He said "decent audio equipment for regular listening". DJ gear in bars and clubs certainly fall under that definition.
The rest of your points are more-or-less valid, although 256kbps AAC is overkill for ANY type of music, as long as you're only encoding 2 channels. 99% of people can't even tell the difference between a 160k MP3 and a CD.
I don't see anything empowering about needing to keep highly inefficient backups of what is essentially just something you want to hear - not something you need to look at or touch.
Ah! You hit the nail square on the head, and didn't even realize it. People keep vinyl records not because they need to look at them or touch them, but because they want others to look at them. It's like the people who have a bookshelf stacked with all sorts of classic literature, none of which has ever been opened. It's all about appearance.
To be fair, CD prices have dropped, especially if you consider inflation. How much were you paying for your vinyl records in 1985? When we account for the rate of inflation, paying $20 US for a CD today is equivalent to paying about $10 back then. The average price of a CD today - roughly $13 - is equivalent to about $6.50 in 1985. Were your records were much cheaper than that?
Otherwise, downloads are fine for that one song or two to see if you like it, but mostly they still fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening.
Bullshit. Most DJ's I know have gone to using MP3's for their business needs. Any time you hear music at a club, bar, or formal function these days, chances are you're listening to an MP3. You may be one of those audio-snobs who insist that they can detect a difference but, even if we accept that silly claim, there's no way you can go from "a few people say they can detect a sight difference" to "lossy codecs fail for regular listening".
So wait, our current energy sources are so good and new ones might have problems so we should never try to innovate?
No, just don't get over-excited about every new thing, without first looking at the costs and benefits. To use an analogy - if you're walking down the street with your girlfriend, it might not be a good idea to yell "boobies!" and run after every woman you see. Sure, you might get lucky now and then, but 99% of the time you're going to be disappointed.
Further observation reveals a parking ticket and booted wheel. With time elapsed, the fine comes to 100 million quatloos.
Here are your messages:
'You have thirty minutes to move your lunar rover.' 'You have ten minutes to move your rover.' 'Your rover has been impounded.' 'Your rover has been crushed into a cube.' 'You have thirty minutes to move your cube.'
I like how you cut out what they actually said, and replaced it with your own nonsense. Pretty slick.
In fact, a CFL bulb has nowhere NEAR as much mercury as a blood pressure device. That's why the phrase that you quoted - and changed - actually says:
"Spills from the breaking of a blood pressure device or larger sources can produce airborne levels high enough to cause serious poisoning and even death.
In fact, the mercury content in a blood pressure device is likely to be measured in multiple grams, which is orders of magnitude higher than the 4 milligrams present in a CFL.
The amount of mercury in a typical CFL is around 4mg (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury [energystar.gov])... Based on the MSDS http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M1599.htm [jtbaker.com], that amount is WELL above the airborne exposure limits (40 times the OSHA upper limit).
How were you planning to get all that mercury to go airborne? Do you normally fry light-bulbs on your stove?
No, it's a troll. He could have saved a lot of time by just writing "NUH-UH!", and that would have been a troll too. Now, if he had taken the time to provide some new information/arguments, he might have gotten an "interesting" mod, even if he turned out to be completely wrong.
Now all you need is to find me a canon jedi text that states you must be hooded in public.
Or I could just write it down on a napkin, and claim to be a Jedi prophet with new information given to me by The Force.
You may have noticed that I said "we need to stop pandering to peoples silly beliefs". I don't particularly care where those beliefs come from. Your ancient book written by iron-age desert-dwelling primitives is no more legitimate than a belief I just pulled out of my ass 5 minutes ago. Either honour them both, or don't honour either. All I ask for is a bit of consistency.
While I agree with the idea of trying to limit how much money we shower the middle-east with, I gotta say there's a big problem with your analogy. The "crazy brother" can always find other ways to finance his adventures.
The real problem isn't that the sheiks are funding terrorists - the problem is that they're funding the spread of Wahhabi Islam across the globe. Instead of just giving money to crazy people, they're using their money to make more crazy people. They're the biggest road-block on the path to achieving a more moderate mainstream Islam.
Right. And what do you propose as a way to get people to toe the line? Specifically, your line? Are you going to convene grand juries and prosecute the superstitious until they capitulate?
Huh?
Do you really want to go down that road?
Buddy, your road isn't even in the same country as mine. I'm not sure how you can read "stop pandering to silly beliefs" and decide it means "imprison and kill people we don't like". Why in the world would I want to imprison you for being an idiot?
And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though.
That's wrong. It's been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court that freedom from religion is protected under the same rules as freedom of religion. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few states which have unconstitutional laws on the books. If you live in such a state and are affected by those laws, you may want to look into filing a lawsuit.
The precedent was set a long time ago. If they allow people to wear a turban or a burqa, there's certainly no justification they can make for not allowing a jedi hood.
Personally, I'd say we need to stop pandering to peoples silly beliefs, regardless of how deeply they may hold them.
There was talk about "transporting" culture above. Wether you take "transporting" to mean transfering to future generations, or spreading to other areas and to other people, religion is very effective at that
I've yet to see you provide any evidence of that. And transporting and maintaining are two completely different thing, so, once again, I'll ask you to pick a point and stick to it.
it's pretty clear that Africa has been held back because of the mess created by colonialism in the preceding centuries, for example
I'd say Africa is being held back by the lack of colonialism, more than anything else. North and South America achieved their current level of prosperity through the success of colonialism. Africa is a mess precisely because they still largely have a tribal mentality/culture, while also having access to modern weapons and technology. I know it's unfashionable to stick up for western values and ideals, but I still have to point out that the worst places in the world are the ones where we aren't interested in getting involved.
Actually, when you objectively observe world and study human history, you'll come to the logical conclusion that religion is by far the most enduring and effective way to maintain a culture.
This is where I start banging my head against the keyboard. You didn't just move the goalposts, you picked them up and started sprinting.
If you had argued from the beginning that religion is the most effective way to maintain a culture, I would have probably agreed. North Korea is a shining example of what happens when you deify a ruler, and yes, their culture can probably go on indefinitely. I'm not sure why you'd think that's a good thing, though. I like my cultures to change, and change often. It keeps things fresh and interesting, instead of stagnant or regressive. However, that's all besides the point since that's not even close to what you were saying earlier. Before you try to have a conversation with others, it helps to first put together an argument in your head. Constantly changing your stance tends to annoy people.
The initial scenario was a doctor getting the hots for his young female patient, and killing some old dude to help her out. Your scenario is a doctor thinking "hrm, maybe I should kill this geezer so that someone I've never seen can use his organs". While your scenario is more likely than the original, it's only more likely because the original had a probability of zero. The odds of it occurring are still low enough that it warrants no serious discussion.
Message to our government: why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide? I mean, they use that B.S. line on us all the time. I think it's time we turned the tables and started using it back.
Your government said that to you? Wow! Who was it, exactly? Did the president call you up, or did congress pay you a personal visit?
Slashdot Mirror
He said "decent audio equipment for regular listening". DJ gear in bars and clubs certainly fall under that definition.
The rest of your points are more-or-less valid, although 256kbps AAC is overkill for ANY type of music, as long as you're only encoding 2 channels. 99% of people can't even tell the difference between a 160k MP3 and a CD.
How do you prove you really have the rights to that file?
How do you prove you didn't steal the CD?
Here in the civilized world, we have this concept known as "innocent until proven guilty". Have you heard of it?
I don't see anything empowering about needing to keep highly inefficient backups of what is essentially just something you want to hear - not something you need to look at or touch.
Ah! You hit the nail square on the head, and didn't even realize it. People keep vinyl records not because they need to look at them or touch them, but because they want others to look at them. It's like the people who have a bookshelf stacked with all sorts of classic literature, none of which has ever been opened. It's all about appearance.
To be fair, CD prices have dropped, especially if you consider inflation. How much were you paying for your vinyl records in 1985? When we account for the rate of inflation, paying $20 US for a CD today is equivalent to paying about $10 back then. The average price of a CD today - roughly $13 - is equivalent to about $6.50 in 1985. Were your records were much cheaper than that?
Otherwise, downloads are fine for that one song or two to see if you like it, but mostly they still fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening.
Bullshit. Most DJ's I know have gone to using MP3's for their business needs. Any time you hear music at a club, bar, or formal function these days, chances are you're listening to an MP3. You may be one of those audio-snobs who insist that they can detect a difference but, even if we accept that silly claim, there's no way you can go from "a few people say they can detect a sight difference" to "lossy codecs fail for regular listening".
So wait, our current energy sources are so good and new ones might have problems so we should never try to innovate?
No, just don't get over-excited about every new thing, without first looking at the costs and benefits. To use an analogy - if you're walking down the street with your girlfriend, it might not be a good idea to yell "boobies!" and run after every woman you see. Sure, you might get lucky now and then, but 99% of the time you're going to be disappointed.
Further observation reveals a parking ticket and booted wheel. With time elapsed, the fine comes to 100 million quatloos.
Here are your messages:
'You have thirty minutes to move your lunar rover.'
'You have ten minutes to move your rover.'
'Your rover has been impounded.'
'Your rover has been crushed into a cube.'
'You have thirty minutes to move your cube.'
I like how you cut out what they actually said, and replaced it with your own nonsense. Pretty slick.
In fact, a CFL bulb has nowhere NEAR as much mercury as a blood pressure device. That's why the phrase that you quoted - and changed - actually says:
"Spills from the breaking of a blood pressure device or larger sources can produce airborne levels high enough to cause serious poisoning and even death.
In fact, the mercury content in a blood pressure device is likely to be measured in multiple grams, which is orders of magnitude higher than the 4 milligrams present in a CFL.
The amount of mercury in a typical CFL is around 4mg (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury [energystar.gov])... Based on the MSDS http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M1599.htm [jtbaker.com], that amount is WELL above the airborne exposure limits (40 times the OSHA upper limit).
How were you planning to get all that mercury to go airborne? Do you normally fry light-bulbs on your stove?
No, it's a troll. He could have saved a lot of time by just writing "NUH-UH!", and that would have been a troll too. Now, if he had taken the time to provide some new information/arguments, he might have gotten an "interesting" mod, even if he turned out to be completely wrong.
After all, what am i going to do with my Lava Lamp?
Add a heater coil? It's easy enough.
Now all you need is to find me a canon jedi text that states you must be hooded in public.
Or I could just write it down on a napkin, and claim to be a Jedi prophet with new information given to me by The Force.
You may have noticed that I said "we need to stop pandering to peoples silly beliefs". I don't particularly care where those beliefs come from. Your ancient book written by iron-age desert-dwelling primitives is no more legitimate than a belief I just pulled out of my ass 5 minutes ago. Either honour them both, or don't honour either. All I ask for is a bit of consistency.
While I agree with the idea of trying to limit how much money we shower the middle-east with, I gotta say there's a big problem with your analogy. The "crazy brother" can always find other ways to finance his adventures.
The real problem isn't that the sheiks are funding terrorists - the problem is that they're funding the spread of Wahhabi Islam across the globe. Instead of just giving money to crazy people, they're using their money to make more crazy people. They're the biggest road-block on the path to achieving a more moderate mainstream Islam.
Right. And what do you propose as a way to get people to toe the line? Specifically, your line? Are you going to convene grand juries and prosecute the superstitious until they capitulate?
Huh?
Do you really want to go down that road?
Buddy, your road isn't even in the same country as mine. I'm not sure how you can read "stop pandering to silly beliefs" and decide it means "imprison and kill people we don't like". Why in the world would I want to imprison you for being an idiot?
And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though.
That's wrong. It's been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court that freedom from religion is protected under the same rules as freedom of religion. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few states which have unconstitutional laws on the books. If you live in such a state and are affected by those laws, you may want to look into filing a lawsuit.
Weird, I've never seen him wear white before.
How dare you insult my religion, you bigoted prick?
The precedent was set a long time ago. If they allow people to wear a turban or a burqa, there's certainly no justification they can make for not allowing a jedi hood.
Personally, I'd say we need to stop pandering to peoples silly beliefs, regardless of how deeply they may hold them.
You could have left out the "created by a science fiction writer" part.
Heck, JFK had a cancer cure way back in the 60's. Who do you think was on that grassy knoll? That's right: The Cancer Industry!
There was talk about "transporting" culture above. Wether you take "transporting" to mean transfering to future generations, or spreading to other areas and to other people, religion is very effective at that
I've yet to see you provide any evidence of that. And transporting and maintaining are two completely different thing, so, once again, I'll ask you to pick a point and stick to it.
it's pretty clear that Africa has been held back because of the mess created by colonialism in the preceding centuries, for example
I'd say Africa is being held back by the lack of colonialism, more than anything else. North and South America achieved their current level of prosperity through the success of colonialism. Africa is a mess precisely because they still largely have a tribal mentality/culture, while also having access to modern weapons and technology. I know it's unfashionable to stick up for western values and ideals, but I still have to point out that the worst places in the world are the ones where we aren't interested in getting involved.
Actually, when you objectively observe world and study human history, you'll come to the logical conclusion that religion is by far the most enduring and effective way to maintain a culture.
This is where I start banging my head against the keyboard. You didn't just move the goalposts, you picked them up and started sprinting.
If you had argued from the beginning that religion is the most effective way to maintain a culture, I would have probably agreed. North Korea is a shining example of what happens when you deify a ruler, and yes, their culture can probably go on indefinitely. I'm not sure why you'd think that's a good thing, though. I like my cultures to change, and change often. It keeps things fresh and interesting, instead of stagnant or regressive. However, that's all besides the point since that's not even close to what you were saying earlier. Before you try to have a conversation with others, it helps to first put together an argument in your head. Constantly changing your stance tends to annoy people.
The initial scenario was a doctor getting the hots for his young female patient, and killing some old dude to help her out. Your scenario is a doctor thinking "hrm, maybe I should kill this geezer so that someone I've never seen can use his organs". While your scenario is more likely than the original, it's only more likely because the original had a probability of zero. The odds of it occurring are still low enough that it warrants no serious discussion.
"demonlapin" gave you a comprehensive answer, which you completely ignored. I see no reason to waste my time.
Message to our government: why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?
I mean, they use that B.S. line on us all the time. I think it's time we turned the tables and started using it back.
Your government said that to you? Wow! Who was it, exactly? Did the president call you up, or did congress pay you a personal visit?