Why mess around with compressing individual files? DiskDoubler is definitely the way to go. Hell, I even have it set up to automagically compress files I haven't used in a week.
>>People just want their crap and they want it cheap.
The internet has weakened the position of the retail store. Its easier to get things from anywhere. You used to be able to make a good living in mid level retail sales. (computers, photography) Customers can now get information from many sources and aren't dependent upon a salesman for buying advice.
Don't blame your customers. They're only doing what is best for themselves.
I'm not sure where i saw the article, but lego is responding to market changes rather than selling out. For years they tried to buck the trend. Its easy to tell when - just look at their stock price. Their stock went into a serious tailspin and they pulled out of it by playing the game everyone else was playing - brand liscencing.
I'd rather have a "sellout" lego company than no lego company at all.
thats how london got sewers. the thymes had been terribly polluted for years. there were designs and lobbying efforts for sewer systems. there were something like seven failed proposals before that shit stank so bad that the MPs got up and left town. the project was so successful that parts of it are still in use today.
>>But I would not agree in the least with a utilitarian approach to ethics, and most people don't live like that in practice.
I'm not sure that its the aim of an ethical system to describe how people do live - but rather how they should live. While we try hard, we make many mistakes. There is no reason to believe that our intentions to act in our own self interest are actually realized.
>>I've argued that genetic makeup does.
What about chimeras - they're people with two different sets of dna. Are they two people?
>>Yes, but that's the rub; ethical theories take on a life of their own, and get abused in undesired ways.
Are you trying to come up with a hijack-proof ethical system? Good luck. Any ideas can be twisted.
>>What now if Son-of-Singer tweaks the theory to discount the pain of blacks, or Jews, or left-handed Eskimo pipe-welders*, because they are of lesser utility?
Any ideas can be twisted. Further, he does not discount the "value" of the terminally ill embryos or whatever because of their "utility to society". If that were the case, it would be morally equal to kill a young baby and a fetus on the grounds that there is no substantial difference in their utility to society.
>>Therefore, Singer's ideas, if accepted, will inevitably lead to abuses by those in power.
Um, how do Singer's ideas contribute to abuse of power? They're certainly not necessary for the abuse of power. Further, it can easily be argued that the abuse of power simply isn't in the best of interest of society - we have erred in chosing what was best.
>>Is there a reason that the Bible should be a discredited source? Not really.
As most Christians believe, the Bible derives its power from God. What power does the book have if you don't believe in God? Now, you may agree with ethical ideas expressed in the book but they should be expressed in a manner that doesn't rely on a diety. So yes, there is a power reason to discredit the Bible.
>>Then the question is, can we make a case against abortion from the Scriptures? Only in part.
Only by making large jumps and ignoring contradictory passages, for instance - "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Exodus 21:22-24
A Fine! Is that the punishment for murder?
>>Nevertheless, I would endorse Theological Perspectivalism
Sorry man, you're talking with an athiest. Can you recommend a theory that doesn't rely on God?
Yes, I have now read his arguments. (at least summaries)
"that living human beings are not necessarily people" disturbing and eerily reminiscent of pre-Abolition America, then you understand the beginnings of the pro-life position.
Actually, I find Singer's arguments to be a very accurate description of what we value in life. Blood and guts do not make the person. What do you think of him elevating some of the animal world to the human level? Using his standards of value, slaves never would have been considered sub-human.
Further, the vast majority of the pro-life position is communicated, "That goes against God." Let alone the fact that there is no prohibition against abortion in the bible. Or stem cell research for that matter.
If utilitarianism is a discredited ethical theory, would you mind suggesting a credited one? Perhaps there is something you find lacking with it, but its still very commonly used.
The question really isn't whether the fetus is alive or not, its whether it meets the all-to-vague definition of "human".
My hand is alive. If I cut it off, is it murder? "Alive" just isn't the criteria that is being used. Rather, its an abbreviation for a complex and nebulous set of beliefs.
We have no problem killing animals that have far more intelligence and awareness than a fetus - why is it okay to kill those animals?
Those who argue against abortion rights and stem cell research often confound various life states to communicate their views. A fetus is a child. Stem cells are children. I wanted to make a point of this in my post.
Then again, you're probably very aware of this if you've read Singer...as I should.
>>It's actually much more difficult to justify denying unborn babies rights without making arbitrary distinctions based on their location.
Actually, its not difficult at all. In womb - not alive; outside womb - alive.
See? Easy!
(and if you think there is anything arbitrary about using womb placement to decide whether this entity is alive or not, i suggest you find out where babies _really_ come from)
You completely ignored my question. I understand that some are being implanted. What if supply overwhelms demand? Are we obligated to stockpile embryos forever?
Increasing? Hardly. While it may be difficult to build a nuclear power plant in the US, its difficult to build any power plant at all. Further, modern reactor designs have come a long long ways since the Chernobyl days. Overall, much better that buying resources from our buddies in the middle east.
Another problem is what i'll call "post slamming" - when your post gets modded up high and then slammed back down. You'll get banned for excessive negative mods even if your post starts and ends at 2 points.
Slashdot Mirror
Why mess around with compressing individual files? DiskDoubler is definitely the way to go. Hell, I even have it set up to automagically compress files I haven't used in a week.
Its running perfectly fine on my Mac IIci.
>>I've never heard anyone say that their flash card died of old age.
I've had CF cards go bad after a number of years - did they die of old age? You can come up with your own theory.
Yet the real problem for professional photographers would be losing a gig of images to a bad card.
>>People just want their crap and they want it cheap.
The internet has weakened the position of the retail store. Its easier to get things from anywhere. You used to be able to make a good living in mid level retail sales. (computers, photography) Customers can now get information from many sources and aren't dependent upon a salesman for buying advice.
Don't blame your customers. They're only doing what is best for themselves.
Even though more downloads seems to indicate more value and therefore justifying higher cost - these are digital files!
There is no scarcity!
The file has the same value to me no matter how many people download the file.
isn't that just a myth?
I'm not sure where i saw the article, but lego is responding to market changes rather than selling out. For years they tried to buck the trend. Its easy to tell when - just look at their stock price. Their stock went into a serious tailspin and they pulled out of it by playing the game everyone else was playing - brand liscencing.
I'd rather have a "sellout" lego company than no lego company at all.
>>Have you ever considered bringing a formally trained scientist onto the crew to make sure you're going "by the book", so to speak?
But an expert would KNOW when they were about to blow themselves up - obviously this goes against the main premise of the show.
BUT
it might be okay if its a tall, thin redhead that enjoys being around nerds.
thats how london got sewers. the thymes had been terribly polluted for years. there were designs and lobbying efforts for sewer systems. there were something like seven failed proposals before that shit stank so bad that the MPs got up and left town. the project was so successful that parts of it are still in use today.
>>I have been travelling more and even the 12in Powerbook, which has been the best laptop I've ever owned, is starting to be cumbersome.
You must be a true geek...most people get STRONGER as they lug something around.
>>But I would not agree in the least with a utilitarian approach to ethics, and most people don't live like that in practice.
I'm not sure that its the aim of an ethical system to describe how people do live - but rather how they should live. While we try hard, we make many mistakes. There is no reason to believe that our intentions to act in our own self interest are actually realized.
>>I've argued that genetic makeup does.
What about chimeras - they're people with two different sets of dna. Are they two people?
>>Yes, but that's the rub; ethical theories take on a life of their own, and get abused in undesired ways.
Are you trying to come up with a hijack-proof ethical system? Good luck. Any ideas can be twisted.
>>What now if Son-of-Singer tweaks the theory to discount the pain of blacks, or Jews, or left-handed Eskimo pipe-welders*, because they are of lesser utility?
Any ideas can be twisted. Further, he does not discount the "value" of the terminally ill embryos or whatever because of their "utility to society". If that were the case, it would be morally equal to kill a young baby and a fetus on the grounds that there is no substantial difference in their utility to society.
>>Therefore, Singer's ideas, if accepted, will inevitably lead to abuses by those in power.
Um, how do Singer's ideas contribute to abuse of power? They're certainly not necessary for the abuse of power. Further, it can easily be argued that the abuse of power simply isn't in the best of interest of society - we have erred in chosing what was best.
>>Is there a reason that the Bible should be a discredited source? Not really.
As most Christians believe, the Bible derives its power from God. What power does the book have if you don't believe in God? Now, you may agree with ethical ideas expressed in the book but they should be expressed in a manner that doesn't rely on a diety. So yes, there is a power reason to discredit the Bible.
>>Then the question is, can we make a case against abortion from the Scriptures? Only in part.
Only by making large jumps and ignoring contradictory passages, for instance - "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Exodus 21:22-24
A Fine! Is that the punishment for murder?
>>Nevertheless, I would endorse Theological Perspectivalism
Sorry man, you're talking with an athiest. Can you recommend a theory that doesn't rely on God?
Yes, I have now read his arguments. (at least summaries)
"that living human beings are not necessarily people" disturbing and eerily reminiscent of pre-Abolition America, then you understand the beginnings of the pro-life position.
Actually, I find Singer's arguments to be a very accurate description of what we value in life. Blood and guts do not make the person. What do you think of him elevating some of the animal world to the human level? Using his standards of value, slaves never would have been considered sub-human.
Further, the vast majority of the pro-life position is communicated, "That goes against God." Let alone the fact that there is no prohibition against abortion in the bible. Or stem cell research for that matter.
If utilitarianism is a discredited ethical theory, would you mind suggesting a credited one? Perhaps there is something you find lacking with it, but its still very commonly used.
The question really isn't whether the fetus is alive or not, its whether it meets the all-to-vague definition of "human".
My hand is alive. If I cut it off, is it murder? "Alive" just isn't the criteria that is being used. Rather, its an abbreviation for a complex and nebulous set of beliefs.
We have no problem killing animals that have far more intelligence and awareness than a fetus - why is it okay to kill those animals?
Those who argue against abortion rights and stem cell research often confound various life states to communicate their views. A fetus is a child. Stem cells are children. I wanted to make a point of this in my post.
Then again, you're probably very aware of this if you've read Singer...as I should.
>>It's actually much more difficult to justify denying unborn babies rights without making arbitrary distinctions based on their location.
Actually, its not difficult at all. In womb - not alive; outside womb - alive.
See? Easy!
(and if you think there is anything arbitrary about using womb placement to decide whether this entity is alive or not, i suggest you find out where babies _really_ come from)
it should be at least embryoslaughter, as performing the process necessitated their death.
I have more sympathy for a squashed bug than i do for a washed away embryo
>>Yes, we are obligated to not destroy frozen embryos - keep them frozen, or bring them to term.
Thats a waste of petri dishes. They should be washed and reused.
Isn't that the murder of three innocent lives?
Seems to me that one embryo was fertilized and died.
You completely ignored my question. I understand that some are being implanted. What if supply overwhelms demand? Are we obligated to stockpile embryos forever?
>>Embryo adoption is a possibility for existing embryos. ...and what shall happen if the number of embryos shall exceed the demand?
permanent residency in the freezer?
>>Wrong. To be against 'discarding' fertilized embryos and is not to be against in-vitro fertilization.
Wrong. In-vitro fertilization cannot be done without discarding fertilized embryos.
>>I think mp3 players are a trend, iPods, a fad.
Is listening to music a fad? Will our ears get tired and give up?
True, the market may dip - but due to saturation or integration with other products.
> Not to mention that even if they are rural that doesn't necessarily mean uneducated.
If we can't look down upon Africa for not having as much stuff, we'll look down on them for not worshiping our god.
>>and nuclear is an ever-increasing headache
Increasing? Hardly. While it may be difficult to build a nuclear power plant in the US, its difficult to build any power plant at all. Further, modern reactor designs have come a long long ways since the Chernobyl days. Overall, much better that buying resources from our buddies in the middle east.
They really don't care.
Another problem is what i'll call "post slamming" - when your post gets modded up high and then slammed back down. You'll get banned for excessive negative mods even if your post starts and ends at 2 points.
but
they don't care.