Slashdot Mirror

I think perhaps that "expectation" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Expect" is simply a stronger form of "hope" - you "hope" for something when you'd like it, but you're not convinced it'll happen. You "expect" something when you're pretty certain it'll happen or know that it will.

Neither hoping for something nor expecting it means that the thing is in any way obliged to happen. That is, in this case, the 19 year old can *expect* the girl to put out after the things he's done, but she is in no way *obliged* to do so.

Change "expectation" in your post for "obligation" and you're spot on.

So, calm down, deep breaths, he didn't mean what you thought he meant :) (Unless he is similarly mistaken about what the word means, in which case go ahead, rip him a new one)

It's not just the truth, it's the definition of fundamentalism - the belief that what is written in a holy book is competely true.

The Cambridge Dictionary

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary

So, it's not just "[My] definition of pagiarism only" - it appears that is the common dictionary definition of the word. There is a difference between plagiarize, and infringe copyright, and while they are both illegal, they aren't synonyms.

As for bloggers, it's a given that probably 90% of bloggers aren't very good, and aren't worth paying much attention to. If a blogger has to just copy other people's material in order to have content, I'm sure not gonna pay any attention to them - I'll go read the people they are copying *from*, instead. And if someone else think's that a particular blogger is violating their copyright, well, we already have laws about that, and they can try to enforce their copyright. Whether a blogger can get away with copying 'too much' material has nothing to do with "people like [me]", or what definition we use - that's between the person they infringed, the blogger, their lawyers, and the judge.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines several as meaning "some... fewer than many" and many as "a large number of".

Given that, I think it's fair to assume that three is not too large a number to be "several"; certainly, about that many is what I generally mean when I say "several". Working on that basis, then, supporting "several orders of magnitude more concurrent processes" means supporting about three orders of magnitude more processes. Three orders of magnitude is 1000 (=10^3). If we up "several" to four or five, we have 10,000 or 100,000.

Perhaps the OS can support that many concurrent processes (although I admit to having my doubts), but I'd be amazed if any hardware it runs on does.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines several as meaning "some... fewer than many" and many as "a large number of".

Given that, I think it's fair to assume that three is not too large a number to be "several"; certainly, about that many is what I generally mean when I say "several". Working on that basis, then, supporting "several orders of magnitude more concurrent processes" means supporting about three orders of magnitude more processes. Three orders of magnitude is 1000 (=10^3). If we up "several" to four or five, we have 10,000 or 100,000.

Perhaps the OS can support that many concurrent processes (although I admit to having my doubts), but I'd be amazed if any hardware it runs on does.

There's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, by the same authors.

I'll probably be the lone voice of dissent on this point. I hate this book. I am a linguist, which means I'm a pedantic grammarian. The Elements of Style is simply wrong on most grammatical advice it gives, and is frequently misguided about stylistic advice. Almost none of the great works of literature follow their rules: Shakespeare, Conrad, Twain, Poe, Hawthorne, Elliot--even the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are faulty by the standards of that book! Even they don't follow their own advice! The sooner this book stops being pushed on students, the better.

Don't just take my word for it. Here's the opinion of one of the authors of one of the most complete and accurate grammars of the English Language ever written:

[Elements of Style is] a horrid little compendium of unmotivated prejudices (don't use ongoing), arbitrary stipulations (don't begin a sentence with however), and fatuous advice ("Be clear"), ridiculously out of date in its positions on appropriate choices among grammatical variants, deeply suspect in its style advice and grotesquely wrong in most of the grammatical advice it gives.

Well, evil is defined as being immoral, cruel or very unpleasant (adj) or something that is very bad and harmful (n).

Note that nowhere in that definition is there the word "senseless" or "pointless", which would be the case if killing for a reason were not evil.

Just because you have a reason for doing something, that doesn't by itself make that thing any less evil.

Looks OK to me ... http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=902 11&dict=CALD

I am most definitely sympathetic to FOSS - I think the whole thing is a superb idea, with many great qualities and much to recommend it.

However.

Richard Stallman correctly predicted many of the ways in which Big Corporations and Big Brother will use DRM (also known as Digital Restrictions Management, Treacherous Computing, or Handcuffware) to enslave people.

You lost me right there. Please explain to me - in words of one syllable if necessary - how DRM will turn me into a slave. For reference, this is the definition of slave that I'm using.

You've already lost that fight.

PS Politicization isn't a word

In USA it is
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politiciz ation

In England it isn't
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?search word=politicization

It seems you go through life understanding very little. Pointing out that your post consisted mainly of stuff you made up is not trolling.

...Back in my day, posting were about Facts, not people, dammit! Facts! Back in the old days, people used to post comments to make deeper understandings. They would present evidence, historical and otherwise to create deeper understanding....

It really is a shame that you didn't follow their example, as I have done.

...If you are trying to learn, you have to question everything...

Which is why I questioned you, even though what you posted was patently nonsense. Now if you could only practice what you preached you would have searched for some evidence of what you suggested and posted links to back it up. Or, perhaps you did search, and failed to find the elusive C02 detector?

...If we look at the classic idea of the five sense with this in mind, we find that some senses are a combination of several system in the body...

This is not in dispute. the five senses refer to what we sense, not how we sense it. If you have a look here you will learn that we have five different taste receptors. Are you saying that we should consider each a seperate sense because each uses a different mechanism? Perhaps you are, as you go on to say...

...These are all seperate nerves in the body...there is no reason to group them together under a single sense...

Hmm, perhaps grouping is not such a bad idea.

...Also, it turns out there are perception systems in the body that are unaccounted for, such as propitiation and orientation...

Are you sure we have a sense for propitiation? As for orientation, there is no such sense. That's like saying we have a sense of proximity because we can see how close to a wall we are.

...Aristotle didn't have any access to instruments that could show infrared. People also didn't have microscopes back then, nor did they disect human bodies in order to learn. So now that we have those tools available to us, it becomes obvious that the common wisdom is outdated, and we need to revise the theory...

If you read my post you will see that I wrote, and I quote, "Now it may be that there are more than five senses, but the answer is not here...". What you should have been able to ascertain from this is that

1. I am open to revising my conceptions regarding the senses.
2. Your ramblings about being able to sense how much C02 is in a room, humidity sensors in the lungs, air presure sensors and the like isn't what it takes for me to do so.

Yes, statements about the size of current or historic forests must be substantiated beyond doubt. I was not writing specifically about forests but the general implication that human action is causing global environmental catastrophe. We need facts not applications of the self-contradictory precautionary principle. Mercury in lakes is bad but we also need to know how much is actually bad for us and the things in the lake. Setting standards using numbers created by halving the number where effects are seen isn't any better than an educated guess. Guessing doesn't make good science.

Oh and about the forests. "In fact, no such deforestation is taking place in Canada or the U.S., and a prohibition on clearcutting would result in no ecological benefits. - Dr. Patrick Moore"

It's a UK thing.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=924 11&dict=CALD

Of the four definitions for leverage at the Cambridge Dictionaries Online website, only one (the last) is a verb, and that doesn't mean "use".

Just because a lot of people use a word in a particular way doesn't mean that it's correct. Given time, it will *become* correct usage (because languages evolve), but right now it isn't and (imho, of course) it sounds bloody stupid.

I don't have the book to hand and it is dated, but if I recall correctly there is a good discussion of this topic in D'arcy Thompson's classic On Growth and Form.

I hope you feel better you fucktard

Would you rather see Merriam-Webster?
http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/prise
Main Entry: prise
Pronunciation: 'prIz
chiefly British variant of PRIZE

Cambridge?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=629 55&dict=CALD
Definition
prise Show phonetics
verb [T]
UK FOR prize (LIFT)

And here I found a definition of COLA MAN from MS Encarta:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefEdList.a spx?refid=210031633

What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place?

Same thing that means that I'm not a journalist just for telling my daughter not to cross the road because there's a car coming.

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online website defines journaism as "the work of collecting, writing and publishing news stories and articles in newspapers and magazines or broadcasting them on the radio and television".

Granted, it should be updated to reflect the rise of online reporting, but I don't think many people would seriously suggest that my telling you that definition counts as journalism, any more than your example qualifies your boss as a journalist.

Look at slashdot, look at how often the shills call people who use linux or program in open source zealots and hippies?

"Zealot, n: a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too"

From Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Now, are you honestly trying to argue that that description doesn't fit an awful lot of people here? Not just about Linux or open source, you get Intel zealots, AMD zealots, Windows zealots, language zealots, XML zealots, Oracle vs MySQL vs postgres vs emacs vs vi - the list goes on and on.

In the literal sense of the word, slashdot is full of zealots. There aren't that many opinions expressed here that aren't strongly held by people who would seek to convince others.

Since digital media has no per-unit costs,

First error. Here's how unit cost is calculated: Production cost + (Manufacturing cost * Number of units)/Number of units. People always seem to forget the production cost when saying it costs nothing per unit. Do you even know how much it costs to develop a TV series or a movie or a video game? Millions of dollars. So just because it doesn't cost much to manufacture a copy, it's still really expensive to produce the material, and the production company deserves to be compensated for it. NOT STEAL as stealing is removing ownership of a tangible object from its rightful owner and placing said ownership in my hands

That's completely incorrect. Stealing has nothing to do with tangible objects.

Stealing is inappropriately acquiring someone else's property. Note that the type of property is NOT specified

But don't take my work for it:
Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary.com
Cambridge Dictionary online
WikiPedia

Could you please provide references to your definition?

do you think it is fair to say the producers of the content I watch are losing money from my viewing?

Of course. Your using their product, but you didn't pay for it, so they're out x$.

I'm not saying it's okay for another party to profit either in case you were wondering.

Like you for instance? Because you are profiting from watching their TV show without paying for it.

Phemur

It's called sarcasm.

The phrase death toll has a single, well-defined meaning. It does not mean the same as death knell, no matter that the individual word toll, in the context of bells, means the same as knell, in the same context.

For what it's worth (ie nothing), I've never heard the phrase "funeral toll" :)

Three good places to start to get the core theory down (after which the practicalities are much easier to learn) are Applications of Process Algebra, Communication and Concurrency, and finally Communicating Sequential Processes which is available for free (the link is to a PDF of the book).

Jedidiah.

altruism: willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself

I question if their should a death penalty at all much less for hacking. How about a death penalty for stupid reporters?

If you're proposing "a death penalty for stupid reporters" then you're proposing the death penality for hackers, er hacks.

hack (WRITER)
noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a journalist (= writer for newspapers or magazines) whose work is low in quality or lacks imagination:
Fleet Street hacks

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary :

innovative - using new methods or ideas

Notice there is nothing in that definition that indicates the origin of those ideas ? Microsoft are an innovative company, because they take ideas and use them. They aren't an inventive company, because they very often don't come up with any new ideas themselves.

IBM and Oracle are innovative companies too.

As for being inventive, I'm not sure about Oracle, however, IBM are, based on the fundamental intention of patents (registering new inventions), and based on the number of patents they are granted (more than 3000 in 2004), IBM are one of the most inventive, if not the most inventive organisation in the world.

I thought "internationalisation" was a term more commonly used in the USA than in the UK. But The Cambridge Dictionary states the term is "internationalization", with "internationalisation" being a UK localism. The Oxford English Dictionary (user login required, BugMeNot is your friend) knows of no "internationalisation", though its references on "internationalization" cite sources both with -z- and -s-. I hope you will agree these two dictionaries' creators know what's spoken in England. Otherwise, please provide your authoritative references.

I think this proves both forms are currently accepted, so we probably should call it a draw. As a native Spanish speaker, I prefer the -z- form, as it looks more like the Spanish internacionalización, but that's my preference.

They don't even mention the possibility that it has anything to do with Gypsies, nor is it flagged as offensive.

Yes, as we all know, there's only one definition for each word, right?. Oxford lists TWO definitions for the word, and that's just the compact version:

gyp1
/jip/ (also gip)
noun Brit. informal pain or discomfort.

gyp2
/jip/ informal
verb (gypped, gypping) cheat or swindle.
noun a swindle.

From UrbanDictionary.com:

Used as a term to describe when one has received less than they paid for. Most people do not realize it's a racist term that stems from nomadic 'gypsies' who are stereotyped as theiving criminals. "Man, look at your glass. You got gypped on the Coke."

Look, this wasn't intended to slight ANYONE. My intent was to educate, then let people make their own choice. Not everyone knows this, as another poster previously noted. I didn't take offense at this issue personally, as it didn't seem to be intended as a derogatory statement. I tried to make that clear in my first post. Apparently I failed. I apologize. I didn't call the poster an insensitive clod, or attack him in any way. I simply said "You might consider..." and left it at that. I'm having trouble seeing where I caused offense, but it wasn't my intention. If there is any doubt in your mind, perhaps you should check my past posts, in which I tend to score 5 once every four posts because I try to HELP PEOPLE. I'm not in the habit of intentionally alienating anyone, and I apologize if my intentions were unclear. Relax already.

I guess that would depend on your defintion of misuse.

I'll remember that the next time I try to kiss my date goodnight and she accuses me of rape. It's silly to argue semantics, after all.

You should choose the people you date better.

Wikipedia is not the be all and end all, get definitions from a real dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=823 12&dict=CALD

But I agree software piracy is theft. Can you imagine how much money Nero would have if every other person didn't have a dodgy copy?

More conservative dictionaries prefer "programme", eg Cambridge. Newspaper style guides are often useful, but not authoritative.

I had to say it after reading Aluminum too many times.

See:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/aluminium
(May not work outside uk, try appending ?view=uk)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=239 1&dict=CALD

I have been told the history on why Americans call it wrong, but I forget

I had to say it after reading Aluminum too many times.

See:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/aluminium
(May not work outside uk, try appending ?view=uk)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=239 1&dict=CALD

I have been told the history on why Americans call it wrong, but I forget

Also, whenever you can, please keep correcting people who regard this as "piracy", "stealing" or "theft". It is nothing of the sort. It is "copyright infringement", plain and simple.

Use of the word "piracy" in place of "copyright infringement" has been commonplace for decades, if not longer. See for example here and here.

No, it isn't accurate. Yes, it was almost certainly started by content producers to try to provoke a negative emotional response in people. But just like the "hacker vs cracker" debate, you've already lost. There's not generally any point to fighting a battle you can't win.

Trying to persuade people to stop calling it piracy is just going to confuse and distract from the real argument.

The problem with ignorant people is that there are so many of them

Seriously, go on fighting if you want, but you've already lost.

yeah not yea.

'Yea' is olde englishe. 'Yeah' is the common informal way of saying yes.

yeah not yea.

'Yea' is olde englishe. 'Yeah' is the common informal way of saying yes.

That's just vulgar. Why would you put a bag on your vagina, anyway?

"Obstensibly"? Probably not. Not even in US spelling.
Try "ostensibly".

"Seperate"? No.

Have a nice day, O professional academic :D

"Obstensibly"? Probably not. Not even in US spelling.
Try "ostensibly".

"Seperate"? No.

Have a nice day, O professional academic :D

The political economy of the process of IP legislation and internationalization is critical to consider in this context. The construction of these policies have to do with the narrow self-interest of corporate actors and how they are able to sell their case to political policymakers. For example, the conversion of IP law from an abstract problem to a trade issue addressable through the United States Trade Representative office has allowed the US to pursue the IP agenda of large corporate actors outside the bounds of IP-related treaties.

If you are interested, look at this book: Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Susan Sell [amazon.com]

It's a great in-depth analysis of this topic and very enlightening for anyone who thinks this debate is somehow easy to understand.

You might consider Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least they're a "blue" corporation, unlike Amazon): Barnes and Nobles: Private Power, Public Law

Alternately you could get it straight from the Cambridge press: Cambridge Press: Private Power, Public Law

They've made the introduction available as a sample chapter: Sample Chapter (PDF): Private Power, Public Law

I have to say, it's a bit mind-numbing -- lots of stuff about GATT and TRIPS and various associations of this and that, and over-all it looks only tangentially on-topic... the question is not why would monopolists try and ram their monopolies down the throat of the entire planet, the question is where the monopolies came from to begin with. Why can the pip-squeak entertainment industry hold the information technology world hostage? Are they better at bribing politicians? Is there some "quid pro quo" going on, e.g. publicity for political campaigns?

[1] Yeah, I know: someone who really understand intellectual property doesn't call it "property", but you know what I mean.

The political economy of the process of IP legislation and internationalization is critical to consider in this context. The construction of these policies have to do with the narrow self-interest of corporate actors and how they are able to sell their case to political policymakers. For example, the conversion of IP law from an abstract problem to a trade issue addressable through the United States Trade Representative office has allowed the US to pursue the IP agenda of large corporate actors outside the bounds of IP-related treaties.

If you are interested, look at this book: Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Susan Sell [amazon.com]

It's a great in-depth analysis of this topic and very enlightening for anyone who thinks this debate is somehow easy to understand.

You might consider Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least they're a "blue" corporation, unlike Amazon): Barnes and Nobles: Private Power, Public Law

Alternately you could get it straight from the Cambridge press: Cambridge Press: Private Power, Public Law

They've made the introduction available as a sample chapter: Sample Chapter (PDF): Private Power, Public Law

I have to say, it's a bit mind-numbing -- lots of stuff about GATT and TRIPS and various associations of this and that, and over-all it looks only tangentially on-topic... the question is not why would monopolists try and ram their monopolies down the throat of the entire planet, the question is where the monopolies came from to begin with. Why can the pip-squeak entertainment industry hold the information technology world hostage? Are they better at bribing politicians? Is there some "quid pro quo" going on, e.g. publicity for political campaigns?

[1] Yeah, I know: someone who really understand intellectual property doesn't call it "property", but you know what I mean.

CA have contributed so much to the Linux kernel, so they know what they're talking about. NOT.

What is CA's motive in saying this ? They have no real experience in developing operating systems, nor are they producing data and a testing methodology to backup their opinion.

It seems to me they might be talking through their hat.

I think he had the long night; he clearly meant secede, not succeed.

Accroding to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, a monopoly is "(an organization or group which has) complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share." According to OneStat, Google has a 57.2% share of the search engine market, and Yahoo! has 21.3%. How is Google a monopoly again?

"Encryption" does not mean "strong encryption" and most certainly does not mean "cannot ever be read by someone who shouldn't be able to read it". Check the definition - it says nothing about how hard or easy it is to crack. A simple Ceasar cipher, while laughably easy to crack, is still an encryption scheme, even if it isn't leet enough for you.