Slashdot Mirror

Regardless of what you think "irregardless" means, well, it doesn't.

Actually, I think the two usages are quite close. In my daily work as a programmer, we use the word "hack" to describe a clever piece of programming that enables something to be done that really wasn't forseen in the original design. For example, perhaps my subroutine is handed a file-reading stream for it to interrogate. Clearly the architect of the program did this so I could only read, but not write, to that file. But perhaps I figure out some neat to feature I can add if I can get around that restriction and nevertheless write to the file. I'd call that a "hack" -- in this case a good and useful one. Getting a system designed to read a media file to execute arbitrary code is a "hack" in a similiar way -- just an evil and destructive one.

In any case, whether you're against overoading the meanings of words is really immaterial. Many, perhaps even most, english words do have overloaded meanings. In any case, Webster's gives both our definitions: yours as #3 and mine as #4.

And supposing you were to convince English-speakers that overloading is bad -- why should your prefered defintion of "hacker" win instead of the one that you seem to agree is most common?

Below from Merriam-Webster's definition of "daring":

1 a : to challenge to perform an action especially as a proof of courage <dared him to jump> b : to confront boldly : DEFY <dared the anger of his family>
2 : to have the courage to contend against, venture, or try <the actress dared a new interpretation of this classic role>

"persecuting":

1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

It seems that your definitions of both "daring" and "persecution" could well differ greatly from my own and also those of Merriam-Webster.

You'll have to accept my word that I used the words "dared" and "persecuted" as I interpreted the above citations. By using those words outside the scope of your experience, I did not intend to diminish the evils perpetrated against great scientists of the past any more than Merriam-Webster did by using the example of an actress.

The moon/cheese theory has been disproved, as have many other silly theories. Neither evolution nor creation can be disproved, and evidence of one does not disprove the other. Whether or not creationism is scientific, there is no good cause for proponents of evolution to ridicule or persecute creationists. Whether or not evolution is to be considered "heretic", there is no good cause for proponents of ID to ridicule or persecute evolutionists. Both actions would be injusticies. I agree that many religious institutions are unjust, I simply argue that injustice is not restricted to religious institutions and that evolutionary biologists are starting to gain the influence over common belief once enjoyed by clergymen. How they use this influence is entirely up to them.

Interesting comment regarding Steinberg.

Below from Merriam-Webster's definition of "daring":

1 a : to challenge to perform an action especially as a proof of courage <dared him to jump> b : to confront boldly : DEFY <dared the anger of his family>
2 : to have the courage to contend against, venture, or try <the actress dared a new interpretation of this classic role>

"persecuting":

1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

It seems that your definitions of both "daring" and "persecution" could well differ greatly from my own and also those of Merriam-Webster.

You'll have to accept my word that I used the words "dared" and "persecuted" as I interpreted the above citations. By using those words outside the scope of your experience, I did not intend to diminish the evils perpetrated against great scientists of the past any more than Merriam-Webster did by using the example of an actress.

The moon/cheese theory has been disproved, as have many other silly theories. Neither evolution nor creation can be disproved, and evidence of one does not disprove the other. Whether or not creationism is scientific, there is no good cause for proponents of evolution to ridicule or persecute creationists. Whether or not evolution is to be considered "heretic", there is no good cause for proponents of ID to ridicule or persecute evolutionists. Both actions would be injusticies. I agree that many religious institutions are unjust, I simply argue that injustice is not restricted to religious institutions and that evolutionary biologists are starting to gain the influence over common belief once enjoyed by clergymen. How they use this influence is entirely up to them.

Interesting comment regarding Steinberg.

The word "dare" implies boldness. To "dare" is to face any persecution, including ridicule. Darwin, for example, was a daring man. So, it seems, is a Dr. Richard Sternberg, who tried to do just as you suggested and challenge the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

Sounds awfully like persecution to me.

For more information on Sternberg, here is a link to his site:

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Like with most things, some slashdotters like me are being *extra* nerdy and insisting that mere theological theories don't get touted as fact. Evolution, having replaced "God did it" with "Random Chance did it" is particularily bad at this; as is the claim that ID is not science because of some incredibly arbitrary and subjective rules about who is a scientist and what a science is. Thus the argument every time it shows up.

BTW, it has nothing at all to do with creationism-

Oh, you are so wrong it hurts.

First of all, "design" and "create" are synonyms. It has everything to do with creationism, it's just cleverly worded to avoid any direct mention of the specific religion that it is meant to support, in order to attempt to sneak it into public schools despite a constitutional ban of such shenanigans. Hence the ruling to that effect.

ID is not science by the very definition of science! "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding", ID is based on ignorance and misunderstanding, it's the entire basis of the argument: "There's bit we don't know or understand yet, so a magical, invisible hand did it!"

Just because it's a lie supporting something you agree with doesn't make it true.

Like with most things, some slashdotters like me are being *extra* nerdy and insisting that mere theological theories don't get touted as fact. Evolution, having replaced "God did it" with "Random Chance did it" is particularily bad at this; as is the claim that ID is not science because of some incredibly arbitrary and subjective rules about who is a scientist and what a science is. Thus the argument every time it shows up.

BTW, it has nothing at all to do with creationism-

Oh, you are so wrong it hurts.

First of all, "design" and "create" are synonyms. It has everything to do with creationism, it's just cleverly worded to avoid any direct mention of the specific religion that it is meant to support, in order to attempt to sneak it into public schools despite a constitutional ban of such shenanigans. Hence the ruling to that effect.

ID is not science by the very definition of science! "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding", ID is based on ignorance and misunderstanding, it's the entire basis of the argument: "There's bit we don't know or understand yet, so a magical, invisible hand did it!"

Just because it's a lie supporting something you agree with doesn't make it true.

Hmmm, so the loss of a sale isn't theft?

Exactly. For example, if my boss makes me work late, and a restaurant at which I had planned to eat dinner is closed, it's not theft. "Theft" and "steal" have very precise definitions that involve the taking propery that also deprives someone of that property.

You cannot say that you aren't stealing, because you are. You are depriving the right holders money, and that is the same as stealing money from them.

Intellectual property crimes are illegal, and they may or may not be immoral, but they are not "theft," "stealing," nor the same as stealing money.

Hmmm, so the loss of a sale isn't theft?

Exactly. For example, if my boss makes me work late, and a restaurant at which I had planned to eat dinner is closed, it's not theft. "Theft" and "steal" have very precise definitions that involve the taking propery that also deprives someone of that property.

You cannot say that you aren't stealing, because you are. You are depriving the right holders money, and that is the same as stealing money from them.

Intellectual property crimes are illegal, and they may or may not be immoral, but they are not "theft," "stealing," nor the same as stealing money.

The aparachniks must be [...]

So are you claiming that you've never produced a typo before?

That on a web forum, where nearly no one actually even bothers to create comments using correct grammer or spelling, you're highly concerned that your sentences are correctly spelled?

You do realize that Mother Fucker is 2 words, one of which is not gramatically correct because it is a slang curse word?

You do recognize that Capital leters are only gramatically correct when used at the begining of a sentence or when used at the begining of a Noun?

For someone who is being very insulting you've made some very obvious errors yourself; maybe you should return to high-school and take remedial english.

So are you claiming that you've never produced a typo before?

That on a web forum, where nearly no one actually even bothers to create comments using correct grammer or spelling, you're highly concerned that your sentences are correctly spelled?

You do realize that Mother Fucker is 2 words, one of which is not gramatically correct because it is a slang curse word?

You do recognize that Capital leters are only gramatically correct when used at the begining of a sentence or when used at the begining of a Noun?

For someone who is being very insulting you've made some very obvious errors yourself; maybe you should return to high-school and take remedial english.

Is english your first language? It isn't mine, and I can still understand what they mean...

But aparently you missed the point of the previous post. By definition an autobiography is the biography of a person narrated by himself. Merriam-Webster

That's why this sentance makes no sense,
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies (...) because someone would, by defnintion, have to be personally involved with their autobiography.

(Chuckle: it's amusing, really.)
No, it isn't, really. It's annoying and tired. Piracy has had dual meanings for a really long time. Lots of words have dual meanings, like Bank, or Letter, or Screw. Do you have funny jokes for those too?

I can't find any definition of the word "company" which wouldn't imply that its aim is not profit

No? I can't find any definition that implies a company's aim must be profit. For example, the business-related definitions from Merriam-Webster are:

3 a : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild b : an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise

Both definitions mention "commercial". Does that imply a profit motive? The definition of "commerce" specifies that it's an activity that involves buying and selling. Does buying and selling necessarily imply a profit motive? Have you never bought or sold something without an intention to profit?

Further, there is a specific reason that "for-profit" is often prepended to "company"... because there are *lots* of non-profit companies!

Of course, there's nothing wrong with seeking profit, and there's nothing so inherently worthy about profits that they justify anti-social behavior, but those are separate issues. Companies exist for all kinds of purposes. Most are all about profits, some don't care about profits and lots fall in between. The goals of a particular corporation are found in its articles of incorporation, and those goals are what a company is held to. Even publicly-traded companies can have articles that prioritize other goals over profit-making. Though I don't know of such a case, theoretically officers of a publicly-traded company who ignored its other stated goals in order to increase profits could be prosecuted for misfeasance (I believe that's the correct term -- please correct me if it's not).

Here is your link.

Main Entry: censor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

why not GoOpera

I was thinking they could call the browser Ogle"; then they could say "Go Ogle".

well, no, actually.

From http://www.m-w.com/ Main Entry: fascism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

At what point do you see any of this as becoming fascist? Monopolistic? Hell yeah. Fascist? Umm... not by any stretch of the definition of the word. The only thing that AT&T and Bell South have in common with a fascist definition is that of strong autocratic or dictatorial control... which when applied to a business frame of reference becomes Monopolistic control.

And to try and take the actions of private companies and suddenly say it's the ENTIRE COUNTRY that is fascist is ridiculous to say the least. Does this mean AT&T now can dictate laws? Can they arrest me for saying mean things about them? Not unless you take what they're trying to do right now and seriously extending it beyond the point of reasonable possibility. I mean, really, to suddenly call out the doom of democracy because of the telcos wanting to re-monopolize telecommunications is a serious tin-foil hat idea.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

Racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
Includes the words "prejudice" and "discrimination" to define the word.

Bigot
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Includes the word "prejudices" to define the word. You are correct that, by definition that "bigotry" does not necessarily include race as a prerequisite. Neither is race excluded. Bigot is defined elsewhere as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Prejudice
"c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"
Includes the word "race" to define the word. Prejudice is also described as "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."

Discrimination
"b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [racial discrimination]"
Includes the words "prejudiced" and "prejudicial," and the phrase "racial discrimination" to define the word. Discrimination is described elsewhere as "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Based on the above, my statement that those words are fairly similar (in this context) stands.

If the original poster did not have any racial prejudice, racial bias, whatever you want to call it, then why specify that both store clerks apppeared to be Indian? If race was not a concern, that piece of information would have no value. I contend that race is not a concern, therefore that piece of information does not have any value.

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even necessarily (I know I used that word before) improbable that the two store clerks in question were trying to pull a fast one. What I am saying is that implying that their race or nationality is evidence that they were trying to pull a fast one is wrong, no matter what word you want to use to describe that. That the post was modded up Interesting is interesting in itself. Ignoring the information about the apparent race of the store clerks', the post seems written by someone who's a bit paranoid. That's not intersting; that's just tinfoil hat.

I know myself, and I know that when I was younger I was a Common Middle-Class Racist(tm). Somewhere along the way, I became aware that that is wrong, and since then I have made efforts to notice prejudices in myself and correct them. I know that I am from from being finished with that, and I fear that at my age, I may never be.

When I read the original post, the phrase "appeared to be Indian" jumped out at me. It's mild, off-the-cuff, minor, and still wrong. Everyone wants to split hairs about whether it's racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but that's completely tangential to what I intended to say.

What I intended to say is that it's wrong. There, I've said it. Split that hair.

unscrupulous lawyer 1843, U.S. slang, probably altered from Ger. Scheisser "incompetent worthless person," from Scheisse "shit," from O.H.G. skizzan "to defecate" (see shit).

shyster--'shIs-t Etymology: probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator
: one who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics : PETTIFOGGER

You're not helping anyone. You make people with a legitimate beef look petty and you present people with no bad intentions at all as anti-semitic (or specifically anti-Jewish, as there are a lot more semitic people than just Jews).
Now, go into a closet and say "niggardly" a hundred times.

graphically: ...
2 usually graphic a : marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description b : vividly or plainly shown or described

Funny thing about language... some words obtain non-literal meanings (also known as metaphors) over time. Go figure...

...that know how to flaunt the rules

Please flout rules. Do not flaunt them.

The onus is on the person who uses this information to actually go out and kill the doctors in question.

Oh come on, you aren't that stupid. The information has only to be used ONCE, regardless of whether the individual using this information is apprehended, tried or convicted. From then on the list represents fear and intimidation you can use to limit your opponent's freedom.

Actually, he's right. The cops aren't obligated to do anything whatsoever about your actions.

Take for example a gander at this. Specifically 51.5. Or maybe this federal job posting for a police officer, particularly where it mentions "immediately responds to reports of a crime or a crime-in-progress, and intervenes to abort the criminal act".

That isn't "tyranny" to anyone but a raving socialist.

tyranny. For those who are historically ignorant: being kicked out in the middle of winter could easily translate to death or lifelong debilitation for you, your spouse and/or your children. It was a very real threat: it was too far to walk to shelter; you couldn't afford a car; you couldn't save for a car because the company store had jacked the prices on everything; you couldn't go to another job because it was too far away; and if you tried, your family was out on their ass.

If you refuse those choices, I'll call the nice sheriff and have your sorry ass hauled off to jail for trespassing.

Is this the same Sheriff who isn't obligated to do anything? Why would he bother doing such a thing?

"The next planned widespread of 2005's most prolific e-mail worm, Sober, is scheduled to start on January 5, 2006 based on commands hard-coded within the worm."

See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/widespread
Main Entry: widespread
Pronunciation: 'wId-'spred
Function: adjective
1 : widely diffused or prevalent - ex: "widespread public interest"
2 : widely extended or spread out - ex: "low, widespread hood and fenders"br>

The Grammar Nazis never miss a chance at spoiling an event.

At least with respect to music, yes. Keyword: Analog Hole.

The word analog, originally analogue or the Greek original analogos is defined to mean something that is analogous or similar to something else according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Contrast to the word duplicate.

So something pulled through the "analog hole" can never be a 100% perfect copy. And yes, that is by definition.

But the original question was not wether DRM could be 100% effective at preventing copies, but wether it would ever be 100% ineffective at preventing copies. Even a DRM system that can be bypassed by holding down the shift key as you insert the disk isn't 100% ineffective as it forces the user to hold the shift key.

My point was that by forcing the use of DRM, even 99% ineffective DRM, we are creating a lose-lose situation.

At least with respect to music, yes. Keyword: Analog Hole.

The word analog, originally analogue or the Greek original analogos is defined to mean something that is analogous or similar to something else according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Contrast to the word duplicate.

So something pulled through the "analog hole" can never be a 100% perfect copy. And yes, that is by definition.

But the original question was not wether DRM could be 100% effective at preventing copies, but wether it would ever be 100% ineffective at preventing copies. Even a DRM system that can be bypassed by holding down the shift key as you insert the disk isn't 100% ineffective as it forces the user to hold the shift key.

My point was that by forcing the use of DRM, even 99% ineffective DRM, we are creating a lose-lose situation.

Are you trying to imply that

1. The corporate support is passing by transmission or succession? Falling or being passed on traditionally as a responsibility or obligation?
2. The corporate support is coming by or as if by flowing down?
3. The corporate support is degenerating through a gradual change or evolution?

4. Devolve does not mean the opposite of "evolve."

   Yes, I know it's pedantic, but it's one of those things that bugs me like when documents at work come out saying that a product covers "the whole gambit" of possibilities.

Open or not, I find it hard to endorse the Wiktionary project. I'm an avid Wikipedian, and I contribute to multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects; nonetheless, I don't think Wiktionary will ever be good.

When I consult an online English dictionary (something I do several times a day), the abridged Merriam-Webster is my first stop (unabridged is for paying subscribers). Only when M-W's free, abridged resource can't deliver do I consult Dictionary.com (which, although a more comprehensive aggregate of several dictionaries, is not as current and refined as M-W).

Lexicography requires a level of expertise, thoroughness, and precision that Wiktionary's entries generally lack; and etymology is not the place for flimsy assumptions.

Maybe this is a way to fix their incorrect definition of prime number that I first notified them about 5 years ago?

Also

      1. It is a well-known fact that pirates are cool. This is evidenced by the existence of Errol Flynn and Jack Sparrow (aka Johnny Depp)
      2. There is a strong and well-documented correlation between the reduction in the number of pirates worldwide and increases in global temperatures

It's pretty clear that a reduced level of global coolness caused by a lack of pirates would result in increasing global temperatures


I think the flaw in your reasoning is possibly in your use of the word cool. Oddly enough this word apparently has many definitions, the ones presumably being referenced above being "1 : moderately cold : lacking in warmth" and "7 slang a : very good : EXCELLENT; also : ALL RIGHT b : FASHIONABLE" which, it would seem are very different. Pirates are indeed "very good" and "fashionable" as a result of Errol Flynn's and Johnny Depp's performances in film. What they are not is "moderately cold" or in any way particularly related to thermal deficits, which is what your second point (relating to global temperatures) correlates pirates with.

Perhaps if you could actually show that pirates do in fact cause a notable reduction in temperature as opposed being fashionable you might have point. As it stands you don't even have a very good joke.

Jedidiah.

Careful whose illiteracy you're so hasty to imply. He presumably means "goat-rendering" in the sense of rendering fats (definition 1a here).

but for some reason we religion-less folks aren't allowed to criticize those who believe in fairy tales that involve some god or another...

Read the subject of the original post. Perhaps it is your redneck ignorance or maybe you are just another ignorant twat. After all, if you lived in Singapore you would not be permitted to speak ill of any religion but, at the same time, no one else would be allowed to speak ill of your religious beliefs. Why should you be able to criticize them if they cannot criticize you?

More likely you live in the US where you can say what you like but, the double edged sword is that they can say what they like about you too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in some cases in the US anyway. There is no US law that prevents you from criticizing any religion or religion in general. Proof of the matter is that you just did criticize religion in general and nothing will become of it. In fact, it is unlikely that anyone will even argue the matter with you here.

Proselytizing, which is what you are really complaining about, is not regarded as speaking ill of or criticizing another religion. Proselytizing is not illegal in the US or Singapore. It is usually only illegal in places that have an official state religion. Places such as Iran where the official religion is Islam and proselytizing other religions is illegal and in some cases fatal.

Incidentally, the proselytizing that you are complaining about as a criticism is to meant as such. These people actually believe that they are looking out for you. In their mind, they are trying to protect you from eternal damnation due to the fact that you have not yet "seen the light". Your Mommy doesn't mean you any harm. She just thinks that you don't know any better yet.

I'm referring to what was classically known as an "idiot savant" (the idiot part being dropped for obvious reasons). If you stopped using dictionary.com's pathetic excuse for an English language reference, you might have also found some other relevant definitions (these ones came from Merriam-Webster):

1 : a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (as mathematics or music) -- called also savant
2 : a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else

Uh, that's not evolution. That's interbreeding. Bad things usually happen with interbreeding. A mule is the result of interbreeding a horse with a donkey. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mule The mule has more strength than a donkey, but can no longer reproduce. Ligers (yes, they're real) are a result of interbreeding a male lion with a female tiger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger These are also incapable of reproducing.

Interbreeding can produce a new species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding) but this happens with direct human intervention. Even closely related species do not interbreed with each other. Interbreeding is the result of human intervention ONLY.

no a geek is someone who is smart but has an almost osbsessive interest in something, such as computer geeks, gaming geeks, etc. a nerd is someone who studies all the time because they want to get good grades to impress family/teachers/admitions office/potential employer.

nerd
geek

no a geek is someone who is smart but has an almost osbsessive interest in something, such as computer geeks, gaming geeks, etc. a nerd is someone who studies all the time because they want to get good grades to impress family/teachers/admitions office/potential employer.

nerd
geek

antithesis

For the non-geeks. *ahem*

No, "mathematics" is a singular noun that just happens to end in 's'

Yes there is some sarcasm there and I was being intentionally obtuse as well.

As for WMD's and nukes I think its just a matter of scale as to when something becomes a WMD, reagardless of what components it is made of.

For instance, if you developed a nuclear hand-grenade that had similar power and scope to a conventional grenade does that make it a WMD? I, personally, think not.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/chemical%20warfare It's there, kinda, but again I was being obtuse.

I hope you're being sarcastic, because chemical elements are chemicals, by definition! Even better, chlorine is an element, and by your thinking, not a chemical weapon. You might as well say nukes aren't WMDs because when one goes off, large parts of the planet are untouched.

Even meriam webster defines chemical weapons as a mixture.

Nope! Please try again.

ethics (from dictionary.com) # A set of principles of right conduct. # A theory or a system of moral values

ethic (from Marriam- Webster) 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group d : a guiding philosophy

Ethics at least concerns itself with defining right or wrong, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

I have a problem with this, because it was what crazy people say (I don't care if 90% of the population says I'm insane, I am sane). You yourself said you have to draw a line, that line should be in line with the 90%. Or are you the one supporting tryanny, saying that 10% should enforce their will on everyone?

Kant says there are absolutes in ethics -- that there are certain things which are not done. So do Jesus, Buddha, and many others who might be considered wise.

I am not at all saying the 10% should enforce their will -- that would itself be a wrong. However, it does not make them wrong or insane to believe in the right thing.

Pathological insanity is a measurable disease in that it prevents someone from functioning due to an imbalance in brain chemistry. Disagreeing with 90% of the world does not make you pathologically insane, but having bad brain chemistry does

Legal insanity is a different issue (IAAL), and is a societally constructed idea. It may or may not relate to chemistry.

Per Merriam-Webster . . . To bind means to constipate...

I'm sorry, I had something crazy in my ear, did you just say 'ideations'?? The rest of your comment was going so well too....

Ideation, noun
: the forming of ideas (as of things not present to the senses)

No, no, it is still paranoia:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paranoia
(assuming you can trust merriam webster):

Note definition 1:
1. The belief that everyone is out to get you.

Note that it doesn't specify being right or wrong. If you believe everyone is out to get you, then you are paranoid, even if they really are out to get you.

Brethren doesn't distiguish sex. It doesn't have anything to do with brother.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=brethren