The one annoying thing is that you can't access the music player functionality while it's mounted as a disk.
That must be a Windows thing. On a Mac, you can do both at the same time. In fact, that's the default behavior once you turn "mount as a hard drive" on. It never even occurred to me that there would be any other way.
So nobody in history has said that killing in all forms is wrong?
No religious or cultural tradition has ever held that all killing is immoral.
We're not going to get distracted here. Let me summarize the situation: you probably read somewhere that Zen was this neat thing, and so you decided to self-identify with it. You are not, however, educated with respect to either Zen or Gnosticism, on both of which you claim to base your conclusion that killing is inherently immoral. If you were educated, you'd know that neither of those religious traditions says any such thing. In fact, they both specifically disavow that sort of doctrinal teaching.
There is no rational or axiomatic basis that can support the assertion that all killing is immoral.
Your sophomoric ramblings have become tedious and dull.
To my mind it's very simple any killing is immoral, that includes self defence.
That's what I'm saying: you're just making stuff up and then trying to get people to respect your inventions by tacking the label "morality" on them.
"Making stuff up" is not morality. It's just making stuff up.
Zen, being a buddhist religion, has very clear directions on the taking of life.
You're confused. Zen has nothing to do with Buddhism. There's a religion called Zen Buddhism, but that's not Zen.
Zen Buddhism also says nothing about killing.
Zen eschews doctrinal teaching in favour of direct experience
That's 100% completely wrong. Both Zen and Zen Buddhism teach zazen, the attainment of enlightenment through meditation and introspection alone. Both Zen and Zen Buddhism warn against the attainment of false enlightenment. Enlightenment can only come through meditation.
I'm not looking to come clean or be rescued.
And that has what to do with the point? The point is that you are preaching a false morality. You are making up your own rules and calling them divine. That's wrong.
You said killing is never moral. I showed you a rational case where killing is more. You said "nuh-uh." So your morals are not rational.
They're clearly not axiomatic, either.
My morals are based on religous tradition. I do not follow any organised religion.
You just contradicted yourself. If you don't follow an organized religion, you can't possibly have a religious tradition. If you follow a religious tradition, it can be attributed to an organized religion.
Take a look at Zen and Gnostic, they're probably closest to my experiences.
Zen has no opinion on killing. Zen eschews doctrinal thought in favor of enlightenment through zazen. Gnosticism isn't a religion at all. The term refers to any number of religious cults that sprang up in the first and second centuries AD. Most gnostic cults specifically rejected the Old Testament traditions, which incidentally includes the Decalogue and its prohibition against ratsach. So there's no basis there for your assertion.
Come clean: you have absolutely nothing on which to base your random assertion that killing is inherently immoral. Neither axiom nor rationalization can rescue you here.
How can I be wrong about my own sense of morality?
There's no such thing as a "moral sense." There's no such thing as a "sense of morality." Morality isn't a natural part of the human convention. It has to be learned. It has to come from somewhere.
Where does your "sense of morality" come from? It's not based in the concept of the rational transaction, clearly. It's not based in the Bible or other similar religious tradition, clearly.
So you just made it up, based on nothing. Which is wrong.
Oh - you mean the terrorist camp where those people just got married? The ones on the video, singing and dancing, with no armed people around?
Please try to keep up with the news. It was more than a week ago that it was announced that that video was shot in a village more than 200 km away from the site of the terrorist camp.
You're hooked up to the pentagon's big propaganda wiener, and you're stuck on there good.
As opposed to sucking at the propaganda teat of the people who, you know, want to murder us and all that?
A T1 is a 1.544Mbps digital circuit, often chopped up into 24 64kbps voice-grade circuits.
Hm. This is new information for me. I thought a vox T-1 was muxed at the packet level. Now you're telling me that it's muxed in some other way?
The usual conversion is to a 64kbps data stream. No compression, no packetization.
But how are these various 64 kbps data streams multiplexed onto a single wire if not by packet-switching?
But the general Public Switched Telephone Network doesn't do this - it's circuit switching all the way.
My knowledge of this is clearly limited, but I think you're confusing packet switching with compression.
Maybe "packet switching" isn't the term I want to use. Maybe "cell switching" is the term I want to use. Either way, the telco uses a technology to put multiple voice calls on the same wire, and that technology works basically like packet switching: a little bit of this call, then a little bit of that call, then a little bit of the next call.
And I do mean wire, here. Because you can multiplex onto a piece of optical cable using other techniques, like wave-division multiplexing. That option isn't available over a copper wire.
The original post was "First IA64 Windows Virus Released".
Okay, my misunderstanding. The point remains: "virii" is not the plural of "virus." The fact that people can figure out what the speaker means is not the same as saying that everybody understands.
I don't believe I threatened you in any way, shape, or form.
"Around here, that sort of thing would earn you a punch in the throat." First you said it, then you tried to distance yourself from it. Weak, weak.
I don't know about a twit, but yes, I can be a total ass when I choose to do so.
I'm sure there's no choice involved. I'm sure it happens all on its own.
I'll thank you to piss off now.
Re:not gonna happen, the lobbies are too powerful
on
Do-It-Yourself VOIP Telco
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The PSTN (public, switched telephone network) is bulky - requiring about 40 - 60 percent more cost to operate than a typical packet-switching network like the internet.
Um? The telephone network has been packet-switched for decades. Do you own or work for a small business? You don't have phone lines. You have a T-1. At your home, your phone line goes to a box down the block where it gets muxed into a T-1 or something equivalent.
I'm aware of that, but the original post and the original posters later retraction of his use of the word virii proves your argument wrong.
The original post was a rant against the use of the word "virii." You're confused. No wonder you think nobody has a problem understanding you; your own language-comprehension kills are sub-par.
When you think of a meaning and get a word for that meaning, then that is a meaningful, real, word.
Um. No. That's called "baby talk."
Around here, that sort of thing would earn you a punch in the throat.
And finally, just to put the icing on the cake, he resorts to threats of violence.
You're a real ass, you know that? An utter twit, and an ass.
There should be a way to stomp on Microsoft by using anti-dumping laws or something like that.
Yes, let's pass a law preventing them from doing something they're not doing but technically could!
No offense, but you're an idiot. That's no big deal. We're all idiots. It's just that in this case you chose to express your idiocy in a particularly visible way.
Microsoft would never do anything like that because they are a business, not a product-giving-away-thing. Sure, they'll sell the razors at a loss to make it up on the blades (think Xbox and games), but why would they ever do something like that with a product that has no expectation of future profitability?
To quote The Simpsons, "I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!"
I did my part and formally requested iTunes and iPod support for both encoding and decoding Ogg Vorbis.
Apple's response: we've already got AAC, which is functionally equivalent to and AT LEAST as good as OGG.
Actually, shit. Now that I think about it, I should've requested FLAC and SHN support as well.
Apple's response: we introduced a lossless compressor with the last release of QuickTime.
I don't mean to shoot you down. It's just that asking for a feature isn't sufficient. You've gotta build a business case for it. Which means you've either got to get 500,000 of your closest friends to ask for the same thing, or you've got to tell them why.
Come to think of it... why? AAC is as good or better, and it's there already. Apple Lossless is exactly as good (because, duh, it's also lossless) and it's there already.
Morality can be treated rigorously. You refuse to do so. You don't even fall back to some authority to form the basis of your assertion. Start with the Bible, and then we can argue about what the Hebrew word ratsach means.
But no, you just go "nuh-uh" and expect your position to be regarded with respect.
Piss on that. We don't disagree. You're just wrong.
Just as wrong. Syllabus is from Latin and declined accordingly. Octopus is from Greek. Why we don't say "octopodes" when referring to more than one octopus is a mystery, but that's just how it is.
Linguistic evolution is an ongoing process which can 't be controlled by an "official" standard for a word. Virii is the next step in this evolution, like it or not.
It's not a matter of liking it or not liking it. It's a matter of "virii" simply being wrong, for lots of highly nerdy reasons.
I would have thought that your average slashdotter would climb on that bandwagon in a second.
Would you please point out where that phrase is in the Geneva Conventions?
Please try to pay attention. This isn't that complicated. People who take up arms but who do not fight openly are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. At all, in any way. They don't comport themselves like soldiers, either uniformed or otherwise, so they don't get treated as soldiers. They are outside the system, they are outside the rules. They are (wait for it) unlawful combatants.
Here's what REALLY happens:
Sigh. I really wish you'd either cut the crap or learn the difference between people arrested on criminal charges by the law-enforcement agencies and people who are taken into military custody by military forces.
Actually, it does matter. It matters to a lot of people.
Yes, but so does the question of whether tin-foil hats should be made with the shiny side in or out. Here's the thing: nobody gives a shit about those people. Those people aren't in charge of anything, they aren't decision makers, they don't even participate in the process. They make some noise but that's all.
Read the Geneva Conventions. They cover how POW's should be treated. And they do NOT kick in only AFTER the war is over.
That's right. And the Conventions call for prisoners of war to be basically thrown into a hole until the end of hostilities. There are no hearings, no attempt to discern the status of the prisoners until after the fighting's over.
But that's not relevant here, because the people being held at Camp X-Ray are not prisoners of war. They're unlawful combatants.
But the people we have in Camp X-Ray were picked up in Afghanistan.
Which is why we haven't hanged or shot them.
Now that the point-by-point is over with, let me make a general comment: you are unbelievably smug, to the point of being a mockery of yourself. EVERY SINGLE THING you said in this post is wrong. If you're going to be so disgustingly sure of yourself, you'd better take the time to ensure that you're not completely and utterly wrong about everything.
Slashdot Mirror
And by the way, I've heard a rumor that you can hack it to play music, too. ;-)
The one annoying thing is that you can't access the music player functionality while it's mounted as a disk.
That must be a Windows thing. On a Mac, you can do both at the same time. In fact, that's the default behavior once you turn "mount as a hard drive" on. It never even occurred to me that there would be any other way.
you could actually record in true digital mode instead of on tapes
Yes, as opposed to all that fake digital stuff on a DV tape. God, I hate fake digital so much.
You omitted the part where you can actually get the photos from the camera to the hard drive.
Surely you're not suggesting that the photographer use a laptop?
So nobody in history has said that killing in all forms is wrong?
No religious or cultural tradition has ever held that all killing is immoral.
We're not going to get distracted here. Let me summarize the situation: you probably read somewhere that Zen was this neat thing, and so you decided to self-identify with it. You are not, however, educated with respect to either Zen or Gnosticism, on both of which you claim to base your conclusion that killing is inherently immoral. If you were educated, you'd know that neither of those religious traditions says any such thing. In fact, they both specifically disavow that sort of doctrinal teaching.
There is no rational or axiomatic basis that can support the assertion that all killing is immoral.
Your sophomoric ramblings have become tedious and dull.
Much better idea: plug this into the iPod you already have. You get between 15 and 40 GB of storage for $110.
To my mind it's very simple any killing is immoral, that includes self defence.
That's what I'm saying: you're just making stuff up and then trying to get people to respect your inventions by tacking the label "morality" on them.
"Making stuff up" is not morality. It's just making stuff up.
Zen, being a buddhist religion, has very clear directions on the taking of life.
You're confused. Zen has nothing to do with Buddhism. There's a religion called Zen Buddhism, but that's not Zen.
Zen Buddhism also says nothing about killing.
Zen eschews doctrinal teaching in favour of direct experience
That's 100% completely wrong. Both Zen and Zen Buddhism teach zazen, the attainment of enlightenment through meditation and introspection alone. Both Zen and Zen Buddhism warn against the attainment of false enlightenment. Enlightenment can only come through meditation.
I'm not looking to come clean or be rescued.
And that has what to do with the point? The point is that you are preaching a false morality. You are making up your own rules and calling them divine. That's wrong.
If you'd tried, I mean really tried hard, it might have been possible to come up with a worse headline than this one.
Where are my morals non-rational?
You said killing is never moral. I showed you a rational case where killing is more. You said "nuh-uh." So your morals are not rational.
They're clearly not axiomatic, either.
My morals are based on religous tradition. I do not follow any organised religion.
You just contradicted yourself. If you don't follow an organized religion, you can't possibly have a religious tradition. If you follow a religious tradition, it can be attributed to an organized religion.
Take a look at Zen and Gnostic, they're probably closest to my experiences.
Zen has no opinion on killing. Zen eschews doctrinal thought in favor of enlightenment through zazen. Gnosticism isn't a religion at all. The term refers to any number of religious cults that sprang up in the first and second centuries AD. Most gnostic cults specifically rejected the Old Testament traditions, which incidentally includes the Decalogue and its prohibition against ratsach. So there's no basis there for your assertion.
Come clean: you have absolutely nothing on which to base your random assertion that killing is inherently immoral. Neither axiom nor rationalization can rescue you here.
How can I be wrong about my own sense of morality?
There's no such thing as a "moral sense." There's no such thing as a "sense of morality." Morality isn't a natural part of the human convention. It has to be learned. It has to come from somewhere.
Where does your "sense of morality" come from? It's not based in the concept of the rational transaction, clearly. It's not based in the Bible or other similar religious tradition, clearly.
So you just made it up, based on nothing. Which is wrong.
Ta-da.
Oh - you mean the terrorist camp where those people just got married? The ones on the video, singing and dancing, with no armed people around?
Please try to keep up with the news. It was more than a week ago that it was announced that that video was shot in a village more than 200 km away from the site of the terrorist camp.
You're hooked up to the pentagon's big propaganda wiener, and you're stuck on there good.
As opposed to sucking at the propaganda teat of the people who, you know, want to murder us and all that?
A T1 is a 1.544Mbps digital circuit, often chopped up into 24 64kbps voice-grade circuits.
Hm. This is new information for me. I thought a vox T-1 was muxed at the packet level. Now you're telling me that it's muxed in some other way?
The usual conversion is to a 64kbps data stream. No compression, no packetization.
But how are these various 64 kbps data streams multiplexed onto a single wire if not by packet-switching?
But the general Public Switched Telephone Network doesn't do this - it's circuit switching all the way.
My knowledge of this is clearly limited, but I think you're confusing packet switching with compression.
Maybe "packet switching" isn't the term I want to use. Maybe "cell switching" is the term I want to use. Either way, the telco uses a technology to put multiple voice calls on the same wire, and that technology works basically like packet switching: a little bit of this call, then a little bit of that call, then a little bit of the next call.
And I do mean wire, here. Because you can multiplex onto a piece of optical cable using other techniques, like wave-division multiplexing. That option isn't available over a copper wire.
The original post was "First IA64 Windows Virus Released".
Okay, my misunderstanding. The point remains: "virii" is not the plural of "virus." The fact that people can figure out what the speaker means is not the same as saying that everybody understands.
I don't believe I threatened you in any way, shape, or form.
"Around here, that sort of thing would earn you a punch in the throat." First you said it, then you tried to distance yourself from it. Weak, weak.
I don't know about a twit, but yes, I can be a total ass when I choose to do so.
I'm sure there's no choice involved. I'm sure it happens all on its own.
I'll thank you to piss off now.
The PSTN (public, switched telephone network) is bulky - requiring about 40 - 60 percent more cost to operate than a typical packet-switching network like the internet.
Um? The telephone network has been packet-switched for decades. Do you own or work for a small business? You don't have phone lines. You have a T-1. At your home, your phone line goes to a box down the block where it gets muxed into a T-1 or something equivalent.
I'm aware of that, but the original post and the original posters later retraction of his use of the word virii proves your argument wrong.
The original post was a rant against the use of the word "virii." You're confused. No wonder you think nobody has a problem understanding you; your own language-comprehension kills are sub-par.
When you think of a meaning and get a word for that meaning, then that is a meaningful, real, word.
Um. No. That's called "baby talk."
Around here, that sort of thing would earn you a punch in the throat.
And finally, just to put the icing on the cake, he resorts to threats of violence.
You're a real ass, you know that? An utter twit, and an ass.
There should be a way to stomp on Microsoft by using anti-dumping laws or something like that.
Yes, let's pass a law preventing them from doing something they're not doing but technically could!
No offense, but you're an idiot. That's no big deal. We're all idiots. It's just that in this case you chose to express your idiocy in a particularly visible way.
Microsoft would never do anything like that because they are a business, not a product-giving-away-thing. Sure, they'll sell the razors at a loss to make it up on the blades (think Xbox and games), but why would they ever do something like that with a product that has no expectation of future profitability?
To quote The Simpsons, "I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!"
I did my part and formally requested iTunes and iPod support for both encoding and decoding Ogg Vorbis.
Apple's response: we've already got AAC, which is functionally equivalent to and AT LEAST as good as OGG.
Actually, shit. Now that I think about it, I should've requested FLAC and SHN support as well.
Apple's response: we introduced a lossless compressor with the last release of QuickTime.
I don't mean to shoot you down. It's just that asking for a feature isn't sufficient. You've gotta build a business case for it. Which means you've either got to get 500,000 of your closest friends to ask for the same thing, or you've got to tell them why.
Come to think of it... why? AAC is as good or better, and it's there already. Apple Lossless is exactly as good (because, duh, it's also lossless) and it's there already.
So why?
In fact, it offers more functionality (by nearly every measure) than Sony's PS2 for the same price.
Except if you measure by the cubic inch.
Not to mention really ugly and hard to use. What a bargain.
No, you're just wrong is all.
Morality can be treated rigorously. You refuse to do so. You don't even fall back to some authority to form the basis of your assertion. Start with the Bible, and then we can argue about what the Hebrew word ratsach means.
But no, you just go "nuh-uh" and expect your position to be regarded with respect.
Piss on that. We don't disagree. You're just wrong.
Syllabus... syllabi.
Octopus... octopi.
Just as wrong. Syllabus is from Latin and declined accordingly. Octopus is from Greek. Why we don't say "octopodes" when referring to more than one octopus is a mystery, but that's just how it is.
And nobody has a problem understanding what I mean
I swear to god, every time I see that word written, I think "Huh? Oh, he means viruses."
It's even worse when spoken aloud. It's been known to produce fits of helpless laughter.
"They can figure it out from context" is not the same as "nobody has a problem understanding what I mean."
Linguistic evolution is an ongoing process which can 't be controlled by an "official" standard for a word. Virii is the next step in this evolution, like it or not.
It's not a matter of liking it or not liking it. It's a matter of "virii" simply being wrong, for lots of highly nerdy reasons.
I would have thought that your average slashdotter would climb on that bandwagon in a second.
Would you please point out where that phrase is in the Geneva Conventions?
Please try to pay attention. This isn't that complicated. People who take up arms but who do not fight openly are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. At all, in any way. They don't comport themselves like soldiers, either uniformed or otherwise, so they don't get treated as soldiers. They are outside the system, they are outside the rules. They are (wait for it) unlawful combatants.
Here's what REALLY happens:
Sigh. I really wish you'd either cut the crap or learn the difference between people arrested on criminal charges by the law-enforcement agencies and people who are taken into military custody by military forces.
Actually, it does matter. It matters to a lot of people.
Yes, but so does the question of whether tin-foil hats should be made with the shiny side in or out. Here's the thing: nobody gives a shit about those people. Those people aren't in charge of anything, they aren't decision makers, they don't even participate in the process. They make some noise but that's all.
Read the Geneva Conventions. They cover how POW's should be treated. And they do NOT kick in only AFTER the war is over.
That's right. And the Conventions call for prisoners of war to be basically thrown into a hole until the end of hostilities. There are no hearings, no attempt to discern the status of the prisoners until after the fighting's over.
But that's not relevant here, because the people being held at Camp X-Ray are not prisoners of war. They're unlawful combatants.
But the people we have in Camp X-Ray were picked up in Afghanistan.
Which is why we haven't hanged or shot them.
Now that the point-by-point is over with, let me make a general comment: you are unbelievably smug, to the point of being a mockery of yourself. EVERY SINGLE THING you said in this post is wrong. If you're going to be so disgustingly sure of yourself, you'd better take the time to ensure that you're not completely and utterly wrong about everything.
Holy Christ, you're an idiot. And worst of all, you're an idiot who thinks he's something other than an idiot.
Read this and shut the hell up.