Slashdot Mirror

Some executives[?] at Andover[?] must have figured out how to make slashdot[?] be more like an eMac[?]. Colorfull[?] and more userfriendly[?] Watch out for those lawsuits[?] though :)

Some executives[?] at Andover[?] must have figured out how to make slashdot[?] be more like an eMac[?]. Colorfull[?] and more userfriendly[?] Watch out for those lawsuits[?] though :)

1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product.

   Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly of sweet wines. --Macaulay.

2. Extortion \Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.]
   1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

   2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.

   3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.

      Syn: Oppression; rapacity; exaction; overcharge.

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- A businessman has agreed to pay an $845,000 fine to settle charges his company mailed millions of households a $15 offer for services that the Social Security Administration provides for free.

   
   

   ATLANTA (AP) -- The judge in the government's lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. said Monday one of his goals was to avoid the ``Vietnam morasses'' of previous long-running antitrust cases.

   
   

   FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- American Airlines has asked to meet with U.S. Justice Department lawyers this month about the government's claim that the nation's second-largest air carrier tried to drive small, startup airlines out of business.

   
   

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is getting some outside help in preparing a federal tobacco lawsuit from a Minneapolis law firm that helped Minnesota obtain a $6.6 billion settlement from the industry last year.

   
   

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- Visa and MasterCard, the nation's biggest credit card networks, are limiting customer choice and inhibiting competition by preventing banks from offering other cards, the government alleged Wednesday in an antitrust lawsuit.

   Freedom be damned Today, might possibly be the beginning of the end. The end of the sane masses who wish to be left alone to pursue happiness. Today, people you would consider intelligent, honest citizens, are cheering the demise of America's greatest success story. And many can't even explain why they cheer.

   Yesterday. It wasn't justyesterday but some time ago, the government gained access to our civil courts as plaintiffs. The result is manifest as rapacious tragedy. Americans all over the continent are being held hostage by their own government. Extorted, wheedled, cajoled and preyed upon by greedy, poor excuses for men (and women). Sadly, no one foretold the tragic results. The bill of goods that our forefathers read and subsequently accepted, included a litany of bad behaviors meted out by an evil gaggle of robber barons intent on world domination. Of course, what was not included in that list of insult, was the revelation that such behavior was only made possible by the very government which proposed a solution.

   How very clever. Create the problem, terrorize the victims, and then turn them into willing slaves. "Save us from this pestilence!"

   Why, the mere mention of these former boogy men sends chills down the spine of all: Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Philip Morris...

   Giving the federal government, nay giving any government, access to the civil court system, was in effect, creating a new form of slavery. There is now no place that one can consider safe from government intrusion. In fact, it is perhaps the most insidious and insane usurpation of power ever willingly granted in America. Your own government can use your money, to enslave you. You will never win and can only lose. Every dollar you spend on your defense, will be met with a thousand more. And the very money you spend mounting a defense will be taxed again and used against you. There is no amount of money that can be raised that will save you. Why? Because it is in effect feeding the very animal you are wishing to kill. Your battle with the animal actually makes it stronger as you become weaker.

   Humans have a very sick sense of justice. We always wish to see the "evil" character punished. The government tort, is a beautiful fantasy fulfilled on prime time airwaves. And the government, with it's limitless resources (borrowed money, the repayment of which will be produced by the slaves) is portrayed as the David to the "evil corporation's" Goliath.

   If there is just one thing to be accomplished in my lifetime which would promote the cause of freedom and restore the constitution, it would be the banishment of any government agency from setting foot inside a civil court unless they were named defendants. The person or persons who plotted this enslavement, will never receive the justice they deserve.

   This isn't simply a matter of anti-trust law. Consider the fact that our government can now initiate lawsuits against individual property owners for "environmental" reasons. It is in fact, how the tax code is enforced by and large. And in case you're not aware, civil court rules for judgement are a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt." In some cases, a mere preponderance of evidence will do. Hearsay is allowed, and in many states a unanimous decision isn't even required by the jury. That is, if you get a jury. You could end up with a government appointed judge. Still think the deck isn't stacked? In civil courts, it is more often than not, the sheer volume of spending which determines the outcome. Whoever can spend the most money, and confuse the jury, wins. Most of these cases are settled however, because a good lawyer will do the best he can to minimize the damage. But going to trial against a plaintiff with the kind of resources that is the governments, is sheer insanity unless you have videotape (recorded in four different spectrums and angles) proving your innocence. In a civil case, you are guilty until proven innocent.

   Our founders knew this. It is why they kept the government under strict rule that they would never be able to enslave their citizens in this manner. We must stop this practice at all costs. Some people think that they are not slaves. They are wrong. You are indeed slaves. And if it isn't you who is victimized, you can be sure that the fruits of your labor are being used to victimize your fellow citizen. We are all unwittingly responsible for the slavery. We have simply gotten so used to these chains they no longer bother. Callous upon callous has helped us to forget. I would urge you to make this issue a priority in your life. The government should have no standing in civil courts unless they are the defendant.

My biggest gripe has been that I wish they would stop using that word: 'INNOVATE' However, we may not understand the word as they do... From dictionary.com:

innovate \In"no*vate\, v. i. To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.

innovate \In"no*vate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Innovated; p. pr. & vb. n. Innovating.] [L. innovatus,p. p. of innovare to revew; pref. in- in + novare to make new,fr. novus new. See New.] 1. To bring in as new; to introduce as a novelty; as, to innovate a word or an act. [Archaic]

I think you and I see the word 'innovate' to mean, create something original and novel, perhaps even revolutionary or pioneering.

However, according to the definitions above, one (i.e. Microsoft) could use the word to mean 'we introduce changes' or 'we bring things in AS IF they were new' or 'we introduce things AS IF they are novel'

Makes me wonder... Bill Gates & Bill Clinton, dictionary lawyers.

My biggest gripe has been that I wish they would stop using that word: 'INNOVATE' However, we may not understand the word as they do... From dictionary.com:

innovate \In"no*vate\, v. i. To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.

innovate \In"no*vate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Innovated; p. pr. & vb. n. Innovating.] [L. innovatus,p. p. of innovare to revew; pref. in- in + novare to make new,fr. novus new. See New.] 1. To bring in as new; to introduce as a novelty; as, to innovate a word or an act. [Archaic]

I think you and I see the word 'innovate' to mean, create something original and novel, perhaps even revolutionary or pioneering.

However, according to the definitions above, one (i.e. Microsoft) could use the word to mean 'we introduce changes' or 'we bring things in AS IF they were new' or 'we introduce things AS IF they are novel'

Makes me wonder... Bill Gates & Bill Clinton, dictionary lawyers.

animosity n : a feeling of ill will arousing active hostility.


----- dictionary.com

Second Prediction: Jon Katz and other pseudo-journalists will suddenly realize that Millennium takes two Ns!!!!

I think the Millennium bug is really that people can't even spell the word right.

Makes you wonder how competent all the people behind the "MILLENIUM BUG" websites are!

--
Let's not all suck at the same time please

Thesaurus.com. Also, see Dictionary.com.

--

demona sez:
A "partnership" between the state and private industry usually (not necessarily in this case) spells facism.

Well, maybe it spells "fascism" to you, but you may wish to look the word up first. Generally, it involves government telling industry what to do, rather than asking industry what it can do for them.

NASA already acts as a "partner" for the aeronautics industry; what we need them to do is graduate to the same role for the space industry. Up until Challenger, the mission creep at NASA had turned them into the biggest competitor for the commercial satellite launch industry; since then, they've had to find other missions, such as the space station. Right now the entire commercial launch business *is* privatized. What Goldin is proposing is getting business to take over a vast array of government pork barrel projects that are not profitable.

Dilbert_ writes "Since most dot com domains of the form www.[common english word].com are taken today, you could theoretically surf around using just a dictionary. Now you can search the web from a page that will will automatically generate a fresh load of links, based on a dictionnary. " For some reason this amuses me greatly.

The plural for "virus" is viruses.

There is no entry for virii.

The plural for "virus" is viruses.

There is no entry for virii.

VMWare is totaly cool and it's mind numbing to see NT boot in a window under Linux. I'm using the beta from http://vmware.com for Linux (so far slow like dog) to run a couple apps that are NT only (minor but necessary applications). Remember, MS buys only stuff that they see as important and can't duplicate (also see fear). They can't stand the thought of a Linux-only killer app, now or future.

And yes it is censorship. Censorship by definition is not limited to the government- any organization or individual can censor others if they have the power to stop their speech. The second "feature" that Rob has coded is definately censorship as it allows moderators to deny any account or IP the ability to post.

Now, we can argue if the troller has the right to post or is it just a privalege that Rob/Andover grants people. If /. wishes to make posting a privalage rather than a right that is their right, but everyone needs to be aware that this is censorship.

"art \Art\ ([aum]rt), 4. The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature." .... "The fine arts are those which have primarily to do with imagination and taste, and are applied to the production of what is beautiful. They include poetry, music, painting, engraving, sculpture, and architecture; but the term is often confined to painting, sculpture, and architecture."

In so far as this little blurb from www.dictionary.com, and I do assume here that everyone is trying to ask if coding is a "fine art" rather than the more general application meaning learned skill (ie academia).

I'd have a hard time being convinced programming is an 'art'. A builder can make a beautiful bridge, using ingenious methods, to form an athetically pleasing, safe way to cross a river, but we rarely refer to the process of designing it as 'art'. I'm not sure why coding would be any different. Granted, I accept the fact that one can find a piece of code 'beautiful', but more often than not, the primary purpose of coding is to implement functionality and practicality, where as in art, the asthetics are generally more important than the functionality of said art piece (although, as with everything, there are walways exceptions).

Heh.

BTW, that's "have" as in "beget" not as in "own".

Hey, Coward!

While the Odean web-site is only viewable when JavaScript is enabled, it is, nevertheless, a Flash page. You can tell in a very simple way, so pay attention. First select View Page Source and you'll see this text window pop-up (don't be frightened, now). This contains the HTML tags that define the document.

Inside you'll notice an EMBED tag. Now, if I am not mistaken, this mean that the document contains executable content, i.e. a plug-in. With me so far? You'll also notice that the EMBED tag calls a file with the .SWF suffix. Now, here is the crux of my argument: SWF files are flash files! Hence, a flash page. You see, there is an application called AfterShock that inserts a SWF file in HTML for you and its work is noticable by the HTML comments it produces. (You could take a coffee break here if this is all too strenous).

Oh, BTW thank-you for your offer from teaching me some JavaScript. If you need some basic lessons in web-page content, however, you'll know exactly where to find me.

Love and kisses...

Its BOTH. Its a theory just like the law of Gravity is a theory -- we can't prove that just because for as long as anyone can find that the Earth had a gravitational of 9.80665 m/(s**2) that tomorrow it will not be something else.

Since it cannot be proven to be false for all instances, it cannot be more than a theory. It is a fact based upon the definition of the word fact.

Ignorance is the enemy, truth is the answer.
Well, before you spout off what a fact is, please look up the definition (#4).

Please refer to definition of Satire Then remember

1) Think

2) Post

geach

According to dictionary.com, "censorship" is, among other things, the act of "deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances."

Now, some of us make choices to have our input censored, granted, but your daughter did not make the choice to have you as her father, nor did she make the choice to have her input censored.

Some of us make choices, children have choices made for them. Now, I understand that it's in the best interests of children to not see certain things, but "the children" are used as bait in the war against all things not Disney.

I have to show ID to see a damn movie because we need to protect the children all of a sudden. Congress wanted to regulate the internet to save the children.

So many people do things in the name of children, but no one has asked children what they want done. I'm not saying children should have full access, but I do think that people really need to think about what they're doing in the name of their children.

Blame Canada.

One can just take a look at a dictionary to see:

Irregardless means "without regard to drawbacks".

Both flammable and inflammable mean "possible to burn".

No mention of flammable as "confict to one's life."

One can just take a look at a dictionary to see:

Irregardless means "without regard to drawbacks".

Both flammable and inflammable mean "possible to burn".

No mention of flammable as "confict to one's life."

One can just take a look at a dictionary to see:

Irregardless means "without regard to drawbacks".

Both flammable and inflammable mean "possible to burn".

No mention of flammable as "confict to one's life."

One can just take a look at a dictionary to see:

Irregardless means "without regard to drawbacks".

Both flammable and inflammable mean "possible to burn".

No mention of flammable as "confict to one's life."

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,

the third entry for PIRATE is:

3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,

the third entry for PIRATE is:

3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,
the third entry for PIRATE is:
3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,
the third entry for PIRATE is:
3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Here's a quick definition of ' journaling'.

One thing:
Make sure you don't flood them.

I'm in tech support, I don't talk much, (I call it being ' laconic'), and so I don't confuse those poor saps at the other end of the line.

Ambushing principals/people/newsies with a stack of paper would probably cause a mental hernia/ mental shutdown.