"Imagine if a drunk vandal went around spraypainting the grave stone of your Grandfather."
I guess I'm the wrong guy to appeal that argument to - I couldn't care less what a drunken fool did to a grave stone, my relative's or any other's. That gravestone isn't my grandfather. It isn't my grandfather's memories. It doesn't even represent my grandfather, though I realize some would disagree. To me, it represents some of the the descendants of that grandfather needing a place to focus their loss that they can't find elsewhere. I suppose if I actually paid for the grave stone I might be annoyed but I wouldn't sentence the guy to any time in jail for it.
So, while your analogy is appreciated, it falls on deaf ears here. I ultimately simply cannot fathom being so caught up with a particular person that you'd physically harm someone who insulted their photo. Not them, their photo. Perhaps this is a Western peccadillo, I don't know.
But really, do you have to be "Western" to realize that the king of Thailand is just a man?
It is a cultural thing, of course. I liken it to women shaving their arm pits. Unshaven arm pits on women may be perfectly natural, but in our culture, it's considered "gross." Almost every woman I've spoken to about it thinks uncircumcised penises are also "gross." But I fully understand that's not the case elsewhere.
Now, shaving arm pits is quite a bit less drastic than cutting off the foreskin, of course, but remember - you're arguing mostly with guys who have had it done, and quite frankly, just don't give a shit.
My favorite argument against circumcision is that it makes the penis less sensitive. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the last thing, I mean the absolute last thing I need during sex is to be more sensitive.
Ahh, see now... you dashed my hopes! I thought for sure you were going to show me that someone was actually able to secure a patent for the Buttered Cat Paradox.
(And yes I am aware that Mythbusters "busted" the "toast always lands buttered-side down" proposition)
preposterously stratospheric $60.00 they're charging for ["Sonic and the Secret Rings"].
It's getting a little tiresome hearing all the complaining about how awful it is that AAA games cost $60 these days as if this is something new or unheard of. Do you remember how much Quake 1 cost when it was released in 1996? $45. Do you know how much that is in today's dollars? About $58 (that's right, $18 more than you weren't willing to pay for Quake IV). And while we're at it, it's worth noting that Quake 1 took about 13 people to make in just under 2 years. Doom 3 took about 26 people around 4 years to make, so their man-hours to develop DOOM 3 were just over 4 times more.
You can complain about how good of a game Quake 1 was vs. Doom 3 or Quake IV are all you want, but unless you think id Software and Raven know they're creating crappy games these days, complaints about price seem particularly ignorant.
It is indeed a good question. Easy to answer too: yes, it is morally wrong.
It pains me to see that so many people have a difficult time answering this with "yes." It's really easy to figure out, though:
1. Did the people who produced said game intend for you to acquire it by purchasing it, or someone else purchasing it and then either giving or selling it to you (not a copy, the original game, that they have not kept a "backup" of), or by the producers giving it away for a promotion or contest, for example?
2. Did you acquire said game by one of these intended means?
If the answer to #2 is no, then your actions with regard to acquiring the game are immoral: you have taken something you didn't have the right or permission to take. Whether or not that something was "concrete" or the rightful owner will "miss it" are immaterial to the morality question.
Let's put it another way. Say you know of a way to sneak in the exit at the local cinemaplex in the middle of the day. You watch a bunch of films for free that way. Since you're a poor college student (or some other reason), you wouldn't have paid to see the film anyway, but "most of the stuff they put out today is shit anyway - if only they'd make films I was willing to pay for!" And hey, maybe if you liked a particular film enough, you'll buy the DVD later. Plus, since it's in the middle of the day and the theaters have few patrons in them, you're not depriving anyone of a seat, and the cinemaplex is running the film regardless.
Now, is someone who does that doing something morally wrong? The answer for me is easy.
Not true. They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature
No, they're not.
Can you name one climatologist who disagrees with that statement? If they're not in almost complete agreement, that should be an easy request. Just name one, and provide an article they've written which backs up your assertion.
I'll name one: Lindzen, your own cite. This is one of the things that bugs me about these arguments: "it is primarily anthropogenic in nature" and "there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system" are simply not the same. That humans are having some influence on the warming trend that is going on should be news enough. It's this apparent need to "alarmize" it beyond the science that's got so many of us annoyed.
I apologize for this - I recalled that backwards: the contrast was between how "other than black" the night sky was (receiving "light pollution" from relatively nearby population centers) while the nearby surroundings were not receiving such light, and seemed so much "blacker."
I remember one summer night in Yosemite when my brother and I spent an hour lying on our backs on one of the approved boardwalks across one of the meadows taking in the impressive night sky. I was astonished at how "other than black" the peaks and everything else around us were compared to the blackness of Space above, when, without the clear night sky to compare them to, I would have sworn that I was looking at some "pure blacks" among my Earthly surroundings. I was impressed by the contrast that I would not have believed was there had I not seen it with my own eyes.
Yep, I stepped right into that one, (though I am told that because the Germans had limited supplies of hydrazine, they tweaked around with methanol and catalysts to get something reasonably equivalent, but more available (which probably accounts for C-Stoff having potassium cuprous cyanide, or "Catalyst 431" in it)).
Of course now I want to go back in time and make my challenge more specific, which would bring it more in line with the topic of this subthread anyway:
Name a hydrogen peroxide biprop engine flown on a rocket intended for space* that hasn't catalyzed the H202.
*and by "intended for space" I mean one that flew to space, was intended to fly to space, or was a prototype for one intended to fly to space.
Of course now you're probably going to go and prove me wrong there...:)
Please note that I am not trying to defend H202 as a propellant choice to get one to space. I am well aware of the difficulties with catalysts and catalyst packs, and that current (but not yet flown, to my knowledge) advances in it involve keeping catalyst out of the equation. I would, however, put money on Blue Origin getting at least to suborbital space using H202 in biprops. And I still stand by my two points:
1.That H202 can get you to space (obviously; it's been done)
2.That most H202 biprops are not fundamentally "very different technology" than H202 monoprops (I do not agree with your assertion that H202 biprops "generally don't catalyze the H202," but perhaps my weakness there is that I am specifically thinking of ones that have actually flown, especially in "space rockets").
I'm afraid not. All actual flying H202 biprop engines have catalyzed the peroxide first. You can't use H202 as an oxidizer unless you free its oxygen first, and catalyzing it has how it's been done so far in rockets that have actually flown. In theory, once the combustion has started, you could free the oxygen just from the combustion itself, but this hasn't been done in a flying rocket.
But don't take my word for it - name a hydrogen peroxide biprop engine that hasn't catalyzed the H202 first.
Oh, I thought you were referring to a rocket using H202 at all, not just as a monopropellant (but yes I do realize that a rocket belt uses H202 exclusively that way). Blue Origin plans to use H202/kerosene (RP-1, specifically), though this prototype was probably only H202.
In any case, I would hardly call an H202 monopropellant engine and an H202/kerosene engine "very different technology." Fundamentally, the only difference between the two is that in the biprop, you inject kerosene into the steam exhaust after the H202 has been catalyzed. Yes, there can be other differences (turbo pumps vs. blowdown or other, regenerative cooling vs. radiative or other, catalyst pack vs. injected catalyst, etc.) in addition to differing levels of complexity, but I'd say they're fundamentally "very similar technology."
I am so with you on this. Every time I've had my clothes air dried for whatever reason, it was like donning construction paper.
Is there something to where one line-dries clothes, in terms of region? Such as, how does humidity come into play, other than varying the length of time required to dry?
What on Earth kind of computer are you running?! A REALLY high-end system might burn something like 330 watts on average, and if you're paying 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity (WAY over the national average), even then, running 24/7 vs. not running it at all, you're only talking about something like $50 extra per month. Something else is afoot here.
You're probably thinking of the U.S. Coinage Act of 1965, which disallows demonetization of U.S. coins or currency. It doesn't disallow taking them out of circulation, though, which just means you'll have the bills floating around for a while. But yep, unless the law is changed, they'll always be legal tender.
That's correct, and the law you're referring to is the U.S. Coinage Act of 1965, which applies to all U.S. coins and currency. U.S. currency can be taken out of circulation, but it cannot be demonetized, at least not under current law.
But if you're having to download and install something, it's already failed my requirement - works "out of the box."
My issue is that there is no modern replacement to MPEG-1 that "Mom and Dad" can play on their Mac or PC without having to download and install a particular player or codec (Mom and Dad are probably not running Linux, and if they are, they're not going to have a problem downloading a media player and installing it). So if you want to take advantage of current compression advancements, you either have to offer multiple formats, require end-users to download extra stuff, or just leave some of the audience out.
I keep hoping that we're going to see a true cross-platform video format that will just work "out of the box" with the major OSes the way MPEG-1 did. With all the recent advancements in codecs, I sure would like to see something considered a standard that would just work for everyone without needing to download some other player or codec. I was hoping.mp4 might be it, but it looks like Media Player 11 doesn't support it.
Is there really no modern video format that works "out of the box" for all the major OS players?
No, they didn't; and the USA gave a lot less by capita or percent of GNP than many other countries.
Isn't that only true if you count just official government contributions, and not private/corporate too?
Regardless, consider this: let's say your house burned to the ground and through some weird circumstance you weren't covered by insurance. Some of your neighbors pitch in to help you rebuild. Many give a good chunk of their income, but let's say that doesn't amount to a whole lot because most of your neighbors aren't rich. One rich neighbor, however, gives ten times what any other neighbor did, but it's not nearly as much as any of the other neighbors in terms of percentage of their income. Are you really going to look down your nose at that rich neighbor?
You see, I judge the value of charity mostly by how much good it does the recipients, not how much it hurts the givers.
There are those who believe there are numerous health benefits to "squat style" toilets, even to the point that you can modify your Western-style toilet to mimic one.
I'll stick to the Western-style myself, thank you.
I have a couple of American friends who have similar complaints about their UK toilet experiences. They report that it's nearly impossible to finish up after taking a dump without leaving "loaf marks" on the bowl as a present for the next user. They did not report anything about toilet brushes, perhaps because they didn't want to play plumber each time.
A. The article mentions they have been available in Japan for a long time.
B. Now there are at least three companies, including one in San Francisco, trying to market them to Americans.
So the news is not that this is new technology, but that it is now being marketed toward Americans. But you would have known that if you had read the article...
Slashdot Mirror
"Imagine if a drunk vandal went around spraypainting the grave stone of your Grandfather."
I guess I'm the wrong guy to appeal that argument to - I couldn't care less what a drunken fool did to a grave stone, my relative's or any other's. That gravestone isn't my grandfather. It isn't my grandfather's memories. It doesn't even represent my grandfather, though I realize some would disagree. To me, it represents some of the the descendants of that grandfather needing a place to focus their loss that they can't find elsewhere. I suppose if I actually paid for the grave stone I might be annoyed but I wouldn't sentence the guy to any time in jail for it.
So, while your analogy is appreciated, it falls on deaf ears here. I ultimately simply cannot fathom being so caught up with a particular person that you'd physically harm someone who insulted their photo. Not them, their photo. Perhaps this is a Western peccadillo, I don't know.
But really, do you have to be "Western" to realize that the king of Thailand is just a man ?
"The way those lines were worded makes it pretty evident that the constitution of the States wasn't written with a particularly open mind."
Minor point, but that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
It is a cultural thing, of course. I liken it to women shaving their arm pits. Unshaven arm pits on women may be perfectly natural, but in our culture, it's considered "gross." Almost every woman I've spoken to about it thinks uncircumcised penises are also "gross." But I fully understand that's not the case elsewhere.
Now, shaving arm pits is quite a bit less drastic than cutting off the foreskin, of course, but remember - you're arguing mostly with guys who have had it done, and quite frankly, just don't give a shit.
My favorite argument against circumcision is that it makes the penis less sensitive. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the last thing, I mean the absolute last thing I need during sex is to be more sensitive.
Ahh, see now... you dashed my hopes! I thought for sure you were going to show me that someone was actually able to secure a patent for the Buttered Cat Paradox.
(And yes I am aware that Mythbusters "busted" the "toast always lands buttered-side down" proposition)
You can complain about how good of a game Quake 1 was vs. Doom 3 or Quake IV are all you want, but unless you think id Software and Raven know they're creating crappy games these days, complaints about price seem particularly ignorant.
It pains me to see that so many people have a difficult time answering this with "yes." It's really easy to figure out, though:
1. Did the people who produced said game intend for you to acquire it by purchasing it, or someone else purchasing it and then either giving or selling it to you (not a copy, the original game, that they have not kept a "backup" of), or by the producers giving it away for a promotion or contest, for example?
2. Did you acquire said game by one of these intended means?
If the answer to #2 is no, then your actions with regard to acquiring the game are immoral: you have taken something you didn't have the right or permission to take. Whether or not that something was "concrete" or the rightful owner will "miss it" are immaterial to the morality question.
Let's put it another way. Say you know of a way to sneak in the exit at the local cinemaplex in the middle of the day. You watch a bunch of films for free that way. Since you're a poor college student (or some other reason), you wouldn't have paid to see the film anyway, but "most of the stuff they put out today is shit anyway - if only they'd make films I was willing to pay for!" And hey, maybe if you liked a particular film enough, you'll buy the DVD later. Plus, since it's in the middle of the day and the theaters have few patrons in them, you're not depriving anyone of a seat, and the cinemaplex is running the film regardless.
Now, is someone who does that doing something morally wrong? The answer for me is easy.
I'll name one: Lindzen, your own cite. This is one of the things that bugs me about these arguments: "it is primarily anthropogenic in nature" and "there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system" are simply not the same. That humans are having some influence on the warming trend that is going on should be news enough. It's this apparent need to "alarmize" it beyond the science that's got so many of us annoyed.
I apologize for this - I recalled that backwards: the contrast was between how "other than black" the night sky was (receiving "light pollution" from relatively nearby population centers) while the nearby surroundings were not receiving such light, and seemed so much "blacker."
Quite so.
I remember one summer night in Yosemite when my brother and I spent an hour lying on our backs on one of the approved boardwalks across one of the meadows taking in the impressive night sky. I was astonished at how "other than black" the peaks and everything else around us were compared to the blackness of Space above, when, without the clear night sky to compare them to, I would have sworn that I was looking at some "pure blacks" among my Earthly surroundings. I was impressed by the contrast that I would not have believed was there had I not seen it with my own eyes.
"The last time you were wasted, did you get to the point where you said "oh, I think I'm drunk enough now, no more beer for me!"
I do this ALL. THE. TIME. In fact, I got an old friend angry with me recently because I cut myself off once I felt I was at that point.
But I suppose I'd be one of the first to admit that I am strange this way. I only wish there were more who were as "strange" as I.
"Sure. The Me 163B Komet"
:)
Yep, I stepped right into that one, (though I am told that because the Germans had limited supplies of hydrazine, they tweaked around with methanol and catalysts to get something reasonably equivalent, but more available (which probably accounts for C-Stoff having potassium cuprous cyanide, or "Catalyst 431" in it)).
Of course now I want to go back in time and make my challenge more specific, which would bring it more in line with the topic of this subthread anyway:
Name a hydrogen peroxide biprop engine flown on a rocket intended for space* that hasn't catalyzed the H202.
*and by "intended for space" I mean one that flew to space, was intended to fly to space, or was a prototype for one intended to fly to space.
Of course now you're probably going to go and prove me wrong there...
Please note that I am not trying to defend H202 as a propellant choice to get one to space. I am well aware of the difficulties with catalysts and catalyst packs, and that current (but not yet flown, to my knowledge) advances in it involve keeping catalyst out of the equation. I would, however, put money on Blue Origin getting at least to suborbital space using H202 in biprops. And I still stand by my two points:
1.That H202 can get you to space (obviously; it's been done)
2.That most H202 biprops are not fundamentally "very different technology" than H202 monoprops (I do not agree with your assertion that H202 biprops "generally don't catalyze the H202," but perhaps my weakness there is that I am specifically thinking of ones that have actually flown, especially in "space rockets").
I'm afraid not. All actual flying H202 biprop engines have catalyzed the peroxide first. You can't use H202 as an oxidizer unless you free its oxygen first, and catalyzing it has how it's been done so far in rockets that have actually flown. In theory, once the combustion has started, you could free the oxygen just from the combustion itself, but this hasn't been done in a flying rocket.
But don't take my word for it - name a hydrogen peroxide biprop engine that hasn't catalyzed the H202 first.
Oh, I thought you were referring to a rocket using H202 at all, not just as a monopropellant (but yes I do realize that a rocket belt uses H202 exclusively that way). Blue Origin plans to use H202/kerosene (RP-1, specifically), though this prototype was probably only H202.
In any case, I would hardly call an H202 monopropellant engine and an H202/kerosene engine "very different technology." Fundamentally, the only difference between the two is that in the biprop, you inject kerosene into the steam exhaust after the H202 has been catalyzed. Yes, there can be other differences (turbo pumps vs. blowdown or other, regenerative cooling vs. radiative or other, catalyst pack vs. injected catalyst, etc.) in addition to differing levels of complexity, but I'd say they're fundamentally "very similar technology."
Armadillo Aerospace now refers to this as the "Flying Crayon."
"But if they're intending to launch anything H2O2 powered "into space," I wouldn't put much money on it..."
Why not? The British did it back in the 70s using H202/kerosine with the Black Arrow
I am so with you on this. Every time I've had my clothes air dried for whatever reason, it was like donning construction paper.
Is there something to where one line-dries clothes, in terms of region? Such as, how does humidity come into play, other than varying the length of time required to dry?
What on Earth kind of computer are you running?! A REALLY high-end system might burn something like 330 watts on average, and if you're paying 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity (WAY over the national average), even then, running 24/7 vs. not running it at all, you're only talking about something like $50 extra per month. Something else is afoot here.
You're probably thinking of the U.S. Coinage Act of 1965, which disallows demonetization of U.S. coins or currency. It doesn't disallow taking them out of circulation, though, which just means you'll have the bills floating around for a while. But yep, unless the law is changed, they'll always be legal tender.
That's correct, and the law you're referring to is the U.S. Coinage Act of 1965, which applies to all U.S. coins and currency. U.S. currency can be taken out of circulation, but it cannot be demonetized, at least not under current law.
But if you're having to download and install something, it's already failed my requirement - works "out of the box."
My issue is that there is no modern replacement to MPEG-1 that "Mom and Dad" can play on their Mac or PC without having to download and install a particular player or codec (Mom and Dad are probably not running Linux, and if they are, they're not going to have a problem downloading a media player and installing it). So if you want to take advantage of current compression advancements, you either have to offer multiple formats, require end-users to download extra stuff, or just leave some of the audience out.
I keep hoping that we're going to see a true cross-platform video format that will just work "out of the box" with the major OSes the way MPEG-1 did. With all the recent advancements in codecs, I sure would like to see something considered a standard that would just work for everyone without needing to download some other player or codec. I was hoping .mp4 might be it, but it looks like Media Player 11 doesn't support it.
Is there really no modern video format that works "out of the box" for all the major OS players?
No, they didn't; and the USA gave a lot less by capita or percent of GNP than many other countries.
Isn't that only true if you count just official government contributions, and not private/corporate too?
Regardless, consider this: let's say your house burned to the ground and through some weird circumstance you weren't covered by insurance. Some of your neighbors pitch in to help you rebuild. Many give a good chunk of their income, but let's say that doesn't amount to a whole lot because most of your neighbors aren't rich. One rich neighbor, however, gives ten times what any other neighbor did, but it's not nearly as much as any of the other neighbors in terms of percentage of their income. Are you really going to look down your nose at that rich neighbor?
You see, I judge the value of charity mostly by how much good it does the recipients, not how much it hurts the givers.
There are those who believe there are numerous health benefits to "squat style" toilets, even to the point that you can modify your Western-style toilet to mimic one.
I'll stick to the Western-style myself, thank you.
I have a couple of American friends who have similar complaints about their UK toilet experiences. They report that it's nearly impossible to finish up after taking a dump without leaving "loaf marks" on the bowl as a present for the next user. They did not report anything about toilet brushes, perhaps because they didn't want to play plumber each time.
A. The article mentions they have been available in Japan for a long time.
B. Now there are at least three companies, including one in San Francisco, trying to market them to Americans.
So the news is not that this is new technology, but that it is now being marketed toward Americans. But you would have known that if you had read the article...