|
|
Posted by Immortalist on 09/29/73 11:43
"Sven Hesse" <drmccoy@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:slrne2faep.3sg.drmccoy@tchibo.coffee.org...
> Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There is also a way to download the smal flash file, decompile
>> the code and find the domain and archie and then past the number in the
>> original url on the back and paste it in the address box, click and it
>> asks
>> you if you want to download.
>
> That's what I did, you'll get a FLV (Flash Video), playable with
> MPlayer or VLC, for example...
>
Actually there is a further way to get the original uploaded movie file in
various formats that it was uploaded in.
>> Again the sreen capture programs a vastly
>> superior since they can download video from any sight.
>
> Nope, capturing the screen is not at all superior, you'll lose quality
> by the multiple encodings...
>
True, but good enough for collecting rare stuff. The quality can be adjusted
higher than the original content if your accessing your video and audio
drivers from DVDx.
>>> a) crossposting (twice) in so many groups is evil
>>
>> Crossposting was a modification to the internet and the ability to do so
>> is
>> accepted by those who design and vote on such protocals. But where did I
>> post to the same group twice?
>
> Crossposting in the many groups, especially since your posts are
> completely off-topic in most of them is certainly evil.
> Also, you posted this message twice in the span of a few days...
>
All the groups but philosophy have something to do with music. I normally
post from philosophy.
What do you mean by evil? Is that something you say when you can't think of
anything else? Is it religious or just the equivalent to bad? Can you
describe a standard of this "evil" that we can agree to?
The Problem of the Criterion
A general argument against the invocation of any standard for knowledge has
come to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As we have just seen,
there have been disputes about standards of knowledge. Some are about
particular kinds of arguments that provide evidence for knowledge claims. As
we will see shortly, others are about the degree of evidential support or
reliability required for knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument
designed to instill doubt that any such standard can be established.
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the dispute is
to be settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It would
do no good of each side simply to assert its position without argument. So
how would a standard of knowledge (or "criterion of truth," in the language
of the Stoics) be defended? It could only be defended by reference to some
standard or other. If the standard under dispute is invoked, then the
question has been begged. If another standard is appealed to, the question
arises again, to be answered either by circular reasoning or by appeal to
yet another standard. So either the process of invoking standards does not
terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in neither case would the
dispute be settled rationally.
Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question
whether he can justify his acceptance of his own theory of justification. He
rejects the appeal to a higher-order theory of justification as well as
dogmatic acceptance of the theory (p. 228). This leaves only circularity, or
a "loop" of justification. Lehrer defends the loop of justification as being
virtuous.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
alt.philosophy, rec.music.hip-hop, rec.music.beatles, rec.music.gdead,
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s, rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1970s,
alt.music.pink-floyd, alt.music.mp3.winmx
alt.philosophy, alt.music.lyrics, rec.music.artists.kiss,
rec.music.makers.synth, alt.music.home-studio, rec.music.makers.jazz,
alt.music.tool, alt.music.saxophone
alt.philosophy, rec.music.reggae, alt.music.polkas,
rec.music.country.western, rec.music.compose, alt.rap, rec.music.folk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/4b10d1a9294f5180/d12b298b3b3f9ee4?hl=en#d12b298b3b3f9ee4
>>> b) advertising completely off-topic crap is evil as well
>>
>> I created the topic therefor it cannot be off topic. Do you mean that
>> X-posting is unpleasurable to you?
>
> Off-topic to the groups you posted in.
>
All the groups have something to do with music except my main hang out in
philosophy.
>>> c) you hide behide a pseudonym
>>
>> Can you show the rule that one must post in particular ways or is this an
>> ethical standard that you are proposing that we might consider agreeing
>> to?
>
> It's quite common and encourage to post with your real name on Usenet,
> take that guide for example:
> <http://www.holgermetzger.de/netscape/usenet.html>
What about the others who decide not to post a real name? Are you saying
they should be condemned? Please amplify this ethical standard to better
persuade us.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|