"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."
No I can't give you a reference off the [sic] of my head. It's just what I was thought [sic] in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.
Well, teachers aren't gods, and what is rattling around in your head doesn't define the language. Many of your arguments seem to be build on your somewhat quirky interpretation of the meanings of some pretty fundamental words.
What words mean matters. Consensus on what words mean is the foundation of communication. Third party references are the only reasonable way to settle disagreements over the meanings of words.
Ideas are made up of words. If you are operating under your own non-standard language you will be trapped in your own unique world of ideas that can't be expressed to or influenced by the outside world.
There are several good online dictionaries. I personally like Merriam-Webster's very much. KDE has an application called Kdict which will bring up definitions of any word you highlight in almost any application. (Works with moz which is GTK+ based.) It uses WordNet and Webster's 1913 dictionary which is very good. There is a web interface to Websters 1913 at the U of Chicago. I also keep an old Websters (1969) handy. I got it at a used book store for six bucks.
My point is that sticking by a your personal definition of a word in the absence of any third party reference shuts down rational discourse. Even worse, it leaves you with a skewed perception of what other people are saying, and causes what you say to have a meaning other than what you intended.
Well, for the record I don't believe in anything meta-physical. I try to avoid the label "atheist" because many who call themselves atheist would more accurately be "anti-theists" but strictly speaking I am one.
As for definitions
WordNet says:
morality
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
and Merriam-Webster's says:
1: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
Neither mention religion. Perhaps you believe that objective right and wrong can only exists in the context of a supreme being? In any case I don't. I try (with a reasonable amount of success) to be a moral person without one.
Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap.
Since capitism is about accumulating wealth and since there is no moral (or ethical) imperitive to accumulate wealth they are indeed opposites.
In all seriousness, is English your first language? What do you think opposite means? The opposite of wealth is poverty. The opposite of morality is immorality. Wealth and immorality are in no way opposite. People often face the choice between an action that is moral and one that will result in personal gain. I had a choice today at lunch between a hamburger and tacos, but they are not opposites.
Back to WordNet:
opposite
n 1: two words that express opposing concepts; "to him the opposite of gay was depressed"
Morality is not about "making the best of it". It's about absolutes. You are talking about moral relativism which most religious people reject.
No, the opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, not admitting that it is an imperfect world. I am a moral absolutist (if you like) and the objectively right system (again, given the state of man's nature an knowledge) is capitalism, because it minimizes suffering and maximizes prosperity.
I don't think that even the most religious believe that Earth can be made a paradise without divine intervention!
Capitalism will crumble only when people are not greedy and selfish. That will never come (says me anyway). All religious and spiritual people (not me) believe in their hearts that people can change, can become better then their animal selves and evolve to be a enlightened human being. Once enlightened people will stop thinking of themselves and dedicate themselves to god and serving the rest of humanity. If they are right AND if that ever happens capitalism will crumble. At that point morality will win it's war with capitalism. Until then capitalism will kick moralities ass like a left handed stepchild.
Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature. I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go.
First, you have shifted the subject from "capitalism" to "the current system in the US." The two really aren't interchangeable. I certainly don't intend to give unqualified support to "the current system in the US" which is clearly less than perfect. OTOH, it is a good system on the whole and I do defend it as an example of capitalism. My point is that we can't have a rational discussion if we pull the topical rug out from under each other like that.
Now, many people choose to act in an immoral or unethical way for personal gain. Capitalism is not able to prevent that, but I don't see how it particularly encourages it. I think that we could give examples tit-for-tat of how this manifests in different systems, but I don't see any point.
You both seem to be implying an accusation that capitalism creates or encourages immoral/unethical behavior, so let me pose this back to you as a question: Can either of you name an economic system that is better at discouraging unethical and immoral behavior than capitalism?
I don't deny that people behave badly under capitalism, but I fail to see a causal link. As my scientist friend would say "correlation does not imply causation."
The one differentiating feature of capitalism is that "the market" can exert some pressure on those who are perceived as immoral or unethical.
You were probably modded down for being both off-topic and wrong.
First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition.
Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism.
OTOH, a system of public ownership of capital is a disincentive to productive labor. History shows that this creates uniform poverty, and is therefore an immoral system.
An ideal system would create incentives to productive labor that would create a uniformly wealthy society. Sadly, there is no known system that matches this description.
So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time.
Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism.
Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us. Objectively, given what we know about conditions around the world historically and currently, that system is capitalism.
In the beginning there were daisy-wheel printers. They were basically computer controlled typewriters. The print quality was very good, but a given printer was limited to one point size and the print head (the actual "daisy wheel") had to be replaced to change the face. If you have ever seen a printout with "large type" that is made up of smaller characters it was probably made on a daisy wheel printer (or with software that was made to use one).
Dot-matrix printers were a major innovation. They used a column of 9 (and later 24) pins to print part of a character at a time from left to right. This allowed printing in any point size and face, and even . . . graphics. They were noisy and still relied on track feed paper for the most part.
Sometime before your awareness of computers, someone figured they could use the technology of a photo-copier to make printouts by using a laser instead of reflected light to charge the drum.
Finally, ink-jets (and variants like "bubble-jets") were introduced as an alternative to dot-matrix printers for people who couldn't afford laser printers.
I've received three replies, and they all make the same point.
The respondents seem to have dismissed the fact that there is a difference between energy and electricity out of hand. The former is clearly a case of the later. But you clearly haven't addressed my statement.
My use of quotes in the first line of my post around "save electricity" didn't seem to convey that I was making a differentiation between energy and electricity. What I had in mind was fuel, but I don't see how potential energy is any different for the purpose of this discussion.
Okay, I made a reference to batteries, which are really a chemical reaction in a bottle all set up and ready to go, and not really stored electricity. I did that to conjure a ridiculous image, not to shift the context of the discussion.
I'll also own up to using the word "power" to mean electricity, but I don't think that is of much relevance either.
OTOH, I find the info about turning excess capacity to potential energy in water very interesting. Thanks.
I don't think that you can actually "save electricity" in any meaningful way.
All you can do is decrease load and then decrease fuel consumption accordingly. I guess in a way this is "saving electrictiy for later" but it is hard for me to think of a pile of coal or a tank of oil as electricty that is being saved for later.
Maybe in the future power plants will have giant super-conductive rings that can store power, but I promise you that your local coal/gas/oil/nuke/hydro/wind/solar plant doesn't have thirty ton lead-acid batteries so that unused power can be saved.
You are thinking in terms of consumer to ISP connectivity, not ISP to ISP connectivity.
A "Mom & Pop" ISP probably pays some level of transfer fees, but the big boys (like the ones in this story) have dedicated links to peering partners that they either build themselves or lease from a major telco. I don't know much about "paid peering" (which isn't peering at all) but I think that is generally at a flat rate as well.
The economics at this level work a lot differently than your DSL or cable modem. At this level the more data you move the more attractive you are as a peering partner, because you can provide a short route to your not-so-little chunk of the internet.
Maybe for the same reason that VCRs have a write head?
I can't read the article, but I wouldn't consider it a "real HTPC" without the ability to record programs to VCD. A VCD holds a good hour at ~VHS quality.
It isn't too slow to stream to (even at 2x, think about it) but it would be complicated. For starters you'd need to be able to re-enc MPEG-2 to MPEG-1 in real time, sync audio, etc. Plus you have all the black magic that goes into making a CD which is best done as a batch.
But no matter, record to disk and dump to CD later.
So in theory a 44kHz mp3 is about equivalent to a 22kHz analog signal. In reality you can't get quite that good, but it dosen't matter as few can hear much past 18kHz anyway.
You have made a jump from sample rates to sound freqencies here that isn't valid. I can't hear a tone above 20kHz, but I can certanly tell the difference between a track sampled at 22kHz vs. on sampled at 44kHz.
I saw it at 12:01 on opening morning. Lots of cheering and all. At 10:00 that morning the theater was half full, and there was very little audience participation.
Something odd at the first showing though, the theater filled with nervous laughter during Anakin's dream scene. Anyone else experince that? I think it was the giant nipple waving around on the screen.
Oh, and will you do a "special" 1.0 release of QT Mozilla? Can you start linking against a newer version of QT?
That is exactly the rotten thinking that is what is wrong with so many businesses in America.
I'll illustrate by describing my experience at Dell.
I worked tech support. We didn't generate revenue directly. Therefore policies were put in place that "saved money" by alienating customers and eroding Dell's reputation for having first-class tech support.
On the other hand, the policies in the sales department "made money" by allowing (and in fact encouraging) salesmen to do things that would cause a customer to almost certainly never buy from Dell again, and probably return the system they just bought in the first place.
I suggest that a better metric than "You need to ask your self what profit do these people add to the business?" is "How do these people affect the business' overall profitability?"
The other major problem that this brings to light (but is off-topic) is the way that departments are set at odds with each other. Time and time again I saw situations where doing something one way would cost our department x dollars, and another with cost some other department 4x dollars, so we did it the other way without regard for the fact that it cost the company four times as much.
A company that is able to sell PCs for premium prices because they offer stellar support mortgages their future when they "enhance" today's profit by eroding that reputation for service, using the theory that "these people don't make us money."
The assumption being made is that, if the patent office declares "partly human" to be unpatentable on the grounds that "partly human" is "human," then "partly human" will mean "human" in other areas of the law as well. I am merely pointing out that one should not assume that, just because "partly human=human" in one area of the law, "partly human=human" holds in all areas of the law.
Assumed by whom? I assume nothing of the kind. In fact I hesitate to say I assume that the opposite is true, but I would guess that it is. Which is to say that it appears we are on the same side of the argument.
I don't know what I could have said to make you believe I assume otherwise.
Merely a demonstration that there is not necessarily any logical consistency in U.S. law. No more, no less. (A slave was 3/5 of a person for some purposes; a slave was not a person at all for other purposes. A sentient robot, or a humouse, may be human for some legal purposes, and not for other legal purposes.)
Okay, but you seem to be debating this with yourself. I never asserted that the US government has a consistent set of laws. Beyond that, I find the trotting out of the 3/5 rule to be inflammatory unless it is very specifically relevant. This parallels (HA!) Godwin's Law.
While I'm flattered that you find me rational based on my previous posts, what relevance does that have here? If I "stumped" you because I didn't make my point clearly, then I apologize; but if this post was unclear, it matters little whether posts I've made in the past were clear or not.
You aren't that new to slashdot! Slashdot is populated with trolls, rambling freaks, people with inscrutable agendas, and ones who can't put together a rational train of though to save their lives.
With that in mind, what I meant is that what you said doesn't sense, but I don't get the impression that there is a mental disconnect on your end of the wire, so we must just not be communicating.
Did anyone else notice that this bears a striking resemblance to Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man"?
Specifically, petitioning the system to get "partly not human" declared not human, with the hopes of losing, to set a precedent that "partly human" is legally human.
To me that is a pretty striking example of life imitating art.
I can never get over how ahead of his time that man was.
Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet. The Kaminoan, Lama Su, gives up the name (rot13s to Fvsb-Qlnf) in the book, but I don't recall anyone on the council claiming he was dead at the time the order was placed.
Okay, I hate to sound like an English major (which I'm not), but here we go.
We have mitochondria, not midichloirians. And they don't whisper the will of the Force at us (at least as far as you know:-P ).
But, because the story is really about us, things work the same in the story as they do for us, in the absence of a symbolic or plot reason for something scientific to work differently.
And think about it, which is an easier Sci-Fi sell; that (identical) twins long ago in a galaxy far, far away have identical finger prints, or that in this society where cloning is a given the technology exists to make a more "perfect" clone?
Star Wars looks like our own future, and is described as someone else's past, but it is about our present.
Well, the succession is clear, there is no doubt that Palpatine is ostensibly the Emperor. But that's just my point. Sidious can just slide in there, and the genetic ID* matches, so he just needs to make sure Palpatine doesn't, uh, resurface.
I think that red senate guards -> Imperial guards is good reasoning, but red Senate guards -> Palpatine is not a clone is quite a stretch.
The line where he tells Anikin that he doesn't need guidance is a bigger hole.
Except that he would, by virtue of his genetics, be strong in the force as well (though clearly not trained). And if Anikin were, say, his biological son, he might be drawn to him without any alterer motive. And his temperament would still be like Sidious. Everything is proceeding as he has foreseen it;-)
Beyond that the book goes on about how comfortable Anikin is with him, like they are peers in spite of the fact that Palpatine is leader of the free galaxy. Who is more your peer than your biological twin . . . ?
Also note that Lucas says that he likes to "riff" or do variations on a theme. A corny example is "I have a bad feeling about this." I think there is going to be a deeper parallel, like this:
Jango Fett = Sidious: The "source" Boba Fett = Anikin: The "pure clone" (or "favorite son") Clone Army = Palpatine: The "impure clones" (or "utility clones")
This will only make sense if you have read the book or seen the movie.
-Peter
* Of course, "natural" clones would not have the same finger prints, etc. But with the technology involved here I'm sure Sidious (and the Kaminoans?) could overcome this.
Do we have any real degree of certainty that Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, Emperor Palpatine, and Darth Sidious are the same person . . . ?
Everything that follows is nothing more that a wild ass guess on my part.
My guess is that Sidious cloned himself (with modifications to make the clone a sniveling weakling) and manipulated him into the big chair and is going to disappear him in EP3: The Chickens Come Home to Roost (tCCHtR).
I mean, come on. No matter how "difficult to see, the dark side is" the amount of time he spends around Jedi in EP1 and 2 would have to cause a tremor or two if Sidious and Palpatine were one and the same.
Oh, and there is no immaculate conception . . . Anikin is a clone that was planted (and implanted) by . . . someone. I'll go out on a limb and guess that it was Sidious.
But my SWAGs have been wrong in the past. I was sure that Kitster was going to end up Boba Fett.
Finally, if all you have to say is along the lines "Lucas is a tool, Jar-Jar sucks, Lucas is out of touch with his fans, he just wants to sell lunch boxes and play with digital toys, etc" why don't you check the "Star Wars Prequels" box on your homepage preferences? I'm glad you have an opinion, but you aren't adding anything to the discussion. It is trollish, and amounts to crapfloding at this point.
I think you are on the right track with 1., and you have created a useful general rule, but you haven't gotten to the heart of the problem.
The problem is that most managers think that they are both smarter and more knowledgeable than their subordinates. They are generally wrong, and therefore make bad decisions. A manager who knows "the product" or "the job" as well as the subordinates does this less often by virtue of being as knowledgeable.
That said, a manager who is a good manager and listens to his subordinates and trusts their judgment on technical matters is in the ideal position, without having to be good at both the managerial and the technical.
Or to put it more succinctly, bad managers think they know every f-ing thing. Ones who are right more than they are wrong are outwardly less bad, but one who is ignorant but truly trusts the experts can be genuinely good.
To comment on point 7., you may not believe me, but I swear when I worked tech support for Dell there was a manager who had a note pinned to his cube that said "The beatings will continue until morale improves." He, apparently thought this was funny. He was also a prime source of morale problems. He was the kind of a-hole that would give you the "do it for the team" speech when you were stuck with "voluntary" (a.k.a. compulsory) overtime over the weekend, then loudly roll out of the office at 4:30 on Friday. And then thought it was cute when a flaming fuck of a customer would call on the weekend an he couldn't be raised because he lost his pager while water-skiing. In fact he though it was cute both times. No kidding.
And people wonder why I hate freaking Canadians.
Finally, jumping back to 5. for a moment; I have never taken a business ethics course. What do they teach in there? "Don't get caught . . . but if you do cover it up with more bullshit."? Sometimes I wonder if management courses aren't primarily training to rationalize outrageous behavior. Like lying to someone who knows you are lying, and knowing that they know, and being okay with that.
-Peter
PS: If anyone thinks they know who I am talking about, I was in the server group, and the guy was sometimes known as "Shaggy." Fuck it, I'd call out his name if I could remember it. Lazy eye. This was '97-'98.
Yes, you said that, but you followed with "Seems that either the number is wrong, or they should have more than just $38bn . .." which is false. The number is not wrong, and they "shouldn't" have more than $38 billion.
The question "How long have they been making this much?" does not make your false dichotomy any less false, or my statements any less true.
[I posted this earlier, but it disappeared somewhere between the time I hit submit and the time it should have entered the/. DB.]
Matt,
Consider taking Algebra next semester. You will learn that not all functions are linear.
After that you may take Calculus one day, and learn that it is often appropriate and useful to substitute a linear equation for a non-linear one for small portions of the domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, teachers aren't gods, and what is rattling around in your head doesn't define the language. Many of your arguments seem to be build on your somewhat quirky interpretation of the meanings of some pretty fundamental words.
What words mean matters. Consensus on what words mean is the foundation of communication. Third party references are the only reasonable way to settle disagreements over the meanings of words.
Ideas are made up of words. If you are operating under your own non-standard language you will be trapped in your own unique world of ideas that can't be expressed to or influenced by the outside world.
There are several good online dictionaries. I personally like Merriam-Webster's very much. KDE has an application called Kdict which will bring up definitions of any word you highlight in almost any application. (Works with moz which is GTK+ based.) It uses WordNet and Webster's 1913 dictionary which is very good. There is a web interface to Websters 1913 at the U of Chicago. I also keep an old Websters (1969) handy. I got it at a used book store for six bucks.
My point is that sticking by a your personal definition of a word in the absence of any third party reference shuts down rational discourse. Even worse, it leaves you with a skewed perception of what other people are saying, and causes what you say to have a meaning other than what you intended.
Good luck.
-Peter
Well, for the record I don't believe in anything meta-physical. I try to avoid the label "atheist" because many who call themselves atheist would more accurately be "anti-theists" but strictly speaking I am one.
As for definitions
WordNet says:
and Merriam-Webster's says:
Neither mention religion. Perhaps you believe that objective right and wrong can only exists in the context of a supreme being? In any case I don't. I try (with a reasonable amount of success) to be a moral person without one.
Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap.
In all seriousness, is English your first language? What do you think opposite means? The opposite of wealth is poverty. The opposite of morality is immorality. Wealth and immorality are in no way opposite. People often face the choice between an action that is moral and one that will result in personal gain. I had a choice today at lunch between a hamburger and tacos, but they are not opposites.
Back to WordNet:
No, the opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, not admitting that it is an imperfect world. I am a moral absolutist (if you like) and the objectively right system (again, given the state of man's nature an knowledge) is capitalism, because it minimizes suffering and maximizes prosperity.
I don't think that even the most religious believe that Earth can be made a paradise without divine intervention!
Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature. I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go.
-Peter
First, you have shifted the subject from "capitalism" to "the current system in the US." The two really aren't interchangeable. I certainly don't intend to give unqualified support to "the current system in the US" which is clearly less than perfect. OTOH, it is a good system on the whole and I do defend it as an example of capitalism. My point is that we can't have a rational discussion if we pull the topical rug out from under each other like that.
Now, many people choose to act in an immoral or unethical way for personal gain. Capitalism is not able to prevent that, but I don't see how it particularly encourages it. I think that we could give examples tit-for-tat of how this manifests in different systems, but I don't see any point.
You both seem to be implying an accusation that capitalism creates or encourages immoral/unethical behavior, so let me pose this back to you as a question: Can either of you name an economic system that is better at discouraging unethical and immoral behavior than capitalism?
I don't deny that people behave badly under capitalism, but I fail to see a causal link. As my scientist friend would say "correlation does not imply causation."
The one differentiating feature of capitalism is that "the market" can exert some pressure on those who are perceived as immoral or unethical.
-Peter
You were probably modded down for being both off-topic and wrong.
First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition.
Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism.
OTOH, a system of public ownership of capital is a disincentive to productive labor. History shows that this creates uniform poverty, and is therefore an immoral system.
An ideal system would create incentives to productive labor that would create a uniformly wealthy society. Sadly, there is no known system that matches this description.
So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time.
Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism.
Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us. Objectively, given what we know about conditions around the world historically and currently, that system is capitalism.
-Peter
Oh, I was mistakenly under the impression that the word "humor" was associated with things that are funny.
-Peter
You didn't even try to find the answer for your self, did you.
See the webopedia entry.
In the beginning there were daisy-wheel printers. They were basically computer controlled typewriters. The print quality was very good, but a given printer was limited to one point size and the print head (the actual "daisy wheel") had to be replaced to change the face. If you have ever seen a printout with "large type" that is made up of smaller characters it was probably made on a daisy wheel printer (or with software that was made to use one).
Dot-matrix printers were a major innovation. They used a column of 9 (and later 24) pins to print part of a character at a time from left to right. This allowed printing in any point size and face, and even . . . graphics. They were noisy and still relied on track feed paper for the most part.
Sometime before your awareness of computers, someone figured they could use the technology of a photo-copier to make printouts by using a laser instead of reflected light to charge the drum.
Finally, ink-jets (and variants like "bubble-jets") were introduced as an alternative to dot-matrix printers for people who couldn't afford laser printers.
-Peter
I've received three replies, and they all make the same point.
The respondents seem to have dismissed the fact that there is a difference between energy and electricity out of hand. The former is clearly a case of the later. But you clearly haven't addressed my statement.
My use of quotes in the first line of my post around "save electricity" didn't seem to convey that I was making a differentiation between energy and electricity. What I had in mind was fuel, but I don't see how potential energy is any different for the purpose of this discussion.
Okay, I made a reference to batteries, which are really a chemical reaction in a bottle all set up and ready to go, and not really stored electricity. I did that to conjure a ridiculous image, not to shift the context of the discussion.
I'll also own up to using the word "power" to mean electricity, but I don't think that is of much relevance either.
OTOH, I find the info about turning excess capacity to potential energy in water very interesting. Thanks.
-Peter
I don't think that you can actually "save electricity" in any meaningful way.
All you can do is decrease load and then decrease fuel consumption accordingly. I guess in a way this is "saving electrictiy for later" but it is hard for me to think of a pile of coal or a tank of oil as electricty that is being saved for later.
Maybe in the future power plants will have giant super-conductive rings that can store power, but I promise you that your local coal/gas/oil/nuke/hydro/wind/solar plant doesn't have thirty ton lead-acid batteries so that unused power can be saved.
-Peter
You are thinking in terms of consumer to ISP connectivity, not ISP to ISP connectivity.
A "Mom & Pop" ISP probably pays some level of transfer fees, but the big boys (like the ones in this story) have dedicated links to peering partners that they either build themselves or lease from a major telco. I don't know much about "paid peering" (which isn't peering at all) but I think that is generally at a flat rate as well.
The economics at this level work a lot differently than your DSL or cable modem. At this level the more data you move the more attractive you are as a peering partner, because you can provide a short route to your not-so-little chunk of the internet.
-Peter
Maybe for the same reason that VCRs have a write head?
I can't read the article, but I wouldn't consider it a "real HTPC" without the ability to record programs to VCD. A VCD holds a good hour at ~VHS quality.
It isn't too slow to stream to (even at 2x, think about it) but it would be complicated. For starters you'd need to be able to re-enc MPEG-2 to MPEG-1 in real time, sync audio, etc. Plus you have all the black magic that goes into making a CD which is best done as a batch.
But no matter, record to disk and dump to CD later.
-Peter
You have made a jump from sample rates to sound freqencies here that isn't valid. I can't hear a tone above 20kHz, but I can certanly tell the difference between a track sampled at 22kHz vs. on sampled at 44kHz.
-Peter
I saw it at 12:01 on opening morning. Lots of cheering and all. At 10:00 that morning the theater was half full, and there was very little audience participation.
Something odd at the first showing though, the theater filled with nervous laughter during Anakin's dream scene. Anyone else experince that? I think it was the giant nipple waving around on the screen.
Oh, and will you do a "special" 1.0 release of QT Mozilla? Can you start linking against a newer version of QT?
-Peter
That is exactly the rotten thinking that is what is wrong with so many businesses in America.
I'll illustrate by describing my experience at Dell.
I worked tech support. We didn't generate revenue directly. Therefore policies were put in place that "saved money" by alienating customers and eroding Dell's reputation for having first-class tech support.
On the other hand, the policies in the sales department "made money" by allowing (and in fact encouraging) salesmen to do things that would cause a customer to almost certainly never buy from Dell again, and probably return the system they just bought in the first place.
I suggest that a better metric than "You need to ask your self what profit do these people add to the business?" is "How do these people affect the business' overall profitability?"
The other major problem that this brings to light (but is off-topic) is the way that departments are set at odds with each other. Time and time again I saw situations where doing something one way would cost our department x dollars, and another with cost some other department 4x dollars, so we did it the other way without regard for the fact that it cost the company four times as much.
A company that is able to sell PCs for premium prices because they offer stellar support mortgages their future when they "enhance" today's profit by eroding that reputation for service, using the theory that "these people don't make us money."
The assumption being made is that, if the patent office declares "partly human" to be unpatentable on the grounds that "partly human" is "human," then "partly human" will mean "human" in other areas of the law as well. I am merely pointing out that one should not assume that, just because "partly human=human" in one area of the law, "partly human=human" holds in all areas of the law.
Assumed by whom? I assume nothing of the kind. In fact I hesitate to say I assume that the opposite is true, but I would guess that it is. Which is to say that it appears we are on the same side of the argument.
I don't know what I could have said to make you believe I assume otherwise.
Merely a demonstration that there is not necessarily any logical consistency in U.S. law. No more, no less. (A slave was 3/5 of a person for some purposes; a slave was not a person at all for other purposes. A sentient robot, or a humouse, may be human for some legal purposes, and not for other legal purposes.)
Okay, but you seem to be debating this with yourself. I never asserted that the US government has a consistent set of laws. Beyond that, I find the trotting out of the 3/5 rule to be inflammatory unless it is very specifically relevant. This parallels (HA!) Godwin's Law.
While I'm flattered that you find me rational based on my previous posts, what relevance does that have here? If I "stumped" you because I didn't make my point clearly, then I apologize; but if this post was unclear, it matters little whether posts I've made in the past were clear or not.
You aren't that new to slashdot! Slashdot is populated with trolls, rambling freaks, people with inscrutable agendas, and ones who can't put together a rational train of though to save their lives.
With that in mind, what I meant is that what you said doesn't sense, but I don't get the impression that there is a mental disconnect on your end of the wire, so we must just not be communicating.
Make better sense?
-Peter
How, exactly, is the consistency of the US government relevant to the parallel I drew?
And what are you trying to prove by dragging out the old 3/5 rule?
I've read some of your other posts, and you seem to be a rational person, but you have me stumped.
-Peter
Did anyone else notice that this bears a striking resemblance to Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man"?
Specifically, petitioning the system to get "partly not human" declared not human, with the hopes of losing, to set a precedent that "partly human" is legally human.
To me that is a pretty striking example of life imitating art.
I can never get over how ahead of his time that man was.
-Peter
Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet. The Kaminoan, Lama Su, gives up the name (rot13s to Fvsb-Qlnf) in the book, but I don't recall anyone on the council claiming he was dead at the time the order was placed.
-Peter
Well, sure. Except that it is an allegory.
:-P ).
Okay, I hate to sound like an English major (which I'm not), but here we go.
We have mitochondria, not midichloirians. And they don't whisper the will of the Force at us (at least as far as you know
But, because the story is really about us, things work the same in the story as they do for us, in the absence of a symbolic or plot reason for something scientific to work differently.
And think about it, which is an easier Sci-Fi sell; that (identical) twins long ago in a galaxy far, far away have identical finger prints, or that in this society where cloning is a given the technology exists to make a more "perfect" clone?
Star Wars looks like our own future, and is described as someone else's past, but it is about our present.
-Peter
Well, the succession is clear, there is no doubt that Palpatine is ostensibly the Emperor. But that's just my point. Sidious can just slide in there, and the genetic ID* matches, so he just needs to make sure Palpatine doesn't, uh, resurface.
;-)
I think that red senate guards -> Imperial guards is good reasoning, but red Senate guards -> Palpatine is not a clone is quite a stretch.
The line where he tells Anikin that he doesn't need guidance is a bigger hole.
Except that he would, by virtue of his genetics, be strong in the force as well (though clearly not trained). And if Anikin were, say, his biological son, he might be drawn to him without any alterer motive. And his temperament would still be like Sidious. Everything is proceeding as he has foreseen it
Beyond that the book goes on about how comfortable Anikin is with him, like they are peers in spite of the fact that Palpatine is leader of the free galaxy. Who is more your peer than your biological twin . . . ?
Also note that Lucas says that he likes to "riff" or do variations on a theme. A corny example is "I have a bad feeling about this." I think there is going to be a deeper parallel, like this:
Jango Fett = Sidious: The "source"
Boba Fett = Anikin: The "pure clone" (or "favorite son")
Clone Army = Palpatine: The "impure clones" (or "utility clones")
This will only make sense if you have read the book or seen the movie.
-Peter
* Of course, "natural" clones would not have the same finger prints, etc. But with the technology involved here I'm sure Sidious (and the Kaminoans?) could overcome this.
Emperor^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Supreme Chancellor Palpatine
Do we have any real degree of certainty that Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, Emperor Palpatine, and Darth Sidious are the same person . . . ?
Everything that follows is nothing more that a wild ass guess on my part.
My guess is that Sidious cloned himself (with modifications to make the clone a sniveling weakling) and manipulated him into the big chair and is going to disappear him in EP3: The Chickens Come Home to Roost (tCCHtR).
I mean, come on. No matter how "difficult to see, the dark side is" the amount of time he spends around Jedi in EP1 and 2 would have to cause a tremor or two if Sidious and Palpatine were one and the same.
Oh, and there is no immaculate conception . . . Anikin is a clone that was planted (and implanted) by . . . someone. I'll go out on a limb and guess that it was Sidious.
But my SWAGs have been wrong in the past. I was sure that Kitster was going to end up Boba Fett.
Finally, if all you have to say is along the lines "Lucas is a tool, Jar-Jar sucks, Lucas is out of touch with his fans, he just wants to sell lunch boxes and play with digital toys, etc" why don't you check the "Star Wars Prequels" box on your homepage preferences? I'm glad you have an opinion, but you aren't adding anything to the discussion. It is trollish, and amounts to crapfloding at this point.
-Peter
I think you are on the right track with 1., and you have created a useful general rule, but you haven't gotten to the heart of the problem.
The problem is that most managers think that they are both smarter and more knowledgeable than their subordinates. They are generally wrong, and therefore make bad decisions. A manager who knows "the product" or "the job" as well as the subordinates does this less often by virtue of being as knowledgeable.
That said, a manager who is a good manager and listens to his subordinates and trusts their judgment on technical matters is in the ideal position, without having to be good at both the managerial and the technical.
Or to put it more succinctly, bad managers think they know every f-ing thing. Ones who are right more than they are wrong are outwardly less bad, but one who is ignorant but truly trusts the experts can be genuinely good.
To comment on point 7., you may not believe me, but I swear when I worked tech support for Dell there was a manager who had a note pinned to his cube that said "The beatings will continue until morale improves." He, apparently thought this was funny. He was also a prime source of morale problems. He was the kind of a-hole that would give you the "do it for the team" speech when you were stuck with "voluntary" (a.k.a. compulsory) overtime over the weekend, then loudly roll out of the office at 4:30 on Friday. And then thought it was cute when a flaming fuck of a customer would call on the weekend an he couldn't be raised because he lost his pager while water-skiing. In fact he though it was cute both times. No kidding.
And people wonder why I hate freaking Canadians.
Finally, jumping back to 5. for a moment; I have never taken a business ethics course. What do they teach in there? "Don't get caught . . . but if you do cover it up with more bullshit."? Sometimes I wonder if management courses aren't primarily training to rationalize outrageous behavior. Like lying to someone who knows you are lying, and knowing that they know, and being okay with that.
-Peter
PS: If anyone thinks they know who I am talking about, I was in the server group, and the guy was sometimes known as "Shaggy." Fuck it, I'd call out his name if I could remember it. Lazy eye. This was '97-'98.
Yes, you said that, but you followed with "Seems that either the number is wrong, or they should have more than just $38bn . . ." which is false. The number is not wrong, and they "shouldn't" have more than $38 billion.
The question "How long have they been making this much?" does not make your false dichotomy any less false, or my statements any less true.
-Peter
[I posted this earlier, but it disappeared somewhere between the time I hit submit and the time it should have entered the /. DB.]
Matt,
Consider taking Algebra next semester. You will learn that not all functions are linear.
After that you may take Calculus one day, and learn that it is often appropriate and useful to substitute a linear equation for a non-linear one for small portions of the domain.
Good luck with that higher education.
-Peter
Two words: Willem Dafoe
Man that guy gives me the heebee-jeebeies.
Seriously, there is a lot of ominous cackling, and several jump out of your seat moments.
If you think Bilbo's "moment of weakness" would have freaked you kid, probably best to leave him at home for this one.
There is also a lot of "comic book violence". People's faces or entire bodies shoved through windows, that sort of thing.
I guess it really boils down to how desensitized your kid already is.
-Peter
I think it was nissin cup-o-noodles.
The palm logo below and to the left of it (as I recall) was distractingly phony looking.
Too blue, too sharp (that that distance) and oriented too directly at the camera for where it was placed. Luckilly it was small.
-Peter