. If you don't like this arrangement, I encourage euthanasia. p.p.s. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em.
Right, well you're thinking in terms of the broad picture, and there's nothing wrong with that... But you're thinking too big in this instance. Those ideas don't really apply to mules or worker bees or ants, or any other number of living creature that doesn't normally (or can't) reproduce on it's own as an individual animal, and it's not meant to. The thing is, if you look at any animal or plant (or fungus) down at the level of their cellular components, all of those things are happening everywhere, including reproduction and growth, and all of those living components make up the or plant. Once you've realized this, it's not too far of a leap to conclude that these rules apply quite well to any sort of life, especially any kind of life that can be found on this planet. It doesn't matter if the life is silicon based, energy based, or what have you, the rules still apply! For instance, the life form will still have to respirate, and metabolize--whether that means eating stray hydrogen atoms out in space, or consuming the silicon equivalents to organic compounds for energy, or doing any number of things that we can only imagine. When we encounter something that dosen't follow the rules, we will have to change our ideas, until then, these rules work very well.
Viruses aren't alive because they're raw DNA or RNA with a crunchy protein wapper. They are objects that try to force cells to execute a program which is foreign to them... An analogy: a cell is a computer, and that computer runs programs--it includes many of it's own, some of which help it not break down, some regulate power usage, or interact with whatever mediums it has access to. A virus is a program that can get into the computer and cause the computer to do any number of things, usually like replicating the virus, and causing the computer to break down... That doesn't mean that a virus can't actually fix a problem existing on a computer; it just means that a virus is usually a bad thing--right?!
Just because a virus exhibits one single trait of life doesn't imply that life caused it! This is like saying "because a rooster always crows at sunrise his crowing causes the sun to rise"! Correlation does not imply causation! Calling a physical, real world, microscopic virus living is like saying that a computer virus is intrinsically a computer itself! That doesn't make sense, does it?! This is not the nature of the existence of these agents. Cells are hardware and viruses are software. Computers are hardware, and computer viruses are software. They are separate and distinct things, and calling them the same just doesn't follow logically!
What I don't understand is how virii can be considered non-living when other parasites are.
Because to be alive, a biological entity has to be able to do at least the following: respirate, metabolize, grow, and reproduce. Parasites are organisms that do all of the above. Viruses are not parasites. They are viruses, and they do none of the above, therefore they're not life! Weren't you awake during your middle school science class?
Slashdot Mirror
You know what's funny, buddy? You make one comparison between an older Audi and a newer Jetta, and you get people who assume that you didn't know that Audi and VW are one and the same!
Of course, the hazard is, it may not be obvious to some that the comparison between an Audi 200 and a 2002 Jetta would be more apt than, say, a comparison between a hummingbird and a Boeing 747, hence the reason the comparison was made in the first place!
Some cars are harder to park too, so you've got to take that into consideration. I can understand how some people have a problem with this.
My old Audi 200, for example, it's super easy to park. For such a large car it had a remarkably tight turning radius. I was very suprised to find out that it turns sharper than a new Jetta, for example, a lesson that naturally came when it was time to park my girl's car downtown.
It's nearly unfathomable to me how some Germans could design a car with a much shorter wheelbase (by almost 8 inches, IIRC) and shorter length (a difference of 20 inches) can turn worse than a much bigger car. The Audi 200 would do U turns that the Jetta turns into a three point turn, and it would slide into parking spots like it was coated with Crisco, while the Jetta needed a shoehorn and thinner paint.
I'm sure it's because the Audi has a longitudinal engine arrangement, and the newer VW has a transverse arrangement--so there's just not enough room for the wheels to turn any further, without running into the engine and accessories, that is... But still, can't they do better?
And what would be even more impressive would be if someone haxed the LCDs such that they displayed the goatse man and other fun images/video.
Hey Mr. Bush? Wanna keep the Mexicans and the Terrorists out? Disgust the hell out of them! They'll toss cookies before they close in on a mile!
Oh, sure, and there's no doubt that such hoping would be very comforting. But I take favor with Sam Clemens on this one: "Lord save us all from a hope tree that has lost the faculty of putting out blossoms."
Your logic dances around two or more important facts, the first being: many, dare I say Most, adults "just don't get computers", and therefore they don't understand many possible dangers of kids using computers, and secondly, these days the levees aren't exactly overflowing with what you call "responsible parents", and whether or not they ever did in the past is up for question.
Gluons? Are those like pasties?
They're all pissed off because they finally had nothing to keep them bound to the computer (did the WOW servers go down, as an April fools joke?), so I think they all went out and got sunburnt. I sure know I'm cranky when I get sunburnt.
What I'm talking about is why didn't they just make a new "format" that uses the old format, instead of making us pay for these new exotic lasers. This format would still require a new player, but it would still only need a red wavelength laser.
Actually that's what HD-DVD started out to be, before it got bastardized. They were supposed to be basically regular DVDs (or they used the same wavelength laser at any rate) with MPEG4 encryption, plus some more resiliant DRM. Though, HD-DVD is still supposedly going to be able to use red lasers to read HD-DVD content produced through modified DVD production lines, so that's a good thing. HD-DVDs should therefore cost almost nothing more to produce.
Personally, if the format is a good format, and it has good support, and they come out with some HD-DVD burners soon, I'll embrace it. The prices will drop, and everyone will have it eventually, just like CD drives, CD burners, DVD drives and DVD burners... And then we'll be onto something else like Super HD-DVDs, then Mega HD-DVDs and then Hyper HD-DVDs (now with Holographic Technoloby®.)
Ooops, looks like someone took a crap in grub's slippers. Oh the unfortunate timing!
By the way, I'm really sorry about that. I'll try not to do it again.
Ive heard before that marketing can be nearly 2/3rds of the cost of some drugs... That's crazy!
The thing that has really bothered me though, was the time I witnessed two pharmaceuticals salesmen harassing doctors (my doctor being one of them) into pushing their new drugs. It was really funny, my doctor avoided them like the plauge. He saw them coming and did a 180! Doctors are busy, and I don't think they should be tasked with doing the job of these salesmen. Doctors shouldn't be in the business of selling drugs, especially if they get kickbacks. They should prescribe whatever it is they believe will work best for the patient (and I believe that most doctors do the right thing) but they should not prescribe a similar drug that will afford them a new Porsche if they prescribe it enough.
Still, what's the point of flirting with any woman (or man, if that's your cup of tea) if you don't actually give a shit about them? Neither I, nor anyone else most likely, want a sycophant for an S.O.
I still think you're hung up on the idea that having self-esteem makes you feel like you're superior to everyone... It dosen't. You can love yourself and still love everyone else, as the people they are, and without any pretenses. In fact, I'd argue that it's a requirement for one to love and know himself to truely love humanity. Having self-confidence is about building charisma, or personal-magnetism, it's about building good energy in yourself, at the core of your person. It dosen't mean that having confidence makes you think you can walk on water, it's much, much more humble than that. It is in fact entirely possible to be confident, have self-esteem, and still be humble even though they're words that tend to contradict eachother by definition.
Having confidence allows you to be rejected and not be scrarred emotionally: suppose you ask for a number and are rejected, your internal dialogue may go something like this "I know I'm a good person, and I'm deserving of good things... And it's too bad for her that she's more interested in men with adolescent behaviour problems, because I could have shown her a better time"... People without confidence tend to be defeatists, i.e. they're not willing to try to get more phone numbers if they've been hurt by rejection. Confidence is like a bullet proof vest for rejection, and having it allows you to move on.
I've been on both sides of the fence, I used to have very little confidence, and I've been working on my self-esteem for a long time. I've been taking dancing classes, attend Toastmasters events, working on my physical well-being, etc. Having it is definitely better than not.
I'd just be happy if they cut it out with the commercials they put on TV just to tell us that they spend incredible amounts of dough on projects to find the pharmaceutical equivalent to the needle in the haystack--and of course on TV commercials so that we can be convinced on how much money they spend trying to do good. What I'd really love to hear is how much they spend on advertisements, versus how much they spend on R&D. I want to see that one on TV during the Wheel of Fortune, so all of the senior population can collectively crap their Depends Adult Diapers and then storm the White House.
It's like a year ago when the energy crunch with natural gas really began to start... Our public utility began running lots of commercials about how their workers are dedicated to fixing problems and that they're good guys, etc. Of course, they're the only and single source of electricity and natural gas to anyone who would be watching... So what's the point? Grandmas all over the city can't pay their bills because of rising costs, and the public utility is blowing millions on inane advertisements that serve no purpose... It's not like anyone is going to say, "Boy howdy, they look like a good energy company, I'll switch over right away!", because they *don't have a choice* A letter to the editor and a bunch of newspaper stories sorted that one out in a hurry.
Maybe if the pharmaceuticals actually made a product that did what it claimed, didn't cause your heart to blow up, didn't cause your bladder to bleed and your anus to grow life more intelligent than the management of the drug companies responsible for the product in the firs place--they just might sell meds without having to sell them.
You think the NSX is the acme of all things mechanical? Wow. I've dropped turds that performed and looked better. The only wise choice you've made thus far was to post as an AC to spare yourself from humiliation. NSX? Hah. They were cool when they first came out
Take a gander at all of the 6 cylinder sports cars you find, and you'll find that the Germans make cars (naturally aspirated Porshce 911 Carrera, BMWs, and Audi B5 platform S4 twin turbo) that not only have stronger engines than the NSX, despite being just a tad larger but have just a little more weight! Then the extra weight shouldn't be a suprise, as two of the three have comfortable room for FOUR AVERAGE PEOPLE, and despite being made of STEEL, one of them actually having (4) doors!
You know why they've stopped making NSXs? They've finally realized that their pathetic midengine offering was being out performed as a sports car by cars costing many thousands less, having more people and luggage room, and being infinitely more drivable at the same time! They've gone back to the drawing boards to make a car that is less sucky!
You can keep your 90 grand jap POS... I could go out and by an Evo or an Subaru Impreza STI for about the same and not have to do a bit of anything, and still be faster around the corners. Furthermore, It's only a tiny bit faster than a stock M3--I'd much rather get a $50,000 kraut burner, slap some stiffer and lower suspension and better tires on it, throw out the back seats, and proceed to humiliate your dream car in the straights, and in the corners.. And best of all, not look like a tool doing it.
I know why you posted AC--simply to spare yourself the humiliation your stupidity will bring upon you.
No, it's called self-confidence, self-respect, self-regard, self-esteem, dignity, etc.. Women can smell it like mountain lions smell fear.
Arrogance is when you think you're god's gift to mankind, but everyone else thinks you're a wanker because of it, pretty much the same as conceit, which implies a bit more superiority complex than plain old arrogance, I think... Self-confidence is when you walk into a room and draw everyone's attention without even trying, or otherwise consciously
doing anything to attract their attention i.e. simply because of the personality you exude. It happens, it's real, and it's entirely a mental issue... That is to say, a poor, fat person can have and use it just as well or better than some Fabio lookalike that just drove up in a Ferrari.
The idea is, having confidence in oneself implies keeping that feeling inside and letting it out only subconsciously or psychically, while the more negative alternatives imply letting it out more directly through your mouth and/or mannerisms and persona.
Things lke wheel bearing assemblies are usually custom designed for each application, so similar parts from the same supplier could have different specs and tolerances.
But you see, this isn't usually true. I've been involved with a few companies that make stuff like electric motors, bearings and other things that have automotive applications, among others. They've more or less got a catalog of parts that you can pick or chose from, and if you really do need something custom engineered it's gonna cost a buttload.
And the thing is, these suppliers won't ship a part with a part number that's been liscensed to a manufacturer, except to that manufacturer, even if there is an identical part with a different part number. It's because they've got agreements with these manufacturers that say they won't ship that part number to anyone but the factory or a parts warehouse for that company... So it's not unusual that a wheel bearing, for instance, will cost more for if you say it's for a Lexus than the exact same part for a Toyota, or a for a Cadillac versus the same part in a Chevy, and so on, but the only difference are the numbers etched into it.
They say that the part has been custom engineered, but the reality is, more often than not, that the part has been previously designed, and the manufacturer just picks one off the shelf with the specs they need. This is especially true of electric motors in industrial machinery, etc.
I think most people would agree that a Honda Accord is better quality - as in, less prone to falling to bits in normal use - than any modern Audi or BMW.
I don't agree with that at all. All cars today are so similarly designed, with bits here and there often engineered by the same people, and even come out of the same plant. Durability wise, you'd be hard pressed to find a car that just doesn't keep up with any other.
You have to recognize that People buy Hondas because they want an affordable car that will get them where they need to go, sip gas, and preferably never complain about misuse. People buy BMWs and Audis because they want a car that will get them were they need to go, with more style, comfort, and a more zoom. The problem is when people with the Honda mindset buy cars with German prices--they expect them to run like a rocket and forget about the mechanical bits at the same time. When you buy a $50,000 BMW you would expect that they do something as simple as changing the oil at regular times, right?
In many cases you'd be dead wrong. I've seen plenty of $50000+ Porsches that had all of their valves bent because their asshole owners neglected to have the timing belt changed at the appropriate time, same with BMWs and Audis. I've seen Porsches that had their pistons melted because someone wanted to save 30 cents on gas. I've seen it all. People are incredibly lazy. Aside from abuse and lack of maintenance, what can go wrong in a modern car? Hardly anything, I say. The fact is, people who abuse their BMWs and Audis are much more vocal them people who abuse their Hondas because they pay a premium for parts and labor... And this is where the difference lies. You can afford to abuse a Honda, and you'll pay when an Audi screws up.
I see plenty of mid 80's Audis and BMWs that are still going strong, 20 years and 250,000+ miles later--and probably a greater percentage of them are still drivable, compared to their Honda or Toyota counterparts. Toyota trucks, though... They're just indestructible, even if the body has all gone away.
And Snapper has just sold me a lawnmower because I fucking hate Wal*Mart, and love any company that has the cohones to resist them. I don't even have that much of a lawn to mow! Viva La Resistance!
He's not saying there's no such thing as life, which is easily falsified. He's saying the concept "life" is arbitrary, and that the boundaries of that concept are arbitrary: there are seven specific conditions you need to meet to be officially alive.
Are you daft? The conditions by which we classify life are not arbitrary; they're based on empirical knowledge that is easily observed here on our home planet! It's not like these conditions were plucked out of the air. Do we know life to exist anywhere else but here? No! How can we classify some form of life that we haven't experienced yet unless we had prior knowledge of it? When we encounter something that is discernable, as life, and it don't fit our theories, we should have to change them--correct?
For all we know there are beings in Alpha Centauri arguing this exact same point, but every creature big and small has wings... That is to say, every organism they've encountered from bacteria on up to sentient beings have wings. So their definition of life may very well include the condition of wings. Could you say that their perspective is wrong? Could you say that perspective is arbitrary, when it would appear from their perspective that their definitions are based entirely in reason, principle and pragmaticism? Hardly, I think. The value of their science will be evaluated when they meet life that doesn't fit their definitions.
If you describe a flexible definition based on the facts as we know them as arbitrary then you've jumped the philosophical shark. If you do that you've then got to take the philosophical leap to describe everything as arbitrary, so forgive me if I don't chose to take much stock in people who are so incongruous that their arguments boil down to philosophical Nihilism--that is, unless they're (unsuccessfully) trying to be funny, or they haven't yet achieved normality after an encounter with an infinite improbability drive, and they're currently walking around as Frederich Nietzsche with a bowl of Petunias on his head...
I think what comes out of Stallman's mouth would be a lot worse for OSS's image than what he wears. ...And yet he's done more for the OSS movement than any number of monkeys at keyboards^W^W^Wanonymous cowards ever will.
I'm rubber, You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!
And so long as we're on proverbs: A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse!
Holy shit, I'd be happy with watermelons and fried chicken--maybe its that Black Irish side of the family coming out? Damnit!
You've just explained what in so many words? A noun? That's very profound indeed...
You could, oh I don't know, *think* about scientific theory rather than regurgitate information from your schooling. You could also think before posting a needless troll, but I digress.
If we all had to think of everything ourselves, we'd fucking still be wandering around the east bumfuck plains of Africa chasing some stupid antelope that's laughing its ass off because everyone else was back at the cave trying to invent the goddamn spear all over again. I dunno about you, but I like to learn from someone who knows something more than I do. The fact is, some of us are better at thinking than others, and I like to take advantage of them, because it means that I'll learn much more than I could have otherwise. It's not my fault that your statement of ignorance was begging to be enlightened--and re: the troll accusation: It takes one to know one! Heehee *snort*
p.s Learning is the way of the human, and teaching is the way of the geek. If you don't like this arrangement, I encourage euthanasia.
p.p.s. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em.
Right, well you're thinking in terms of the broad picture, and there's nothing wrong with that... But you're thinking too big in this instance. Those ideas don't really apply to mules or worker bees or ants, or any other number of living creature that doesn't normally (or can't) reproduce on it's own as an individual animal, and it's not meant to. The thing is, if you look at any animal or plant (or fungus) down at the level of their cellular components, all of those things are happening everywhere, including reproduction and growth, and all of those living components make up the or plant. Once you've realized this, it's not too far of a leap to conclude that these rules apply quite well to any sort of life, especially any kind of life that can be found on this planet. It doesn't matter if the life is silicon based, energy based, or what have you, the rules still apply! For instance, the life form will still have to respirate, and metabolize--whether that means eating stray hydrogen atoms out in space, or consuming the silicon equivalents to organic compounds for energy, or doing any number of things that we can only imagine. When we encounter something that dosen't follow the rules, we will have to change our ideas, until then, these rules work very well.
Viruses aren't alive because they're raw DNA or RNA with a crunchy protein wapper. They are objects that try to force cells to execute a program which is foreign to them... An analogy: a cell is a computer, and that computer runs programs--it includes many of it's own, some of which help it not break down, some regulate power usage, or interact with whatever mediums it has access to. A virus is a program that can get into the computer and cause the computer to do any number of things, usually like replicating the virus, and causing the computer to break down... That doesn't mean that a virus can't actually fix a problem existing on a computer; it just means that a virus is usually a bad thing--right?!
Just because a virus exhibits one single trait of life doesn't imply that life caused it! This is like saying "because a rooster always crows at sunrise his crowing causes the sun to rise"! Correlation does not imply causation! Calling a physical, real world, microscopic virus living is like saying that a computer virus is intrinsically a computer itself! That doesn't make sense, does it?! This is not the nature of the existence of these agents. Cells are hardware and viruses are software. Computers are hardware, and computer viruses are software. They are separate and distinct things, and calling them the same just doesn't follow logically!
What I don't understand is how virii can be considered non-living when other parasites are.
Because to be alive, a biological entity has to be able to do at least the following: respirate, metabolize, grow, and reproduce. Parasites are organisms that do all of the above. Viruses are not parasites. They are viruses, and they do none of the above, therefore they're not life! Weren't you awake during your middle school science class?