If your idea of music is the latest hot hit by the Doovie Groovie Weenie Wagglers or some such drivel, then the degraded sound quality of lossy formats is probably a good thing. On the other hand, there are people to whom sound (and music) quality are important -- hence the persistence of analog (ie. vinyl). Even though CD's are not perfect, they still sound better (to many people) than most MP3, and so will continue to have a market.
It's been said that God created Man in His image, whereupon Man promptly returned the favor.
We don't judge modern science by the faulty logic, flawed conclusions and suspect scientific efforts and motivations of the (sometimes very recent) past. Instead, science and the scientific community (for the most part, modulo "global warming"), has the capacity for corrective self-criticism. We seek objective truth, and eventually refine coarse logic, discarding disproven theories with little reluctance.
Sadly, many religious institutions have not adopted the same philosophy, and therefore appear not to advance much in their (accepted) thinking. Unfortunately, this leads some people to subscribe to illogical propositions such as "Noah's Ark is implausible, therefore God does not exist". Nonetheless, I know there are many people of scientific disposition who don't take those ancient attempts to explain the unknown as representing literal truth, yet have profound faith in God.
I think it safe to say that people of one and two thousand years ago would be somewhat less sophisticated in their capacity to grasp the staggering enormity and astounding complexity of Creation (in the sense of "the Universe") than we are today. And no doubt, many of what we now think of as advanced concepts will appear to those who follow us two thousand years from now as childish and naive. We don't discard Science because of bad experiments and mistaken theories. Neither should we be so willing to discard Faith on the basis of bad religion and obsolete doctrine.
In the past, the supernatural was invoked to explain natural phenomena that weren't understood or that were frightening to people of the time. Fortunately, science has largely decoupled itself from religion, seeking the laws that give order to nature without resorting to "magic" as an explanation. Religion would benefit greatly from reciprocating. As far as I can tell, the laws of gravitation and my belief that life has a purpose are orthogonal.
For some reason, most people will read a sentence like "America has many of the world's top universities" and think it said "No country but America has a top university."
And its illogical corollary "All American universities are top universities".
This is, of course, omitting a major category of conclusion that many people will reach upon reading the sentence in question, namely:
All Americans spend their entire day ruminating on ways they can dominate the world and extend American hegemony and the oppression of basic human freedoms to all reaches of the globe.
I also asked one of them one time, how many people are you chatting with right now? He says NINE. wow. Indians apparently have one thing on me, an amazing ability to multitask to the extreme.
You should have asked the follow-up question: how many of those 9 are work related? My guess: maybe 1. In a company I worked for, we did some analysis of our Jabber traffic. Many of the folks from our Pune (India) operations sent thousands of Jabber messages per day. I would hate to think how much additional Yahoo or MSN chat traffic there was on top of that.
Now that may not have been so bad if it were somehow productive. But it seemed inconsistent with the fact that they almost never got done what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it. And when something was nominally completed, it was almost always of very poor quality.
One guy came to our local office for a couple of weeks and immediately jumped to the top Jabberer (no small achievement, in a Jabber community of thousands). The thing was, he was supposed to be the recipient of "technology transfer" from the local team. We thought he was hidden in his cube reading documentation. Guess not.
So either they were very inefficient communicators, or not really focused on the job.
Of course, this has as much to do with managment as anything. Maybe the mistake was hiring Indian managers.
Now let me say this. Some of the folks I met from India were amazingly intelligent, incredibly hard-working and most anxious to learn what we could teach them. Which they did, and then promptly disappeared, either to the U.S. or to a better-paying job in India. And frankly, I can't say that I blame them for that. I guess we just got stuck with the ones who couldn't move ahead.
Your description of Portugal sounds like Australia, where I've lived (and voted, responsibly). And like Canada where I've also lived (and voted, responsibly). Now I'm in the U.S., trying to figure out how to vote here. It's not particularly inspiring, I must say. But I am starting to see a pattern.
Ever wondered why the so-called "women's magazines" look so much alike? Every one of them copies what seems to work in the others, which, sadly, seems to drift to the lowest common denominator. They represent nothing; stand for nothing, and make their living from keeping it that way. I think we get the same effect with politicians. Why is this?
The "problems" of are remote; detached from what we do every day. They are "superficialized" by television programs that try to summarize complex issues into 30-second pastiches of the some of the most outrageous sound-bites and the most vivid images. Whether or not the presentation makes sense or not isn't at all the point -- most viewers are semi-conscious at best, and are just seeking titillating gossip. Like the 10 best/worst dressed at the "Oscars".
Try this if you really want to see what I mean: Put on a "news" or "news analysis" television show. Or read your favorite "news" magazine. Carefully try to reconstruct the logic of the argument from what's presented in the article/program. Do some research. Really try hard to examine the implications of each point, and try to find logical flaws and inconsistencies, being careful to avoid only finding those that suit your prejudices and predispositions. (I was taught that this was called "critical thinking" for anyone not familiar with the process). It takes work; effort.
Not enough people seem willing to invest the effort to do their own analysis of the issues. They'd rather stop off on their way home and pick up a McOpinion, and tell themselves that that will be good enough. Few would claim that a "Big Mac" is the best 'burger they've ever had, but it is doubtless the most convenient. Perfect if you're unwilling to invest the effort in finding a better one. Or making a better one. People abroad complain about McDonalds, but there they are, queued up at lunch time. No helicopter gunships or soldiers forcing them in the doors; they go in of their own volition.
We get what we "pay" for; we have nobody to blame but ourselves. If you don't like it, educate yourself and go do something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
If your idea of music is the latest hot hit by the Doovie Groovie Weenie Wagglers or some such drivel, then the degraded sound quality of lossy formats is probably a good thing. On the other hand, there are people to whom sound (and music) quality are important -- hence the persistence of analog (ie. vinyl). Even though CD's are not perfect, they still sound better (to many people) than most MP3, and so will continue to have a market.
First there's the obvious issue of "negative intelligence" where plugging stupid people into a system has a detramental effect.
Especially when those morons can't spell.
It's been said that God created Man in His image, whereupon Man promptly returned the favor.
We don't judge modern science by the faulty logic, flawed conclusions and suspect scientific efforts and motivations of the (sometimes very recent) past. Instead, science and the scientific community (for the most part, modulo "global warming"), has the capacity for corrective self-criticism. We seek objective truth, and eventually refine coarse logic, discarding disproven theories with little reluctance.
Sadly, many religious institutions have not adopted the same philosophy, and therefore appear not to advance much in their (accepted) thinking. Unfortunately, this leads some people to subscribe to illogical propositions such as "Noah's Ark is implausible, therefore God does not exist". Nonetheless, I know there are many people of scientific disposition who don't take those ancient attempts to explain the unknown as representing literal truth, yet have profound faith in God.
I think it safe to say that people of one and two thousand years ago would be somewhat less sophisticated in their capacity to grasp the staggering enormity and astounding complexity of Creation (in the sense of "the Universe") than we are today. And no doubt, many of what we now think of as advanced concepts will appear to those who follow us two thousand years from now as childish and naive. We don't discard Science because of bad experiments and mistaken theories. Neither should we be so willing to discard Faith on the basis of bad religion and obsolete doctrine.
In the past, the supernatural was invoked to explain natural phenomena that weren't understood or that were frightening to people of the time. Fortunately, science has largely decoupled itself from religion, seeking the laws that give order to nature without resorting to "magic" as an explanation. Religion would benefit greatly from reciprocating. As far as I can tell, the laws of gravitation and my belief that life has a purpose are orthogonal.
And its illogical corollary "All American universities are top universities".
This is, of course, omitting a major category of conclusion that many people will reach upon reading the sentence in question, namely:
You should have asked the follow-up question: how many of those 9 are work related? My guess: maybe 1. In a company I worked for, we did some analysis of our Jabber traffic. Many of the folks from our Pune (India) operations sent thousands of Jabber messages per day. I would hate to think how much additional Yahoo or MSN chat traffic there was on top of that.
Now that may not have been so bad if it were somehow productive. But it seemed inconsistent with the fact that they almost never got done what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it. And when something was nominally completed, it was almost always of very poor quality.
One guy came to our local office for a couple of weeks and immediately jumped to the top Jabberer (no small achievement, in a Jabber community of thousands). The thing was, he was supposed to be the recipient of "technology transfer" from the local team. We thought he was hidden in his cube reading documentation. Guess not.
So either they were very inefficient communicators, or not really focused on the job.
Of course, this has as much to do with managment as anything. Maybe the mistake was hiring Indian managers.
Now let me say this. Some of the folks I met from India were amazingly intelligent, incredibly hard-working and most anxious to learn what we could teach them. Which they did, and then promptly disappeared, either to the U.S. or to a better-paying job in India. And frankly, I can't say that I blame them for that. I guess we just got stuck with the ones who couldn't move ahead.
Your description of Portugal sounds like Australia, where I've lived (and voted, responsibly). And like Canada where I've also lived (and voted, responsibly). Now I'm in the U.S., trying to figure out how to vote here. It's not particularly inspiring, I must say. But I am starting to see a pattern.
Ever wondered why the so-called "women's magazines" look so much alike? Every one of them copies what seems to work in the others, which, sadly, seems to drift to the lowest common denominator. They represent nothing; stand for nothing, and make their living from keeping it that way. I think we get the same effect with politicians. Why is this?
The "problems" of are remote; detached from what we do every day. They are "superficialized" by television programs that try to summarize complex issues into 30-second pastiches of the some of the most outrageous sound-bites and the most vivid images. Whether or not the presentation makes sense or not isn't at all the point -- most viewers are semi-conscious at best, and are just seeking titillating gossip. Like the 10 best/worst dressed at the "Oscars".
Try this if you really want to see what I mean: Put on a "news" or "news analysis" television show. Or read your favorite "news" magazine. Carefully try to reconstruct the logic of the argument from what's presented in the article/program. Do some research. Really try hard to examine the implications of each point, and try to find logical flaws and inconsistencies, being careful to avoid only finding those that suit your prejudices and predispositions. (I was taught that this was called "critical thinking" for anyone not familiar with the process). It takes work; effort.
Not enough people seem willing to invest the effort to do their own analysis of the issues. They'd rather stop off on their way home and pick up a McOpinion, and tell themselves that that will be good enough. Few would claim that a "Big Mac" is the best 'burger they've ever had, but it is doubtless the most convenient. Perfect if you're unwilling to invest the effort in finding a better one. Or making a better one. People abroad complain about McDonalds, but there they are, queued up at lunch time. No helicopter gunships or soldiers forcing them in the doors; they go in of their own volition.
We get what we "pay" for; we have nobody to blame but ourselves. If you don't like it, educate yourself and go do something about it.