MPEG4 is a video compression standard. You can integrate audio streams in many different formats, including AAC. But, saying that AAC is a part of the MPEG4 standard is false. Most stand-alone MPEG4/DivX/XviD players don't support AAC for patent reasons. Most MPEG4/DivX/XviD files available for download (no statistics to prove this), with the exception of those at archive.org and iTunes, have MP3 or OGG audio streams. These files are more widely playable.
Are you really so stupid as to think I was refering to a specific brief or article on aclu.org? Or, can you see the commonality of position between the poster's stance and that of the ACLU? Big stretch there. Here's a hint: BOTH ARE LIBERAL. Get it?
You're arguing ridiculously. Nobody is going to convict you of being attacted to Asian girls. But, if you're getting off on porno video of 8-year-olds, I hope you're found and prosecuted. At what age to we draw the line (for all you slippery-slope crybabies)? Who is to say? But, it's liberals like you that will continally push to drop the "age of consent."
Oh, the slippery slope argument. Classic. You're approach can be used to decriminalize ANY type of behavior. I loathe to think of the world _you'd_ create.
This kind of crap is showing up on Slashdot all too regularly, lately. If I wanted to read some bleeding-heart's cry of foul play against a pedophile, I'd go to the ACLU's web page.
when I see a phrase like "scumbag pedophile", I get rather pissed off.
And, when I see someone rallying to the defense of pedophiles, I get rather pissed off.
I was under the impression he was being jailed for copying pornography for personal use, and they used this to lock him up for longer than he would've been otherwise.
Any excuse, legal loophole or technicality used to extend the incarceration of pedophiles is well-used. And, this is regardless of whether they produce, or just [simply?] watch.
My problem is that we have this President who has continuously attempted say that he maintains a higher moral standing than most of us.
Wha? When has Bush ever said or even implied such a thing? Many liberals think he's playing holier-than-thou, but the truth is, he's simply taking a moral stance. Nothing more. This is just a strange concept for liberals to handle -- a president with moral convictions.
As a dedicated Republican...
Why is it that so many liberals think that claiming republican membership will lend credence to their argument? Not only are you a republican, you are a dedicated one at that. OOooh! What does that mean? Do you share in the republican (actually conservative) belief of a strong, capitalist society and strong national defense?
I certainly can conclude that Bush is acting as nothing more than an arrogant ass.
Actually, he's acting as the President. Nothing more. Sure, some may argue that he is overstepping his bounds with "domestic spying" -- an activity the last administration also took part in, BTW. Others, though like myself, argue that he's being prudent in a time when al Qaeda have directly threatoned the American people with another attack on our soil. Government's FIRST PRIORITY is to defend and protect our way of life. Sometimes, this requires rationing, or drafting or even [what some think is] an invasion of privacy. Sometimes, mistakes are made too. If the Democrats truly thought Bush's actions are illegal, though, they'd start the impeachment process. No, they have proven themselves to be nothing more than the party of opposition. Their stance is simply the opposite of whatever the President's is. And, it's not working out very well for them. Or you.
There are millions of people that will tell you there is something wrong with it. The question is, who is correct? I'm rather inclined to think they are, rather than you.
So, now you've condemned me for being a Christian and for fishing. I respect the fact that you've chosen atheism -- it's your right to do so. I also acknowledge that you're either a vegetarian or a hypocrite -- either one being, again, within your God-given rights.
You've argued that animals have morals, effectively, by arguing that they are equal to humans. Where do these morals come from? Do they come from working toward the greater good (utilitarian?) Or, are they self-serving? Or, do animals have an accountability to a higher power?
If it is not ok for me to fish, is it ok for a black bear to capture and devour salmon? Does the [equal] salmon have rights that are being infringed? Or, does the food chain dictate the moral worth of the bear's meal -- in which case it would also be ok for me to fish.
You argue from the assumption that fishing is OK because it is culturally accepted. I won't buy that as the final word on "OK."
No, I argue that fishing is culturally accepted because it is ok -- morally. As I've argued throughout this tread, animals are not equal to humans, and so they are not afforded the same rights as humans.
If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so?
There's nothing wrong with that (I love to fish.) But, to make your comparison actually valid, you should have said, "If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another human..." In this case, there is a difference. Cannibalism is not "wrong" per se in the animal kingdom (even in cases, such as father grizzly bears eating their young for reasons other than self-preservation.) But, because there is a difference between humans and animals, human cannibalism is, in fact, wrong (hypothetical marooned airline passenger cases aside.)
You've given yourself away there as a religious fundamentalist, not a thinking human being.
What is a "religious fundamentalist?" With many different religions available (including the Eastern ones you referred to), specifically whose fundamentals do I appear to mirror (as you assert) rather than think for myself. Were you too afraid to just simply call me a Christian? You've given yourself up as an atheistic elitist. Ironic that with your own elitist stance, you place yourself on level with animals.
Our spaniel has a well developed sense of right and wrong...
Your spaniel has a well-developed sense of what will bring him reward or punishment. Just like the cat poster above, you're trying to equate learned behaviour (stimulus->response) to morals. That's laughable. If a dog lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so? Likewise, if your dog knows he will be rewarded with affection if he does a pet trick, is he obeying a fundamental law? Or, is he simply satisfying an instinctive desire for affection?
...many Eastern religions are less likely to suffer from this anthroposupremacist error.
Yes, and that is why many of them would choose to starve in order to provide food for their reincarnated relative now living as a rat. Tell me this isn't an antianthroposupremacist error.
We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Our intellegence does exactly that. We (humans) affect our environment. We can conserve or destroy. We have law. We have technology. We have morals (or lack thereof.) We have religion, and we also have science.
Equating one's self to a mere animal is effectively relinquishing that which makes us unique and special as beings. I would also argue that this is a most dangerous idea as well. If animalistic behaviour becomes the mean, then humanity will very quickly reach its end.
Wow, I would really like to see the source for that percentage. Did Germany really do polls back then? (Must've been a CBS poll.) Did Hitler even give a crap about his approval rating?
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
I totally agree. And, on that note, I would like to wish you a very merry CHRISTmas.
If Microsoft can make anti-virus and anti-spyware software to cover shortcomings in its own OS, shouldn't this be included as PART of the OS? They can make a great argument why file compression, web browsing, disk defragging and other utilities should be part of the OS. Why not this as well?
(Before I get flamed because Microsoft is currently giving its BETA away for free, check the facts. They will most-likely charge a subscription fee for them later.)
Uh, yeah. I have an inside source that this is it. CleverNickName, can you confirm?
Actually, I don't know what format the TV shows (TNG and forward) were originally shot in, but I doubt HD releases would be any better than DVD. (Surely, consumers are smart enough to realize this. No?) As for the films, I'm sure Paramount will want to milk any HD revenue they can from the ST franchise. (And, good for them, IMO)
My comment was simply meant as a jab at Lucas for being the great capitalist that he is and going to market "One last time" with the original* Star Wars trilogy -- not mentioning that a new, Special Edition version was shortly to come.
*original, of course, is a fluid term. Apparently, these had been edited/touched-up/enhanced since the Original-original release.
I can understand the concern over storing deleted email. But, keeping caches of web content is a bad thing? Some (like me) would argue that deleting old, cached content would be analogous to burning books. The more history, the better if you ask me.
Really!? Fascinating. Can you provide supporting links? I'd like to read about this, especially since being incarcerated depends on the criminal actions of the subject (according to the local law,) the economic status of the subject, and the celebrity status of the subject (ie. OJ Simpson) to name a few. So, genetics also play a role, in combination with the above mentioned? If this is true, then do defense lawyers offer genetic disposition as a defense? Is there really a jail gene? Or, are people actually responsible for their own actions?
Anyone notice how Bush's brother is going out of his way to start looking like the president? Similar hair/clothing styles, mannerisms, etc. Anyone wanna guess who the republicans are gonna try and field for the next election?
Yeah, they could be brothers as much as they look alike!
My guess would be Governor Romney of Mass. Second guess: Rudy Giuliani (sp?)
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
So? The former administration wrote the book on this one. Wouldn't you agree it would be foolish not to do this?
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
Yes, and thank God for that! Unwavering conviction is called integrity, and being unapologetic coincides with firm belief in your cause. On behalf of my fellow members of the Vast, Right-wing Conspiracy, I'll take this as a compliment.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh! How dare you contradict the masses with your relevant, and highly-informative post?
MPEG4 is a video compression standard. You can integrate audio streams in many different formats, including AAC. But, saying that AAC is a part of the MPEG4 standard is false. Most stand-alone MPEG4/DivX/XviD players don't support AAC for patent reasons. Most MPEG4/DivX/XviD files available for download (no statistics to prove this), with the exception of those at archive.org and iTunes, have MP3 or OGG audio streams. These files are more widely playable.
Are you really so stupid as to think I was refering to a specific brief or article on aclu.org? Or, can you see the commonality of position between the poster's stance and that of the ACLU? Big stretch there. Here's a hint: BOTH ARE LIBERAL. Get it?
You're arguing ridiculously. Nobody is going to convict you of being attacted to Asian girls. But, if you're getting off on porno video of 8-year-olds, I hope you're found and prosecuted. At what age to we draw the line (for all you slippery-slope crybabies)? Who is to say? But, it's liberals like you that will continally push to drop the "age of consent."
Oh, the slippery slope argument. Classic. You're approach can be used to decriminalize ANY type of behavior. I loathe to think of the world _you'd_ create.
Ah yes. Spoken like a true AC. So, let's just look the other way, or rationalize, or normalize pedophilia. Yeah, that's it!
...throw the book at the sick bastard.
This kind of crap is showing up on Slashdot all too regularly, lately. If I wanted to read some bleeding-heart's cry of foul play against a pedophile, I'd go to the ACLU's web page.
when I see a phrase like "scumbag pedophile", I get rather pissed off.
And, when I see someone rallying to the defense of pedophiles, I get rather pissed off.
I was under the impression he was being jailed for copying pornography for personal use, and they used this to lock him up for longer than he would've been otherwise.
Any excuse, legal loophole or technicality used to extend the incarceration of pedophiles is well-used. And, this is regardless of whether they produce, or just [simply?] watch.
My problem is that we have this President who has continuously attempted say that he maintains a higher moral standing than most of us.
Wha? When has Bush ever said or even implied such a thing? Many liberals think he's playing holier-than-thou, but the truth is, he's simply taking a moral stance. Nothing more. This is just a strange concept for liberals to handle -- a president with moral convictions.
As a dedicated Republican...
Why is it that so many liberals think that claiming republican membership will lend credence to their argument? Not only are you a republican, you are a dedicated one at that. OOooh! What does that mean? Do you share in the republican (actually conservative) belief of a strong, capitalist society and strong national defense?
I certainly can conclude that Bush is acting as nothing more than an arrogant ass.
Actually, he's acting as the President. Nothing more. Sure, some may argue that he is overstepping his bounds with "domestic spying" -- an activity the last administration also took part in, BTW. Others, though like myself, argue that he's being prudent in a time when al Qaeda have directly threatoned the American people with another attack on our soil. Government's FIRST PRIORITY is to defend and protect our way of life. Sometimes, this requires rationing, or drafting or even [what some think is] an invasion of privacy. Sometimes, mistakes are made too. If the Democrats truly thought Bush's actions are illegal, though, they'd start the impeachment process. No, they have proven themselves to be nothing more than the party of opposition. Their stance is simply the opposite of whatever the President's is. And, it's not working out very well for them. Or you.
There are millions of people that will tell you there is something wrong with it. The question is, who is correct? I'm rather inclined to think they are, rather than you.
So, now you've condemned me for being a Christian and for fishing. I respect the fact that you've chosen atheism -- it's your right to do so. I also acknowledge that you're either a vegetarian or a hypocrite -- either one being, again, within your God-given rights.
You've argued that animals have morals, effectively, by arguing that they are equal to humans. Where do these morals come from? Do they come from working toward the greater good (utilitarian?) Or, are they self-serving? Or, do animals have an accountability to a higher power?
If it is not ok for me to fish, is it ok for a black bear to capture and devour salmon? Does the [equal] salmon have rights that are being infringed? Or, does the food chain dictate the moral worth of the bear's meal -- in which case it would also be ok for me to fish.
You argue from the assumption that fishing is OK because it is culturally accepted. I won't buy that as the final word on "OK."
No, I argue that fishing is culturally accepted because it is ok -- morally. As I've argued throughout this tread, animals are not equal to humans, and so they are not afforded the same rights as humans.
If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so?
There's nothing wrong with that (I love to fish.) But, to make your comparison actually valid, you should have said, "If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another human..." In this case, there is a difference. Cannibalism is not "wrong" per se in the animal kingdom (even in cases, such as father grizzly bears eating their young for reasons other than self-preservation.) But, because there is a difference between humans and animals, human cannibalism is, in fact, wrong (hypothetical marooned airline passenger cases aside.)
You've given yourself away there as a religious fundamentalist, not a thinking human being.
...many Eastern religions are less likely to suffer from this anthroposupremacist error.
What is a "religious fundamentalist?" With many different religions available (including the Eastern ones you referred to), specifically whose fundamentals do I appear to mirror (as you assert) rather than think for myself. Were you too afraid to just simply call me a Christian? You've given yourself up as an atheistic elitist.
Ironic that with your own elitist stance, you place yourself on level with animals.
Our spaniel has a well developed sense of right and wrong...
Your spaniel has a well-developed sense of what will bring him reward or punishment. Just like the cat poster above, you're trying to equate learned behaviour (stimulus->response) to morals. That's laughable. If a dog lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so? Likewise, if your dog knows he will be rewarded with affection if he does a pet trick, is he obeying a fundamental law? Or, is he simply satisfying an instinctive desire for affection?
Yes, and that is why many of them would choose to starve in order to provide food for their reincarnated relative now living as a rat. Tell me this isn't an antianthroposupremacist error.
We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Our intellegence does exactly that. We (humans) affect our environment. We can conserve or destroy. We have law. We have technology. We have morals (or lack thereof.) We have religion, and we also have science.
Equating one's self to a mere animal is effectively relinquishing that which makes us unique and special as beings. I would also argue that this is a most dangerous idea as well. If animalistic behaviour becomes the mean, then humanity will very quickly reach its end.
Wow, I would really like to see the source for that percentage. Did Germany really do polls back then? (Must've been a CBS poll.) Did Hitler even give a crap about his approval rating?
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
I totally agree. And, on that note, I would like to wish you a very merry CHRISTmas.
If Microsoft can make anti-virus and anti-spyware software to cover shortcomings in its own OS, shouldn't this be included as PART of the OS? They can make a great argument why file compression, web browsing, disk defragging and other utilities should be part of the OS. Why not this as well?
(Before I get flamed because Microsoft is currently giving its BETA away for free, check the facts. They will most-likely charge a subscription fee for them later.)
...the mainstream is enamoured with geekdom.
True geeks will never go mainstream. They'll (we'll) always be geeks unto our own.
Uh, yeah. I have an inside source that this is it. CleverNickName, can you confirm?
Actually, I don't know what format the TV shows (TNG and forward) were originally shot in, but I doubt HD releases would be any better than DVD. (Surely, consumers are smart enough to realize this. No?) As for the films, I'm sure Paramount will want to milk any HD revenue they can from the ST franchise. (And, good for them, IMO)
My comment was simply meant as a jab at Lucas for being the great capitalist that he is and going to market "One last time" with the original* Star Wars trilogy -- not mentioning that a new, Special Edition version was shortly to come.
*original, of course, is a fluid term. Apparently, these had been edited/touched-up/enhanced since the Original-original release.
No, that's the Star Wars universe you're thinking of.
Yeah, I got burned by the "One last time... until Special Edition" SW caper.
I can understand the concern over storing deleted email. But, keeping caches of web content is a bad thing? Some (like me) would argue that deleting old, cached content would be analogous to burning books. The more history, the better if you ask me.
Really!? Fascinating. Can you provide supporting links? I'd like to read about this, especially since being incarcerated depends on the criminal actions of the subject (according to the local law,) the economic status of the subject, and the celebrity status of the subject (ie. OJ Simpson) to name a few. So, genetics also play a role, in combination with the above mentioned? If this is true, then do defense lawyers offer genetic disposition as a defense? Is there really a jail gene? Or, are people actually responsible for their own actions?
I think there might be a slight difference bewteen being black and being incarcerated. One of them has to do with biology. Can you tell which?
Several northern states retained slavery for many years after the war.
How? Civil war ends April, 1865. 13th Ammendment is passed December, 1865. I'm no history expert, but your statement contradicts historical fact.
Anyone notice how Bush's brother is going out of his way to start looking like the president? Similar hair/clothing styles, mannerisms, etc. Anyone wanna guess who the republicans are gonna try and field for the next election?
Yeah, they could be brothers as much as they look alike!
My guess would be Governor Romney of Mass. Second guess: Rudy Giuliani (sp?)
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
So? The former administration wrote the book on this one. Wouldn't you agree it would be foolish not to do this?
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
Yes, and thank God for that! Unwavering conviction is called integrity, and being unapologetic coincides with firm belief in your cause. On behalf of my fellow members of the Vast, Right-wing Conspiracy, I'll take this as a compliment.