Slashdot Mirror

> but I'm pretty sure that a corporation is legally a "person" but not an "individual",

Yes you're right, Individual is not mentioned anywhere.

Page 340, 6th Ed.
"Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state."

A created thing owes its existance to its creator.
Notice WHO creates the corporation. THE STATE.

Even more interesting is WHY is the Queen of England a "corporation sole" ?!

Pg 341.
"Aggregate and sole. A corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporatated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a bishop, so are some deans distinct from several chapters, and so is every parson and vicar."

Now you know who REALLY owns the land, and the reason you don't see too much land in Allodium.

Cheers

Peer-to-peer computing is so new that no one is even attempting to define it. P2P could be servers talking to servers, servers talking to PCs, PCs talking to PCs, or WAP phones talking to all of them.

Oh yes, peer to peer computing is so new that you can't define it. We've never seen a peer to peer based system before. Nope, never. Who would do a thing like that?

All snideness aside, we all know that peers are equal -- This is the most important piece of information to understand a peer-to-peer system. Whether it is a social system in which everyone is potentially equal, but various peers decide who will listen harder to who, thereby defining the balance of power, or a networking protocol in which the same thing happens, the concept of a peer is the same. We see it in video games, in packet radio systems, and in our social lives.

No central server? Is every client a server, and every server a client? Is there no central control? Must be peer to peer. (If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...)

What the hell does "causationally" mean?

I believe Hemos should have typed "causally" instead.

It's not that I'm hiding, it's a thing (which now has become very very close to obsolete) called PRICAVY.
I are you sure pricavy isn't a new thing? I can't find it here, herethis lame thing!!

'Authoritarian' would probably be a better word to describe the type of society the U.S. is becoming:

http://www.dictiona ry. com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=authoritarian

--

It is possible to be forbidden from performing an action, by forces other than law. Decency and courtesy, for example. If I find a photo album of you and your mother's dog in compromising sexual positions, I might be legally entitled to publish part of one of the photos. But out of respect for the dog's reputation, my gentlemanliness might forbid it. Law takes a back seat.

While technically your use of forbid is accurate, the spirit of the word (and it's synonyms) differs from that somewhat:

From dictionary.com
Synonyms: forbid, ban, enjoin, interdict, prohibit, proscribe.
The central meaning shared by these verbs is "to refuse to allow": laws that forbid speeding; banned smoking; was enjoined from broadcasting the news item; interdict trafficking in drugs; rules that prohibit swimming in the reservoir; proscribed the importation of raw fruits and vegetables.
Antonyms: permit

Anyway, gentlemanliness varies, so it's less of a forbidding or prohibition and more of a dissuasion.

It is possible to be forbidden from performing an action, by forces other than law. Decency and courtesy, for example. If I find a photo album of you and your mother's dog in compromising sexual positions, I might be legally entitled to publish part of one of the photos. But out of respect for the dog's reputation, my gentlemanliness might forbid it. Law takes a back seat.

While technically your use of forbid is accurate, the spirit of the word (and it's synonyms) differs from that somewhat:

From dictionary.com
Synonyms: forbid, ban, enjoin, interdict, prohibit, proscribe.
The central meaning shared by these verbs is "to refuse to allow": laws that forbid speeding; banned smoking; was enjoined from broadcasting the news item; interdict trafficking in drugs; rules that prohibit swimming in the reservoir; proscribed the importation of raw fruits and vegetables.
Antonyms: permit

Anyway, gentlemanliness varies, so it's less of a forbidding or prohibition and more of a dissuasion.

The process you go through says a lot about what measures they take to verify your identity, and I've inferred that a LOT of it CAN'T be done without human intervention (given the current state of technology) - and not without dedicated hardware in a centralized location. The "authority" part of "certificate authority" is by definition a single entity. They usually request a copy of your business' Certificate of Incorporation, which must be verified by a human being, and they always request a phone number for verification, and they usually request your company's DUNS number (Dun and Bradstreet's corporation database) for simplicity's sake. Verification of the DUNS is about the only thing that can be done automatically, and it's not sufficient to prove your identity, since anyone can look it up.
--
Note that none of this reflects the opinions or views of my employer. Well actually it might, but I'm not allowed to say so.
--

informative??

i have just three words for that:
"dictionary dot com"

---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties

1. adamant
2. A stone imagined by some to be of impenetrable hardness; a name given to the diamond and other substances of extreme hardness; but in modern mineralogy it has no technical signification. It is now a rhetorical or poetical name for the embodiment of impenetrable hardness.

Heh.. moron. Clickitty click.

--

Heh.. moron. Clickitty click.

--

You forget this is Online one-click shopping. That's totally different as everyone should know.

See for a definition of online/on-line. Read definition 2 in the American Heritage dictionary, and definition 1 in the Free On-Line Dictionary of computing as well. It's plugged in, it's turned on, therefore it's On-Line.

Law is the buisness of pedanticism. IANAL but I am pedantic.

You forget this is Online one-click shopping. That's totally different as everyone should know.

See for a definition of online/on-line. Read definition 2 in the American Heritage dictionary, and definition 1 in the Free On-Line Dictionary of computing as well. It's plugged in, it's turned on, therefore it's On-Line.

Law is the buisness of pedanticism. IANAL but I am pedantic.

I wasn't smearing you. That was my point. Obviously you are going to continue to take a holier-than-thou stance and fight for the last word. But, I'll defend this one last thing and go on with my merry life.
Believe what you want. This "public smearing" campaign you think I have against you is bogus -- I have not said anything that wasn't demonstrated to be truthful.
Hell, if you weren't so gestapo and close-minded..
Let me tell you from what portion of your post I decided that from:
If that's your "best argument", you're neck-deep in buffalo dung, my friend, for that argument is exactly backwards. There are arguments for and against this - however I am talking about responses, and your immediate response is that I am completely wrong and implying that I am not only stupid but oblivious. That is a sign of close-mindedness. And in portraying the other person as blatantly wrong and illustrating dominance *before* any arguments are made is an act of gestapo tactics - You will fear me now!.
Not that I insist you change your mind now that you've been given a clue about GNU/Linux history..
Oh, thank you I didn't know what GNU was running on before then... really.. I didn't... - I'm sure you are an authoritative figure to give history lessons. Hm.. you aren't? Damn, then I guess that makes you just a passionate and very interested follower, in order to know so much about it. Wait a second.. passionate believer in something.. Holy Broken Argument batman! That's a zealot.
If you dont believe me: One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor;
Damn, here I thought that was a compliment, people believe in things - that is what makes arguments fun. But no, you have to assume I was smearing you with my "universal truths"... however find me a person who is completely open minded and I'll show you a person who can't do anything (really think about that one if you dont understand it).
Ok, so now I'll do what you do here:
*clear throat*
So now I've corrected your views, I'm sure you wish to apologize for your blatant misinterpretation and being neck deep in >insert-favorite-animal<-dung..
Well, it has been very nice talking to you -- continue to believe what you want to believe, but understand that people have different perspectives and that's ok. But try in the future, instead of immediately challenging the person (see buffalo-dung quote above) engage in a friendly debate, here's something a little different:
Sorry, I really don't agree with you or see your point on this, GNU had been used on numerous different kernels before Linux was even a twinkle in Linus' eye.
See the difference between the two - one is friendly, one is not. If you choose the one that is not, don't expect the person to be nice afterwards.

On another note, this really doesn't matter anyway as far as it relates to "global warming". Recall that 3/4 of the earth is covered by water, not land. The vast majority of oxygen that is released into the atmosphere comes from algae. Yes, algae. In fact, I have heard that some scientists assert that whatever happens (to plants) on land is "inconsequential" to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Like to read books on velure, which does not turn yellow and crumble with age. Or on marble slabs which will last almost forever. But becuase of the convinience and cheapness of paper I read paper books.
Dealing with pixelation, radiation and oter -ations is a technical problem which will be resolved soon enough. E-book revolution will allow us to purchase books cheaply, carry huge libraries in very small packages, search in text of the books, use dictionary on the spot when we see a new word, and many, many other things that we absolutely can not do with regular books.
There will be no central location for all the books, just like the regular books, e-books will be scattered across multiple devices and locations. There also will be hard copies, for the unlikely event if those EMF radiating atomic bombs start flying.
After the library of Babylon people learned not to keep all the books in the same place, so global censorship will not be a problem. If anything, it will be easier to distribute unwanted books. Electronic samizdat is a lot easier than messing with a lot of paper. Besides, I hope you just noticed how neat the dictionary lookup feature of electronic medium is :)

While that's certainly true in Dutch, I believe in English 'Holland' is often used as a synonym for 'the Netherlands' - certainly colloquiallyquick check on dictionary.com seems to corroborate this.

Sorry, not meaning to sound like a twat, just wasting some time...

While that's certainly true in Dutch, I believe in English 'Holland' is often used as a synonym for 'the Netherlands' - certainly colloquiallyquick check on dictionary.com seems to corroborate this.

Sorry, not meaning to sound like a twat, just wasting some time...

While that's certainly true in Dutch, I believe in English 'Holland' is often used as a synonym for 'the Netherlands' - certainly colloquiallyquick check on dictionary.com seems to corroborate this.

Sorry, not meaning to sound like a twat, just wasting some time...

While that's certainly true in Dutch, I believe in English 'Holland' is often used as a synonym for 'the Netherlands' - certainly colloquiallyquick check on dictionary.com seems to corroborate this.

Sorry, not meaning to sound like a twat, just wasting some time...

While that's certainly true in Dutch, I believe in English 'Holland' is often used as a synonym for 'the Netherlands' - certainly colloquiallyquick check on dictionary.com seems to corroborate this.

Sorry, not meaning to sound like a twat, just wasting some time...

I heard (through the hempstalk?)that the fellow who co-founded Lotus Corporation (and wrote the first kick-ass versions in assembler) was one of the original LSD gang (you know, leary and those *losers*).

My point? Just that "drugs are for losers" is nothing more than another sociopolitcalcorporate cheer, and about as meaningful and truthful as "god hates fags", in other words, it is based on fear, uncertainty and doubt; intending to control, corral, and stifle active minds.

I truly do not think any thing labelled a "drug" is bad in-of-itself, it is how, where, when and by whom they are used. Take it from someone who in his youth drew his own rather shaky experiental line at heroine, and today leads a semi productive life, has committed no proprty or personal crimes, spent no time in jail, and would plot the overthrow of the western world if he could get up off his stoned butt for long enough to formulate a plan.

As for programming and beer, I have found that like most of things, only recreational computing makes sense when "under the influence" or spirits or the kind.

Oh, here's a lookup on the a word in the subject line for those of you NOT on drugs ;-)

Going on means going far

You are a bit confused as to the meaning of the word "ironic." First, read a definition of it here. Especially note the example "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"

SuSE picking up support while Red Hat drops it is not ironic. It's interesting timing, yes, but not irony.


--------

...black people didn't used to be offended by being called "niggers", but they are now, and it's being changed. How many people were protesting when it was first introduced is irrelevant.

Agreed. And the criminal population that the media refers to as "hackers" don't mind being called "hackers". It's only the non-criminal ones that object.

Put it this way. What if the Italian population objected to Mafia members being referred to as "Italians"? And you had a bunch of people who get up and say, "Look, we know that much of the mafia is made up of Italians, but those people don't represent us. Therefore, we want you to start calling them 'Crimalians'". How far do you think it would get?

Don't get so ahead of yourself.. it says "depreciated" not changed. From the dictionary...

Errrr, the word is "deprecated" not "depreciated". The definition is:

deprecate (dpr-kt)
1. To express disapproval of; deplore.
2. To belittle; depreciate.

You'll note that it does use "depreciate" as part of the definition, but they are different words. [as the footnote notes, unfortunately people like you have confused them so often that they are getting mixed up. Somewhat ironic, considering the subject matter.]

One again, the definition was changed. I don't understand why you argue this simple point. Should I insert a definition of changed?First, age is irrelevant and you are being discriminatory and elitist by saying that my age somehow has a relationship to my ability to argue.

Of course it does (uh, duh). Is a ten year old better able to argue concepts than a five year old? It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of knowledge and experience. The older you are, the more time you have had to accumulate knowledge. That is obviously going to affect your ability to evaluate facts and circumstances. And obviously, we are talking about generalities and not specifics (i.e., a 40 year old is not always more knowledgeable than a 20 year old).

hacker originally meant "someone who makes furniture with an axe".

Irrelevent, since we are talking about the original sense of the word in the context of computers, which is the sense of the word that the media is using.

I'm going to stop replying now, as you seem to be intent on chasing your tail and offering little or nothing in the way of new insight on the matter. There's nothing new to discuss here.

No problem. It doesn't make you any less wrong, though.

--

There is no democracy, no majority, nothing like that.

Heck, if can't argue the point, then argue semantics. It was a metaphor. The point is that words mean what a communicator and a communicatee define them to mean. If agreement reaches sufficient levels, then it is placed in the dictionary.

That "very small" number is between 9.2 and 16.7 percent in the US

That number is, shall we say, very debatable. Even the infamous study back in the 40s (which looked at prison populations, yeah there's a good reference) only pegged it at 10%. There as a huge study done more recently that put it at 2-4%. My gut feeling is that is much more accurate.

But of course, that is totally beside the point. The "very small number" refers to the number of people who were openly gay when the term was introduced.

that definition is depreciated - the correct term is cracker.

Exactly my point. Thank you for agreeing. The definition was changed.

determine that heated debates over this existed as early as 1996...

I know a teenager or early twentysomething like yourself might find this hard to believe, but 1996 is quite recent. 1990 is also quite recent.

This position is easily rebuffed by the simple fact that you can call yourself anything you want.

What do you want? The "old" definition backs up the media. The hackers themselves back up the media. Guess what? The "pro-choice" people used to call themselves the "pro-abortion movement". They decided that was too politically sensitive (although more accurate) and decided to call themselves by the "friendlier" term. The media will generally call you what you call yourself.

--

I am no expert in the english language. I am not even a native speaker. But I assume your use of "you're" here is wrong. I suppose you should better use the word "your".

Second, "ain't" is a word. It's a contraction for "am not" that was valid for a long damned time, and has fallen out of favor (and is often thought invalid) because it was often used improperly. Hence, "I ain't going to put up with this." is a perfectly valid sentence, whereas "You ain't got a damn clue." is not. So, while he used "ain't" incorrectly, your assertion that it's not even a word is no more correct. For reference, see the dictionary.com entry. (Go dictionary.com! Way to not suck!)

Ok, I liked your suggestion. So here it is what dicionary.com says:

ain't (nt) Non-Standard

1. Am not.
2. Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not.

Also, from www.dict.org:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) : Ain't \Ain't\ A contraction for are not and am not; also used for is not. [Colloq. or illiterate speech]. See An't.

So, it looks like your particular definition of "ain't" as exclusively "am not" is wrong.

I think you are the one in contradition here.

Patola (Cláudio Sampaio) - Solvo IT
IBM CATE
SAIR GNU/Linux Certified

I never said the world was going to end.

eschatology
n.
1.The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2.A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.

(from http://www.dictionary .co m/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=eschatology )

Read the post replying to the post above yours. Humanity is defined by what we can and can't do, and these parameters are what shape our consciouss and unconsciouss minds in the way we call "humanity". By altering these parameters we alter how we think, and thus become something other than human.

My fault for not reading all your drivel, but I disagree. I don't think that defines humanity. I also think that even if it did, anything we do to alter our own course can't possibly be argued as diverging from humanity.

Moreover, hasn't this been going on since the discovery of cannibis? Probably further back than that. People have been entering altered states of conciousness through asphyxiation, starvation, meditation, and whatever else they can do to adjust their alpha waves since well before biblical times.

That we continue to advance without trying to throw away that which we are and that which has gotten us this far? Not too much to ask IMHO.

I think it's foolish to assume that anything is being thrown away. It's being built upon.

Uh, oh, double negative.

There is such a thing as a free lunch.

And ain't ain't a word.

First off, you've just contradicted yourself. Even assuming that you're "ain't ain't a word" statement is valid (which obviously it isn't, so we can assume you're just being a smartass), the fact that you recognize it as a negative (hence your "double negative") indicates that it is a word, at least as far as you are concerned.

Second, "ain't" is a word. It's a contraction for "am not" that was valid for a long damned time, and has fallen out of favor (and is often thought invalid) because it was often used improperly. Hence, "I ain't going to put up with this." is a perfectly valid sentence, whereas "You ain't got a damn clue." is not.

So, while he used "ain't" incorrectly, your assertion that it's not even a word is no more correct.

For reference, see the dictionary.com entry. (Go dictionary.com! Way to not suck!)

"Ultimate Chaos is hosting the Ultimate AOL CD Invention contest here (grand prize is an IDE RAID controller!)"

Wow! I'm so glad they're giving out such an apropos prize for the competition. I mean, with IDE RAID, I can finally get the data mirroring capabilties of SCSI.. without the ability to have more than two devices per channel, the speed, nor the reliability. Now I can use those amazingly reliable Maxtor harddrives to make two of their 40gb drives into one, big 80gb drive!

Kinda like how AOL gives you connections to other people, without all that Internet stuff you'll never use.

Thank you, Ultimate Chaos!

(PS: irony is a key factor in this post. Everyone should get a certain amount of it in their daily diet.)
--

insightful

Showing or having insight; perceptive: "The major contribution of this new biography . . . is its insightful discussion of the Christian dimension of Dostoyevsky's life and art" (Maria Carlson).

heres where that came from, gunch!

That guy has insight, its not funny.. what a bunch of poppycock!

Excuse me? The magnification is a result of the refraction. Obviously you're less observant than the average (stupid) individual since you've never noticed how the radius of the Sun appears to increase at sunset.
Here's a definition... and keep up those physics courses... you've almost got it.

Sorry, I have to side with the AC on this one (and I'm a well-known Grammar Nazi).

According to the dictionary, sense 18 for break:

To render useless or inoperative: We accidentally broke the radio.

No metaphor about it. To "separate into pieces" is only one of the valid definitions of "break".

Now, I may agree that "literally" is redundant, since to "break something" and "literally break something" mean the same thing.

--

Once again, I'm quite sure Taco was being facetious...

Woz

I think Taco was being facetious...

Woz

"One good one would be to say "we don't want anything on our computers that would be harmful to minors""

That doesn't fly unless you believe you (or even you and 20 or 200 of your neighbors) can make a determination of what's harmful to everyone!

Operating on the assumption that this can be done is what has gotten us and our government into most of the trouble we've gotten into.

Isn't the "professional" name for thinking that way called megalomania ??

There is a legitimate requirement for parents to be inovlved in these kinds of determinations on a case by case basis.

Have a day.

effectively (-fktv-l) adv.

1. In an effective way.
2. For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.

Hooptie

P.S. Don't flame me by saying that it is a poorly written law, or that lawyers are evil. I know, and your are preaching to the choir.

You know, I usually enjoy your harsh yet witty criticisms, but this time you've made quite the ass of yourself. Complaining about what gets posted to Slashdot is one of the oldest, most tiring cliches. Coming from someone who can fomulate intelligent arguements, it almost seemed like a trolling attempt. At any rate, you may want to check the edition of your dictionary, because several places (Here and here ) seem to think "unconstructive" is a word.


--------

Well, dictionary.com says...

Thief- One who steals, especially one who steals movable property by stealth rather than force.
Steal- to take (the property of another) without right or permission

Since it can be argued that nothing has been "taken" from the owner an in some cases it can be shown that the MPAA gains additional sales though the extra distribution napster affords (similar to radio) I would hesitate to call all napster users thieves. The only ones who are thieves are the ones who listen to music they haven't bought but would have purchased if they didn't have napster.

Well, dictionary.com says...

Thief- One who steals, especially one who steals movable property by stealth rather than force.
Steal- to take (the property of another) without right or permission

Since it can be argued that nothing has been "taken" from the owner an in some cases it can be shown that the MPAA gains additional sales though the extra distribution napster affords (similar to radio) I would hesitate to call all napster users thieves. The only ones who are thieves are the ones who listen to music they haven't bought but would have purchased if they didn't have napster.

Come on folks! I come from an American public education background too and even I can tell that "A company I used to work for" is past tense. i.e. he no longer works for said company.

If it's just vocabulary that's the problem then please bookmark this, fellows.

Yes they are, and you are the prickwad. The fact is that the "legislature and judiciary" have already decided that the "means of production" of music and movies are to be "privately owned" by the RIAA and MPAA, and the people who are attempting to "manipulate" (ie, break the law) for "financial gain" are the Linux bores and Napster. You're the worst libertarian I've seen this week.

Umm, what the hell are you talking about? You really make no sense, and are being a twit to boot.

This is not capitalism, this is racketeering on the part of the entertainment industries, assisted by the central government's system of judges and legislators. Yes, the means of production are privately owned by corporations. But, in a real capitalist system, the corporations must yield to the market, not bend the market to its rules via bribes, lobbied laws, and prohibitive litigation.

These companies are gradually insulating themselves from the forces of a capitalist market by placing control points in place which let them control technology, channel demand, and delay trends until they have time to address them. And they are assisted in this by the central government who wields the ultimate say in the market, in the form of police and guns.

You've made my point for me, here. From www.dictionary.com:

• An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

That statement, the one core assumption upon which you base everything:

Only the physical exists

is just as dogmatic as

God Exists

Proving either one is a descent into metaphysical philosophy. Your evidence is, at the end, a circular argument. You've started with the assumption that only the physical exists, and then used it to build a system of beliefs which then supports the original statement.

For fun, from E. A. Poe:

• Take this kiss upon the brow!
  And, in parting from you now,
  Thus much let me avow-
  You are not wrong, who deem
  That my days have been a dream;
  Yet if hope has flown away
  In a night, or in a day,
  In a vision, or in none,
  Is it therefore the less gone?
  All that we see or seem
  Is but a dream within a dream.
  

  I stand amid the roar
  Of a surf-tormented shore,
  And I hold within my hand
  Grains of the golden sand-
  How few! yet how they creep
  Through my fingers to the deep,
  While I weep- while I weep!
  O God! can I not grasp
  Them with a tighter clasp?
  O God! can I not save
  One from the pitiless wave?
  Is all that we see or seem
  But a dream within a dream?
  

My point is, you are asking me to prove something outside your system of beliefs, using only those things within your beliefs. While this is sometimes possible, it can be quite impossible.

For example, if I were to state that I believed the whole world was but some sort of process analagous to a dream to some outside, greater universe, and that nothing in our world really existed, it would be easy, trivial, really, to build a self-consistent set of beliefs around that original dogma. But in the end, that original statement is still a dogma, a starting point which cannot truly be justified or proven in and of itself.

Go on, try to prove me wrong, using arguments and constructs from my system of beliefs. That's exactly what you are asking me to do for you, (and, to throw a self referential loop, what I'm trying to do. :)

On a slight tangent, have you ever read Sophie's World? Excellent read.

• Satanist (I don't think I've seen anyone here say this today, but you know what I'm talking about.)
• Heathen (Well, okay, maybe definitions 1a and 1b.)
• Believes in ancient Greek or Roman gods. Man I hear this almost as often as I hear 'Satanists! Aaah!'. No, I don't pray to Zeus. Hercules is a character played by Kevin Sorbo. There may be strains of Pagans that have been in contact with beings they perceive to be an ancient god, either by choice or not, but this is not the norm, as far as my experience has been.
• All about dungeons and dragons bullshit (e.g., the "mystical religions" thread I saw a while ago). I'm Pagan, and yes I've played D&D. No, I don't own a broadsword and invoke the spirits of dead dragons. Not since '97... ;-)
• A hedonist that may or may not wish to attend "Burning Man". Also, merely by attending Burning Man, this would not make me a Pagan. Maybe just a pyro and/or exhibitionist. And/or Pagan or whatever.
• Into sacrifices, covens, spells and "magick" (with a 'k' mind you). Wicca is a Pagan religion. Wicca don't do sacrifices either (that old rumor lends itself back to the Satanism misconception), but it is the most common form of Paganism. This does not mean that a Pagan is necessarily Wicca. Kind of like the definitions of squares and rectangles.
• Technophiles. Many Pagans I know don't know how to turn a computer on, merely due to circumstance (just not 'into it', etc.), and not because they're Pagan. Indeed I have 'techno-Pagan' friends too, but not because of one or the other.

• 'Earth dweller' or 'country dweller', for one (following that link, skipping the nonsensical definitions presented in favor of the etymological details below them).
• A person who is in tune with nature and the elements, whether they believe they can manipulate them in anti-Newtonian ways or not.
• A person who believes that the changing seasons (e.g., Earth's relative position in its orbit) and the position of the moon relative to that collectively govern certain functions of the human body, particularly the female body (moon-thly menstruation, anyone?). The gravitic patterns do indeed change during this period, and aren't we smaller bodies being enacted upon by the gravities of larger ones?
• Typically (hopefully) someone who follows a simple tenet (akin to the simple rules of Bhuddist or monastic life), "It harm none, do what thou wilt". For the impaired, this just means "do whatever you're going to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody"
• Not necessarily a militant "anti-Christian". I have flamebait-style opinions of just about every religion, including subsets of Paganism, that I'm just not going to get into. I am going to say that I do indeed have some pretty Christan friends, including the guy who runs an Internet-only Christian Metal station (my shameless plug for the day). You have to respect a guy like that.
• Someone that may believe that they have the ability either within themselves or through divination of someone they perceive to be more powerful than they (such as Goddess, or perhaps Odin) to manipulate reality. Consider for a moment that the definition of 'magic' (however the hell you make up rules to explain when to spell it with a 'k') is this: the willed manipulation of reality, by any means. This definition can include a lot of things, such as illusionary mirror tricks by David Copperfield, the perception of extradimensional (e.g., "astral") travel, and turning enemies into lawn furniture (or at least scaring the shit out of them so they'll stop trying to get you fired from your job, for example).

• Satanist (I don't think I've seen anyone here say this today, but you know what I'm talking about.)
• Heathen (Well, okay, maybe definitions 1a and 1b.)
• Believes in ancient Greek or Roman gods. Man I hear this almost as often as I hear 'Satanists! Aaah!'. No, I don't pray to Zeus. Hercules is a character played by Kevin Sorbo. There may be strains of Pagans that have been in contact with beings they perceive to be an ancient god, either by choice or not, but this is not the norm, as far as my experience has been.
• All about dungeons and dragons bullshit (e.g., the "mystical religions" thread I saw a while ago). I'm Pagan, and yes I've played D&D. No, I don't own a broadsword and invoke the spirits of dead dragons. Not since '97... ;-)
• A hedonist that may or may not wish to attend "Burning Man". Also, merely by attending Burning Man, this would not make me a Pagan. Maybe just a pyro and/or exhibitionist. And/or Pagan or whatever.
• Into sacrifices, covens, spells and "magick" (with a 'k' mind you). Wicca is a Pagan religion. Wicca don't do sacrifices either (that old rumor lends itself back to the Satanism misconception), but it is the most common form of Paganism. This does not mean that a Pagan is necessarily Wicca. Kind of like the definitions of squares and rectangles.
• Technophiles. Many Pagans I know don't know how to turn a computer on, merely due to circumstance (just not 'into it', etc.), and not because they're Pagan. Indeed I have 'techno-Pagan' friends too, but not because of one or the other.

• 'Earth dweller' or 'country dweller', for one (following that link, skipping the nonsensical definitions presented in favor of the etymological details below them).
• A person who is in tune with nature and the elements, whether they believe they can manipulate them in anti-Newtonian ways or not.
• A person who believes that the changing seasons (e.g., Earth's relative position in its orbit) and the position of the moon relative to that collectively govern certain functions of the human body, particularly the female body (moon-thly menstruation, anyone?). The gravitic patterns do indeed change during this period, and aren't we smaller bodies being enacted upon by the gravities of larger ones?
• Typically (hopefully) someone who follows a simple tenet (akin to the simple rules of Bhuddist or monastic life), "It harm none, do what thou wilt". For the impaired, this just means "do whatever you're going to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody"
• Not necessarily a militant "anti-Christian". I have flamebait-style opinions of just about every religion, including subsets of Paganism, that I'm just not going to get into. I am going to say that I do indeed have some pretty Christan friends, including the guy who runs an Internet-only Christian Metal station (my shameless plug for the day). You have to respect a guy like that.
• Someone that may believe that they have the ability either within themselves or through divination of someone they perceive to be more powerful than they (such as Goddess, or perhaps Odin) to manipulate reality. Consider for a moment that the definition of 'magic' (however the hell you make up rules to explain when to spell it with a 'k') is this: the willed manipulation of reality, by any means. This definition can include a lot of things, such as illusionary mirror tricks by David Copperfield, the perception of extradimensional (e.g., "astral") travel, and turning enemies into lawn furniture (or at least scaring the shit out of them so they'll stop trying to get you fired from your job, for example).

• Satanist (I don't think I've seen anyone here say this today, but you know what I'm talking about.)
• Heathen (Well, okay, maybe definitions 1a and 1b.)
• Believes in ancient Greek or Roman gods. Man I hear this almost as often as I hear 'Satanists! Aaah!'. No, I don't pray to Zeus. Hercules is a character played by Kevin Sorbo. There may be strains of Pagans that have been in contact with beings they perceive to be an ancient god, either by choice or not, but this is not the norm, as far as my experience has been.
• All about dungeons and dragons bullshit (e.g., the "mystical religions" thread I saw a while ago). I'm Pagan, and yes I've played D&D. No, I don't own a broadsword and invoke the spirits of dead dragons. Not since '97... ;-)
• A hedonist that may or may not wish to attend "Burning Man". Also, merely by attending Burning Man, this would not make me a Pagan. Maybe just a pyro and/or exhibitionist. And/or Pagan or whatever.
• Into sacrifices, covens, spells and "magick" (with a 'k' mind you). Wicca is a Pagan religion. Wicca don't do sacrifices either (that old rumor lends itself back to the Satanism misconception), but it is the most common form of Paganism. This does not mean that a Pagan is necessarily Wicca. Kind of like the definitions of squares and rectangles.
• Technophiles. Many Pagans I know don't know how to turn a computer on, merely due to circumstance (just not 'into it', etc.), and not because they're Pagan. Indeed I have 'techno-Pagan' friends too, but not because of one or the other.

• 'Earth dweller' or 'country dweller', for one (following that link, skipping the nonsensical definitions presented in favor of the etymological details below them).
• A person who is in tune with nature and the elements, whether they believe they can manipulate them in anti-Newtonian ways or not.
• A person who believes that the changing seasons (e.g., Earth's relative position in its orbit) and the position of the moon relative to that collectively govern certain functions of the human body, particularly the female body (moon-thly menstruation, anyone?). The gravitic patterns do indeed change during this period, and aren't we smaller bodies being enacted upon by the gravities of larger ones?
• Typically (hopefully) someone who follows a simple tenet (akin to the simple rules of Bhuddist or monastic life), "It harm none, do what thou wilt". For the impaired, this just means "do whatever you're going to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody"
• Not necessarily a militant "anti-Christian". I have flamebait-style opinions of just about every religion, including subsets of Paganism, that I'm just not going to get into. I am going to say that I do indeed have some pretty Christan friends, including the guy who runs an Internet-only Christian Metal station (my shameless plug for the day). You have to respect a guy like that.
• Someone that may believe that they have the ability either within themselves or through divination of someone they perceive to be more powerful than they (such as Goddess, or perhaps Odin) to manipulate reality. Consider for a moment that the definition of 'magic' (however the hell you make up rules to explain when to spell it with a 'k') is this: the willed manipulation of reality, by any means. This definition can include a lot of things, such as illusionary mirror tricks by David Copperfield, the perception of extradimensional (e.g., "astral") travel, and turning enemies into lawn furniture (or at least scaring the shit out of them so they'll stop trying to get you fired from your job, for example).

"Why do so many people have trouble accepting the fact that life is not fair? Even if you really, really, really want something, you still have no right to property belonging to someone else."

My initial premise is that you don't have right to own knowledge in the first place - an idea that you're not addressing, just hurdling. But you bring up some interesting points.

"This sort of "logic" comes up so often in public health debates and all it really reflects is that the person voicing it lacks critical thinking skills. Taking the creation of someone else is a good way to ensure that they either prevent you from doing that ever again or stop making things."

By this logic nothing was ever created before intellectual property laws.

"Consider - it would be infinitely more productive if everyone who complains about those evil pharmaceutical companies would instead conduct or fund research into public-domain equivalents. Why don't they do that instead? Well, it's expensive and hard to do; the people who can do the hard work and their backers might decide that after all that effort they'd like to have something show for it."

Agree, and I did mention that certain endeavors need to be given a profit motive.

"The only way communism (which this is a form of) works is if everyone involved is willing to put the welfare of the group ahead of their own and has a sufficiently broad definition of "group"."

Here is where you leap the track a bit. Communism is for the distribution of all material. I believe I have the right to my bicycle exclusively, communism does not. My rant against intellectual property is that it corrals knowledge which - IMHO - is evil. Again, you can have a copy of my poem without depriving me of my copy. This is a Good Thing.

"Linus didn't waste time whining that (Microsoft|Sun|IBM|DEC|etc) didn't give away their source code"

No, but Stallman did. And it's worth noting that Stallman and GNU is something that quite literally made Linux possible. This is obviously not a new or uncontrovertial subject and not something that is said with an eye toward a flamewar (others; read that twice if you need to).

"Does anyone think things would have been the same if someone had stolen the source?"

Probably worse, or at least that's what the folks at Microsoft think based upon their leaked Halloween docs.

• "Decent food and sanitation would help at least one order of magnitude more people than an AIDS treatment."

  Agreed.

• "Widespread use of condoms would not only take care of AIDS but also reduce the birth rate enough that children aren't doomed to poverty and disease because there's too little money providing for too many people."

  I agree with the former, everything after "because" is debatable.

• "There's a perfect cure for AIDS which is completely free: don't have sex with anyone you don't trust with your life. Oops, that would be the smart thing to do and requires personal responsibility, too. Never mind."

  Flamebait.

• "The most important change, however, would be political. There have been countless stories about grain shipments rotting on the docks while the political leaders decide whose tribe gets the most. Money which could have been spent improving an entire country is instead lining the coffers of the resident dictator and his friends. Supplies are often sold on the black market, again to benefit a well-connected few."

  I see a conflict here between #2 and #4. You say there isn't enough to go around but then admit there is a political and/or greed factor that prevents existing resources from being distributed equitably. I agree with this and would suggest that it precedes #2.

Again, unless you believe that IP is morally reprehensible. If you want to debate the ethics and merits of IP, that's great. What I object to is Nicholas taking Napster, interpreting the users actions in a narrow way then foisting his notions on the entire "Free Speech" crowd. Your reply to my post is far more well thought out than his essay.

My .02
Quux26

A method for controlling a computer by inputting an analog signal into the computer to control a web browser software application.

Maybe this is so obviously wrong to people who know, but is there any legal definition of "analog audio signal" that excludes the human voice? It's audio (well, it's audible,) it's analog, and _I_ know I can use mine to signal to my dog, cat, GF, etc.

Check out this definition of signal. While sense 3 is the sense used the context of electronics, the patent doesn't have the word electronic anywhere in the post above. Sense 4 mentions TV explicitly, but there's more than one sense given. Senses 1 and 2 are broader, but talking to my computer and having it perform a task as a result would certainly be covered by those. IIWALIWBA, but does it seem to anyone else that anyone who's used voice recognition software to navigate the web could claim prior art if they did so before September 11, 1998 (date of filing?)

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.