Slashdot Mirror

"I'd dare say not many can bring up a memorable rap 'song' older than a year ago....just does not have timelessness or staying power." http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem Any fan of rap (although the genre has horribly waned in quality in the mainstream) or even music can name at least a dozen rap songs dawning from its birth up 'til today. On the other hand, I can't think of any of jazz songs. That's because I'm not a big fan of jazz; it has nothing to do with the genre not having timelessness or staying power.

" to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. "

A shareholder doesn't have much participation in a company other than at a gemeral meeting. The board though are elected to represent the sahreholders interests in the running of the company.

It is possible to go beyond 'limited-liability' when a company commits an act of criminal irresponsibility. It is however very diffiult. For example, there was a case of a UK cross-channel RORO ferry that sank due to a management mandated procedure of leaving the moorings before the bow doors were closed (in this case actually leaving port with the doors still open) This cut down on port time meaning more ferries could share the dock and meant more runs per day. This was also incredibly stupid. The bow is high because of having to cut through waves, and in this case the waves came in before the door was secure and the ship capsized, killing 193 people.

The company ended up in the court as well as the crew members directly linked with the disaster. Three of the crew were found guilty and the company was tried for corporate manslaughter. Although the higher management were criticized in court. The company otherwise escaped, as did the board.

In your example, what happens is that the guy who opens the dumping valve may be found individually guilty, sometimes even the plant manager, but never the company nor the board where the corporate culture encouraged this. This is one of the instances where the US concept of punitive damages in civil torts becomes useful. However, when the disaster occurs under another jurisdiction, it may become difficult to seek redress.

Warning: FLAMMABLE. http://www.answers.com/flammable

Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; inflammable.

Warning: INFLAMMABLE. http://www.answers.com/inflammable

Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable.

So, just to cya, WARNING: INFLAMMABLE FLAMMABLE. or should that be WARNING: FLAMMABLE INFLAMMABLE?

Warning: FLAMMABLE. http://www.answers.com/flammable

Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; inflammable.

Warning: INFLAMMABLE. http://www.answers.com/inflammable

Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable.

So, just to cya, WARNING: INFLAMMABLE FLAMMABLE. or should that be WARNING: FLAMMABLE INFLAMMABLE?

No one is complaining that the festival is called Slamdance.

Not that they should be complaining about either one, but the name of the festival is just as offensive and irreverant as the name of the game.

Nope. It can be a false fact.

http://www.answers.com/fact&r=67

2 c. Something believed to be true or real; a document laced with mistaken facts.

"Fact" can basically mean that it is provable or demonstrable in some way. As opposed to an "opinion".

"I really don't want to know..."

http://www.answers.com/topic/animal-husbandry

It's your own fault for having a dirty mind.

--
BMO

Why not this.

But seriously, folks... 5200? How about 2600? I still have my Apple IIe that I bought a kit for and "upgraded" to a IIc. Heh, what a ridiculous increase that would be in today's world. I think an NES would get the kiddies interested. You could demo a game or two.

but you're unfairly attributing "commerce clause is terrible" to him, since he's never said anything of the sort.

He didn't say those words exactly but he has said these words: "our wardrobe of ever-changing negative Commerce Clause fashions"

Then there's this ruling which he agreed with:

Rehnquist explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitutions distinction between national and local authority."

A decade later he loves the commerce clause when it comes to medicinal marijuana and even Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law! He twsits in the wind to support his ideology.

So again, he seems more on the side of judicial activism than anything. Thomas has been more consistent. Thomas is one of those beacons of light we can all be proud of, we just need more justices like him. He represents libertarian thought while Scalia represents right wing conservative political thought, much like the judicial activists he derides.

Maybe if we perfect cloning we can clone Thomas.

Trade association, yes. Non-profit? Nope. I can find nothing that says that.

It's just an association of businesses working together to further their profits. So the businesses are the 'shareholders' instead. You claim they wanted this, and I'm sure some of them were looking for ways to cut the costs... But every gamer in the US (and possibly the world) considers it to be THE game event of the year. Answers.com even says it "was considered the industry's most important annual event." http://www.answers.com/topic/entertainment-softwar e-association

Scaling it back a bit was probably in order. Destroying it completely was amazingly stupid.

Do you suppose that they collectively decided to be that stupid? Or maybe there was a single man at the head of that movement, a man who just happened to be running the ESA at that time... Maybe their president?

And maybe those companies, even after they agreed to his oh-so-persuasive arguments, figured out what a monumental mistake had been made. And maybe they needed a scapegoat so they could sleep at night with their mistake.

In the end, all that matters is that the biggest mistake in the entire history of the ESA, a mistake the eclipses everything else they've done, was done on his watch. He's responsible.

...I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://www.answers.com/impervious&r=67

To "chime" does mean to agree. If the submitter had said that Linus chimed with them, you would be correct. The verbal expression "to chime in" means "to interject remarks or questions into another's discourse".

He already has responded

"Thompson has also criticized a Christian video game based on the Left Behind series. In Left Behind: Eternal Forces, players participate in "battles raging in the streets of New York," according to the game's fact sheet. They engage in "physical and spiritual warfare: using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." Thompson claims that the makers of the game are sacrificing their values. He said, "Because of the Christian context, somehow it's OK? It's not OK. The context is irrelevant. It's a mass-killing game." Left Behind author Tim LaHaye disagrees, saying "Rather than forbid young people from viewing their favorite pastime, I prefer to give them something that's positive." The dispute over the game has caused Thompson to sever ties with Tyndale House, which publishes both the Left Behind books and Thompson's book, Out of Harm's Way. Thompson has not seen the game, which he says has "personally broken my heart," but claims, "I don't have to meet Abraham Lincoln to know that he was the 16th president of the United States.""

I don't think the hard drive will disappear completely, but as the costs come down, the companies cannot make money producing the smaller capacity drives.

I agree. This is a big problem for larger companies that want maximum performance, but don't have that much data. They stripe 8, 16, 32 drives, and it's a pain in the wrist to find someone that can sell small enough drives so that you don't massively overshoot the space requirements.

We will see 1Tb hard drives readily available someday, sure thing.

"Some day"? Some day, as in far, far into the future?!? First of all, a Tb is 128 GB. Second: Lacie BiggestDisk. You, my friend, are suffering from "Future Shock"

Please repeat after me, "Terabyte storage is available now for prosumers. By 2016, petabyte storage. By 2026, exabyte storage."

But different people have different needs. Hard drives are beginning to augment backup strategies because they have become so cheap and high in capacity.

A solid state drive has a higher G-shock tolerance, is quieter and requires less power than a hard drive. These features are why the technology is attractive to the people who need it. And not everyone needs a hard drive that is 400gb in size. Network appliances may only need a small 1gb boot drive, and these kind of devices will need this new phase-change memory, or whatever will work for the task beyond flash.

Once again, agreed, but from a different perspective... Disk sizes are growing way more rapidly than other parts of the computer, including OS sizes.

Smaller/faster (and more expensive) "disk" technologies keep popping up.

Why not do it like Ye Olde Amiga did? IE, the default install is to use different partitions for "OS" and "Data". The OS fits onto the (NG) flash memory described in this thread, the rest goes onto the "Data" partition. This would also go some way towards improving boot-up times as discussed in recent threads on /.

It would be cool to have something like this that is your main memory AND your storage space in one. We could call it Run-In-Place. We could then have a instant-on computers. Just imagine Windows XP or Linux booting up in under 3 seconds!

I, personally will not be satisfied until boot-times are cut down until they are comparable with my old C=64. (I used to reboot my C=64 by flipping the power switch down, then up again, as fast as humanly possible. Once, in five years, I actually managed to do it too fast (<.05 seconds?) leaving the computer in a strange, scrambled state.

Are you confusing "poor" and "poverty," or am I?

Good question: according to Answers poverty is: the state of being poor.

Thank you for your more static definition of poverty. You see, the level I was using was the concept of "living below the poverty line" where that line was 10k this year and 5k a decade ago. This concept of the poverty line is the one oft-quoted by news pundits or people pushing social security agendas.

Now point #2 is not perfectly static b/c housing requirements would vary dramatically between say Alaska and Miami, but the definition does include the concept of privacy. But hey, this stuff is good, this is stuff that can be measured. I really appreciate the reply, b/c most people don't care to even think about this stuff.

Now given that I live in balmy Winnipeg, I'll nitpick your list and add the requirement for adequate clothing (big deal out here, $100 winter jackets are not for show).

Given all of this info, I think that we'll actually reduce this conversation to something with a political bend (which makes this an opinion/ideological debate, rather than a debate about definitions). I'll warn you that I'm of the conservative bend.

The minimum wage in my region is $7.60 or about USD $6.61 (actually higher than the US minimum wage). At 40 hrs/week, that's just over about 15k, after standard income taxes that's about 12k/year or 1k/month. Now, in Winnipeg, a basic 2 bedroom apartment costs $700/month, and I'd like to assume that having a room-mate offers "the possibility for privacy", so all we'd really need to provide is schooling (free to 12th grade in Canada) and health care (free in Canada, drugs not included). So that leaves our minimum wage employee about $650/month (paying half the rent) to make food and clothes.

So clearly, with that money, this person is not poor by your definitions. Heck, with this money they could apply for a reduced-rate pass at the local Y, pay for a monthly bus pass (now tax-deductible) and even be well-entertained between the library and activities at the Y. In fact this minimum-wage employee, working full time, could ostensibly live a pretty healthy life. And let's not forget, that they won't stay at minimum forever, currently minimum wage (in Manitoba) is set to go up again in April (to $8/hour), but it's already irrelevant b/c we're at 3.5% unemployment, so nobody really makes minimum wage. All you really need to do is show up to work every day, do an adequate job and you'll get regular pay increases, so even minimum can be viewed as a short term issue.

Now, this issue changes a little when a kid arrives, but even a single parent is not without recourse in Canada. The government provides a Canada Child Tax Benefit (on a sliding scale) and Manitoba has the Manitoba Shelter Benefit for families, there is a GST Tax Credit, there are CRISP benefits and even childcare (daycare) subsidies. Of course, in single parent situations, the "missing" parent is expected to pay child support. If that "missing" parent has died, the government will help replace that income using Canada pension plan benefits, to the tune of about $200/month. As a bonus, if you need childcare to be able to work, those childcare costs are tax-deductible (whatever parts are not already subsidized). The system only scales out to a few of children, but if you have 4 kids, no partner and a

white is the new black and the dimension is the new epicycle.

The AC already said this, but you're simply splitting hairs. The article you cite indicates that the water was released from the dam for Al Gore's canoe trip.

You say the GP post is "a lie". Here's the line:

Then Al Gore forced us to buy low flow toilettes to save fresh water, but opened a Damn so he could take a canoe trip.

Are you saying this is a lie because Al Gore didn't personally go and push the button to open the dam? It was done by the people who normally push the buttons to control the dam. It was done for his canoe trip.

Maybe you don't know the definition of "lie"? It's not about whether a statement is technically incorrect in an irrelevant detail. It tends to be about whether the statement is false in a way meant to mislead. The GP's statement is essentially true with regards to the canoe trip (not sure on the toilets). Al Gore was not an innocent bystander.

Your post appears to be a lie.

It's still available here: http://www.answers.com/topic/slashdot-subculture

In traditional accounting practice, M designates thousand or thousands (from the Latin mille), and MM is used for million. Hence such traditional abbreviations as CPM for cost per thousand items of a retail good, or MCF for thousand cubic feet of (e.g.) natural gas.

Wikipedia has funding not directly related to Wikipedia, and in a way that can exert no possible editorial control or ownership over Wikipedia, eg. from wikia and answers.com. Having a decent amount of revenue on the side ensures that Wikipedia won't be at risk of needing on-site advertisements or otherwise having to cede any hint of editorial control to corporate interests.

Perhaps ensure is better style, but insure is fine grammatically.

See:

http://www.answers.com/topic/insure
http://www.answers.com/topic/ensure
http://www.answers.com/topic/assure

Perhaps ensure is better style, but insure is fine grammatically.

See:

http://www.answers.com/topic/insure
http://www.answers.com/topic/ensure
http://www.answers.com/topic/assure

Perhaps ensure is better style, but insure is fine grammatically.

See:

http://www.answers.com/topic/insure
http://www.answers.com/topic/ensure
http://www.answers.com/topic/assure

Ding, Ding, Ding. Give that man a cigar.

You can't just pour something the size of the pyramids and expect to have it set in any reasonable time frame.

Ever see movies of the building of the Hoover dam? It was done in a lot of small blocks, and for a very good reason:

"The Bureau of Reclamation engineers calculated that if the dam were built in a single continuous pour, the concrete would have gotten so hot that it would have taken 125 years for the concrete to cool to ambient temperatures. The resulting stresses would have caused the dam to crack and crumble"

Sad to see, as SCO was once a respectable company in Santa Cruz, CA.

Many words have multiple meanings. Such is the case with the word "crime"

crime: Unlawful activity http://www.answers.com/crime&r=67

Likewise, for criminal:

criminal (n): One who commits a crime: lawbreaker, malefactor, offender. ... http://www.answers.com/criminal&r=67

So, if you insist on the legal definition of the word(s) then you're correct but you shouldn't assume that everyone else is using the language the same way (unless you are speaking with legal counsel). Language requires an understanding of context.

The same argument applies to the word "theft" as it applies to copyright. Those who claim that theft doesn't apply doggedly insist that the definition is strictly a legal one, i.e. larceny. The fact is, though, that "crime" and "theft" are just words and they have broader definitions that just the legal ones.

"Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be described as a crime (by the definition of the word)."

So now I hope you understand why this isn't true. If you had said...

"Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be legally described as a crime (by the legal definition of the word)." ...then you would be right.

Many words have multiple meanings. Such is the case with the word "crime"

crime: Unlawful activity http://www.answers.com/crime&r=67

Likewise, for criminal:

criminal (n): One who commits a crime: lawbreaker, malefactor, offender. ... http://www.answers.com/criminal&r=67

So, if you insist on the legal definition of the word(s) then you're correct but you shouldn't assume that everyone else is using the language the same way (unless you are speaking with legal counsel). Language requires an understanding of context.

The same argument applies to the word "theft" as it applies to copyright. Those who claim that theft doesn't apply doggedly insist that the definition is strictly a legal one, i.e. larceny. The fact is, though, that "crime" and "theft" are just words and they have broader definitions that just the legal ones.

"Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be described as a crime (by the definition of the word)."

So now I hope you understand why this isn't true. If you had said...

"Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be legally described as a crime (by the legal definition of the word)." ...then you would be right.

Sorry, I don't find Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of definitions.

nation
n.
      1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
      2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

nation
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

Main Entry: nation
Function: noun
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

All LSI really produces nowadays is intellectual property.

Could someone please explain what that term means? Honestly, it get (ab)used all the time, and, for the life of me, I can't see any way of creating a definition that would have a chance in hell of ever being anything but ambiguous and self-contradictory.

OK. While I am not a big supporter of software patents, I have heard this argument one too many times; that there is something inherently contradictory about owning a thought or idea.

The idea of ownership in itself is not a natively obvious idea. The idea that you own the tools you hold in your hand or the food you produced is relatively simple, and obviously helps to avoid social conflicts. From there we progress to ownership of things I don't hold in my hand right now, or even things which I may not be able to defend.

Once you get to ownership of physical things which you did not create it gets a lot trickier. The native americans did not understand how one could own land. So the white man came and took it away. Today it is obvious that land can be owned; but it is also obvious that the public needs to be given rights to use the roads and public areas, to get around.

Something similar may be appropriate in the realm of software. Instead of stubbornly refusing to accept the corporation's concept of intellectual property, while in the meantime they go and patent obvious ideas (supported by the law), maybe we should be fighting to get the important parts of the intellectual ideosphere declared public, and lay claim to the other parts as the case may be.

I am not necessarily advocating this approach, my main point was merely to refute the argument that ideas could not be owned.

I thought your heart stops during the fall.

A popular myth, but not true, as shown by survivors of extraordinary falls.

One woman survived a fall from 10 kilometers. (She was strapped into a seat and may have enjoyed some protection from that; however this guy jumped out of a plane at 18,000 feet, about 5.5 kilometers, and thanks to trees and snow cushioning his fall, suffered on a sprained leg.)

Ginsberg's Howl notes the story of Tuli Kupferberg (of the band The Fugs) who jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge and survived.

The big question on my mind is: If you don't believe in this, why do you care? They're not funding it with taxpayer dollars, they're funding it on donations. If people want to spend their money on something, why is it anyone's business but their own?

I think people are idiots for paying thousands of dollars for a console on Ebay that they could buy in a store in another month for a couple hundred dollars. However I'm not writing an opinion piece on Slashdot, presenting it as news, and inciting a lot of community anger at a group of people just because I don't agree with their priorities.

When a public school has a school trip to it, then it's cause for news. Until then this is no bigger news than the construction of a really big church. And anyone who finds themselves being angry at these people (which is the general tone of this entire discussion) for spending their money in this way needs to take a step back and examine where their hate comes from, because such attitudes are bigotry, even if (especially if) you don't agree with it.

Last I checked, freedom of religion was still a constitutional right, and this is no more than exercise of that right. And as a personal disclaimer, I'm a non-creationist Christian (yes, we exist). I think this is exactly as much of a shame as the hype and zealotry over console releases, but it's their money to do with as they will.

OK I'm sorry but since when is a snide comment stating an opinion considered informative?

Informative, adj. Serving to inform; providing or disclosing information; instructive.

Mod it Funny, Insightful, Flamebait, whatever, but please Mod it correctly people.

Freedom Isn't Free

"If you use a broad definition then maybe it is torture"

Stop right there. Let's look at the definition of torture, shall we?

Oh look - first definition: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion"

Severe physical pain? Check.
Punishment for not voluntarily moving? Check.
Coercion to move? Check?

It is torture. Don't mince words and don't try to apologise. A foreign student was repeatedly tortured in front of a crowd of students by the police.

Ok? Now, moving on:

"but tasers do have valid uses in police work and are far more humane than the alternatives."

The only sane "alternatives" in this case were to leave him there or carry him out.

How is tazing someone "more humane" than these alternatives? Did you think about what you were saying at all before you posted?

"If I'm wrong then feel free to tell me how a 120lb policewoman is going to stop a 250lb male mental patient from bashing her senseless simply because she looks like his mother."

Sorry, again... where was the 250lb mental patient? All I saw was a gang of cops standing over a smaller, prone, single student, repeatedly giving him painful and debilitating electric shocks.

Your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Nobody's saying tazers aren't more humane than shooting someone. Nobody's saying there aren't situations where police (or whoever) should be allowed to defend themselves. Where did you hallucinate these arguments from.

All people are doing is expressing outrage that a groups of cops should stand over a single, smaller student and repeatedly torture him until he obeys their (questionable) instructions.

What about this strikes you as a good thing? Then why are you introducing irrelevant straw-man apologies for it?

Oh. So you agree, then? That we should pump sulphates into the atmosphere?

Ever heard of equilibrium?
http://www.answers.com/equilibrium
A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.

So, very naively and simply (but most importantly, naturally):
plankton (incl. sulphur+stuff) + seawater + other organisms --> broken plankton + sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms

sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds.
Now add more sulphur, unnaturally, to the right hand side of the equation. This is basic, naive, unexpert chemistry.

sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight + sulphur already in the atmosphere --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds + (remaining in the sea) sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + acid rain

ie you potentially raise the sulphur content of the oceans. Great idea. Kill anything on a global scale lately? Poison any oceans lately?

People who really think these "experts" can determine when and where to "add things to the naturally occurring biosphere to improve or positively change things" are delusional, surely?

The exact same arguments as the last slashdot article.

I RTFA, you twit, it was titled "Could smog protect against global warming?" and contained such pearls of potential joy as
"...A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain...."

Acid rain, you retard, acid fvcking rain. Deliberately produced by man. Unnaturally. I will never stop criticizing experts who advocate increasing the levels of acid rain in the atmosphere. Seen what acid rain does to trees, genius? Great solution, kill more trees via acid rain to reduce global warming. ffs.

They go on to say "...n past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people...." etc.

Call me an idiot all you like, but ADDING MORE SHIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE is not the solution, it's the fvcking problem. The article appears to agree with me. Maybe you should RTFA article again?

I'm pretty sure clouds are formed by water vapour too, or are you talking about a different form of cloud than the ones I am meaning? You know, the ones that drop down rain!?

For the sake of semantics, here are my intended definitions of some words:

http://www.answers.com/naturally
Naturally: By nature; inherently.
http://www.answers.com/organic
Organic: Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.

Now look at what I said, compared to what the articles says:

Me:
---
"the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour"

Article:
--------

"...natural gases play an important role in moderating our climate..."
"...Trace concentrations of a sulfurous gas were discovered ..."
"...Clouds affect the Earths radiation balance and thereby greatly influence its temperature and climate...."
"...Data indicate that clouds have an overall net cooling effect...."
"...Albedo is an important factor in the radiation balance, and clouds have the major effect on albedo...."
"...This affects the radiative properties (reflectance, transmittance and absorbance) of the cloud...."
"...DMS may influence both the hydrologic cycle and the global heat budget through its part in cloud formation, and may alter rainfall patterns and temperatures...."

May! The author of the article is far less confident than you are! Why is that??

I will paraphrase the final point: sulphur gets into the atmosphere from the ocean when naturally occuring organisms are consumed / damaged or killed, and other naturally occurring organisms break down their constituent parts. "...In the ocean dimethylsulfide is produced through a web of biological interactions...."

Sounds pretty bloody natural to me.

Compared to dumping a shitload more based on what some very finite-knowledged human (or better yet TEAM of humans) thinks is the right way / amount / time to dump even *more* into the atmosphere, it's very natural.

I'm pretty sure clouds are formed by water vapour too, or are you talking about a different form of cloud than the ones I am meaning? You know, the ones that drop down rain!?

For the sake of semantics, here are my intended definitions of some words:

http://www.answers.com/naturally
Naturally: By nature; inherently.
http://www.answers.com/organic
Organic: Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.

Now look at what I said, compared to what the articles says:

Me:
---
"the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour"

Article:
--------

"...natural gases play an important role in moderating our climate..."
"...Trace concentrations of a sulfurous gas were discovered ..."
"...Clouds affect the Earths radiation balance and thereby greatly influence its temperature and climate...."
"...Data indicate that clouds have an overall net cooling effect...."
"...Albedo is an important factor in the radiation balance, and clouds have the major effect on albedo...."
"...This affects the radiative properties (reflectance, transmittance and absorbance) of the cloud...."
"...DMS may influence both the hydrologic cycle and the global heat budget through its part in cloud formation, and may alter rainfall patterns and temperatures...."

May! The author of the article is far less confident than you are! Why is that??

I will paraphrase the final point: sulphur gets into the atmosphere from the ocean when naturally occuring organisms are consumed / damaged or killed, and other naturally occurring organisms break down their constituent parts. "...In the ocean dimethylsulfide is produced through a web of biological interactions...."

Sounds pretty bloody natural to me.

Compared to dumping a shitload more based on what some very finite-knowledged human (or better yet TEAM of humans) thinks is the right way / amount / time to dump even *more* into the atmosphere, it's very natural.

/Library/Documentation/Acknowledgements.rtf (OS X 10.4)

"Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd, Clark Cooper et al. ( expat )
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd and Clark Cooper. Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003 Expat maintainers"

When you check Answers.com ( http://www.answers.com/topic/expat-xml )

"Expat is a stream-oriented XML 1.0 parser library, written in C. Expat was one of the first open source XML parsers and has been incorporated into many open source projects, including the Apache HTTP Server, Mozilla, Perl, Python and PHP."

I think it is time to move new home for that project with coup govt. like that.

Indian

adj.

      1. Of or relating to India or the East Indies or to their peoples, languages, or cultures.
      2. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits.

n.

      1. A native or inhabitant of India or of the East Indies.
      2.
                  1. A member of any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits.
                  2. Any of the languages of these peoples.
      3. See Indus2.

"CERA was acquired by IHS Energy in 2004. . . . Some of the company's largest clients include international energy companies, governments, utilities, and financial institutions."

http://www.answers.com/topic/cambridge-energy-rese arch-associates

"IHS is one of the leading global providers of critical technical information, decision-support tools, and related services to customers in the energy, defense, aerospace, construction, electronics, and automotive industries. We have developed a comprehensive collection of technical information that is highly relevant to the industries we serve ."

http://www.ihs.com/About-IHS/

Perhaps you should read what a TCB is.

In the TCB concept, all security mechanisms (including hardware) should be trusted and easily auditable. TCB != Trusted OS AND != TC.

"Loss is necessary for theft to have occured, since taking is necessary for theft (same dictionary definition I have offered before) to have occured. Loss is a necessary component of taking: if it's not lost, it certainly was not taken."

Absolutely not, but thanks for finally choosing a dictionary definition. It's a shitty, incomplete listing of definitions but it will do.

The very first definition makes no mention of loss:

"theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

Neither does this one:

"theft n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"

What is "something"? It certainly includes "property or services". Just how are services "lost"?
From Brittanica: http://www.answers.com/theft&r=67

"In law, the crime of taking the property or services of another without consent. Under most statutes, theft encompasses the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Larceny is the crime of taking and carrying away the goods of another with intent to steal. Grand larceny, or larceny of property of substantial value, is a felony, whereas petty larceny, or larceny of less valuable property, is a misdemeanour. The same principle applies to grand theft and petty theft, which need not necessarily involve the "carrying away" of property and may include the theft of services."

As you can see, "carrying away" is not required for theft. Otherwise it would be hard to argue theft of services.

Loss is not required to be suffered in order for there to be theft. What is required is for someone to take, without permission, property or service. This is clearly the meaning Breyer is using and one that you are failing to understand. This kind of theft is differentiated from larceny (which is the theft of physical property). Funny thing here is that so many, yourself included, believe that larceny is the only kind of theft there is.

Krell, there you go putting words into my mouth again. I've never said or suggested any such thing.

"That's not what he is explicitly saying, of course, but it is one of the foundations for his arguments."

It is? Why don't you provide some quotes of mine to back that up? I see lying outright is not beneath you at all.

When dealing with you, this is the definition that I keep in mind: http://www.answers.com/sociopath&r=67

"When did he ever threaten MS with litigation for having FOSS intellectual property in Windows."

Why assume he wouldn't if he could? That isn't the sole measure.

I think the "fascism" shoe fits pretty well. http://www.answers.com/fascism&r=67

You're missing a comma :)
You've got a choice of: Tarantula; Tarantula A.D.; Tarantulas, The; and Tarantella
http://www.answers.com/library/Pop+Artists-letter- 1T-first-201

... and of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venom_(band)

Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer's wife
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife.
Did you ever see such a thing in your life
As three blind mice?

Two words: Juris Doctor. So I agree that we didn't "have a good choice at all", but let's not compare their "grades". :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=john+kerry&g wp=13

"Readily admitted: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime." "

That is an example.

"Nice way out. You strip the word "law" of meaning. Since the term "vigilante" depends on the word "law", you are now totally free to use "vigilante" to describe anything you want to, including the mere exercise of free speech. "

Wrong. "Vigilante" has the same root as "vigilant" and vigilantes are members of "vigilance committees". They do not depend on "law", they make it. When it is said that vigilantes "take the law into their hands", that doesn't mean they become enforcers of existing law, it means they determine what the law is. Vigilantes are the sheriffs, judges, juries, and executioners. They don't respect the rule of law, they ARE the rule of law.

Why don't you brush up on what a vigilante really is: http://www.answers.com/vigilante&r=6

Here on of the definitions: "One who decides to stop crime or punish criminals independently of the law." ...and a bit of history:

"Sometimes the motives of vigilantes were honorable, but sometimes they merely dispensed their own version of Lynch Law (1780), also an American invention. Citizen initiative in maintaining order, if not always law, has persisted to the present day, but now it usually takes the milder form of a neighborhood watch (1972)."

See, krell, you really don't know what you're talking about.

"Yeah, you quoted it in an admitted fake quote."

I always made it clear that I was mocking you. You're just too stupid to realize it.