Slashdot Mirror

Here's a question for someone who has read the DMCA more carefully than I. I remember that in the Napster case, they were trying to show that Napster had "substantial non-infringing use", or something along those lines. Does the DMCA have any provisions like this? Is it against technologies that enable and allow copyright circumvention, or that are for copyright circumvention.

Okay, I got slightly un-lazy and did some reading:

"2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
2a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
2b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
2c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Okay, so 2a and 2c seem okay -- it is not primarily designed to circumvent copyright protection, nor is it being marketed for that purpose.

It's 2b that scares me. Does it only have a limited commercial purpose other than copyright infringement? I cenrtainly has a very significant other purpose, but is it commercial? It's free! Some of the definitions for commercial and commere of commercial seem to indicate that it must be for profit (commerical-3), but some indicate that it might not (commercial-2, or commercial-1 with commerce-2). Could bnetd be illegal because it has a "bad" use, but is non-commercial, whereas if it were a commercial product it would be okay?! What's the legal/governmental definition of commercial?

I'm clearly NAL, so if someone who's more clued in could give me a little insight into what's really going on here and what things I've missed in my extremely brief survey, I'd appreciate it.

-Puk

p.s. The 3rd defition of commerce is "sexual intercourse". That's is news to me -- I don't even want to think about the implications. :)

Here's a question for someone who has read the DMCA more carefully than I. I remember that in the Napster case, they were trying to show that Napster had "substantial non-infringing use", or something along those lines. Does the DMCA have any provisions like this? Is it against technologies that enable and allow copyright circumvention, or that are for copyright circumvention.

Okay, I got slightly un-lazy and did some reading:

"2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
2a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
2b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
2c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Okay, so 2a and 2c seem okay -- it is not primarily designed to circumvent copyright protection, nor is it being marketed for that purpose.

It's 2b that scares me. Does it only have a limited commercial purpose other than copyright infringement? I cenrtainly has a very significant other purpose, but is it commercial? It's free! Some of the definitions for commercial and commere of commercial seem to indicate that it must be for profit (commerical-3), but some indicate that it might not (commercial-2, or commercial-1 with commerce-2). Could bnetd be illegal because it has a "bad" use, but is non-commercial, whereas if it were a commercial product it would be okay?! What's the legal/governmental definition of commercial?

I'm clearly NAL, so if someone who's more clued in could give me a little insight into what's really going on here and what things I've missed in my extremely brief survey, I'd appreciate it.

-Puk

p.s. The 3rd defition of commerce is "sexual intercourse". That's is news to me -- I don't even want to think about the implications. :)

Why is it that Americans/Slashdotters keep saying "Squash" when what they really mean is "Quash"?

Who's the jarhead now?
Probably some Marine

1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation,
   straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. Not in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial classification. Not in scientific use.
2. also mongoloid Offensive. A person affected with Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation,
   straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. Not in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial classification. Not in scientific use.
2. also mongoloid Offensive. A person affected with Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation,
   straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. Not in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial classification. Not in scientific use.
2. also mongoloid Offensive. A person affected with Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation,
   straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. Not in scientific use. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.

1. Anthropology. A member of the Mongoloid racial classification. Not in scientific use.
2. also mongoloid Offensive. A person affected with Down syndrome.

It depends on if you pronounce it correctly or not.

Say it aloud, and you could just plain reek. (see stench)

Thanks for the nod, but I think you meant havoc

Unless, of course, you've slipped into your Middle English Ultima character :)

I wanted to know what the hell a BOF is! Am I the only one who was amazed that a "BOF session" could happen with a bunch of BSD geeks? That sounds like how I would spend the night when I had a girlfriend. Now there's unnanounced "boffing" at BSDCon?

So while I'm pretty sure that BOF has nothing to do with procreation, I'm still unclear as to what it means. It is mentioned twice in the first paragraph, but not defined anywhere. I briefly reference Dictionary.com and the first definition I see is "Boring Old Fart."

There really needs to be a conscienscious effort to improve technical articles, by defining every term that uses CAPS. Even if the word is a common acronym, (or maybe not an acronym at all e.g. BASIC, UNIX, FAX) because as illustrated by the parent post, there are no universally recognized acronyms. The abbreviation can be a good thing for lengthy articles, but not if there is a loss of information.

I had to spend much time googling around oreillynet.com to find out what a "BOF session" is, because Dictionary.com didn't recognize the phrase. Just plain BOF actually had the correct answer listed first, but because I was briefly referencing, and not carefully reading, I skipped the proper definition because it was a hyperlink.

Just to save the trouble for anyone else who isn't familiar with the term, a "BOF session" is a meeting to discuss a certain topic. BOF in this case is "Birds of a Feather" who flock together, whether preplanned or ad-hoc, and the prase dates back at least to USENIX conferences in the early 1980s.

History books? Maybe you should worry about dictionaries first...

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

Among my other eccentricities (I should start a list in my /. journal), I am a confirmed dictionary snob. As far as I'm concerned, Merriam-Webster is the Wallmart of dictionaries--they can be found everywhere, and are often handy, but the quality of what you get there is not always the best.

Dictionary.com's copy of American Heritage gives both definitions, followed by a usage note that says that the Usage Panel was divided roughly evenly on whether it was appropriate to use "moot" to mean "irrelevant". Several other dictionaries on dictionary.com leave out this disputed definition.

What I found was that only the American Heritage gave both definitions. While 59% of their panel favoured the questionable usage, IIRC it was a panel of (mostly) journalists critiquing a sentence about politics. This is more credible source of linguistic wisdom than sportswriters or computer programers, but only slightly.

According to the OED, the point isn't even moot.

--MarkusQ

Umm.. Just because its a record profit year, it still doesn't make it legal to steal movies/music.

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

Music/movies aren't stolen, they're pirated. The unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. Again, I see no mention of this being inherently wrong.

I don't justify my breaking of current laws. I advocate a change from the current laws.

Well, it depends on whether you believe that a law has it's meaning based on the words in it or based on a courts interpretation of those words. What a court finds to be legal is what is enforced, it may or may not be correct.

Under modern common law systems (such as the legal systems of the United States and of every state except Louisiana), the courts are free to make decisions that set precedent, provided that they stay within 1) the Constitution and 2) the statutes that conform to the Constitution. Thus, a court's interpretation of the law in effect becomes the law. If a court makes a precedent, the precedent enters the body of case law, and it takes an additional statute to throw out that precedent.

FYI the word fans is short for fanatics. And the original Amiga was released in 1985, so there is no way you could have "stuck with it" in 1984.

What does the MS trial have to do with wends, sorbs, or trees in the rose family?

If you people want my money, you'll at least have to start running a spell checker on your editorial content. Your overall quality is semi-pro at best, which probably makes you guys the highest paid editors of that class in the world. But spelling is easy to check. It can be done mechanically. There's no excuse for screwing it up.

It's "bowdlerize", not "bowlderize". Sheesh!

I think you need to re-read the comment and take a look at this: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sarcasm

Bakunin, Goldman, Sacco, Vanzetti You know, many of the early Anarchists, and even some young idealist types of today, were of the belief that each and every man, woman and child ought to decide which type of governance was best suited to individual taste and need, all of course through non violent peaceful means, if possible.

What these anarchists failed to understand is that every man, woman, and child do decide which type of governance they have. It's just that only through social cooperation can we actually achieve greatness. An individual could not accomplish StarCraft, and if they did, they could not enjoy it in the same way that a consumer would. So we must socialise to make our lives better. By socializing, we accept the societal norms of the societies we ally ourselves with.

There is nothing preventing any of us from getting a gun and holding up in our house until the FBI burns it down. It's just that one has to remember that authority comes from force. If the FBI or any other government agency can overpower you, then you do not have as much authority as them. I ownly own my home because if some random person kicks me out of it, I can appeal to authority to use it's force to evict the evictor. If the one with the most authority (read force) unilaterally decides to take my house, there is little I can do about it regardless of what a piece of paper thousands of miles away says.

Globalization is all of the societies deciding to cooperate in the hopes to achieve the most amount of greatness. Unfortunately it means the homogenization of system of governance among the large cluster. It also mean a bigger gap between the lifestyle of those in the cluster and those outside of the cluster. If a society falls out of line, such as allowing the free choice among it's subcribers to imbibe by any number of classified psychoactive substances, or by failing to provide unique identifiers on CDs, or by aquiring the same weapons that larger (controlling) countries own, then the society can be shunned from the whole. The gap between the quality of life and the achievable quality of life will encourage the society to homogenize and cooperate again. This will happen either by leaders changing their minds or the people changing their leaders through election or revolt. The quality of life in the society will have to become very low before revolt is an option. However, the controlling countries from the global society will be there to provide food, training, and equipment to the revolutionaries.

Note that Globalization is the result of the fall of Communism. This event depolarized the world. The psuedocapistalist system outlasted and now has a monopoly, no, a trust (def 8) on "the world system". This system, like other trusts, will abuse it's monopoly position to push down anyone entering the market: offering a new system of life. The leaders of the global system will shout "you are either with us or against us." Dissidence will be illegal in order to further increase the gap between cooperators and defectors.

The modern corporatisation of the world is scary enough to make even the most bloodthirsty early 20th century industrialist/mine owner turn white with fear.

That is because Globalization has more authority (read: force) than the robber barons ever had. It can strike down with great vengence and furious anger and those who attempt to poison and destroy it by offering alternatives.

We are truly on a vector into a dark age for individual rights. The current prevailing meme is that corporations make a society strong. Layoffs are to strengthen the corporations. High executive salaries are to ensure the corporations have the best leaders. Drugs are banned to prevent individuals from becoming slothful and unproductive. Legistlation is turned down because it might hurt the bottom line. Individual welfare is cut so that tax breaks to corporations will fit the budget. Unions like marriage are encouraged because survival as an individual will be increasingly harder and harder.

I know that eventually something will break. The pendulum will swing back. Disenfranchised individuals will no longer tolerate the restrictions put on them. The first ones will be crushed. The next ones slaughtered. Then killed. Then maimed. Then eventually, there will be enough across the world to throw off the schackles this system places on them. But we aren't talking about the few thousand deaths in the US Revolutionary War or the couple thousand of the October revolution. This will be a massive global insurrection. Hundreds of thousands of people will die.

And then the cycle will rebirth.

Actually, it isn't. It's where the supply and demand isn't regulated (in this case, regulated mean by the government. The suppliers and demanders can obviously regulate how much they supply or demand). Preventing trusts is antithetical to a free market: first the government is regulating the sale of property (a company) directly, inorder to regulate how much contol a supplier has over the market.

Why are you so afraid of antitrust laws being antithetic to capitalism. Unrestricted capitalism was tried in this country and failed to provide a fair system. I'll concede antitrust doesn't strictly fit socialism (it still allows the companies to own their property, just not each other under certain circumstances). Unfortunately, there isn't much vocabulary discussing the concepts between socialism and capitalism.

However, antitrust law is the grease that helps a capitalist system continue forward, similar to how welfare and UI and socialized medicine and other noncapitalist ideas that are implemented act as grease to prevent the littler guy in the system from becoming so destitue that they revolt and having a chance at a future. Mostly this grease is lumped in with socialism, although certainly incorrect when going to the pure tenents of socialism.

However, antitrust is by no means capitalism. It's stopping an entity from aquiring capital. How is that a free market?

and it's near total absence of traditional TV fare like sex or shoot-em-ups

What a load of shit! Have you even watched the program? Just because we don't get to see the main characters fucking and shooting people, doesn't mean that when the ex-dancer chick bends over and shows her cleavage the show isn't selling sex. When Grisolm has a wet dream about how a bullet tears through the skull of the victim, isn't that violent enough?

Rant time:
Can't you fucking people learn the difference between "its" and "it's"? Go here and buy a mother-fucking clue before Dr. Dictionary gets medieval on your ass.

Compare and contrast:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=grammer
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=grammar

Compare and contrast:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=grammer
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=grammar

irony (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Dramatic irony.

Socratic irony.

Did you call him stupid?

"Nietzche was a self- aggrandized idiot. His followers today tend to be the same."

wait wait cause i fell off my chair laughing

"aggrandized" -To make appear great or greater.

um isnt that sort of like what you did by using the word aggrandized instead of something simpler like say obsessed or perhaps self indulgent. both of which, dont make him any less of a genius.

Dueling dictionaries: American Heritage, as used at "Dictionary.com backs me until the third definition, but also admonishes me that the usage to mean "spoken" has been around for several hundred years. On the other hand, "spoken" seems like a perfectly good word to mean "spoken", which would leave "verbal" to distinguish from images or actions.

My only argument is that "content" is a neutral word that has been debased by marketdroids in the early days of the web who used it despairingly because they were too moronic to see what it represented. "Art" can mean statues, paintings, photos, theatre, performance art, music, etc... "Content" is a similar, useful abstraction when you're talking about the myrid of media that can grace a web site. "Content", as a word, is not inherently evil.

-sk

You seem to be confusing the words "active" and "passive"

You seem to be confusing the words "active" and "passive"

Sure. You'll get paid whenever Linux does manage to succeed on the desktop. Which should be shortly after Satan is throwing snowballs at winged pigs.

BTW, it's hock, not hawk. Unless a bird of prey is currently devouring your kidney.

I disagree with your interpretation, specifically "that is: it must be supplied together with the binaries at the same time. If the software is distributed without source, then it is in violation of the license agreement." I disagree because of the written offer, which doesn't specify a timeline...

My comment referred to (a), but it is applicable to all three options. All begin with "Accompany it...", which means come together with, so either the source, or a written offer of the source must be bundled with the binaries at the time of distribution.

Earlier comments have stated that (at least at first), the software/product/binaries were distributed without complying with any of (a), (b), or (c), and so violated the GNU GPL.

According to dictionary.com Link Thus the entire security of RSA depends on the difficulty of factoring; an easy method for factoring large prime numbers would break RSA. So it looks like we've been going about it all wrong. We should be concentrating on factoring large prime numbers. :)

The very definition of the word "censorship" is "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable" (dictionary.com). Moderation does not remove or supress information, it merely highlights parts of the information. I know this one is just a joke, but I think slashdot readers should be aware of this fact.

Slashdot addresses the question of censorship in moderation in their FAQ.

The very definition of the word "censorship" is "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable" (dictionary.com). As is demonstrated by the other posts in this thread, the concerned posts still exist on the slashdot servers!

All that happened was the editors chose to draw attention away from these posts. While this could be a questionable practice, it is not censorship!

Everyone should get on the same wavelength and figure out what they're fighting before they start fighting it.

* Powerful enough to take over the entire world, eh? Something tells me Russia, Europe (collectively, and several contries individually (not France)), China, and a few other countries might disagree with that assessment. And we're not exactly building new forces here--we're restoring what President Clinton cut.

It's a ridiculous, overblown defense budget. Who the hell do we need all those defenses for? Afghanistan? We used a small fraction of our military there (Clinton's military, by the way), and it was OVERKILL. A national missile defense plan? That's the pipe dream of those fully out-of-touch with reality; it doesn't work. Even if it DID work nobody's going to be lobbing missiles at us, they're going to smuggle them in to the country instead. But we have a Republican administration, so it's time to open the checkbook and start giving money to all those defense companies so they'll be given cushy positions on the board of directors when their terms are up. Typical Republican operations; spend more money than any previous administration, then whine about how the Democrats spend too much.

As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues. No liberal would ever admit it, because the *percentage* of GNP pilfered by the government is lower (i.e. they have less control over the subject^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens), but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues. For an explanation of this phenomenon, consult any economics textbook, professor, or probably most TA's. Short answer: more money --> more investment --> more business --> more spending --> more tax revenue.

Ahh, "half-competent" meaning they agree with your reactionary, lackwit economic philosophy. It's a circular argument. Perhaps you should have gone beyond economics 101 and actually taken some courses with more sophistication.

As far as his "sophistication" goes, I for one am sick and tired of the "sophistication" of politics, and I find it most refreshing to have a politician who says what he means, and means what he says.

Oh, like how he promised billions in aid to New York City, and has now changed his mind? Or like he promised to support C02 emissions restrictions during his campaign, then broke his promise after being elected? How about how he dismissed his own drug-using past, but felt no compunction about signing laws that harshly punished other people who did the same thing (crimes in their case, "youthful indiscretions" in his)?

And as for the picture, well, I'm sure you've never tripped in your life, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to mock the rest of us, who are not so perfect.

If Bush had rebounded from "tripping" on his own, I could respect him, but he's been propped up and coddled by his father's political and business friends his entire life. Failing at business several times, but getting bailed out each time. Letting his father's connections get him elected as governor then president. He never had to do a damn thing for himself in his life.

perhaps my favorite part of your little rant: your ad hominem [dictionary.com] attack on President Bush.

And this is different from your ad hominem attack on the poster you're responding to...how?

Here's a definition for you...

I know this is a troll, I know I'm going to get modded down for responding, but I'm capped anyway, so I have points to burn. Why not?

1. In case you haven't noticed, we were attacked a few months ago. What would you have us do, roll over and show them our throats? Slink off and whimper in a corner? If your dog bites you for not giving him your steak bone, you don't reward him with a steak. If somebody attacks you and murders 3,000 innocent civilians, you don't ignore them and hope they go away--that only encourages them to do it again. You sure as hell don't give them what they want. That policy is called "appeasement," and it's been tried. Little obscure guy called Adolf Hitler. Seems to have worked rather well, don't you think?
   
2. Powerful enough to take over the entire world, eh? Something tells me Russia, Europe (collectively, and several contries individually (not France)), China, and a few other countries might disagree with that assessment. And we're not exactly building new forces here--we're restoring what President Clinton cut.
   
3. As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues. No liberal would ever admit it, because the *percentage* of GNP pilfered by the government is lower (i.e. they have less control over the subject^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens), but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues. For an explanation of this phenomenon, consult any economics textbook, professor, or probably most TA's. Short answer: more money --> more investment --> more business --> more spending --> more tax revenue.
   
4. Perhaps my favorite part of your little rant: your ad hominem attack on President Bush. Intelligent, informed, mature debate focuses on policies, ideas, etc. Attacking him on that level is puerile. As far as his "sophistication" goes, I for one am sick and tired of the "sophistication" of politics, and I find it most refreshing to have a politician who says what he means, and means what he says. It's a refreshing change of pace from previous administrations, which were governed strictly by the Poll of the Week. Often attributed to Groucho Marx, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." seems to apply well to certain administrations in the not-so-recent past. And as for the picture, well, I'm sure you've never tripped in your life, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to mock the rest of us, who are not so perfect. Oh, and the big words are underlined because they're links: I didn't want to cause you too much trouble in figuring out the meaning, so I went ahead and linked them to a dictionary for you. You're welcome.
   

I'd continue, but I just realized something: you're not worth my time.

I know this is a troll, I know I'm going to get modded down for responding, but I'm capped anyway, so I have points to burn. Why not?

1. In case you haven't noticed, we were attacked a few months ago. What would you have us do, roll over and show them our throats? Slink off and whimper in a corner? If your dog bites you for not giving him your steak bone, you don't reward him with a steak. If somebody attacks you and murders 3,000 innocent civilians, you don't ignore them and hope they go away--that only encourages them to do it again. You sure as hell don't give them what they want. That policy is called "appeasement," and it's been tried. Little obscure guy called Adolf Hitler. Seems to have worked rather well, don't you think?
   
2. Powerful enough to take over the entire world, eh? Something tells me Russia, Europe (collectively, and several contries individually (not France)), China, and a few other countries might disagree with that assessment. And we're not exactly building new forces here--we're restoring what President Clinton cut.
   
3. As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues. No liberal would ever admit it, because the *percentage* of GNP pilfered by the government is lower (i.e. they have less control over the subject^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens), but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues. For an explanation of this phenomenon, consult any economics textbook, professor, or probably most TA's. Short answer: more money --> more investment --> more business --> more spending --> more tax revenue.
   
4. Perhaps my favorite part of your little rant: your ad hominem attack on President Bush. Intelligent, informed, mature debate focuses on policies, ideas, etc. Attacking him on that level is puerile. As far as his "sophistication" goes, I for one am sick and tired of the "sophistication" of politics, and I find it most refreshing to have a politician who says what he means, and means what he says. It's a refreshing change of pace from previous administrations, which were governed strictly by the Poll of the Week. Often attributed to Groucho Marx, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." seems to apply well to certain administrations in the not-so-recent past. And as for the picture, well, I'm sure you've never tripped in your life, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to mock the rest of us, who are not so perfect. Oh, and the big words are underlined because they're links: I didn't want to cause you too much trouble in figuring out the meaning, so I went ahead and linked them to a dictionary for you. You're welcome.
   

I'd continue, but I just realized something: you're not worth my time.

I know this is a troll, I know I'm going to get modded down for responding, but I'm capped anyway, so I have points to burn. Why not?

1. In case you haven't noticed, we were attacked a few months ago. What would you have us do, roll over and show them our throats? Slink off and whimper in a corner? If your dog bites you for not giving him your steak bone, you don't reward him with a steak. If somebody attacks you and murders 3,000 innocent civilians, you don't ignore them and hope they go away--that only encourages them to do it again. You sure as hell don't give them what they want. That policy is called "appeasement," and it's been tried. Little obscure guy called Adolf Hitler. Seems to have worked rather well, don't you think?
   
2. Powerful enough to take over the entire world, eh? Something tells me Russia, Europe (collectively, and several contries individually (not France)), China, and a few other countries might disagree with that assessment. And we're not exactly building new forces here--we're restoring what President Clinton cut.
   
3. As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues. No liberal would ever admit it, because the *percentage* of GNP pilfered by the government is lower (i.e. they have less control over the subject^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens), but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues. For an explanation of this phenomenon, consult any economics textbook, professor, or probably most TA's. Short answer: more money --> more investment --> more business --> more spending --> more tax revenue.
   
4. Perhaps my favorite part of your little rant: your ad hominem attack on President Bush. Intelligent, informed, mature debate focuses on policies, ideas, etc. Attacking him on that level is puerile. As far as his "sophistication" goes, I for one am sick and tired of the "sophistication" of politics, and I find it most refreshing to have a politician who says what he means, and means what he says. It's a refreshing change of pace from previous administrations, which were governed strictly by the Poll of the Week. Often attributed to Groucho Marx, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." seems to apply well to certain administrations in the not-so-recent past. And as for the picture, well, I'm sure you've never tripped in your life, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to mock the rest of us, who are not so perfect. Oh, and the big words are underlined because they're links: I didn't want to cause you too much trouble in figuring out the meaning, so I went ahead and linked them to a dictionary for you. You're welcome.
   

I'd continue, but I just realized something: you're not worth my time.

Please learn to spell, your post actually hurt my brain.

You don't cheat, you just suck ass at starcraft. Big difference. You may want to actually learn to play and join some newbie games so you can actually enjoy the game. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually take the time to learn the game but you just play with cheap tactics that really screw the game up and don't make it any fun. Any 2 bit chimp can build cannons up in someones base -- it's no fun. Most people should be able to stop it, but it offsets the game... you are the same type of people who rush in with SCVs right in the beginning.

This is actually covered in the article somewhat, which is making the game fun and balanced. You need to make it so it has an easy learning curve, but something that doesn't allow "bitch tactics" but still will allow other rush tactics. Same thing with War2 and the lumber mill in front of the gold mine...

Joke

spread throughout your application irregardless of vendor.

Regardless of what you may have heard, "irregardless" is not a word. See also: "irrespective".

spread throughout your application irregardless of vendor.

Regardless of what you may have heard, "irregardless" is not a word. See also: "irrespective".

spread throughout your application irregardless of vendor.

Regardless of what you may have heard, "irregardless" is not a word. See also: "irrespective".

Courts don't pass laws. At best, they set precedent.

1. 
   
2. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
   
3. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
   

Clearly, the belief that one class of person, based on their race, is superior to another and that this justifies discrimination in favour and against such persons is a political view. I disagree with that view strongly, but so what?

It is extremely important that all political views can be raised and rebutted. There are many reasons for this, but two are particularly topical.

1. Credibility. Some racists, especially those who deny the Holocaust, maintain that the only reasons their claimed "proofs" aren't given common currency is because of a global conspiracy of silence. Censorship of their views would make this paraniod claim true, and so give credibility where it is quite undeserved.
   
   
2. Terrorism. In liberal democracies we believe that disputes should be settled by open debate and democratic choice. Those who disagree with the outcome - however much they believe they are in the right - are nonetheless expected to accept it anyway. Their only legitimate choice is to persuade through open democractic debate.
   
   If you take the option of attempted persuasion away from people, then those who believe passionately in something have no way to work within the system, and so are compelled to work outside it. This is what happened in the American War of Independence, and most such Wars of Independence. The word people who live within a peaceful system have for people who use violence outside it is "terrorist". Censorship creates terrorism.
   
   The law against incitement to violence is the appropriate limit of censorship. If you can show that a particular statement actually brought people into danger, then that is an abuse of free speech. Saying "immigrants should be whipped back through the Channel Tunnel" is obnoxious, but not dangerous. Saying "Let's meet up on Saturday at the Channel Tunnel entrance to give some immigrants a whipping" is dangerous. This is a clear and simple distinction.
   
   In conclusion, I don't support racism. But censoring it is wrong, both morally and on pragmatic grounds.
   
   Malcolm Hutty
   Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet in Britain.
   
   

This sort of reminds me of the question that either Adobe or MS raised a few years ago about whether outline fonts were data or programs. The contention was that since Type 1 and TrueType fonts have some logic in them, they are in fact programs. IIRC, this was because programs were clearly protected under copyright laws, but fonts were not clearly defined at the time.

The closest thing I can find is a reference to a court case between Adobe and Southern Software, in which it was ruled that fonts are copyrightable. I can't find references to earlier cases, though I'm sure there were some.

In any event, there probably isn't a clear legal definition of what software is (heck, the dictionary definition isn't very clear) and whether spreadsheets or a particular spreadsheet is included in that definition. Unless you do some legal research or hire a lawyer to back up your claim, you are (as other posters pointed out) stuck with what the Mississippi Gaming Commission decides it is.

wether Pronunciation Key (wthr)
n.
A castrated ram.

Wether

Boy, I was suprised when I heard they were going to use .net, but involving castrated rams is just going way too far!

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.