Slashdot Mirror

Also, most reputable scholars accept a much earlier date for 1 Timothy, from 64 to 120 CE.

Also, most reputable scholars accept a much earlier date for 1 Timothy, from 64 to 120 CE.

Too bad the Catholic church isn't Christianity...

You're a moron. According to the dictionary, Christianity is defined as The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. That definition could be (and has, in the distant past) interpreted to mean that only Catholics are Christians. No matter what, the Church is founded on both scripture and tradition, which itself is merely interpretation of scripture. Take your fundie slander elsewhere, please.

I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%.

what are you fucking retarded? if the government was taking 100% of someone's money, what is that person's motivation for working? if you starting taking all of larry ellison's money when he was making just a million dollars a year, why would he even bother showing up at the office? would he give a shit at that point whether his company was making the best goddamn RDBMS on the planet? under your rules, are you going to force him to work?

No one person should have a billion dollars, it's impossible for a democaracy to exist when people do.

what in the hell does someone having a billion dollars have to do with democracy working? here is the definition of democracy:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=democracy

nowhere in that definition does it mention or even hint that democracy breaks down when some people have a shitload of money.

I bet they don't even know what a trillion is...

trillion

In Britain, France, and Germany, 10^18 or a million cubed.

In the USA and Canada, 10^12.

Hell, the word comes from 'tri' for third power, and million. Quite how the americans decided to make a trillion as a million to the power of two is beyond the rest of the world....

that's my rant for the day :)

Out.

Next I suggest you go here for a definition of capricious. How is Superman "impulsive and unpredictable?" Boring would be fair, a bit naive perhaps ... but capricious? Still, superficially it sounded clever eh?

Ed

It reads more like a sales-pitch than a review!

"the unique Time Slip feature allows viewers to replay a scene recorded 30 seconds earlier without disrupting the recording process, simply by touching a button on the remote"

Err, not only is that sales-speak, but the last time I checked the meaning of the word unique it was: Without an equal or equivalent. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but doesn't the Tivo and ReplayTV have this feature too??

There's nothing worse or more valueless than an advertorial "review".

Therefore . Just a typo? Fair enough.

"Most people's exposure to solaris..."
"...from most people's perspective..."

Most peoples' (plural + possessive.)

"...particularly the 'hypocracy' bit."
"...it isn't hypocracy, it is practicality."

Hypocrisy.

"...there is a corrallary..."

Corollary.

"...many less people working on it..."
"...far less communal contributions."

Fewer. Less water; fewer people. Less sand, fewer communal contributions. If you can't count it (water), use "less;" if you can count it (people, communal contributions), use "fewer."

...it is equally ignorant to assume people who have worked with both..."

Correct: "...it is equally ignorant to assume that people who have worked with both..." You don't assume the people; you assume something about the people.

"...dislike Solaris solely out of philisophical grounds..."

Correct: "...dislike Solaris solely on philosophical grounds..." or "...for philosophical reasons..." The phrase "out of grounds" makes no sense unless you're trying to make coffee.

"...when the Operating System (and Sun) provide ample reasons to dislike it..."

Correct: "...the Operating System (and Sun) provides ample reasons..." The verb must agree with its antecedent, in this case "System," a singular noun: "the system provides."

These are just a few of the errors in your post; there are several more. In future, please proofread your posts; grammatical, typographical, spelling and punctuation errors serve only to make you seem illiterate, which in turn affects your credibility. The implication is that if you haven't spent the time considering your language, you probably haven't spent much time thinking through your argument, either, and are actually merely running off at the mouth.

Therefore . Just a typo? Fair enough.

"Most people's exposure to solaris..."
"...from most people's perspective..."

Most peoples' (plural + possessive.)

"...particularly the 'hypocracy' bit."
"...it isn't hypocracy, it is practicality."

Hypocrisy.

"...there is a corrallary..."

Corollary.

"...many less people working on it..."
"...far less communal contributions."

Fewer. Less water; fewer people. Less sand, fewer communal contributions. If you can't count it (water), use "less;" if you can count it (people, communal contributions), use "fewer."

...it is equally ignorant to assume people who have worked with both..."

Correct: "...it is equally ignorant to assume that people who have worked with both..." You don't assume the people; you assume something about the people.

"...dislike Solaris solely out of philisophical grounds..."

Correct: "...dislike Solaris solely on philosophical grounds..." or "...for philosophical reasons..." The phrase "out of grounds" makes no sense unless you're trying to make coffee.

"...when the Operating System (and Sun) provide ample reasons to dislike it..."

Correct: "...the Operating System (and Sun) provides ample reasons..." The verb must agree with its antecedent, in this case "System," a singular noun: "the system provides."

These are just a few of the errors in your post; there are several more. In future, please proofread your posts; grammatical, typographical, spelling and punctuation errors serve only to make you seem illiterate, which in turn affects your credibility. The implication is that if you haven't spent the time considering your language, you probably haven't spent much time thinking through your argument, either, and are actually merely running off at the mouth.

Therefore . Just a typo? Fair enough.

"Most people's exposure to solaris..."
"...from most people's perspective..."

Most peoples' (plural + possessive.)

"...particularly the 'hypocracy' bit."
"...it isn't hypocracy, it is practicality."

Hypocrisy.

"...there is a corrallary..."

Corollary.

"...many less people working on it..."
"...far less communal contributions."

Fewer. Less water; fewer people. Less sand, fewer communal contributions. If you can't count it (water), use "less;" if you can count it (people, communal contributions), use "fewer."

...it is equally ignorant to assume people who have worked with both..."

Correct: "...it is equally ignorant to assume that people who have worked with both..." You don't assume the people; you assume something about the people.

"...dislike Solaris solely out of philisophical grounds..."

Correct: "...dislike Solaris solely on philosophical grounds..." or "...for philosophical reasons..." The phrase "out of grounds" makes no sense unless you're trying to make coffee.

"...when the Operating System (and Sun) provide ample reasons to dislike it..."

Correct: "...the Operating System (and Sun) provides ample reasons..." The verb must agree with its antecedent, in this case "System," a singular noun: "the system provides."

These are just a few of the errors in your post; there are several more. In future, please proofread your posts; grammatical, typographical, spelling and punctuation errors serve only to make you seem illiterate, which in turn affects your credibility. The implication is that if you haven't spent the time considering your language, you probably haven't spent much time thinking through your argument, either, and are actually merely running off at the mouth.

Therefore . Just a typo? Fair enough.

"Most people's exposure to solaris..."
"...from most people's perspective..."

Most peoples' (plural + possessive.)

"...particularly the 'hypocracy' bit."
"...it isn't hypocracy, it is practicality."

Hypocrisy.

"...there is a corrallary..."

Corollary.

"...many less people working on it..."
"...far less communal contributions."

Fewer. Less water; fewer people. Less sand, fewer communal contributions. If you can't count it (water), use "less;" if you can count it (people, communal contributions), use "fewer."

...it is equally ignorant to assume people who have worked with both..."

Correct: "...it is equally ignorant to assume that people who have worked with both..." You don't assume the people; you assume something about the people.

"...dislike Solaris solely out of philisophical grounds..."

Correct: "...dislike Solaris solely on philosophical grounds..." or "...for philosophical reasons..." The phrase "out of grounds" makes no sense unless you're trying to make coffee.

"...when the Operating System (and Sun) provide ample reasons to dislike it..."

Correct: "...the Operating System (and Sun) provides ample reasons..." The verb must agree with its antecedent, in this case "System," a singular noun: "the system provides."

These are just a few of the errors in your post; there are several more. In future, please proofread your posts; grammatical, typographical, spelling and punctuation errors serve only to make you seem illiterate, which in turn affects your credibility. The implication is that if you haven't spent the time considering your language, you probably haven't spent much time thinking through your argument, either, and are actually merely running off at the mouth.

for all of you sickos with wandering minds

My own FWIW -- IRL, computer-driven systems are diffusing throughout the human-infected parts of the planet, think of them as being like a friendly and useful symbiote like those bug-eating birds that clean the backs of those water buffalo. Enter hackers. Programming is a fun exercise, and lots of hackers really enjoy playing with the tools of the trade. Unfortunately, if they make a mistake (like RTM apparently did), it is conceivable that those friendly birds could be corrupted by some virus/worm into giant mythical rocs (at least in the minds of the 99.99% of the world that does not understand exactly what is going on here).

At some level, the irrational fear is driven by the same poor education and innumeracy that makes otherwise rational people worry about nuclear power plants but not worry about coal-fired plants (in spite of the probability that a modern nuclear plant kills fewer people that the coal plant in a TCO sense).

All that having been said, we should expect more and more severe consequences to be levied upon "innocent hackers" who run their experiments in the real world, just as we would if they were high school chemists who accidently poisoned a city water supply during a prank. In the words of a once (15-minutes of fame) famous "Hill Street Blues" character, "Let's be careful out there!"

Capitalism is a short-sighted system that puts profits before people, dollars before the environment.

If you want to see some "short-sighted" forms of government, read the history of Communisn and Fascism, or beter yet look them up on dictionary.com.
I would hardly call Capitalism "short-sighted" when it has been around in some form or another since the dawn of time.

As far as evile is conserned, remember Hitler who killed people senselessly? How about Stalin, who killed more people in his purges than Hitler? Surely even you would admit that Communism and Fascism are the evile "systems".

I gladly take Capitalism and if you are dissatasfied with our government, why don't you defect to China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, or Cuba? What? They are all dirt poor and you couldn't afford any of the "necessities" that you enjoy now? Oh, maybe Capitalism isn't so that bad after all.

When you kill some pedestrian because of your irresponsible behavior what will your excuse be? "It's OK because I pay taxes?" Typical selfish jackass.

The next time you decide to take a stroll across a freeway (btw, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways ...), let me know. I'll be happy to run you over. And I'll be well within my rights and the law, because you are the one illegally walking upon a freeway.

Freeway, synonym of expressway, a road designed for high-speed travel.

When you kill some pedestrian because of your irresponsible behavior what will your excuse be? "It's OK because I pay taxes?" Typical selfish jackass.

The next time you decide to take a stroll across a freeway (btw, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways ...), let me know. I'll be happy to run you over. And I'll be well within my rights and the law, because you are the one illegally walking upon a freeway.

Freeway, synonym of expressway, a road designed for high-speed travel.

definitely not definately :) Have a nice day!

*Not a mistake that needs to be made on an installation.

definitely not definately :) Have a nice day!

*Not a mistake that needs to be made on an installation.

In the 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. Quite an achievment to add a word to the English language. It means "To understand profoundly through intuition or empathy. to comprehend.

See this page for more info regarding the First Post in this thread.

Oh really?

I heard a song the other day by someone named Norah Jones which I very much liked. I decided to stop by Best Buy and buy it. The CD cost me $11.99.

Then I was looking at the list of upcoming releases, and thought I'd stop back next week and buy the new Tori Amos album. It too is only $11.99.

Then I thought of a couple of other albums I didn't yet have I wanted. For instance "Heart Shaped World" by Chris Isaak, I checked and it is $9.99. Also "Warning:" by Green Day, I checked and it is $15.99.(Wow that's the first one I've seen close to your price range)

Then I thought... You know, I really need to broaden my horizons and stop listening to off beat music and pick up some top-40. So I looked up the latest album from Eminem. I found it for $12.99. Then I decided to find Pink, her album is $13.99.

I've been buying music since 1987 when I purchased my first CD player. Back then the first CD I bought was the Top Gun Soundtrack, and I paid $16.99 for it. Now if you go look at the historical value of the dollar, you'd find that $16.99 in 1987 is worth $26.48 today. But I'm not paying $26 for my music, I'm paying an average $12-14 for it, or about half the price. You should also note that in 1987 I could buy a Cassette for about $6-7, today they are $10.

Basically it seems like you have two problems.

First, you don't understand what the value of money really means. In 1987 I was working as a student and receiving $4/hour. Want to take a guess as to how much students receive now for working on campus?(Try $8-10/hour) It's called inflation, go look it up.

Second, if you are paying $16-20 for your CDs, then you are a really really stupid consumer and PT Barnum was correct. There are many places to buy music cheaper than that.

And as far as DVDs go... You know what, just quit yer whining and go back to playing Nintendo. (BTW, want to take a guess as to what I paid for Atari 2600 video cartridges?)

But still, the terms' file' and 'folder' seem to be used interchangeably:

file n. A container, such as a cabinet or folder, for keeping papers in order.

Attempting to use them both as distinct metaphors in a file system seems to be a a bit misguided. Maybe the designers who started the 'folder' rather then 'directory' term, didn't think of a file and folder as being interchangeable terms like others do...?

But still, the terms' file' and 'folder' seem to be used interchangeably:

file n. A container, such as a cabinet or folder, for keeping papers in order.

Attempting to use them both as distinct metaphors in a file system seems to be a a bit misguided. Maybe the designers who started the 'folder' rather then 'directory' term, didn't think of a file and folder as being interchangeable terms like others do...?

While this seems to be a blatant troll, I will respond AC.

First point: IE usage is not at 95% as the following stats show (Not allowing for spoofed headers):

83.6% - http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html
85% - http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
69% - http://www.iexp.com/hitman/reports/agent.html

These sites chosen randomly from the following Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Browser+Usage+Stati stics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=30&sa= N

Second point: Market share determines standards
Quite possibly so. dictionary.com defines a standard as follows:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=standard
This definition would, generally, make IE a standard.
However, since the W3C Standards also meet the same definition, they comprise a competing standard. In the free market structure you imply, both are equally valid, though acknowledged in differing contexts. Many of us developers (while not all) acknowledge and use the W3C standard because of it's excellence. IE, however, is a standard through Market Share.

Avoiding the obvious ad-hominem attack, referring to an opponent's argument as 'horseshit' hardly makes the oppositional argument any more valid.

<RANT>
I personally am tired of the mud slinging, name calling arguments from BOTH sides, and would prefer to see more intelligent, well thought out points on the merits of both.
</RANT>

While this seems to be a blatant troll, I will respond AC.

First point: IE usage is not at 95% as the following stats show (Not allowing for spoofed headers):

83.6% - http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html
85% - http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
69% - http://www.iexp.com/hitman/reports/agent.html

These sites chosen randomly from the following Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Browser+Usage+Stati stics&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=30&sa= N

Second point: Market share determines standards
Quite possibly so. dictionary.com defines a standard as follows:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=standard
This definition would, generally, make IE a standard.
However, since the W3C Standards also meet the same definition, they comprise a competing standard. In the free market structure you imply, both are equally valid, though acknowledged in differing contexts. Many of us developers (while not all) acknowledge and use the W3C standard because of it's excellence. IE, however, is a standard through Market Share.

Avoiding the obvious ad-hominem attack, referring to an opponent's argument as 'horseshit' hardly makes the oppositional argument any more valid.

<RANT>
I personally am tired of the mud slinging, name calling arguments from BOTH sides, and would prefer to see more intelligent, well thought out points on the merits of both.
</RANT>

If by "dum," you mean "grammatically correct and worded in such a way as to elicit (mostly) valid responses from (mostly) intelligent individuals with (mostly) worthy comments and insight to share," then yes, I concede that my post was indeed "dum." My apologies.

oh yeah?

Usage Problem. His, her, or its

Usage note at they:

The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each...The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed. However, despite the convenience of third-person plural forms as substitutes for generic he and for structurally awkward coordinate forms like his/her, many people avoid using they to refer to a singular antecedent out of respect for the traditional grammatical rule concerning pronoun agreement. Most of the Usage Panelists reject the use of they with singular antecedents. Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable.

oh yeah?

Usage Problem. His, her, or its

Usage note at they:

The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each...The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed. However, despite the convenience of third-person plural forms as substitutes for generic he and for structurally awkward coordinate forms like his/her, many people avoid using they to refer to a singular antecedent out of respect for the traditional grammatical rule concerning pronoun agreement. Most of the Usage Panelists reject the use of they with singular antecedents. Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable.

It's a term meaning: "A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound." You should read up on it.

If you accept the EULA, you accept that MS owns your computer, owns any software that you buy from any vendor that you run on that computer, and owns any music or other data that you keep in there. If you are willing to accept that, then I do feel sad for you. Check "pathetic".

I guess stealing fonts from Microsoft so that you can have a decent-looking OS is heroic.

I do not advocate stealing those fonts from Microsoft. Microsoft did make those fonts available for free use, to establish them as a standard for web use, but you what? They decided to change the license. They have that right legally, just as they have the right to change your EULA. Now Linux doesn't have any pretty fonts. Somebody will make some open source fonts someday, I'm not worried. I'll wait.

I don't think Microsoft is evil. They are a corporation, they are just in the business of making money. They get the most money by controlling their software, your computer, and you. It's efficient. Profits are double what they were same quarter last year! I just don't want to be part of it anymore. I can't imagine why you do.

You are incorrectly using "dichotomous" here. Dichotomous means that there are exactly two states. Dichotomous in the context of the discussion would be where there are two states; either both legal and ethical or illegal and unethical. Obviously your post means to say that there are more than two states. Really 4 states exist:
-leagal and ethical,
-leagal and unethical,
-illagal and ethical,
-illeagal and unethical.

Im not trying to flame; Im just trying to make sure words get used correctly.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (emphasis added)

what exactly is and "emergine" nation, kenp2002? i think the word you want is emerging

An analogy, by definition, is going to break down eventually, but fair point (I'm using XP at the moment)

For example, an analogy is like a car :)

effects

The word you are looking for is affect, because the license has an influence on users of software. It does not bring into existence the users of software.

Now that the pedantic stuff is out of the way, I didn't see anything in the free license that restricts you in use. Sure, it restricts your use of the source, but there was nothing I saw restricting simple use of the program. (My interpretation of section 3d, which says that inclusion of BK software in another system that does source control/configuration management requires you to advertise the fact that you do. Another possibly valid interpretation would be using BitKeeper as a base SCM and build on top of it via scripts and such would require the advertistement. Simply using BK as the source control manager for a source control project would seem to be kosher, given that you did not use any BK bits in your project. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and neither is RMS, so we both should get lawyers to interpret the license for us before shooting off our mouths.)

Is the use of software now subject to a license?

Yes. That's been the case for quite some time. For commercial software, you're paying for a contract to use the software, not the software itself. If you don't like the terms, then don't use the software, or try to come up with your own contract between you and the publisher. Even the GPL binds you on use of software, depending on how you look at it (you're bound to be able to give the software to other people, for instance).

effects

The word you are looking for is affect, because the license has an influence on users of software. It does not bring into existence the users of software.

Now that the pedantic stuff is out of the way, I didn't see anything in the free license that restricts you in use. Sure, it restricts your use of the source, but there was nothing I saw restricting simple use of the program. (My interpretation of section 3d, which says that inclusion of BK software in another system that does source control/configuration management requires you to advertise the fact that you do. Another possibly valid interpretation would be using BitKeeper as a base SCM and build on top of it via scripts and such would require the advertistement. Simply using BK as the source control manager for a source control project would seem to be kosher, given that you did not use any BK bits in your project. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and neither is RMS, so we both should get lawyers to interpret the license for us before shooting off our mouths.)

Is the use of software now subject to a license?

Yes. That's been the case for quite some time. For commercial software, you're paying for a contract to use the software, not the software itself. If you don't like the terms, then don't use the software, or try to come up with your own contract between you and the publisher. Even the GPL binds you on use of software, depending on how you look at it (you're bound to be able to give the software to other people, for instance).

I am just worried that whoever is reviewing the stories is showing a childish/313313 attitude.

"The Bazzar model of development..."

"The Bazzar seems to work..."

"...another condition of the Bazzar."

Your spelling of bazaar is bizarre.

dude - i think by "relevance trumps novelty" he meant a book's relevance is more important than its newness. see def's 1 & 2

Barratry?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

You can't think of a better oxymoron than sterile farmland? You're either grossly misinformed, or just an intentional FUDster.

Okay. Let's go over this real slow.

Sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing seed, fruit spores, or other reproductive structures.

Farmland: Land suitable or used for farming.

Friggin' dictionaries.

Farming: To cultivate or produce a crop on.

Okay, okay. Only one more, I promise.

Crop: Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit.

Okay, so. Sterile... Farmland...

That would be land... incapable of producing seed or fruit... that... cultivates grain, vegetables, or fruit?

Tip: Grain's a seed. Shit, maybe you need the definition of oxymoron?

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Or sterile farmland.

Now, since you skipped all my great examples of alarmists that have been proven wrong in the past, I feel safe skipping your bullshit about running a powerplant, or whatever your job is when you close your eyes and dream. All I really need to slam dunk you is this...

You're not an alarmist, right? Okay, fine. You said: You can call them "alarmist", but if it was for alarmists the entire Western world would be a love canal. Let's ignore the fact that I know what a Love Canal is, and can use capital letters. I was, of course, making fun of your horrid grammar. Naturally, you missed it. I mean, seriously, if it *was* for alarmists? Anyway, let me emphasize what you said:

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD WOULD BE A LOVE CANAL

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

Holy cow, where would we find a person attempting to alarm others by inventing false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger?

Here: plus5insightful, I guess.

Real people take care of the real problems by calmly addressing them, and fixing them. Alarmists, like yourself, gnash your teeth and wail about them, while making stuff up. If it's your job to run critical systems, you don't need the media huffing and puffing for eighteen months straight about the upcoming non-existant disaster to do your job. You do your job. Period.

The only reason to be an alarmist is to stir up the ignorant masses. Well, I suppose there is another reason - if you're a member of those ignorant masses, repeating what you've been told by someone trying to use you.

Looking at the map my presumption is that for a given sample size (say 1KM^2 samples, for example), there is at least one human.

Gee, that's your *presumption*? Funny, I'm looking at the map too. And it nicely tells you how they came up with 83%. human population density greater than 1 person per square kilometer (wow, amazing *presumption)...

But wait! That's not all!

Either ONE person *MIGHT* live within that square kilometer, OR!

That square kilometer is within 15 kilometers of a ROAD, or RIVER!

Or within 2 kilometers of a railway!

Not AND... OR! Any one of those requirements are met, and it's clearly unsuitable for wildlife.

So, if you have a pristine wildlife preserve... it's being used by humans if there's a road to be used to get to a ranger station? Or an old forest fire lookout? Or, there are no people on that kilometer, no roads, no people, no sign of human life, but it's near a *RIVER*?!?

Gee, I kind of get the feeling they're trying to exaggerate their statistics, don't you? Almost like they wanted that 83% to be just about as high as possible, for some *cough* funding *cough* reason.

Seriously, now that I've handed your ass to you, can you just go away and shut up? Or do you want to try to 'get me back' by imagining some shit about how I don't like my job?

virus
n. pl. viruses

*sigh*

Correct usage

Dicionary.com does though. As does my OED on CD, though they don't have a free version online I can link to.

"Virii", which is correct according to the rules of the english language

You are very much mistaken. I challenge you to find a dictionary or usage guide that supports you.

If you're going to play spelling nazi, you need to start checking your sources a little better.

Says the pot to the kettle. Even the most basic of research would have led you to a plethora of papers demonstrating your error, such as this one and this one.