Slashdot Mirror

From Dictionary.com:

"ad hominem: adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."

It goes on for a bit, you should check it out. The Latin root literally means "to the man". You've actually gone a step further, equating being white/affluent with clueless, but that's not even nessesary to qualify for this award. Bringing up the fact that I'm French is an ad hominem attack since it is an appeal to my motives rather than an address of my argument. It matters not one iota if being French is deplorable or if you even make any conclusion from that point. Bringing up anything at all about your opponent's person is classified as "ad hominem". Really. =)

My .02,

Echelon Watch

Society > Issues > Human Rights and Liberties > Privacy

Definition of the word echelon

Perhaps you mean referendi?

Certainly not! He probably means referendums, or maybe referenda.

-Bruce

Dictionary.com defines exploration as:

exploration \Ex`plo*ra"tion\, n. [L. exploratio: cf. F. exploration.] The act of exploring, penetrating, or ranging over for purposes of discovery, especially of geographical discovery;

Is not the sending of these "robots" (aka probes) the act of penetrating or ranging over? Yes! So that means sending "robots" is exploration. Robots and unmanned probes can gather a lot of great information for the purposes of discovery again apart of the definition of exploration.

What do you call the results we get from telescopes such as Hubble and Chandra? Those telescopes are in earth's orbit. Do they not explore the far reaches of space? Yes. Not all of what is done in Earth's orbit is developmental.

As for the Appollo 17 comment...in your terms of exploration wouldn't the last exploration have been Appollo 11 because by Appollo 17 we have had already been to the moon.

Can you say dumbarse?

According the dictionary intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. It does not mention the knowledge itself, and does not address wether a skill (knowledge) that augments the natural abilities is included in the term intelligence, but the absence of a statement to that effect suggests that that is not the definition. If it is your definition, then we are arguing semantics, not the subject of intelligence.

Until a genetic component for 'intelligence' is found the nature argument remains speculation, however, the effect of education upon ability is well proven.

In my high school biology class there were at the time (i believe) five or six genes thought to influence intelligence. Not being into genetics, I lack more current data.

There is no way to prove that what we believe to be intelligence is (or is not) learnt pattern recognition, as there are too many variables to count. But, by the definition that I understand, if these factors influence what is commonly tested as 'intelligence' it is not, in fact, intelligence, as intelligence involves the application of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself.

And in the view of the, admittedly few, scientists studying genetics that I have talked to, intelligence is thought to have a genetic base.

I have one argument that is distasteful, since it is a topic that is insensitive to bring up. But, as it has a direct impact on the argument at hand, I will elaborate. Mental retardation causes a diminished capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. That proves a link between intelligence and genetics. How much pattern recognition is attributed to intelligence is debatable, but at least a portion of it is genetic.

And, again, to bring it back to my main point. A book or a computer will not make you more intelligent. It is only a tool. A person can use it to expand their knowledge. But, as i said in another post, it will not magically grant (as VR combined with drugs granted to the lawnmower man in the movie) intelligence. That is science fiction.
-CrackElf

And before you all start criticising me for xenophobia; I'm British, and I've seen the above done far too many times on holiday.

Also, thank God for dictionary.com for help with spelling xenophobia!

Children are children.

Your exactly right. The problem that you run into is the defination of child:
A person between birth and puberty.

When a child is no longer a child, it's not approprate to treat them as such. As it's mentioned in the article, once children hit middle school, the attitude has changed from emptying out the backpacks to don't touch my stuff. I think at this point we, as responsible adults, need to take our children's needs and wants into consideration when we make decisions. You wouldn't continue to kiss your child every day in public after they asked you to stop. In the same way you shouldn't monitor their actions if they ask you to stop.

As a parent I have the right and responsibility to know what they are doing and where they are at any time I want to until they are of legal age.

By taking this hard line approach, your going to be teaching your children that's it's acceptable to have someone, even their parents, watching their every move, making decisions on their behalf.. For their own good, of course. Now just think if that could be done for you. I could just see it now.. I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you have that ice cream, you've had too much fat today.

... Just because many parents do not care of pay attention to what their children are doing doesnt make it wrong for those who do care.

Those parents who have properly raised their children with morals and respect don't need to worry nearly as much. Those who also keep an open line of communication as children become young adults and can talk about what's going on in their child's life don't need to worry at all.

If you wanted to play Rouge Squadron 2 , you'd be out of luck, people were at least 6 deep around the two demo boxes, and the suround sound booth was too packed to get into.

I guess Nintendo is finally trying to make video games that appeal to girls.. ;-)

1. A structure, such as a building or sculpture, erected as a memorial.
2. An inscribed marker placed at a grave; a tombstone.
3. Something venerated for its enduring historic significance or association with a notable past person or thing: traditions that are monuments to an earlier era.
4. 1. An outstanding, enduring achievement: a translation that is a monument of scholarship.
   2. An exceptional example: "Thousands of them wrote texts, some of them monuments of dullness" (Robert L. Heilbroner).
5. An object, such as a post or stone, fixed in the ground so as to mark a boundary or position.
6. A written document, especially a legal one.

I'm inclined to think that this is a troll, but it looks close enough to the real thing that I'll take the risk.

All she's saying is, she sees no difference between homosexuality, bestiality and incest, on a moral basis.

That's not all that she's saying, and shame on you for intimating that it is. She also makes the claim that homosexuality is a result of "biological error," and publicly denounced the American Psychiatric Association for removing homosexuality from its list of disorders.

Elsewhere, Schlessinger denies that her attitudes are in any way discriminatory:

In other words, AB 222 suggested that sexual orientation discrimination was the same and equal to racial and gender discrimination? How can that be? A behavior, the same as a born gender and a born race?
- Schlessinger, June 3 1999

In other words, homosexuality is a result of biological error, like, say, Tourette's Syndrome. Yet while we're taught to feel pity towards victims of the latter for their tendency to shout socially awkward things, homosexuality is somehow evil, and denying them rights and privileges available to straight people isn't discrimination. That's doublethink.

Yet, we are supposed to consider the second two deviant and evil, but the first is now a right, and is holy and pure. Why? It's absolute doublethink.
- Galvatron

Is it? Let's use Schlessinger's actual words here. She says that she's afraid of rights for homosexuals - wait, sorry, "sexual deviants" - because it may lead to other "rights" as well, specifically, rights for pedophiles (see the quote in my previous post). Maybe you don't see a fundamental moral difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, but I do: most people that I know do not hold pedophilia to be on an equal moral footing with sex between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender.

All this aside, however, it is ultimately uninteresting to me what Dr. Laura's opinion is on holiness or purity. If she wants to say that homosexuality is a sin, fine: I'm not going to dispute religious doctrine with her. Let her speak out against pedophilia, bestiality, pre-marital sex - fuck, I don't care if she wants to badmouth philately. But she shouldn't try to cloak her hatred of homosexuality in quasi-scientific justifications. She can have that damn cake, as far as I'm concerned: she just can't eat it too.

One other problem that I had with this specific line is that Mundie also makes it sound like these are the only two options for software developers. Apparently sharing your ideas with others didn't occur to him. To some this may fall under the category of relinquishing your IP, but to relinquish http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=rel inquish for the link paranoid) something implies that you give up all control. If you think that you have to relinquish your IP just to share it with others, ask Linus what he thinks about relenquishing his IP.
--------
"Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs."

Short for budgerigar.

You Americans sure are wacky:

rudaditorian - rudest kid in the class
mooaditorian - grumpiest kid in the class
foodaditorian - fatest kid in the class
screwaditorian - ....

James
P.s. Yes, yes ... I know.

Although the Trenton Times doesn't appear to know this either, the
proper past tense for this is "hanged". You would say "He hung his coat on the hook" but "He hanged himself".

No, not much sense to it, but that's the English language for you.

Your motives, well meant
Dictionary contradicts
Your facts, incorrect

finding out where all the links go to in these articles?

sorry, couldnt resist... there are sooooo many links in this one, i got confused :o)

That in and of itself is not inherently evil, I think... your idea of simply encouraging people with real genetic problems to adopt instead of giving birth seems reasonable, at least on the surface.

But consider this: at some point, you have to write definitions. What defines a "demonstrably-problematic mutation-induced condition"? Is hereditary heart disease on the list? How about bad eyesight? Is it just things that we can't currently treat, and if so, is that really fair? After all, it took us a while to come up with eyeglasses, but we've pretty much got that problem effectively licked.

When you start governing fundamental biological functions (for instance, breeding), you'd better be very, very careful about people's rights. In fact, it's probably best to stay away from any laws that allow some to breed, but not others. (IMHO, a blanket law that limits the number of children a family can have is a different issue... that's a reasonable attempt by a nation to keep its population in check.)

I think it's also important to note that genetic problems are very often selected out socially. If a mutation causes a deformation, or causes obvious medical problems, quite often (for better or worse) the person bearing it simply will not find a willing mate.

We've done relatively well without skimming the gene pool... why start now?

Are we going to need a sommelier for Slashdot?

Ports, Wine, Brandies, Whiskeys, ... oh.

Nevermind.

You know, like the book says? Sheesh! I'm no MENSA candidate, but I'm not dense...

Just so you know, a minaret is a kind of tower. I am pretty sure fingers cannot weave minarets in any sense. Maybe you meant pirouettes?

Although I don't know what they would be doing weaving those either.

-your friendly grammar nazi,
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

> The only viable system is to take away between 25% and 75% of every person's income and redistribute it.

Two words: ponzi scehme

When I exchange MY TIME for a commodity item, it is NOT the government's to steal back from me.

Thank god the system is based on voluntary compliance.

Oddly enough, you would have done better if you'd looked it up in an English dictionary.

The above link defines it as "Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others."

It's not new for English speakers to use this word.

Tim

With the advent of Valve's new Multicast System we're getting a lot closer to gaming becoming a true spectator sport. Also, according to Dictionary.com a sport is "2. An active pastime; recreation" so no one can argue that it's not a sport because there's (little) pysical exertion (unless, of course, you go running around the room after each frag or something like that).

And Then...

From Dave's Scripting News on Friday, 27 Apr 01:

From the If-It-Weren't-So-Sad-It-Would-Be-Funny Department, yesterday when Netscape (apparently) deprecated RSS and broke all the links to their RSS stuff, they also broke people whose XML parsers require a DTD. The old URL for the RSS 0.91 DTD is totally 404 not found. John Munsch has a report from the field. I put a copy of the DTD into a folder here on scripting.com, and it will stay there, Murphy-willing, for perpetuity.

You can find his copy of the DTD here.

J.J.

>1) FBI doesn't need a warrent to break into computers in another country -
> we are not a hegemony, our Constitution doesn't apply to Russia.

um, i always thought hegemony was the 'how' in one groups domination of another, not the dominant, controlling group.

hmm, yep . notice that word 'influence' in there

Sure, one of the main functions of E3 is to get the media and general public excited about up and coming games and hardware, but isn't a secondary function of E3 to be a testbed for next generation consumer products? If my hot .com company demos a new game, and every kid that comes up to it says, "Get bent dude, this game sucks!!", wouldn't you pull the plug on it? It just seems like a bit of a platitude to state that if the public doesn't like, we're not going to make it. No shit?!? Kind of a no brainer if you ask me.

In this case, I imagine the lawyer is doing it pro bono (for free). It is typical in American pro bono cases, for the lawyer's percentage to be as high as 40%. Thus. 40% of 5 billion dollars - a hefty 2 billion. That should cover his costs rather nicely, with a few pennies left over.

Although you didn't say it, my inference is that you think "pro bono" means "for free". That is not the case:
From Dictionary.com:

pro bono
adj.

Done without compensation for the public good: a lawyer's pro bono work.

[Latin pro bono (public), for the (public) good: pr, for + bon, ablative of bonum, the good.]

It is work for free. No contingency fee. (Which is what you described)

Milalwi

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=com monwealth

commonwealth \Com"mon*wealth`\ (?; 277), n. [Common + wealth well-being.] 1. A state; a body politic consisting of a certain number of men, united, by compact or tacit agreement, under one form of government and system of laws.

- - - - -

Maybe my parents didn't read aloud enough Grimm tales when I was a kid, so I didn't know what it was, but dictionary.com says:

Rumpelstiltskin n : a dwarf in one of the fairy stories of the brothers Grimm; tells a woman he will not hold her to a promise if she can guess his name and when she discovers it he is so furious that he destroys himself

2. a. A person considered to be a source of wise counsel or prophetic opinions."

From dictionary.com

But one day someone found that a genetic mutation at a specific allele can cause changes in a mouse that effects perception of a specific bitter taste.

The rest of your comment seems sound enough, but there is no way scientists can know what a mouse's perception is. They can observe behavoiur, measure neuron activity or in some other ways discover things indicating the mouse's perception has changed. But there is no way anyone can tell how (ot iven if) anyone or anything else perceives anything!

What's so impregnable about a code that can be broken by a 14 year old, and later be reduced to be able to fit on a business card in less than 7 lines of perl code?

Supposedly impregnable to me would be code that would have to be output on a quilt or involve measurements that must take into account the RF interference of neighboring electrical components. It's not a 40-bit key found unencrypted in a piece of windows software.

It's like sending all the guards home and leaving the keys and security codes to Fort Knox under the doormat. Impregnability comes from the ability to resist attack and I don't think CSS did that in any way shape or form.

Bloody stool.

here

The war on drugs is an unfortunate attempt by conservatives to impose their own blind view of proper private behavior upon others.

Isn't this what you're doing, only it is proper public behavior? If a woman and I made a private video of us having sex, would this consititue pornography in your opinion?

Pornography, in contrast, is a public enterprise dealing in wares that are by definition non-consensual.

Dictionary.com states the definition of pornography is Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence.. I don't see anything mentioning non-consentual, do you?

No one can consent to participating in pornography...

So you are saying that each and every woman and man who participates in pornography is doing so against his or her own free will? Not only this is a blanket statement, but I don't feel it's true. Please elaborate.

That's false. Law is public morality. Law properly seeks to be moral. The fact that pornography is currently legal is not an argument for allowing to let it remain so, just as the existence of slavery didn't preclude the abolitionist movement.

Ahh, an excellent argument!! I cannot debate this. :)

So does organized crime, at the expense of our neighbors and loved-ones.

You obviously need to see the flip side of organized crime. John Gotti used to have an annual party for everyone in his old neighborhood, and they weren't happy to see him go. There's another side to everything.

Frankly, I understand your argument, however the foundation of that argument (that pornography is non-consentual and exploits women) in my opinion is flawed. Perhaps the law should be changed, but the law, which is "public morality" currently seems to disagree.

They weren't spies, by the real definition of spies. Spies hide their identity and their mission. These guys were wearing US Military uniforms, in a plainly marked US Military craft, flying in international airspace, with a flight plan that would have kept them in international airspace. They only entered Chinese airspace after their aircraft was rammed by a Chinese military fighter. To call them spies simply indicates that you have no idea what the word actually means.

I know exactly what a spy means. To wit: "an agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, esp. of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies." Are you going to argue with me that they weren't there to obtain secret information?

They landed in China because the flaps on their aircraft were damaged in the collision. Without the ability to deploy the flaps, the plane couldn't fly slow enough at low altitude to ditch safely in the water. Any attempt at a water landing probably would have killed the entire crew. There is no way that they landed on Chinese territory by choice.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't realize that they didn't have a choice between crashing or landing in China. What? There's two options there? My god man...I think that's a choice. A tough choice, to be sure, but a choice nonetheless. What would you expect the US would do during the height of the Cold War if a Russian plane chose to land in the US rather than crash? Do you think that we would detain both the pilot and the plane? You betcha.

Oh, and of course they could've tried to land in another country. But some say the Chinese forced them to land in China. Fine, call their bluff. Force the fighters to shoot you down. Do you really think that China would have done that? I don't, but if they did we wouldn't be here arguing about apologies!

I wish that people would accept the fact that a) when you join the military, you should be prepared to die. And b) when you're a spy, you really don't want to end up in the hands of who you're spying on. I'm not outraged at China for keeping the pilots, I'm outraged at the government for putting them there. Not to mention that with a few choice words from Dubya, this whole thing would be over.

Do you think that if Dubya and Cheney were detained in China that they wouldn't be damn quick to apologize? No matter who was at fault? Well, excepting the fact that they have the entire US military forces at their beck and call. This is just silly posturing by 2 gang leaders.

Next time check your facts before you start spouting off.

Next time try to think less like a brainwashed lemming before you jump to the defense of those that wouldn't think twice before sending you off to die. And don't post AC.

I must say, I am highly impressed that Katz continues to write for slashdot, despite consistant bashing of every article he posts, without exception.
To this effect, one could hold him as an example of journalistic integrity, braving the rain and hail in order to inform us, the unwashed masses. Thank you Jon.
For any americans reading this, it is an exercise in irony. Click the link, read the def, and don't get too heated up.

Probability is a best guess, when you don't have all the facts. Nothing funny or strange about it all.

No it's not. I think that would be called an estimate or best guess. Probability is the likelihood that something will occur. In this case, the likelihood that your best guess would be correct.

That being said, this doesn't defy random odds because it's not random. By introducing the twist where you can see the other's hats, and only 1 has to make a guess, then you can pull little tricks like having the one with the most complete information (2 hats of the same color) guessing.

In conformity with a fixed procedure, principle, or discipline.

Regular expressions provide an regular or ordered way to specify patterns.

a freak is a weirdo that bites the heads off of stuff. so this is correct too? I always hear slashduhters commenting about the cracker/hacker war. so, since geek = freak and nerd = my def of geek then hacker = cracker?
________________________________

I was gonna argue with you, but I looked it up and hey he's right.-- geek/nerd

I guess im a nerd.


dork!

I was gonna argue with you, but I looked it up and hey he's right.-- geek/nerd

I guess im a nerd.


dork!

I was gonna argue with you, but I looked it up and hey he's right.-- geek/nerd

I guess im a nerd.


dork!

Chris Ambler of Image Online Design, which runs the .web registry, is even more emphatic. "The problem with Name.Space is [Garrin] wants something that no one else has: 500 top-level domains and the ability to create new ones at will. He's trying to claim everything! He makes lofty claims about having a shared system, but it requires people to use his system, and he gets a piece of every new registry! In my book, that's called communism, or socialism at best."

This is slightly off topic - but the quote from the article above needs clarity, and it passes very close by my personal politics and a gripping pet peeve.

Chris Ambler: In this regard Mr. Garrin may be interpreted as acting as a capitalist and NOT a Socialist or Communist

He is refuting to be interested in a shared, libre and community owned/operated system - but instead he is trying to take a "piece of every new registry" for himself; you would really be accusing him of trying to REPLICATE Verisign. This is clearly a CAPITALIST motivation.

Mr. Ambler, you seem to know nothing of Communism or Socialism outside of the McCarthy inspired dogma and disinformation rampant in the United States. Please before you attempt to slight someone for being a "Communist", as if it is a naturally 'bad' thing to be avoided (which betrays your bigoted pre-disposition), you may want to understand what the hell your talking about. Further, it is almost amusing when describing an anti-social, selfish, introverted and greedy act it is labeled 'Communist' when really it is the exact antithesis. The act you accuse Mr.Garrin of committing would perfectly exemplify Capitalist principles.

Communism is NOT about control - that is Fascism - and usually Americans confuse the two. Communism promotes Democracy. Communism does not require nor desire Fascism.

Politics: Democracy, Fascism
Economics: Communism, Capitalism.

To be honest, Capitalism more closely aligns with Fascism. Communism more closely aligns with Democracy. One set of principles rely on Control (Fascism) and Ownership (Capitalism), while Democracy (Equal Right to Participation in Governance) and Communism (Community ownership of capital, controlled by consensus) are really a more natural pair. American political discourse is so perverted by propaganda that a real understanding of the contradiction of their community - the epithaths and principles - is outside the scope of the normal person.
Start by reading this: Fascism @ Dictionary.com, Democracy @ Dictionary.com, Communism @ Dictionary.com* and Capitalism @ Dictionary.com. You are also invited to read: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

You will find that Communism is NOT about oppression and control - but freedom from the Ruling Class and true democratic principles. You will find that most people who would be opposed to corporate control also have some maintain some ideas that could may rightly be labeled as Communist - but the collective political mind in America is so polluted by Capitalist Dogma against even the simple word that Communism's many merits cannot even be rightly discussed.

*Its very interesting to see that dictionary describes Communism with words like "scheme, authoritarian, claiming, theoretical" which are themselves charged and purposefully chosen to berate the idea.

McCarthyism set back American Culture by 300 years.

Chris Ambler of Image Online Design, which runs the .web registry, is even more emphatic. "The problem with Name.Space is [Garrin] wants something that no one else has: 500 top-level domains and the ability to create new ones at will. He's trying to claim everything! He makes lofty claims about having a shared system, but it requires people to use his system, and he gets a piece of every new registry! In my book, that's called communism, or socialism at best."

This is slightly off topic - but the quote from the article above needs clarity, and it passes very close by my personal politics and a gripping pet peeve.

Chris Ambler: In this regard Mr. Garrin may be interpreted as acting as a capitalist and NOT a Socialist or Communist

He is refuting to be interested in a shared, libre and community owned/operated system - but instead he is trying to take a "piece of every new registry" for himself; you would really be accusing him of trying to REPLICATE Verisign. This is clearly a CAPITALIST motivation.

Mr. Ambler, you seem to know nothing of Communism or Socialism outside of the McCarthy inspired dogma and disinformation rampant in the United States. Please before you attempt to slight someone for being a "Communist", as if it is a naturally 'bad' thing to be avoided (which betrays your bigoted pre-disposition), you may want to understand what the hell your talking about. Further, it is almost amusing when describing an anti-social, selfish, introverted and greedy act it is labeled 'Communist' when really it is the exact antithesis. The act you accuse Mr.Garrin of committing would perfectly exemplify Capitalist principles.

Communism is NOT about control - that is Fascism - and usually Americans confuse the two. Communism promotes Democracy. Communism does not require nor desire Fascism.

Politics: Democracy, Fascism
Economics: Communism, Capitalism.

To be honest, Capitalism more closely aligns with Fascism. Communism more closely aligns with Democracy. One set of principles rely on Control (Fascism) and Ownership (Capitalism), while Democracy (Equal Right to Participation in Governance) and Communism (Community ownership of capital, controlled by consensus) are really a more natural pair. American political discourse is so perverted by propaganda that a real understanding of the contradiction of their community - the epithaths and principles - is outside the scope of the normal person.
Start by reading this: Fascism @ Dictionary.com, Democracy @ Dictionary.com, Communism @ Dictionary.com* and Capitalism @ Dictionary.com. You are also invited to read: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

You will find that Communism is NOT about oppression and control - but freedom from the Ruling Class and true democratic principles. You will find that most people who would be opposed to corporate control also have some maintain some ideas that could may rightly be labeled as Communist - but the collective political mind in America is so polluted by Capitalist Dogma against even the simple word that Communism's many merits cannot even be rightly discussed.

*Its very interesting to see that dictionary describes Communism with words like "scheme, authoritarian, claiming, theoretical" which are themselves charged and purposefully chosen to berate the idea.

McCarthyism set back American Culture by 300 years.

Chris Ambler of Image Online Design, which runs the .web registry, is even more emphatic. "The problem with Name.Space is [Garrin] wants something that no one else has: 500 top-level domains and the ability to create new ones at will. He's trying to claim everything! He makes lofty claims about having a shared system, but it requires people to use his system, and he gets a piece of every new registry! In my book, that's called communism, or socialism at best."

This is slightly off topic - but the quote from the article above needs clarity, and it passes very close by my personal politics and a gripping pet peeve.

Chris Ambler: In this regard Mr. Garrin may be interpreted as acting as a capitalist and NOT a Socialist or Communist

He is refuting to be interested in a shared, libre and community owned/operated system - but instead he is trying to take a "piece of every new registry" for himself; you would really be accusing him of trying to REPLICATE Verisign. This is clearly a CAPITALIST motivation.

Mr. Ambler, you seem to know nothing of Communism or Socialism outside of the McCarthy inspired dogma and disinformation rampant in the United States. Please before you attempt to slight someone for being a "Communist", as if it is a naturally 'bad' thing to be avoided (which betrays your bigoted pre-disposition), you may want to understand what the hell your talking about. Further, it is almost amusing when describing an anti-social, selfish, introverted and greedy act it is labeled 'Communist' when really it is the exact antithesis. The act you accuse Mr.Garrin of committing would perfectly exemplify Capitalist principles.

Communism is NOT about control - that is Fascism - and usually Americans confuse the two. Communism promotes Democracy. Communism does not require nor desire Fascism.

Politics: Democracy, Fascism
Economics: Communism, Capitalism.

To be honest, Capitalism more closely aligns with Fascism. Communism more closely aligns with Democracy. One set of principles rely on Control (Fascism) and Ownership (Capitalism), while Democracy (Equal Right to Participation in Governance) and Communism (Community ownership of capital, controlled by consensus) are really a more natural pair. American political discourse is so perverted by propaganda that a real understanding of the contradiction of their community - the epithaths and principles - is outside the scope of the normal person.
Start by reading this: Fascism @ Dictionary.com, Democracy @ Dictionary.com, Communism @ Dictionary.com* and Capitalism @ Dictionary.com. You are also invited to read: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

You will find that Communism is NOT about oppression and control - but freedom from the Ruling Class and true democratic principles. You will find that most people who would be opposed to corporate control also have some maintain some ideas that could may rightly be labeled as Communist - but the collective political mind in America is so polluted by Capitalist Dogma against even the simple word that Communism's many merits cannot even be rightly discussed.

*Its very interesting to see that dictionary describes Communism with words like "scheme, authoritarian, claiming, theoretical" which are themselves charged and purposefully chosen to berate the idea.

McCarthyism set back American Culture by 300 years.

Chris Ambler of Image Online Design, which runs the .web registry, is even more emphatic. "The problem with Name.Space is [Garrin] wants something that no one else has: 500 top-level domains and the ability to create new ones at will. He's trying to claim everything! He makes lofty claims about having a shared system, but it requires people to use his system, and he gets a piece of every new registry! In my book, that's called communism, or socialism at best."

This is slightly off topic - but the quote from the article above needs clarity, and it passes very close by my personal politics and a gripping pet peeve.

Chris Ambler: In this regard Mr. Garrin may be interpreted as acting as a capitalist and NOT a Socialist or Communist

He is refuting to be interested in a shared, libre and community owned/operated system - but instead he is trying to take a "piece of every new registry" for himself; you would really be accusing him of trying to REPLICATE Verisign. This is clearly a CAPITALIST motivation.

Mr. Ambler, you seem to know nothing of Communism or Socialism outside of the McCarthy inspired dogma and disinformation rampant in the United States. Please before you attempt to slight someone for being a "Communist", as if it is a naturally 'bad' thing to be avoided (which betrays your bigoted pre-disposition), you may want to understand what the hell your talking about. Further, it is almost amusing when describing an anti-social, selfish, introverted and greedy act it is labeled 'Communist' when really it is the exact antithesis. The act you accuse Mr.Garrin of committing would perfectly exemplify Capitalist principles.

Communism is NOT about control - that is Fascism - and usually Americans confuse the two. Communism promotes Democracy. Communism does not require nor desire Fascism.

Politics: Democracy, Fascism
Economics: Communism, Capitalism.

To be honest, Capitalism more closely aligns with Fascism. Communism more closely aligns with Democracy. One set of principles rely on Control (Fascism) and Ownership (Capitalism), while Democracy (Equal Right to Participation in Governance) and Communism (Community ownership of capital, controlled by consensus) are really a more natural pair. American political discourse is so perverted by propaganda that a real understanding of the contradiction of their community - the epithaths and principles - is outside the scope of the normal person.
Start by reading this: Fascism @ Dictionary.com, Democracy @ Dictionary.com, Communism @ Dictionary.com* and Capitalism @ Dictionary.com. You are also invited to read: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

You will find that Communism is NOT about oppression and control - but freedom from the Ruling Class and true democratic principles. You will find that most people who would be opposed to corporate control also have some maintain some ideas that could may rightly be labeled as Communist - but the collective political mind in America is so polluted by Capitalist Dogma against even the simple word that Communism's many merits cannot even be rightly discussed.

*Its very interesting to see that dictionary describes Communism with words like "scheme, authoritarian, claiming, theoretical" which are themselves charged and purposefully chosen to berate the idea.

McCarthyism set back American Culture by 300 years.

Battlebots doesn't have any robots on the show. They're all remote-control cars. Saying robotics has something to do with it is a misnomer.

Salieri writes, "Ever notice how it's sometimes very difficult to tell which is the real or relevant link in the article write-up? Perhaps the editors can distinguish where the main attraction is." He then clicks preview to make sure the links work.

--------------------------------