Slashdot Mirror

It depends how you define successful. Yes, Apache and Mozilla are great products, but if there are so great, why aren't people dropping their closed source software and downloading their open source counterparts in droves? Hell, the two examples given are not only open source, but they're free!

Obviously it all can't be a success. How about the downsides? What about time to market? How long did Mozilla take to deliver a 1.0? What about lack of common features that customers want? (When I say customers, I mean the target audience as a whole, not just the geek community.)

*yawn*

Did your ability to post "You're ability to say things does not make them true" make the statement true? When will you wake up from the never ending loop?

Altho it is interesting, that there is Japanese superstition, kotodama(sprit of words), that they believe whatever they say will have spirit and will come true... but I don't buy that crap.
And don't tell me you believe in "truth." It becomes a disgusting religious war if you start mentioning "truth." There is no absolute truth. Go back 1000 years, Sun goes up and down would be "true," and it does from observer's point of view.

Then what am I saying here? Think.

It's not the "truth" I'm talking about, I am simply sharing a story I *know* from my own experience. And sharing of knowledge will only make sense if you do it rationally with supporting arguments and evidence to back you up.
You can agree if you wanna, and you can of course diagree, too. I am not claiming it's the truth. I am simply testing if you can see what I see. (@see paradigm)

If you do speak several natural language, or if you can think in some object-oriented programming language, you will realize that the speaker has to adopt herself into the notions of the language she is trying to speak.
Imagine C++ programmer who doesn't understand the notion of type. She will complain int k = 1 / 2; is not "0.5"
So it's a loop, the culture shapes the language, and the language shapes the speakers, and the speakers form the culture. Get it?

So, my point is that the language did matter after all.. Take some vacation, learn new language and travel outside your country. You will rediscover yourself.

# Sorry my English sucks. but you get the story..

"Phoenix 0.2 Web Browser: Lean, Mean Mozilla"

* As we all know, Mozilla is still exceedingly large, slow, clunky and to many a gigantic disappointment (largely thanks to XUL). It's also a mammoth multinational open-source collaboration (successful only if one compares it to other failed open-source projects). I therefore propose a name-change to "Mammothzilla".

Actually I just like the word "euphonious". It's one of my favorite words. Along with snollygoster. And cachet.

Excellent work!
I'll bet you didn't expect anyone to pick up on that, but euphonious was the Word of the day for Sept 5th, 2002.

Sometimes I cry myself to sleep.

Does this mean I am going to go out and sue all glove makers because they don't make a right hand glove with no thumb? No. That is plain stupid. The term disability means, acording to Dictionary.com
2. A disadvantage or deficiency, ...
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.

Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability.
Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?

Only in Lake Wobiegon (sp?) is everyone above average...

Have any other virii in the past done this, or is this a first?

A friendly visit from the language police:
There's no such word as virii. The correct plural for virus is viruses.

Have a nice day.

Data *is* the plural of datum.

data
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum.

From dictionary.com:

virus
n. pl. viruses

1. Any of various simple submicroscopic parasites of plants, animals, and bacteria that often cause disease and that consist essentially of a core of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.
2. A disease caused by a virus.
2. Something that poisons one's soul or mind: the pernicious virus of racism.
3. Computer Science. A computer virus.

(emphasis mine)

You are so wrong!

The dictionary defines 'steal' [dictionary.com] as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission.".

The dictionary defines 'take' as "To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress. To seize with authority; confiscate... To assume for oneself: take all the credit... To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink."

The use of the word 'take' implies you are _taking_ something from someone else. If you copy something, you are NOT taking it. This is why the word 'copy' is different than the word 'take'.

IT IS STEALING. I do it too, but at least I know its wrong, and I'll probably keep doing it until my liberty is threatened with a lawsuit, but all the while I will know its wrong.

If you recall, I specifically said that copyright infringement is illegal. All I said is that 'stealing' is not the appropriate word to use when talking about it. Just because it is called by a different (and vastly more appropriate) name does not mean it is suddenly legal. It simply allows you to discuss the topic with the correct perspective.

Oh, by the way : that last bit makes you a hypocrite. You should live by your convictions. What kind of a person are you if you consciously do something that you feel is morally wrong?

You are so wrong!

The dictionary defines 'steal' as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission.". You admit that it is copyright infringement, which means you must also admit that the music is their property (what else does having a copyright mean?). Having a copyright means you have the right to say how the object of your copyright is distributed. If you as copyright holder say "NO! It cannot be distributed that way!", and another person does so anyway, they are guilty of taking the property of another without right or permission.

IT IS STEALING. I do it too, but at least I know its wrong, and I'll probably keep doing it until my liberty is threatened with a lawsuit, but all the while I will know its wrong.

( Websters)1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny."

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

actually no, the parent post wasn't correct... the correct verb is to garnishee one's wages, referring to the legal diversion of (some of) one's paycheck as recompense for a default in due payment to a debtor.

Actually, the preferred spelling is "junkie". Although "junky" is an acceptable variant.

IANAL; but, this sounds like a classic case of barratry to me.

This or this.

Take your pick.

histrionic Pronunciation Key(hstr-nk) also histrionical (--kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to actors or acting.
2. Excessively dramatic or emotional; affected.

Sadly, due to the constant eroding of such invaluable skills, like... say spelling for example, this one slipped by. What the original poster meant to say was that it starred in the movie (i.e. it played a role) as opposed to it staring in the movie. (i.e. looking at something with a fixed gaze.) Feel free to look them up in dictionary.com for better definitions, but you get the idea.

The phrase "Come on, people." happens to be a sentence fragment.

There's nothing wrong with the sentence. The subject is you (understood), "people" is in the vocative case and is appositive to the subject, and the verb is "come on", which happens to be a
phrasal verb.

This is the /. message boards, not Harvard School of Law, the internet has always been a pretty casual environment, basically, ...


Having known a few Harvard Law students, I think it's funny that you use them as examples of grammar experts. Moreover, in this sentence you string together three independent clauses with commas, which is a no-no.

I was going to keep quiet (the internet being as you say a pretty casual environment), but I didn't like seeing the pot get modded up for calling the kettle black. I'll probably get modded down for doing the exact same thing.

The phrase "Come on, people." happens to be a sentence fragment.

There's nothing wrong with the sentence. The subject is you (understood), "people" is in the vocative case and is appositive to the subject, and the verb is "come on", which happens to be a
phrasal verb.

This is the /. message boards, not Harvard School of Law, the internet has always been a pretty casual environment, basically, ...


Having known a few Harvard Law students, I think it's funny that you use them as examples of grammar experts. Moreover, in this sentence you string together three independent clauses with commas, which is a no-no.

I was going to keep quiet (the internet being as you say a pretty casual environment), but I didn't like seeing the pot get modded up for calling the kettle black. I'll probably get modded down for doing the exact same thing.

This from dictionary.com:

novelty n

1: originality by virtue of being refreshingly novel
2: originality by virtue of being new and surprising
3: cheap showy jewelry or ornament or clothing

Wouldn't it be great if all patents had to fit definition 3?

Come on - get it together. Of the handful of stories you've just put up, some are reposts, some are badly written, some are untrue (cf. Bill Simon). What is wrong with you? Can't you or don't you read the stories before you publish? Don't you read the links the story includes, or check that the story isn't already up? I can understand you not doing it for all the stories that are submitted, but please at least do it for those you chose to publish.

This could be useful to help you decide if you really are an editor or not.

>I can walk up to you and suggest that you do all sorts of depraved and evil things, but until I start going around to other people and getting them to think you're some kind of freak, you have no basis to say you've been "slandered".

Quite right. He should have said libel. Slander isn't nearly serious enough for being falsely reported to the FBI for a non-offense.

Uh, sorry, but . . .

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

One replacement word for robot in this context is the term waldo , taken from the Heinlein story of the same name. Thus, this is not a surgical robot, this is a surgical waldo; the space shuttle has a waldo arm (not a robot arm); and there's a well known TV show that should really be called "Waldo Wars".

It would certainly help to make stories such as this one clearer in the long run (once the term gained a wide usage). I recall that the last time a surgical robot made an appearance on slashdot, there were several commenters that thought the story was referring to a device that could perform surgery on its own, so even a tech-oriented crowd would benefit from a better choice of terms.

www.dictionary.com is an excellent resource if you're having trouble with the big words. In the case of his post, polysyllabic verbiage aids in precision and is appropriate, so stop whining just because you're too much of a fucking illiterate moron to understand.

I quite liked Ed Felten's idea to use the work 'tinker' to mean what we understand by 'hack' (as in 'Freedom to tinker').

I'm just still not sure what to call a hacker. A tinkerer, or tinker? It doesn't quite have the same connotations really.

So you can fit out your Porsche 911 RC with a spoiler, super charger, nitros, chrome alloy mag wheels, cool purple fog downlights, tinted windows, a "SPEEED DEEEMON" windscreen decal, and tiny little "extra large" beverage holders and it will still be defeated by a carpet with only a moderate shag-pile rating.

Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.

Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.

So you can fit out your Porsche 911 RC with a spoiler, super charger, nitros, chrome alloy mag wheels, cool purple fog downlights, tinted windows, a "SPEEED DEEEMON" windscreen decal, and tiny little "extra large" beverage holders and it will still be defeated by a carpet with only a moderate shag-pile rating.

Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.

Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.

So you can fit out your Porsche 911 RC with a spoiler, super charger, nitros, chrome alloy mag wheels, cool purple fog downlights, tinted windows, a "SPEEED DEEEMON" windscreen decal, and tiny little "extra large" beverage holders and it will still be defeated by a carpet with only a moderate shag-pile rating.

Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.

Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.

So you can fit out your Porsche 911 RC with a spoiler, super charger, nitros, chrome alloy mag wheels, cool purple fog downlights, tinted windows, a "SPEEED DEEEMON" windscreen decal, and tiny little "extra large" beverage holders and it will still be defeated by a carpet with only a moderate shag-pile rating.

Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.

Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.

Also, from the article:

Just six months ago, this sort of talk would have been unthinkable, downright apostasy, among those who consider the giant recording conglomerates the bane of free-wheeling musical access and innovation.

It certainly could just be poor word choice, and the writer actually does know the difference, but since it's the New York Times, I'm inclined to think it's ignorance rather than poor editing.

Forgot one more thing:

And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.

Affirmation does not mean what you are using it as. If I said, "Microsoft is stupid" than it would be a statement, not an affirmation. If I said, "It's a fact microsoft is stupid." it would be an assertion and an affirmation. If you clarified and asked if that is what I said, and I said yes, then I would be affirming Microsoft is stupid.

However, saying Microsoft lacks innovation abilities and employees less programmers with impressive reputations than the OSS world has is not an affirmation. At all. In no sense of the word. Everyone knows that Microsoft is poor at innovation. They have yet to introduce a new concept into the world. Ever.

Some other words that go along that you could definitely stand to learn:
High-Profile

zealot - I am not fanatical for anything, maybe you missed that. If I was a zealot, I wouldn't also criticize Linux.

adjective from: Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
This is incorrect because I said they were high-profile developers, which is a noun. If I said his personality is high-profile or his skill is high-profile it would be an adjective. I never said either. You admit they are famous, but not high-profile? Again, please review a dictionary before speaking next time.

And I'm not a Stallman follower, I think he's a bloody loon.

Forgot one more thing:

And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.

Affirmation does not mean what you are using it as. If I said, "Microsoft is stupid" than it would be a statement, not an affirmation. If I said, "It's a fact microsoft is stupid." it would be an assertion and an affirmation. If you clarified and asked if that is what I said, and I said yes, then I would be affirming Microsoft is stupid.

However, saying Microsoft lacks innovation abilities and employees less programmers with impressive reputations than the OSS world has is not an affirmation. At all. In no sense of the word. Everyone knows that Microsoft is poor at innovation. They have yet to introduce a new concept into the world. Ever.

Some other words that go along that you could definitely stand to learn:
High-Profile

zealot - I am not fanatical for anything, maybe you missed that. If I was a zealot, I wouldn't also criticize Linux.

adjective from: Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
This is incorrect because I said they were high-profile developers, which is a noun. If I said his personality is high-profile or his skill is high-profile it would be an adjective. I never said either. You admit they are famous, but not high-profile? Again, please review a dictionary before speaking next time.

And I'm not a Stallman follower, I think he's a bloody loon.

Forgot one more thing:

And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.

Affirmation does not mean what you are using it as. If I said, "Microsoft is stupid" than it would be a statement, not an affirmation. If I said, "It's a fact microsoft is stupid." it would be an assertion and an affirmation. If you clarified and asked if that is what I said, and I said yes, then I would be affirming Microsoft is stupid.

However, saying Microsoft lacks innovation abilities and employees less programmers with impressive reputations than the OSS world has is not an affirmation. At all. In no sense of the word. Everyone knows that Microsoft is poor at innovation. They have yet to introduce a new concept into the world. Ever.

Some other words that go along that you could definitely stand to learn:
High-Profile

zealot - I am not fanatical for anything, maybe you missed that. If I was a zealot, I wouldn't also criticize Linux.

adjective from: Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
This is incorrect because I said they were high-profile developers, which is a noun. If I said his personality is high-profile or his skill is high-profile it would be an adjective. I never said either. You admit they are famous, but not high-profile? Again, please review a dictionary before speaking next time.

And I'm not a Stallman follower, I think he's a bloody loon.

Forgot one more thing:

And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.

Affirmation does not mean what you are using it as. If I said, "Microsoft is stupid" than it would be a statement, not an affirmation. If I said, "It's a fact microsoft is stupid." it would be an assertion and an affirmation. If you clarified and asked if that is what I said, and I said yes, then I would be affirming Microsoft is stupid.

However, saying Microsoft lacks innovation abilities and employees less programmers with impressive reputations than the OSS world has is not an affirmation. At all. In no sense of the word. Everyone knows that Microsoft is poor at innovation. They have yet to introduce a new concept into the world. Ever.

Some other words that go along that you could definitely stand to learn:
High-Profile

zealot - I am not fanatical for anything, maybe you missed that. If I was a zealot, I wouldn't also criticize Linux.

adjective from: Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
This is incorrect because I said they were high-profile developers, which is a noun. If I said his personality is high-profile or his skill is high-profile it would be an adjective. I never said either. You admit they are famous, but not high-profile? Again, please review a dictionary before speaking next time.

And I'm not a Stallman follower, I think he's a bloody loon.

oh, the sad state of the american educational system. actually, those words are perfectly valid and have existed for years (not buzzwords) they describe exactly what the poster meant which is the goal of language.

next time, instead of posting your ignorance, learn: dictionary.com

Your ethical stance requires a dogmatic definition of when life begins

And so does yours.

I think most English speakers of our day would attach some negative connotation of intolerant religous doctrine or of illogical blatherings when the words "dogma" or "dogmatic" are used. I certainly took it in that sense, and I suspect this is the sense you mean it in.

So I looked it up. I think American Heritage's 3rd definition best characterizes my ethical stance.

My arguments have been no more "dogmatic" than yours or any other poster's, and have certainly been less than some, given that I have always provided a logical argument to back them up or refute attacks on them.

hacker1 Pronunciation Key (hkr) n. Informal 1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. 2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. 3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker. From dictionary.com

Is referance also spelled this way in referance to something on the show?

-J

give it up. Have something better to do than criticize peoples' typing, dude. You have typos in your post, so watch that glass house action!

Which typo are you pointing out? Hemos spelled "shiny" wrong. He was asking if it was a joke that he should laugh it. It's not a joke, but you can still laugh. Go ahead, laugh. It's healthy. Even at the expense of others who can't spell shiny.

the word is "draconian", which means "severe" or "unusually harsh".

sheesh, i don't mean to nitpick but there are few simpler ways to come off as less-than-brilliant than to misuse "big words".

look them up before you use them. thanks. (checks own spelling)

The constitution, the federal laws, the judicial system.

THAT'S WHAT DUE PROCESS IS!

>Going from 32-bit to 64-bit addressing raises the memory limit four thousand million times (that's four billion if you're american).

Or one milliard if you're not American. Thankfully (or not), I'm Canadian, so I have to know about both. :-)

How many of you even learned (much less recall ) that ok is not a word, the correct spelling is okay?

Actually, both are slang.

Language is meant to evolve. Perhaps standardizing the slang and documenting it would be a better place for education.

Slang, you know, that's fine. Sometimes you shouldn't standardize it because it's just plain stupid.

I never understood the point of , 'u' in substitute for "you". It's two extra characters and it doesn't make you come across as an absolute lazy illiterate baboon. Maybe I'm just a bit pedantical. I really hate that. I really hate the new 'net' slang where half the words aren't any form of a shortcut. "Kewl" will make me remove a digit, for good measure, two. Cool is slang, Kewl is stupid. You can't slang-ify a slang word, it's just not right.

Having said that, if any school system ever, and I mean ever institutes a proper usage of "net slang" or "l33t speak" I will revolt and burn them to the ground to protect the nations future and younger generation.

Language is meant to evolve. Perhaps standardizing the slang and documenting it would be a better place for education.

Slang, you know, that's fine. Sometimes you shouldn't standardize it because it's just plain stupid.

I never understood the point of , 'u' in substitute for "you". It's two extra characters and it doesn't make you come across as an absolute lazy illiterate baboon. Maybe I'm just a bit pedantical. I really hate that. I really hate the new 'net' slang where half the words aren't any form of a shortcut. "Kewl" will make me remove a digit, for good measure, two. Cool is slang, Kewl is stupid. You can't slang-ify a slang word, it's just not right.

Having said that, if any school system ever, and I mean ever institutes a proper usage of "net slang" or "l33t speak" I will revolt and burn them to the ground to protect the nations future and younger generation.

theft

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

undefined you say? for those that can't be bothered to click the link, it's "A member or supporter of a small cooperative or a collectivist community."

Undefined?