"If you had information about a robbery withholding that information from the authorities would be unethical. How is this different?"
As a previous poster indicated, it depends on who's asking. In the first scenario, you are withholding the information from lawful authorities. In the second scenario, you are withholding information from another person or corporation, and your "ethical" stance on their demand come very much into play.
To put it another way, if the school principal asks me who stole from the school bully, then it would be unethical for me not to tell them. If the bully himself asks me, then it would depend on my opinions of the bully and the thief. If I don't agree with the bully's morals/ethics, then I have no problem protecting the privacy of the thief until the principal makes me rat on him.
Personally, until legal process demands it, I'd have no problem morally or ethically if UW chose to uphold their student's rights to privacy in favor of the RIAA's rights to make unreasonable demands as if they were an authority in this. And if they have any backbone, this is exactly what they'll do.
"RIAA wont sue something that has money and resources..."
I'd argue that the RIAA would actually rather sue some agency/entity that HAS money and resources to take, rather than a bunch of penniless students who don't even have the $5000 they are trying to squeeze from them. In fact, avoiding a direct suit for harboring file-sharing lawbreakers is probably exactly why the school is complying.
Keep in mind that the RIAA wants the school to share the identities of the file-sharers with them. UW has not complied with that request. All they have done is agree to pass along the letters to the students in question. The RIAA hopes that these letters will scare the students in question into coming forth ON THEIR OWN and paying their fines voluntarily, since otherwise it (the RIAA) would probably have to resort to subpeona-ing the University to obtain the students' identities to pursue the lawsuits.
Either way, the RIAA makes money.
Considering all their options, UW has a lot more to lose, and the RIAA a lot more to gain, if the school refuses to help. I'm certain that this is what the RIAA was hoping they would do, so they could go after the school directly. UW's choice to pass along the letters but not give up the identities until legally required to do so is a reasonable compromise for them. They are making a show of cooperation up to a point and protecting themselves from being sued directly, but they are also protecting their students' privacy until legally forced to do otherwise.
"they are no more the work of Tolkien than "Shakespeare In Love" (with Gwinneth Paltro sic?) is a work of Shakespeare"
Not a good analogy. That film never claimed to be an adaptation of any work of Shakespeare. It was never presented as anything more than an original work of fiction. Ever seen the movie? If anything, it could be misinterpreted as a biographical story of Shakespeare (it isn't). At best, it's inspired by his styles and/or themes (inconvenient romance, comedy of errors, disguises, setting and language, etc.). Jackson's films, perfect or not, are clearly intended to be adaptations of Tolkien's works. Apples and oranges.
"Two words: Michael White. Look up his thoughts on what Tolkien would have thought of the movie."
And? Biographer or not, insider/confidant or not, it's one man's opinion. Hell, my parents and my wife would probably be pretty surprised at my opinions of a great many things, and I'm pretty sure they know me quite well. Parent post stands. No one can know what Tolkien would have thought of all this. It's pure speculation. Literary luminary or not, perhaps the man would simply be able to appreciate good entertainment inspired by his creations and treat it as just that... maybe he'd be glad that his work was inspiring other great works. Perhaps, like most creative minds, he'd be glad that the core (or at least elements of) his genius were flourishing and beloved by millions. Or perhaps he'd despise it all, like so many of his fanboys do.
"The two are one IMO, and homage should be paid"...
It is being paid. If the changes to the Jackson films, and the "cheapening of Arda" are what it takes to make the masses aware of JRRTs vision, even on the broadest level, then so be it. Some people will see the films and play the games and never crack open a single JRRT book (it's their loss), while others will become aware of an amazing world that they never knew existed because of their limited exposure to it via films and games, and will end up reading and loving every word he ever wrote and even thirsting for the works of those he later inspired.
Heck, even "The Hobbit" serves as an example of this itself -- as a lifelong Tolkien fan, I know this firsthand. My parent gave me a paperback copy of The Hobbit when I was very young, at an age when I could never have comprehended the complexities of the full Lord of the Rings or Silmarillion. And the scaled-back vision of Middle Earth that The Hobbit gave me, limited as it is and particularly aimed at children, was enough to hook me for life. Hell, even the cheesy Rankin/Bass animated cartoon version was enough to get my cousin interested, and he's even more into JRRT than I am now that we are adults. And I'm hoping that this game and the films and whatever else comes along, assuming they are not horrific bastardizations of the material (as neither the films or many of the games are, thus far) and at least attempt to stay true to Tolkein's spirit, expose millions more to the genius of JRRT. Those with the imagination to appreciate him deserve the chance to find out about him, even in a dumbed-down introductory way that might piss off purists.
Sure, if this was just D&D or WoW with JRRTs name slapped onto it, then I would agree with you completely. But having played this game quite extensively so far, and as a fan of the films, I can tell you that both Turbine and Peter Jackson, while taking necessary liberties with some details and making some adjustments to each of their respective mediums, have gone to pretty good lengths to stay true to JRRTs vision in all the ways that really matter. Oh, no, Tom Bombadil wasn't in the movies! The cleansing of the shire wasn't in the movies! So? Let new fans of the movies read the books after seeing them and enjoy these things for the first time! The main criticism that most people had with the films were their excessive lengths, anyway. I remember how I felt when I first watched Jackson's Balrog/Moria scenes in the theater -- I was blown away. You may choose to scoff and argue over why Gandalf's dialogue changed on the bridge, but I choose to sit back and enjoy actually SEEING these events happen before my eyes, when I could only imagine them before.
This game, even with its flaws, makes me feel like I'm a part of Middle Earth (not some wanna-be knock-off of it, like WoW's Cartoon Central virtual world), and that's a very good thing. They've even made some pretty severe adjustments to the conventions of the MMO genre to try to adhere to JRRTs vision (players cannot be Wizards, for instance, and magic is rare and, well, "magical"). I commend their efforts, myself, and this is coming from someone who COULD be a purist, but chooses the benefits of attracting a broader audience to being nit-picky.
So I would suggest that you stop worrying about Tom Bombadil and whether or not Arwen should have been included in the films or the details of the Helm's Deep siege or whatever other nitpick you may have and simply enjoy the vision and the new outlets for enjoying JRRTs work that this new acceptance by popular culture has brought to us. Suddenly my passion for JRRT is not something that I'm made fun of for (at least not as much), and is accepted and even embraced by the world at large, and that's a good thing! Not to mention the fact that millions of new people will be able to enjoy the brilliance of JRRTs work for the first time, and will hopefully delve into it more deeply. I'm sure that isn't kosher with you hanging on to your elitist "I'm better than you because I'm a true fan" attitude, but to me, the more Tolkien fans out there, the better -- his work deserves it, and even small, watered-down samples sometimes inspire great appetites.
Um, isn't this a discussion about MMOs? Quake doesn't have stats, crafting, questing, leveling, and so forth either, but is it really fair to critized the game for something it was never intended to include? Should I say Quake sucks because it doesn't have end-game raids, for instance? There are very good reasons why there is no collision detection between individual characters in MMOs, as another poster has already pointed out (griefing prevention, etc.). You are criticizing this specific game for using conventions and features that virtually every other competing MMO shares, so your comments are really only valid as criticisms of all MMOs, not just LOTRO. I agree that many of these MMO conventions are dated and could use some improvement in some creative way, but if you don't like MMOs because of text combat messages or lack of physics (this one really baffles me, since the game has no options to throw, kick, or push over items in any case, so who needs physics?) or whatever else, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint, then go play HL2. But calling out LOTRO for these "flaws" that every other MMO has as well makes little sense.
You don't have any right to tell me what I can't or cannot listen to on a network for which I am paying exactly the same amount of money as you. If you don't like what you hear, change the channel, or cancel. People like you that try to enforce their personal moral opinions on others are the reason we have to have a satellite radio option to begin with, instead of just free speech over the standard airwaves.
Well, if they are promising "uncensored talk radio" to their paying subscribers, and then suspending the hosts of said supposedly-uncensored talk radio shows based upon their on-air comments in the interests of facilitating their pending merger with their one-and-only competitor before censorship-happy governmental regulation commissions, then yeah, I'd consider that censorship. They are using the "we won't CENSOR you, but we will shut you down if what you say isn't in our best interests" argument. I don't blame their subscribers one bit for being pissed off.
And the shadiest part of all -- that they are apparently "delaying" their upset customers' requests to cancel their service until 1 DAY after their merger hearing, or trying to offer them a 30-day credit so they might "change their mind", which would, coincidentally enough, keep them active until after the hearing as well. I cannot say how much of an impact keeping their subscriber numbers as high as possible would have on the hearings, but it sure sounds fishy to me.
"a majority of French people were against the war because... they knew that WMDs existence was very unlikely"
Not that I agree or condone the USAs reasons for invading Iraq, or support our obviously-flawed intelligence indicating the presence of WMDs, but what flawless amateur intelligence, exactly, did the "majority of French people" have that allowed them to "know" WMDs were not being developed in "Irak" [sic]. Apart from all of this being "painfully obvious at the time" (nice how hindsight works, isn't it?), that is...
Today, yes. In the past, not so much. Ever hear of the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? Witch hunts? Galileo? Martin Luther? Hundreds of years of history tell another story entirely.
I received an HD-DVD add-on drive for my 360 as a Christmas gift. Since that time, I've bought exactly 2 HD-DVD movies, both of which I already own on standard DVD but which I thought warranted experiencing in HiDef, and about 30 standard DVDs. Reasons for this are 1) the price per movie (this is a BIG one), and 2) the fact that I just don't trust HD-DVD to survive for long, regardless of Blu-Ray's existence. I just don't want to get stuck with some movies in a "dead" format. I don't hesitate to buy standard DVDs because I know they are not going away any time soon. I cannot say the same about HD-DVD. Though I AM thoroughly blown away by the features and picture/sound quality of my HD-DVD movies, I find myself hesitant to buy additional discs... I certainly won't keep my HD-DVD drive around for years and years just to watch a handful of movies on it after.
Yes, I realize that I am shooting myself in the foot as far as not supporting/purchasing HD-DVD discs, and that I'm contributing to the format's failure by not buying them, but I just don't have the confidence in this HiDef format war, or in the standard DVD vs. HiDef DVD (either format) war to feel good about investing additional money in either, especially in light of the fact that I got the player for "free".
The sad part is that I might be more inclined to purchase more movies if the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle wasn't a factor, and in this way, both formats are mutually killing each other off in the consumer confidence arena. People who love the notion and potential of watching HiDef movies at home are the real losers in this asinine situation.
Oh, yeah, and spending $30-40 for a Dual Format version of the movie just to future-proof myself is NOT cutting it.
I undertand you were only joking, and I'm sure that I'm going to probably be flamed (whee! I split an infinitive!) for saying so, but split infinitives are no big deal any more, really. Concern over splitting infinitives was the result of some crusty old "Queen's English"-supporting grammar sticklers getting their panties in a bunch over practices that have been selected against long ago. Language evolves, and the broken rules of the past become the standards of the present.
What kills the ideal of Capitalism is the same thing that kills the ideal of Socialism, and it's not going to go away any time soon: human greed.
Don't be greedy. Just because you CAN step on another human being and pocket a small percentage of his or her paycheck doesn't mean you SHOULD. And that's exactly what CC is doing, here. Their reward for employee loyalty, for those who've worked at their ridiculously crappy store for the longest, and been foolish enough to have some faith in their employers' morality and endure their crappy job for more than the rest, is that they are fired first when hard times arrive. I know how the system works -- I'm realistic enough to see that. But it doesn't change the fact that it's just plain wrong. These are people they are dealing with here, not just money, and I agree with the parent post. When wealth is the primary, overriding priority, then the system needs to change, as it's horribly broken. Employers DO have a responsibility, morally, to provide their GOOD, LOYAL employees with job security and plain old human compassion commensurate with the work they provide day in and day out.
If CC want's to compete in this market, and they are having problems, then why not provide people with what works -- reasonable prices (CC is NOT doing this -- at all), good service (firing their best people is not an improvement, here, and they are going to completely demoralize the ones who are lucky enough to avoid the axe), and selection (if they HAD what I want, and at a reasonable price, I'd shop there over NewEgg any day) and convenience (walk in, see and hold what you are buying, which is an advantage over online shopping, and walk out with what you want the same day, no shipping, no delays).
Really, people... take what you need, as much as you require to live a happy, enjoyable life and to pay for what you require, throw in a bit of spare money for some reasonable fun now and then, and then be satisfied. We don't all need BMWs to be happy. But all most of us have been taught is 'more, more, more'. Be satisfied.
Flame me for being a care bear all you want, but I still don't think that what CC is doing is right. In fact, it's a perfect example of what is wrong with this country's pseudo-capitalist system. Failed capitalism is, at its worst, just as bad as failed socialism or any other ecomomic model, and we are heading down the wrong road, here.
That particular quote is from the Simpsons. The French being made the butt of jokes regarding their tendency to surrender (accurate or not) has been going on for a lot longer. Where do you think the Simpsons writers got the idea? From witnessing decades of international ridicule of the French. Yes, it's a tired joke - as in 50+ years tired. But it still got a laugh out of me today.
Just because we've never observed it before doesn't mean it hasn't always been the case. Chimps have been around a lot longer than we've been observing them.
Or perhaps we changed the outcome of the behaviour by observing it. Would the bush baby still have been dead if the chimp had never looked inside the log? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Or are you saying that the photomultiplier is somehow different because it has a scientist at the end of it?
That's exactly right. It's not the slit or the photomultiplier or anything else that is the detector and causes the loss of uncertainty. It is the scientist that is the detector. It is only when the scientist observes the result of the experiment that the slit the photon actually went through becomes a certainty. Hence the great philosophical debates that surround the study of quantum mechanics.
I'm not taking a side, BTW -- only regurgitating what has already been debated for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Did he step in Meteor Shit, by any chance?
They are humanoid for a reason. They created us. ;)
Wait a minute. You dislike Civ IV because it has good graphics? And you'd enjoy it more if it had crappy graphics? That makes 0 sense.
"If you had information about a robbery withholding that information from the authorities would be unethical. How is this different?"
As a previous poster indicated, it depends on who's asking. In the first scenario, you are withholding the information from lawful authorities. In the second scenario, you are withholding information from another person or corporation, and your "ethical" stance on their demand come very much into play.
To put it another way, if the school principal asks me who stole from the school bully, then it would be unethical for me not to tell them. If the bully himself asks me, then it would depend on my opinions of the bully and the thief. If I don't agree with the bully's morals/ethics, then I have no problem protecting the privacy of the thief until the principal makes me rat on him.
Personally, until legal process demands it, I'd have no problem morally or ethically if UW chose to uphold their student's rights to privacy in favor of the RIAA's rights to make unreasonable demands as if they were an authority in this. And if they have any backbone, this is exactly what they'll do.
"RIAA wont sue something that has money and resources..."
I'd argue that the RIAA would actually rather sue some agency/entity that HAS money and resources to take, rather than a bunch of penniless students who don't even have the $5000 they are trying to squeeze from them. In fact, avoiding a direct suit for harboring file-sharing lawbreakers is probably exactly why the school is complying.
Keep in mind that the RIAA wants the school to share the identities of the file-sharers with them. UW has not complied with that request. All they have done is agree to pass along the letters to the students in question. The RIAA hopes that these letters will scare the students in question into coming forth ON THEIR OWN and paying their fines voluntarily, since otherwise it (the RIAA) would probably have to resort to subpeona-ing the University to obtain the students' identities to pursue the lawsuits.
Either way, the RIAA makes money.
Considering all their options, UW has a lot more to lose, and the RIAA a lot more to gain, if the school refuses to help. I'm certain that this is what the RIAA was hoping they would do, so they could go after the school directly. UW's choice to pass along the letters but not give up the identities until legally required to do so is a reasonable compromise for them. They are making a show of cooperation up to a point and protecting themselves from being sued directly, but they are also protecting their students' privacy until legally forced to do otherwise.
"they are no more the work of Tolkien than "Shakespeare In Love" (with Gwinneth Paltro sic?) is a work of Shakespeare"
Not a good analogy. That film never claimed to be an adaptation of any work of Shakespeare. It was never presented as anything more than an original work of fiction. Ever seen the movie? If anything, it could be misinterpreted as a biographical story of Shakespeare (it isn't). At best, it's inspired by his styles and/or themes (inconvenient romance, comedy of errors, disguises, setting and language, etc.). Jackson's films, perfect or not, are clearly intended to be adaptations of Tolkien's works. Apples and oranges.
"Two words: Michael White. Look up his thoughts on what Tolkien would have thought of the movie."
And? Biographer or not, insider/confidant or not, it's one man's opinion. Hell, my parents and my wife would probably be pretty surprised at my opinions of a great many things, and I'm pretty sure they know me quite well. Parent post stands. No one can know what Tolkien would have thought of all this. It's pure speculation. Literary luminary or not, perhaps the man would simply be able to appreciate good entertainment inspired by his creations and treat it as just that... maybe he'd be glad that his work was inspiring other great works. Perhaps, like most creative minds, he'd be glad that the core (or at least elements of) his genius were flourishing and beloved by millions. Or perhaps he'd despise it all, like so many of his fanboys do.
"The two are one IMO, and homage should be paid"...
It is being paid. If the changes to the Jackson films, and the "cheapening of Arda" are what it takes to make the masses aware of JRRTs vision, even on the broadest level, then so be it. Some people will see the films and play the games and never crack open a single JRRT book (it's their loss), while others will become aware of an amazing world that they never knew existed because of their limited exposure to it via films and games, and will end up reading and loving every word he ever wrote and even thirsting for the works of those he later inspired.
Heck, even "The Hobbit" serves as an example of this itself -- as a lifelong Tolkien fan, I know this firsthand. My parent gave me a paperback copy of The Hobbit when I was very young, at an age when I could never have comprehended the complexities of the full Lord of the Rings or Silmarillion. And the scaled-back vision of Middle Earth that The Hobbit gave me, limited as it is and particularly aimed at children, was enough to hook me for life. Hell, even the cheesy Rankin/Bass animated cartoon version was enough to get my cousin interested, and he's even more into JRRT than I am now that we are adults. And I'm hoping that this game and the films and whatever else comes along, assuming they are not horrific bastardizations of the material (as neither the films or many of the games are, thus far) and at least attempt to stay true to Tolkein's spirit, expose millions more to the genius of JRRT. Those with the imagination to appreciate him deserve the chance to find out about him, even in a dumbed-down introductory way that might piss off purists.
Sure, if this was just D&D or WoW with JRRTs name slapped onto it, then I would agree with you completely. But having played this game quite extensively so far, and as a fan of the films, I can tell you that both Turbine and Peter Jackson, while taking necessary liberties with some details and making some adjustments to each of their respective mediums, have gone to pretty good lengths to stay true to JRRTs vision in all the ways that really matter. Oh, no, Tom Bombadil wasn't in the movies! The cleansing of the shire wasn't in the movies! So? Let new fans of the movies read the books after seeing them and enjoy these things for the first time! The main criticism that most people had with the films were their excessive lengths, anyway. I remember how I felt when I first watched Jackson's Balrog/Moria scenes in the theater -- I was blown away. You may choose to scoff and argue over why Gandalf's dialogue changed on the bridge, but I choose to sit back and enjoy actually SEEING these events happen before my eyes, when I could only imagine them before.
This game, even with its flaws, makes me feel like I'm a part of Middle Earth (not some wanna-be knock-off of it, like WoW's Cartoon Central virtual world), and that's a very good thing. They've even made some pretty severe adjustments to the conventions of the MMO genre to try to adhere to JRRTs vision (players cannot be Wizards, for instance, and magic is rare and, well, "magical"). I commend their efforts, myself, and this is coming from someone who COULD be a purist, but chooses the benefits of attracting a broader audience to being nit-picky.
So I would suggest that you stop worrying about Tom Bombadil and whether or not Arwen should have been included in the films or the details of the Helm's Deep siege or whatever other nitpick you may have and simply enjoy the vision and the new outlets for enjoying JRRTs work that this new acceptance by popular culture has brought to us. Suddenly my passion for JRRT is not something that I'm made fun of for (at least not as much), and is accepted and even embraced by the world at large, and that's a good thing! Not to mention the fact that millions of new people will be able to enjoy the brilliance of JRRTs work for the first time, and will hopefully delve into it more deeply. I'm sure that isn't kosher with you hanging on to your elitist "I'm better than you because I'm a true fan" attitude, but to me, the more Tolkien fans out there, the better -- his work deserves it, and even small, watered-down samples sometimes inspire great appetites.
Um, isn't this a discussion about MMOs? Quake doesn't have stats, crafting, questing, leveling, and so forth either, but is it really fair to critized the game for something it was never intended to include? Should I say Quake sucks because it doesn't have end-game raids, for instance? There are very good reasons why there is no collision detection between individual characters in MMOs, as another poster has already pointed out (griefing prevention, etc.). You are criticizing this specific game for using conventions and features that virtually every other competing MMO shares, so your comments are really only valid as criticisms of all MMOs, not just LOTRO. I agree that many of these MMO conventions are dated and could use some improvement in some creative way, but if you don't like MMOs because of text combat messages or lack of physics (this one really baffles me, since the game has no options to throw, kick, or push over items in any case, so who needs physics?) or whatever else, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint, then go play HL2. But calling out LOTRO for these "flaws" that every other MMO has as well makes little sense.
And nice red uniforms.... OH! I'll come in again.
I was with you up until the whole "ass sweat" thing.
You don't have any right to tell me what I can't or cannot listen to on a network for which I am paying exactly the same amount of money as you. If you don't like what you hear, change the channel, or cancel. People like you that try to enforce their personal moral opinions on others are the reason we have to have a satellite radio option to begin with, instead of just free speech over the standard airwaves.
Well, if they are promising "uncensored talk radio" to their paying subscribers, and then suspending the hosts of said supposedly-uncensored talk radio shows based upon their on-air comments in the interests of facilitating their pending merger with their one-and-only competitor before censorship-happy governmental regulation commissions, then yeah, I'd consider that censorship. They are using the "we won't CENSOR you, but we will shut you down if what you say isn't in our best interests" argument. I don't blame their subscribers one bit for being pissed off. And the shadiest part of all -- that they are apparently "delaying" their upset customers' requests to cancel their service until 1 DAY after their merger hearing, or trying to offer them a 30-day credit so they might "change their mind", which would, coincidentally enough, keep them active until after the hearing as well. I cannot say how much of an impact keeping their subscriber numbers as high as possible would have on the hearings, but it sure sounds fishy to me.
"a majority of French people were against the war because ... they knew that WMDs existence was very unlikely"
Not that I agree or condone the USAs reasons for invading Iraq, or support our obviously-flawed intelligence indicating the presence of WMDs, but what flawless amateur intelligence, exactly, did the "majority of French people" have that allowed them to "know" WMDs were not being developed in "Irak" [sic]. Apart from all of this being "painfully obvious at the time" (nice how hindsight works, isn't it?), that is...
Today, yes. In the past, not so much. Ever hear of the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? Witch hunts? Galileo? Martin Luther? Hundreds of years of history tell another story entirely.
I received an HD-DVD add-on drive for my 360 as a Christmas gift. Since that time, I've bought exactly 2 HD-DVD movies, both of which I already own on standard DVD but which I thought warranted experiencing in HiDef, and about 30 standard DVDs. Reasons for this are 1) the price per movie (this is a BIG one), and 2) the fact that I just don't trust HD-DVD to survive for long, regardless of Blu-Ray's existence. I just don't want to get stuck with some movies in a "dead" format. I don't hesitate to buy standard DVDs because I know they are not going away any time soon. I cannot say the same about HD-DVD. Though I AM thoroughly blown away by the features and picture/sound quality of my HD-DVD movies, I find myself hesitant to buy additional discs... I certainly won't keep my HD-DVD drive around for years and years just to watch a handful of movies on it after.
Yes, I realize that I am shooting myself in the foot as far as not supporting/purchasing HD-DVD discs, and that I'm contributing to the format's failure by not buying them, but I just don't have the confidence in this HiDef format war, or in the standard DVD vs. HiDef DVD (either format) war to feel good about investing additional money in either, especially in light of the fact that I got the player for "free".
The sad part is that I might be more inclined to purchase more movies if the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle wasn't a factor, and in this way, both formats are mutually killing each other off in the consumer confidence arena. People who love the notion and potential of watching HiDef movies at home are the real losers in this asinine situation.
Oh, yeah, and spending $30-40 for a Dual Format version of the movie just to future-proof myself is NOT cutting it.
No, that's the ASUS P5N32-E SLI, featuring the full 680i chipset. The "Plus" version is quite new.
I undertand you were only joking, and I'm sure that I'm going to probably be flamed (whee! I split an infinitive!) for saying so, but split infinitives are no big deal any more, really. Concern over splitting infinitives was the result of some crusty old "Queen's English"-supporting grammar sticklers getting their panties in a bunch over practices that have been selected against long ago. Language evolves, and the broken rules of the past become the standards of the present.
What kills the ideal of Capitalism is the same thing that kills the ideal of Socialism, and it's not going to go away any time soon: human greed.
Don't be greedy. Just because you CAN step on another human being and pocket a small percentage of his or her paycheck doesn't mean you SHOULD. And that's exactly what CC is doing, here. Their reward for employee loyalty, for those who've worked at their ridiculously crappy store for the longest, and been foolish enough to have some faith in their employers' morality and endure their crappy job for more than the rest, is that they are fired first when hard times arrive. I know how the system works -- I'm realistic enough to see that. But it doesn't change the fact that it's just plain wrong. These are people they are dealing with here, not just money, and I agree with the parent post. When wealth is the primary, overriding priority, then the system needs to change, as it's horribly broken. Employers DO have a responsibility, morally, to provide their GOOD, LOYAL employees with job security and plain old human compassion commensurate with the work they provide day in and day out.
If CC want's to compete in this market, and they are having problems, then why not provide people with what works -- reasonable prices (CC is NOT doing this -- at all), good service (firing their best people is not an improvement, here, and they are going to completely demoralize the ones who are lucky enough to avoid the axe), and selection (if they HAD what I want, and at a reasonable price, I'd shop there over NewEgg any day) and convenience (walk in, see and hold what you are buying, which is an advantage over online shopping, and walk out with what you want the same day, no shipping, no delays).
Really, people... take what you need, as much as you require to live a happy, enjoyable life and to pay for what you require, throw in a bit of spare money for some reasonable fun now and then, and then be satisfied. We don't all need BMWs to be happy. But all most of us have been taught is 'more, more, more'. Be satisfied.
Flame me for being a care bear all you want, but I still don't think that what CC is doing is right. In fact, it's a perfect example of what is wrong with this country's pseudo-capitalist system. Failed capitalism is, at its worst, just as bad as failed socialism or any other ecomomic model, and we are heading down the wrong road, here.
That particular quote is from the Simpsons. The French being made the butt of jokes regarding their tendency to surrender (accurate or not) has been going on for a lot longer. Where do you think the Simpsons writers got the idea? From witnessing decades of international ridicule of the French. Yes, it's a tired joke - as in 50+ years tired. But it still got a laugh out of me today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#Quot es
Just because we've never observed it before doesn't mean it hasn't always been the case. Chimps have been around a lot longer than we've been observing them. Or perhaps we changed the outcome of the behaviour by observing it. Would the bush baby still have been dead if the chimp had never looked inside the log? Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I once played Beer Pong with a dude named Ralph. Does that count?
A lot of good actors (e.g., Jean Claude Van Dam comes to mind)
LMAO! "Good" is relative, I suppose.
Or are you saying that the photomultiplier is somehow different because it has a scientist at the end of it?
That's exactly right. It's not the slit or the photomultiplier or anything else that is the detector and causes the loss of uncertainty. It is the scientist that is the detector. It is only when the scientist observes the result of the experiment that the slit the photon actually went through becomes a certainty. Hence the great philosophical debates that surround the study of quantum mechanics.
I'm not taking a side, BTW -- only regurgitating what has already been debated for a long time.