Slashdot Mirror

Well, how's that for irony? Mr. Potts, meet ms. Black. What I would call an argument from ignorance is the fact that people mention this "90% of matter is missing" without any idea of what it means. No, matter isn't "missing". What happens is that *VISIBLE STARS* account for only 10% or so of the matter that *WE KNOW* exists in galaxies.

The most amazing thing isn't that we haven't determined exactly what's the composition of the 90% of matter that isn't in stars. What's really wonderful is that, with scientific methods, we know exactly how much matter is in galaxies, even if we cannot see that matter directly. Through spectrum measurements we know the speed of stars circulating around the galaxies, through orbital calculations we know that the total mass in the galaxies must be ten times larger than the mass of the visible stars.

If scientists say that "90% of matter is not visible" is because they do understand *exactly* the working of celestial mechanics. BTW, you didn't read that link I posted about the "Relativity of Wrong", did you? Because, if you did, try reading it again, you didn't get the point...

http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/nes/peri pherals/fcmodem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famicom
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-famicom-acces sories

It's actually pretty easy[0]. Examples of the method can be seen in scientific papers[1] and text-only publishing formats such as electronic mailing lists[2].

[0] http://www.answers.com/easy
[1] http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-news/debian-news-20 06/msg00029.html

I question whether incentivize is actually a word

According to the American Heritage Dictionary it is.

A phone is easily lost, since people carry them around, they can fall out of a pocket.

If a phone is lost, then you might say it's reasonable. But the fact that some people are careless idiots does not stop it being an invasion of privacy when someone has to forceably take my phone.

Before you can say your privacy is invaded, you had to have an expectation of privacy in the first place. If you take your phone to school, and you know it may be taken by the staff there, then any reasonable expectaction of privacy that you could have may be rather minimal.

You're confusing two completely different meanings of the word expect - see http://www.answers.com/expect&r=67 , you are confusing "To consider likely or certain" with "To consider reasonable or due".

When people talk about expectations of privacy (e.g., expectation of privacy with respect to CCTVs in public places), it is the latter meaning. You are talking about the former meaning. And as the other poster replying points out, it is ludicrous to suggest that something is no longer an invasion of privacy, just because you know it might happen.

By your logic, mandatory strip-searches by school or workplaces, the Government reading everyone's email, and yes, rummaging through your house, would not be invasions of privacy.

It's a dangerous situation. Intelligent people that know how to manage technology, money, and resources are dying off, to be replaced by the mildly retarded in high growth countries like Africa, where average IQ scores generally run from 60-75.

Giving an equal amount of resources to those who are least equipped to handle it would be very stupid.

//yeah, because NO white person has ever been used as a slave sarcasm//
the Romans didn't discriminate. they just took the people they conquered, whatever their race. and during the middle ages there was a very profitable trade by the Muslims of Christians until the crusades sufficiently weakened Muslim countries power. http://www.answers.com/topic/islamic-slave-trade
slavery doesn't discriminate, its a club we all belong to.

"If the Anglosphere could promulgate a change in spelling,"

"people judge your intelligence and content based on spelling."

Sources are Wordnet and The Collaborative International Dictionary of English, via dict.

Wikipedia says "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem", and follows
with your definition of the term which, while literal, is the first time I've heard it used in that manner.

Re-reading the definitions they can be interpreted in the wikipedia vein, but also,
as I intended and have seen the term: an appeal to emotion rather than logic.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem actually has a good explanation on the
difference in usage, indicating that my form is the original but now little-used.

Your point is taken, but your example is not a good one. The FBI does not administer the United States Federal Witness Protection Program. The U.S. Marshals Service does. http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-federal -witness-protection-program

So you still don't accept the facts that Ken Lay did not "build Enron from nothing"? Well I guess your ignorance wins. We should inform everyone else how wrong they are.

Oh look, reference.com thinks Northern Natural Gas, one of the two companies that merged to form Enron, was formed in the 1930's... well, maybe Ken Lay had that "time travel" thing down http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Enron_Corpora tion

They think he became CEO the year after Enron was formed http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/infrastructure/powe r/enron_time.html

Man, maybe I would expect it from some "reference.com" place and from the hippie PBS, but not from you USA Today... you've changed http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2001-11-28-en ron-chronology.htm

Answers.com has always been b.s. so it's no wonder they're in on the lies too http://www.answers.com/topic/kenneth-lay

Clearly, both you and the mods who awarded you points are joking. Sick fucks.

Oh I get it, you can see the guy's point that maybe he, like others, and even you, shouldn't 'care', but, because he said he didn't care, he has some imagined 'Mac' disease?

90% of the computer users of the world don't care about these issues any more than they care to take up automotive mechanics in order to drive back and forth to their fucking jobs, okay?

I don't have a problem with the stated fact that most people care little for stuff like this. It's annoying, however, when those 90% of people, yourself and the parent included, feel that you're above that sort of knowledge. So you don't care (and don't wish to hear) about computer issues? That's awesome; I'm glad you have other interests. Just don't pretend you're a better person because you talk about something you don't fully understand.

And what's more, the 'not caring/not knowing', overwhelming majority of people DO shape the tech world, more than you think. Why? Because they're the buyers, get it, and the companies give them what they want. It's not a pretty thought, sure.

For years PC games have driven the consumer computer market. Sure, people have to buy those games, but gamers hardly make up a majority of computer users; they tend to associate more with the 10% you reference are interested in computer issues.

WTF was that supposed to mean? Heheh, bad for I-VI-II-V jazz progressions, bad for anything anywhere evolving or moving on? If "progress" was the word you were after...

Nothing worse than attempting an ill-attempted jab at someone else's writing and failing. Here's what progression means (the first definition; the one I used):
noun: 1. The process of progressing; progress.
It's a synonym for progress, and is a noun (I can't tell if you're implying it's an adjective or verb; in either case, you're wrong).

"Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?"

Really...? You dont say...... Are they calling it Milnet?

I can't be bothered to count them.

You think that's funny, but here in the UK, a woman was repeatedly harrassed, to the point of bricks through windows and slogans painted on the front of her house, until she had to move to another area.

The thing that made these people hate her so much? She was a pædiatrician. Apparently, there are cretinous lifeforms masquerading as humans, who see "pæd" prefixed to a word and assume "kiddy fiddler".

"Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?!"

Certainly not, as I have said myself in an earlier post: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18771 6&cid=15486101

Laws are not always right, and, in my opinion, shouldn't always be followed. However, I was talking about the rights of individuals, not companies (which should not enjoy the same protections as persons, in my opinion, because they are purely legal entities), and primarily when the law is not compatible with your own ethical value-system. Corporations usually do not have a value-system exept that of making profit, and in that case, they should agree to pay the fine, because retreating from the EU market would cost a lot more.

In any case, the question whether or not it is *morally* right to halt their monopolistic behaviour is beyond the scope of this thread, and is highly subjective and arbitrary (obviously, you and MS would argue it isn't, but I and the EU commision and the courts of the EU, the USA, japan, etc. would argue it is). This is simply a case of a corporation who has to follow the rules of trade in the place where it does the trading - no higher humanistic ethical values come into play.

"My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success."

That is a very nice stance, and I support it. However, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because companies are not being punished for their succes, nor even for being a monopoly, but for abusing their monopoly. Your own examples of Pepsi and Coke demonstrate this.

"Also from http://answers.com/"

Alas, whatever answers.com or the wikipedia says, legalese is always in a different language.

In any case, the "produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production" comes closest to what is meant by a monopoly of MS (though one would have to be lenient to call it technologically superior, or to call it a reasonable price).

As I'm not mistaken, the thresshold to call something a monopoly in the EU depends on the % of the market it has (in this case, of OS). I don't know the exact percentage, but I believe it's beyond 70% or 80%. Thus, any company having more then 80% of the market is considered a monopoly, because with such a share it effectively dominates the landscape of OSses. Since this is the case for MS, it is a monopoly. Which, I repeat, is not illegal on itself. If it tries to use that monopoly as a leverage to monopolise other markets, it does become illegal, however.

I'm sure you find this system wrong and what not, but I happen to find it quite justified. Monopolies have *never* been to the benefit of innovation and consumers, thus a system should be in place to hold it in check.

Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?! This is all about bringing down a giant. My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success. I don't think any law invalidates that.

And, FYI, a monopoly, by definition, is "when there is only one seller of a common commodity." There is nothing precluding competitors in this market.

Also from http://answers.com/
"In economics, a monopoly is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."

"Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production, or is granted government permission to be the sole producer of a product or service in a given area."

Using the standards as they have been applied to Microsoft, Pepsi and Coke are monopolies--all successful brands are.

Are you trying to infer that Wikipedia articles on AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks should *not* have links to IBM???

Firstly, "infer". I suspect you mean "imply".

Secondly, "?". You only need one. Using more makes you look dumb.

Finally, I'm talking about IBM adding links that point to their websites, AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks, to lots of Wikipedia articles about general topics like HTML and CSS. You seem to be talking about the Wikipedia articles about AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks themselves. Zero out of ten for reading comprehension.

Are you trying to infer that Wikipedia articles on AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks should *not* have links to IBM???

Firstly, "infer". I suspect you mean "imply".

Secondly, "?". You only need one. Using more makes you look dumb.

Finally, I'm talking about IBM adding links that point to their websites, AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks, to lots of Wikipedia articles about general topics like HTML and CSS. You seem to be talking about the Wikipedia articles about AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks themselves. Zero out of ten for reading comprehension.

But the problem is, he has the meaning exactly backwards.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation
http://www.answers.com/allegation

His belief about the meaning didn't even pass the laugh test, so I didn't feel the need to cite a better source than Wikipedia.

And I don't see why "one cannot allege a murderer" - sure, that particular construction is grammatically laughable, but one can allege that someone is a murderer, they would then be "the alleged murderer."

The idea that a crime is not "alleged" until someone has been convicted of it is so ridiculous that, even if I'm wrong, he's not right.

You are essentially claming that something must be a violation of the TOS to be unfair.

A select few get access to everyone else's bids, but no one ever gets to see theirs?

Considering that Ebay has set the rules, and sniping is within them, sniping obviously fits that part of the definition. I'm not sure logic really applies here, and as for ethics, considering that anybody can snipe merely by choosing to do so, I don't even see an ethical problem there.

(Now, if only certain people could snipe, then I might agree that it's unfair. But that's not the case.)

So yes, I think I understand the word just fine.

You should try the Answers.com Firefox extension or Windows plugin (for IE users). They let you alt+click on any word, or right-click to get a definition from the context menu, even without selecting the word.

Disclaimer: I work for Answers.com.

Regards,
-- Avi

You should try the Answers.com Firefox extension or Windows plugin (for IE users). They let you alt+click on any word, or right-click to get a definition from the context menu, even without selecting the word.

Disclaimer: I work for Answers.com.

Regards,
-- Avi

You should try the Answers.com Firefox extension or Windows plugin (for IE users). They let you alt+click on any word, or right-click to get a definition from the context menu, even without selecting the word.

Disclaimer: I work for Answers.com.

Regards,
-- Avi

There are plenty of mistakes that _did_ become permanent, though. Time will tell, of course, whether "hacker" will become one of them, but see internecine. hacker may also be instructive.

There are plenty of mistakes that _did_ become permanent, though. Time will tell, of course, whether "hacker" will become one of them, but see internecine. hacker may also be instructive.

fraud, in law, willful misrepresentation intended to deprive another of some right.

> You remind me of anti-gay marriage folk who say stuff like 'wouldn't it make sense then that I could marry a goat?' You're failing to understand that net neutrality doesn't have any inherent quality that says anything about freedom of speech, just that all packets on the internet should be treated equally. It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

You missed my point. What I was trying to note was that once you allow the government to establish regulation and control over the Internet in the first place, there is nothing preventing it from extending its over-regulatory laws into the Internet and doing things such as restricting political speech.

Of course, you claim I'm inciting slippery slope. Which I suppose I am, though I will point out no more than those for net neutrality ("if we allow the content providers to choose,t hey will scrwe us all!"). And personally, I find that the slippery slope is much more likely to happen when a government gets involved than a company. I would merely like to cite taxes, the PATRIOT Act, and Kelo vs. New London.

> Are you seriously suggesting that the mere lack of competition will end up somehow creating competition? I absolutely hate when people make that argument, because it makes absolutely no sense. How will consumers go to competition when there isn't any?

Okay, suppose we have a fair market situation. This is the big assumption that tends to be untrue, because governments get involved. But we'll make it anyways.

Suppose that there is one widget maker, and they sell widgets at 5$ each. Because they are a monopoly, they can sell them at any price, so there are two possibilities. First, that 5$ is a fair price, or that 5$ is too much.

Suppose 5$ is a fair price. No one cares, trivial case.
Suppose 5$ is too much. This means that it is possible for a company to sell them for say, 4.50$. Assuming a fair market, then some entrepreneur will stand up and start selling them for 4.50$. Lo and behold, instant competition.

(Before you note that a monopoly tends to be able to drop prices to put competitors out of business, I will agree that perhaps we should have legislation preventing predatory anti-fair-market pricing)

No, it may not be instantaneous. But it will happen, assuming there is a free market. The problem more often than not is that the market is not actually free (such as when the government gives subsidies to the reigning monopoly).

And I will concede that the world is more complicated than simple widgets these days. The thing is, there is practically no argument that the complication of the world defeats the idea that the free market produces competition.

Even when Standard Oil was at its peak, it only controlled around 90% of production. That's quite a lot of competitors. And realistically, if Standard Oil really was screwing over its customers, they could have gone to a competitor.

> You say 'socialist' like you equate it with facism or something. Socialism just means trying to make sure no one gets unfairly screwed out of something.

That's one of the supposed goals of socialism. Socialism, according to the dictionary is essentially an economic system where the government controls the means of production. I consider that totalitarian.

Well then... prove it already.

Show those that believe natural-borne phenomenon such as volcanic activity and animal-sourced emissions are less significant than any man-made pollution. Prove it.

Clearly there are moments in our history when we have wrought damage to our environment. But to say (or even imply) that we are systematically destroying our planet... prove it.

Statements such as (paraphrasing one Gore's current talking points) "we have 10 years to go or our planet is beyond the point of no return" strike me as way over the top. To Mr. Gore or any of his followers/supporters: prove it.

I don't listen to Rush myself (I work during the time of his show), so I don't know what he is saying about this at present. But I can tell you my own point of view, and it is that it's really difficult to listen to the leftist claptrap that's coming out of the so-called "concerned scientist" community these days. It's obviously to me that it's about a political agenda, not about any concern for our environment.

Mod me down, all you lefties and socialists and ecology activists. Enjoy yourselves.

I'd be interested in seeing if any of your responses to this are any more than vitriol, or "just play along and our planet will survive" (still without any facts), or whatever.

I'll start with some real information of natural-borne phenomenon doing more environmental damage than what man can ever do. Google "Mt. Pinatubo", and you will get these links (among many others):

http://library.thinkquest.org/17701/high/effects/p inatubo.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/mount-pinatubo
http://www.volcanolive.com/pinatubo1991.html

Effects of the Eruption (from the last link above):

740 people killed.
A huge caldera was formed 2.5 km across.
260 m was lost off the summit of the volcano.
The ash entered the stratosphere and covered the whole earth within 12 months.
Global temperatures were reduced by 0.5 degree C the year after the eruption.
Forests buried under 50-200 m deep ash and pumice.
During the last five months of 1991 200 mudflows raced down the valleys of Pinatubo.
Damage amounted to $450 million dollars.
8,000 houses were destroyed and 75,000 houses damaged.
2 million people were affected by the eruption.
The biggest volcanic disaster of the 20th century was avoided due to good planning and monitoring.

One point I will repeat:
Global temperatures were reduced by 0.5 degree C the year after the eruption.

This planet does more to ITSELF in a matter of months than us 6+ billion people could ever think of doing to ourselves in our entire recorded history.

I don't know if Rush really said "prove it".

But I certainly will:

PROVE IT.

Just because it was originally robbery at sea doesn't imply that's the only meaning for the word.

1. 1. Robbery committed at sea.
   2. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

[Medieval Latin prtia, from Late Greek peirteia, from Greek peirts, pirate. See pirate.]

Just because it was originally robbery at sea doesn't imply that's the only meaning for the word.

1. 1. Robbery committed at sea.
   2. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

[Medieval Latin prtia, from Late Greek peirteia, from Greek peirts, pirate. See pirate.]

Impartial is a state of mind, not a monetary status.

The word "disinterested" has no monetary connotation. Even the legal definition (according to my source) is: "Free from bias, prejudice, or partiality." No mention of money. Sure sounds like "impartiality" to me.

As for flammable/inflammable, I see your point. It's the duality that's stupid.

So, if your battery weighs two pounds, you have the potential energy of roughly a third pound of TNT -- more than enough to cause some serious damage.

I for one don't want to be killed by keyboard shrapnel!

The orginal analogy is good, I beleive that there are good intrinsic returns in China to higher education, but this is not necessarily so. Spence's Nobel prizing winning on-job market signalling suggests that education would be valuable just as a signalling tool http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-spence even if the education does not cause people to be more productive. In short, more degrees = printing money => reducing marginal value of signalling.

http://www.smithfam.com/news2/july02a.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/credit-card-fraud
One of the two (answers/wikipedia) plagerized the other. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud

Make the credit card companies take responsibility. Make it them that has to pay for fraud and the situation will rememdy itself overnight!

Even if they did, the idea behind Eat one's own dog food would have been high on the list. Most likely the top item.

Or have you forgotten the flak Microsoft took when it was revealed that Hotmail was running on one of the BSDs?

what pilot and crew? The ones in a control room on the ground?

A small camera capable of tilt and pan operations is fixed to the underside of the drone which sends the video directly to a laptop command station. Once launched, the craft is set to fly autonomously with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and a fixed flight pattern.

For definition of autonomous, see this link

What's with the constant /. misspelling of newcomer?

I beg to argue that all scientific explanations are rationalizations of existing opinons.

thus the whole scientific method:
1) Hypothesis
2) Test the Hypothesis
3) Note the results.

The definition for Hypothesis, http://www.answers.com/hypothesis?ff=1, sounds a lot like an existing opinion to me.

He does record in his garage, tours, sells on-line (including via iTunes) and physical CDs through a small independent record label.

Richard Stallman and his friends were pushed back by the chief of security team.

http://www.answers.com/functional&r=67 that link see 2 and 3

There's absolutely no way the Yankee group can claim to be unbiased if they allowed the Didiot within fifteen hundred meters of a report on Open Source or Linux.

I meant what I said. 25,000 years is in the right neighborhood.

The changes in humans over the last thousand years are believed to be mostly nutritional, and it's likely we've seen most of the improvement we're going to see from that (note that developing countries, such as China are experiencing a height boom, and it's not from intermarrying with us). Plus our population pool is now much larger, so any drift is going to be that much slower to get established as a widespread preference.

Every citation I could find seemed to think that the last major brain case change happened roughly 100,000 years ago.
Here's a couple:
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/human-evolution

Dunno what those "particulates" are

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

When I read this, I couldn't help thinking of a skit I saw performed on the old SCTV comedy show back in the early 1980s.

The skit was a goof on the old "Battle of the TV Network Stars" shows ABC used to produce. This was called "Battle of the PBS Stars." The highlight of the show was a boxing match between Mr. Rogers (played by Martin Short) and Julia Child (played by John Candy).

Mr. Rogers pretty much got his ass kicked by a 350-pound French woman.

Why do I imagine this is the same thing?

A threat must be direct and immediate for it to fall outside of first amendment restrictions. His "threats" are vague, indirect, and unlikely to result in any real consequences.

Vague threats are sufficient. Look at this page and consider the paragraph:

The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose.

A vague threat often is intentionally designed to avoid legal consequences. Sometimes the attempt works, sometimes it doesn't.

This student referenced Columbine, which is vague. However it won't guarantee impunity.

Freedom of speech never ment freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

Yes, it does. Freedom. Speech.

The problem is, Americans have turned freedom of speech into some sort of ideal in itself rather than a means to an end, and that conflicts with the fact that some speech is directly harmful with no benefit to society.

Because you can't accept this fact without conceding that freedom of speech isn't an absolute, you resolve your cognitive dissonance by redefining speech that is directly harmful with no benefit to society as being something other than speech.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is clearly speech, you are clearly not free to do it under the law, and so you clearly have limits on the freedom of your speech.

Instead of believing in freedom of speech as an ideal in itself, you should realise that freedom of speech is a means to an end; a method of defending liberty. It's not an absolute, there are limits, and acknowledging that doesn't make you an evil commie.

In fact sticking your head in the sand and pretending some types of speech aren't speech is actually more threatening to liberty, because it paves the way for people to redefine particular types of speech they don't like as being something other than speech - hey, if you can have your own special definition of "speech", why can't they?

The sentence "Freedom of speech never ment freedom to say whatever the hell you want." sounds like some kind of double-speak a dictator might use to justify locking somebody up for dissidence. Are you really sure you want to play word games to muddy the waters in this way?