Slashdot Mirror

look it up

Someone ought to tell those folks over at Space.com that the word antennae applies only to the sensory projections of an insect.

When you're talking about radio receivers, the plural of antenna is antennas.

It's in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

They should give William Shatner a beta model out of pure respect

What's the difference between respect and deference.
Dictionary.com isn't much help here.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=respect
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=deference

They should give William Shatner a beta model out of pure respect

What's the difference between respect and deference.
Dictionary.com isn't much help here.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=respect
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=deference

fucktards fuck see - Here

Tards, isin't a word and therefore doesen't exist. I pity those whom are quick to flame and never understand. Ours is an enlightend relality and unfourtuanetly you will never be a part of it. Pity, ignorance is bliss and I guess you'll never understand enough to move on and evolve like the rest of us have.

Desire is the first evil and it begets desire -Mohatma Buddah

My fiancé goes through them fast on our HP 970cse ($299 when I bought it) making stupid cards for her friends.

You probably mean fiancée. You're the fiancé.

My fiancé goes through them fast on our HP 970cse ($299 when I bought it) making stupid cards for her friends.

You probably mean fiancée. You're the fiancé.

is "irregardless" a word there, too?

Why not? It's a word here and here as well.

"sometimes I just want to have a chip that I can be sure to depend on over the years"

Are you ribbing [8] me?

After two years, I'm ready to chuck what was then the latest, greatest, fastest, screamer of a CPU into the trashcan because it is now dog-ass slow.

Gotta love Moore's law...

Good ol' Dictionary.Com. And thanks for the vote of support.

Oh, and we should instead rely on a search engine scheme, where a company may never get the users that are searching for it, because of a million idiots (Sadly, they turn out to be non-idiots more often than idiots. My apologies) ranting about XYZ Inc. ?

First off, it's laziness on the part of morons like yourself, that lust after AOL keywords and are pissed that the internet doesn't bend itself to fit your warped little design philosophies.

Secondly, not everything is the web. Not even close. DNS and domain names aren't about identifying your lousy porn site, they are about identifying a particular host. Done well though (which isn't the case), it's pretty decent at getting you within a few clicks of where you want to be.

Thirdly, how the fuck do you expect to ever type in the first URL, google.com or whatnot, if it's hidden from you on your brand new Dell? I can see the horror that would be inevitable in such a scheme. microsoft-search.com as a nice little button on the toolbar, that never ever brings up a link to click on for google or yahoo, no matter how you phrase the keywords.

Finally, the problem is the fact that the vast majority of ISP's view their customers as users of content that they provide, rather than participants in the first, and largest, p2p network ever devised. At best, you'll recieve a lousy homepage with no ftp, cgibin, or any other goodies, and a lousy url like http://www.smalltown-isp.net/users/~dumbfart/.

Sen. Hollings wants to know why there isn't enough compelling content to drive demand for broadband?

Or, from a dictionary that keeps up to date with the way language changes, hacker

Here is a link.

(ante means before, hence the poker term)

thaumaturgy - The working of miracles or magic feats. According to dictionary.com.

Dictionary.com would beg to differ http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=funner

No entry found for funner.

4 suggestions found:

cunner

gunner

runner

funnel

I'm not sure which word threw you, so here's links to the definition of each:

I don't want a subscription.

I'm not sure which word threw you, so here's links to the definition of each:

I don't want a subscription.

I'm not sure which word threw you, so here's links to the definition of each:

I don't want a subscription.

I'm not sure which word threw you, so here's links to the definition of each:

I don't want a subscription.

I'm not sure which word threw you, so here's links to the definition of each:

I don't want a subscription.

In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?

Ok, Rah Rah U-S-A and all that... go America.

However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. They did not vote the Taliban into power, and they did not invite Al Qaida (sp?) to their country. As a matter of fact, I believe that the people of Afghanistan (and their army, the Northern Alliance) were already fighting against Taliban rule LONG before the US or its allies ever got involved.

Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized for this. The 9/11 attackers targeted civilians because they are terrorists, and they see American civilians as their enemies. The Afghan people are not your enemies, they are your allies! It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that.

trade secret n. A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors

Dictionary.com

Jeebus, it's "copyright".

Seriously, a copywriter and a copyrighter have two completely different jobs.

Can you write copy for a FAQ? I suppose. Can you copyright a FAQ? I haven't the foggiest.

Bitch and moan all you want, this isn't little grammar issue I'm pointing out. A misused word, in this case, completely changes the meaning of the question.

At least the editors got this one right in the title.

Jeebus, it's "copyright".

Seriously, a copywriter and a copyrighter have two completely different jobs.

Can you write copy for a FAQ? I suppose. Can you copyright a FAQ? I haven't the foggiest.

Bitch and moan all you want, this isn't little grammar issue I'm pointing out. A misused word, in this case, completely changes the meaning of the question.

At least the editors got this one right in the title.

Out-of-touch managers often think a carrot and a stick accomplish the same thing. The plan is: "beat them into submission". The result is: "provoke them into action". Happens over and over again in business ... and history.

It's a metaphor.

=brian

Then I suppose to you it isn't. But in general useage, there is nothing requiring the formula to be known--and in fact, for the vast majority of macro molecules, polymers, etc. there isn't a fixed, will defined formula so much as a rule or pattern, as with diamond.

-- MarkusQ

And you are definitely one of them.

>I don't require a Viper RT/10, but I just want to have one, so I stole mine.

Interesting how you confuse piracy with larceny.

When you pirate a movie, or music you deprive no one of that movie or music; whereas when you commit GTA you deprive someone of their vehicle.

Since a replicator is to matter as a CD-Burner is to data, would you still consider it theft if you replicated a Viper RT/10 using your own equipment and materials?

If so I would humbly suggest you are a tiny minority of people, and that's the reason why both the dictionary and the law disagree with you.

My search turns up nothing for "theft", "steal", or "larceny" in the Berne Convention. Methinks you are just plain confused on the issue. Hope this clears it up for you!

>So, kindly eat a dick.

Not that I'd want to; But its pretty hard when its shoved so far up your ass.

>People who attempt to justify their theft in any way are fucktards.

Agreed, to a certain degree (Les Miserables come to mind as a particular exemption). That's why Copyright Violation is a violation of copyright law, not (AFAIK) theft.

Or at least that wasn't the intention of the people who created our modern day copyright system.

That isn't a paraphrase: It's a verbatim copy.

n == nano, p == pico, look em up

dirth

dearth?

You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.

Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.

As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.

I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.

If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.

Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town, .za.

Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.

You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.

Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.

As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.

I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.

If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.

Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town, .za.

Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.

You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.

Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.

As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.

I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.

If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.

Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town, .za.

Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.

You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.

Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.

As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.

I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.

If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.

Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town, .za.

Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.

I stand corrected. But still, Japan and China still aren't the entire "East".

terrorist

Your analogy is flawed. The definition of a freedom fighter depends on which side you're on, not what their actions are. Saying that a terrorist is someone who attacks specifically civilian targets is disengenuous, and something I'd expect of the Bush administration or a Slashdot troll (the parent could be either or both). Terrorists will naturally favour civilian targets because it is the easiest way to achieve the goals defined in the definitions I just provided, however it is not a requirement of the definition. I wouldn't even suggest that terrorists with worthy goals don't target civilians, because that depends largely on the situation.

As Dr. Spork said, until you define "terrorism" shut the fuck up.

Incidentally, moral relativism tends to be the sign of an intelligent mind uncertain and doubtful of the uncompromising opinions imposed on it by a lazy and spoiled society. As D John Tennant put it, The difference between those who are wise and those who are not is that the wise believe themselves to be fools [ie, are doubtful of the certainty of the values they themselves hold], and the fools believe themselves to be wise [ie require something other than themselves to classify as foolish, such as moral relativism, since by their definition a wise person should not have such deep doubts about anything].

• To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.
• To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

Scientifically, a fetus is a parasite.

And here's the definition of Microsoft.

There is another new addition to MS English XP.

window
n.

8 - Computer Science. A smurf like looking rectangular area on the screen that displays Microsoft's own file or message dependently of the other areas of the screen.

The real dictionary term is here.

it didn't take in to account how many forests the US plants

Planting forests? A bunch of trees is not a forest

I suppose it depends on what you call a "killer app". I think it is an application awfully desired by the user which leads him to adopt a system just to use that app. A killer app cant possibly be a game which offers nothing radically new to anyone not already interested in online gaming.

Anyway, in this case you must consider that online gaming caters to a much smaller audience than the whole of the computer users, so even if AoE2 has gotten a place in online gaming, its not going to boost Micro$oft's revenue beyond the expected for a game.

(Of course you get to kill a lot in the game, but Micro$oft already makes me feel like a killer everytime I use M$ Oriffice.)

MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America, not "Motion Picture Artists Association".

Try looking up the definition of definition.

...wether law enforcement...

First of all, she called it "disingenous", not "disgusting". The words don't mean the same thing at all, and are not even similar except insofar as each has a negative connotation and begins with the letters "d", "i", and "s".

Second, and far more importantly, Hilary Rosen is as fine a piece of overweight, pasty-skinned, lesbian ass as the world has ever seen. Please refrain from making such disparaging, patently libelous, remarks about her looks in the future, or you will suffer the legal consequences, you piece of stinking shit.