Slashdot Mirror

I still don't understand much of these laws. They seem stupid and dumb to me, designed to protect the rich corporations, not people.

Yes.... you don't understand the laws so you misinterpret them.

First, look up the basic definitions like those found at Merriam Webster or Dictionary.

Patents, by definition, give the patent holder a limited monopoly (for a given period of time) on making, selling, or using the thing that he has a patent on.

They aren't supposed to be given for things that are "obvious" or are already known or common practice. For example, I couldn't patent the PB&J sandwich because of prior art (they've been made by pretty much everyone for a long time. Likewise, something "easy and stupid" shouldn't be patentable.

The knee-jerk reaction that most people think is that "patents make me not able to do something that Microsoft has patented". What they seldom think is "my patent keeps Microsoft from running away with my ideas and leaving me out in the cold with nothing for my efforts". The former is basically the bottom-feeders' arguments. Someone has come up with something, the bottom-feeder wants to be able to take someone else's ideas and do it as well and, perhaps, gain by it. They then claim it "stifles invention". It wasn't their idea in the first place and yet they want to benefit from it (by simple use or even financially).

Take the company I currently work for. The owner had an idea and patented it himself. He then created a small business to realize his ideas. The patent is protecting his ideas for himself to benefit from. Without a patent, as soon as he published the idea in any form, anyone would be able to take the ideas and incorporate them into their own products (particularly a large company like Microsoft who could throw 100s of times the money at the problem) and leave him without any compensation for his original ideas.

What you read on Slashdot is, more often than not, the opinion of people who have no patents and who have never had any exposure to patents other than from the bottom-feeder perspective. Such people see ideas that some company has in their products that they want to duplicate for their OSS project and claim that patents are evil because they can't take those ideas and give them out freely (which could deprive the original owner of benefit from his ideas). Basically, like many they want the benefits for free... including not having the cost of having to think of something themselves.

Patents are not a bad thing unless they are abused. The US Patent Office has made some mistakes in the past but they seem to be ready to clean up any problems they make, when informed of the mistake. Also, the term of patents is too long for software patents simply because of the nature of software. If software patents were granted for, say, 3 years instead of the 17 years as they are now, then there would probably be less issue.

Beware of assuming that anyone (including myself) who posts on slashdot knows anything about what they are talking about. Look up things for yourself and understand the issues instead of just taking any random /.er post as being gospel. There's far too much religion and ignorance thrown around on here to be taken very seriously.

You can't own a bleeding WORD!

Main Entry: import Pronunciation: 'im-"pOrt, -"port Function: noun 1 : IMPORTANCE; www.m-w.com

A satellite is a celestial object orbiting another of larger size, or a man-made object designed to orbit a celestial body. Ergo asteroids, comets, and planets are satellites.

I just can't understand the US reticence.

Actually, I believe that the U.S. has spoken out on the issue.

reticent

Acutally, noncommittal has two definitions:

1 : giving no clear indication of attitude or feeling
2 : having no clear or distinctive character

the second of which applies to software. You're right when you say that apps don't "commit," but that doesn't mean they can't be committed by their designers. (Which is to say, "commit" is both a transitive and intransitive verb.) And if a software's designer does not commit it to something, it is uncommitted. Once all of this is understood, we can rephrase Steve Jobs' comment as saying that the software was not committed by design to a particular choice in operating system.

Could you please provide a reference for how the names ought to be pronounced? Every single pronunciation guide I could find on-line said, to the last one, that the pronunciation of "Zeus" is [ZOOS]. I've had an interest in Greek Mythology for some time, and I've never come across any other pronunciation. If there actually is a pronunciation that is more correct than that, I am very curious to know what it is.

Here are a few references I found when attempting to find a pronunciation guide:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=Zeus&x=0&y=0
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0853377.htm l
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002110/zeus.htm
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/z/z0012500.html
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/Z/Zeus. html
http://www.gods-heros-myth.com/godpages/zeus.html
http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/zeus.htm
http://www.uwf.edu/english/lanier/Pronunc.html

Check it out at http://www.m-w.com/.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=raised explicitly lists "raise children" as an example.

Did you even ATTEMPT to look up the DEFINITION of journalism before submitting your own version of what you THINK journalism should be?

Here's what Merriam-Webster has for "journalism":

1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary, and the definition of "journalism" is even further from your narrow view in other languages and cultures. The French have newspapers with admitted left- or right-biases, which is how we ought to do things here. Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced," which is the reason I hold them in complete contempt. If they admitted they were a conservative news network, I would have . . . what's the opposite of contempt? respect? no, not quite . . . I would have less contempt for them.

They don't even mention the possibility that it has anything to do with Gypsies, nor is it flagged as offensive.

Yes, as we all know, there's only one definition for each word, right?. Oxford lists TWO definitions for the word, and that's just the compact version:

gyp1
/jip/ (also gip)
noun Brit. informal pain or discomfort.

gyp2
/jip/ informal
verb (gypped, gypping) cheat or swindle.
noun a swindle.

From UrbanDictionary.com:

Used as a term to describe when one has received less than they paid for. Most people do not realize it's a racist term that stems from nomadic 'gypsies' who are stereotyped as theiving criminals. "Man, look at your glass. You got gypped on the Coke."

Look, this wasn't intended to slight ANYONE. My intent was to educate, then let people make their own choice. Not everyone knows this, as another poster previously noted. I didn't take offense at this issue personally, as it didn't seem to be intended as a derogatory statement. I tried to make that clear in my first post. Apparently I failed. I apologize. I didn't call the poster an insensitive clod, or attack him in any way. I simply said "You might consider..." and left it at that. I'm having trouble seeing where I caused offense, but it wasn't my intention. If there is any doubt in your mind, perhaps you should check my past posts, in which I tend to score 5 once every four posts because I try to HELP PEOPLE. I'm not in the habit of intentionally alienating anyone, and I apologize if my intentions were unclear. Relax already.

Mods really need to learn the definition of "Insightful". "Interesting" possibly, definitely "Informative", but there's little insight in just quoting something.

I guess that would depend on your defintion of misuse.

I'll remember that the next time I try to kiss my date goodnight and she accuses me of rape. It's silly to argue semantics, after all.

You should choose the people you date better.

[People] just don't see it as theft.

That's because it's not. Merriam-Webster defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". When you copy media, you are not depriving the owner of it. They have a copy and you have a copy. Naturally, you could walk into a store and remove physical media. That would be theft. Considering further that someone who "pirates" something would not have purchased the it in the first place, you really have to wonder where the loss is. Now, I would agree that if someone buys copied software, the line has been crossed. Clearly the recipient was willing to pay money for the goods and now the producer is deprived.

All in all, I am encouraged to see that people in general are not willing to accept something that isn't true. The simple notion that copying bits is theft is really quite absurd. (Would we consider it "theft" if we could simply copy food products and distributed them to the hungry? Hardly. It would be a miracle.)

Vellum palimpsest is older...so is clay...

Second, anti-virus software can also pick up things like phishing emails, which are platform-agnostic.

Platform-agnostic? You mean that the software isn't sure that platforms exist? ;)

Since when is Dictionary.com an accepted standard for any language. It is not. Go back to the books my friend. Here I will even help you. Lose the conjecture and the blogish references from you arguements and you might learn how to win.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=vaporware&x=0&y=0

http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/V0026400.html

Just a couple of standards accepted by most colleges and schools in our country. Wiki's do not count, sorry. You cannot use sources that take user submissions as source material and call it fact. There has to be certifiable work behind it to prove it. Dictionary.com does not have neither the work nor the certifiable material. Just their own thoughts mixed in with the submissions of users. That doesn't make it fact, lol. Just as the sources for the article under discussion are flakey, misrepresented and full of conjecture, so are your references. Perhaps you think one bad reference can be supported by another?

Look at definitions 1b and 2 here:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=chimera&x=0&y=0

You can use "chimera" to mean "illusory." Just like "phantom" doesn't have to mean "apparition" or "wraith."

Lets look up the word Virtual:
taking the third def:of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence

And if we look up the word inferred we get :to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises

So if we derive a Derivative from the "conclusion" of the underlier; one could say a derivative is indeed virtual (however that "One" probably doesn't work in the financial services industry. Jargon has a specific time and a place)

So by your own admission, The grand parent post is INDEED correct; Derivatives are a virtual financial instrument.

And as for day trading; JUST SAY NO! Well, unless you are tired of gambling in Las Vegas... there are a myriad of ways to lose your money for fun. I prefer to light cigars with burning Benajmins...

Lets look up the word Virtual:
taking the third def:of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence

And if we look up the word inferred we get :to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises

So if we derive a Derivative from the "conclusion" of the underlier; one could say a derivative is indeed virtual (however that "One" probably doesn't work in the financial services industry. Jargon has a specific time and a place)

So by your own admission, The grand parent post is INDEED correct; Derivatives are a virtual financial instrument.

And as for day trading; JUST SAY NO! Well, unless you are tired of gambling in Las Vegas... there are a myriad of ways to lose your money for fun. I prefer to light cigars with burning Benajmins...

Hey, MORAN, if you are going to criticize, make sure you're right first. DUMBASS.

And YES, they are obviously used to hedge, BUT THEY AREN'T ANYTHING. There is no underlying commodity.

Whatever; everyone on slashdot is a moron. Excuse me, Moran. 'Cept for me, that is.

it was jokingly said, so i didn't look up whether utah gets tornados. and yes it's tornados OR tornadoes you asshat

damn you!! Thats the first thing I check as well. For reference, its www.m-w.com

"We've re-architected it to defend against exploits," Mangione said

architect IS NOT a verb!!
great laugh to start the day though.

But it is grammatically valid.

certiorari
certiorari
certiorari

that just made me triple cool!

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=certiorari

or maybe you come from a country that spells it right.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/a luminum/
or
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=aluminum

I see you're assuming that hackers break into computers, and the difference I'm talking about is the intent.

Wrong.

Wrong.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=hacker&x=9&y=13
One entry found for hacker.
Main Entry: hacker
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hacker
hacker1 Audio pronunciation of "hacker" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hkr)
n. Informal

1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.

Unfortunately, you don't get to dictate the definition of words any more than I do. I can say "sky" means "woven," but if the rest of the population disagrees, it's a moot point.

The definitions of yesterday are irrelevant. You're free to be a stick in the mud, of course, but you're simply holding on to nostalgia.

In other news, "printers," and "computers," used to be job titles, "program," used to be a public announcement (then television broadcast was added in the 20s, then computer program was added in the 40s), a "monitor," was originally a student in a supervisory position. I could go on, but if you don't get the point by now, you never will.

Please, don't spread this confusion. Tabloid press and Microsoft FUD misuse this word enough.

Please don't buy into the anecdote your freshman CS teacher told the class one day.

Wrong. The very definition of addiction mandates that it is a harmful behavior.

Wrong. Prehaps you need a lesson in how to read a dictionary.

In the entry you used, it gives TWO meanings for "addiction". Only ONE of them mentions that the substance is harmful. That means "addiction" can be validly used for EITHER of those two definitions.

Your claim is no more accurate that stating "Yellow is not a color! It is a cowardly nature."- to point to one part of a dictionary definition and claim that the other ones right next to it are untrue is simply stupid.

The "addiction" entry even provides the example usage "addiction to reading". Do you seriously think that the authors of a dictionary were using reading as an example of an intrinsicly harmful behavior?

Wrong. The very definition of addiction mandates that it is a harmful behavior.

Perhaps these could be of help:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=addiction&x=0&y=0
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/doa/html/whatisaddictio n.htm

Most Americans ANSWER THEIR TELEPHONE WHEN IT RINGS!!! I don't believe I need to expungate on the addictive dangers therein!

Lame can be derogatory, but its definition is quite useable in "Politics is really lame." You could just as easily say "Politics is really [marked by stiffness and soreness]" or "Politics is really [lacking needful or desirable substance]" or even "Politics is really [not being in the know]".

If "to gyp" is a slur on gypsies, the connection is lost to time.

IMarv

Lame can be derogatory, but its definition is quite useable in "Politics is really lame." You could just as easily say "Politics is really [marked by stiffness and soreness]" or "Politics is really [lacking needful or desirable substance]" or even "Politics is really [not being in the know]".

If "to gyp" is a slur on gypsies, the connection is lost to time.

IMarv

There is no such thing as an "unborn child". It's not a child until after it's born. The word you want is "fetus".

Oh get over yourself. "Fetus" is a scientific term that refers to specific stage of development of a vertebrate animal. A human does not have to be born to be considered a child.

Both carrying a pregnancy and aborting a pregnancy pose a risk to the mother. However abortion has a 100% fatality rate among unborn humans.

You'll have to find another way to compensate for your tiny penis. This model fan is apparently just that... a model. This guy says that the ginormous fan was just a model of the _real_ fans.

Only on /. can the idea that obesity is somehow healthy get +5 Insightful.

Look, I don't argue the point that the BMI method may be flawed, and I don't doubt that the numbers may be fabricated.
I am convinced that the food industry has a terrible influence on our diet, and they probably fake the numbers as they like, depending on whether they currently would like to sell fat, antibiotic-poisoned meat, or so-called "light" products that are even worse.

We don't need to argue about the fact that some people are just heavier, and some are lighter than some artificial average, and as long as one feels ok and is healthy, there is no point in forcing oneself to have some artificial "ideal" weight.

But we are talking "obesity" here, which Merriam-Webster defines as "excessively fat". And you are not going to convince me that this is in any way healthy.

I give you a hint: check out people that do regular manual work in healthy conditions, and are relatively self-sufficient wrt to their food. Try to find some without US TV. Then check if they are obese. May tell you something

How words are added to the dictionary - oddly enough, they have a specific process they go through. Also, note that the process is very focused on the use of the word in print (real print or online); if a word is entrenched enough to not be a fad, it will likely be used in more than just speech.

Then, by that logic "fuxor" is disqualified as well.

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

That too.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formal definition". I'm certainly not going to accept a sloppy definition of "evangelist" just because it happens to be used in WordNet by some computer science student. In any case, "evangelist", like most words, has multiple meanings. You can't refute my argument just by insisting on a usage different from the one I meant.

I checked offline before posting that definition link. In any case, Merriam-Webster and Oxford agree. I disagree with your view of .edu links, they are often more trustworthy than .com links for various reasons.

Perhaps my point will be clearer if I restate my orginal argument without using that controversial word: Too much Linux advocacy is based on somebody's heartfelt belief that Linux is superior in every way to Windows. Not just superior technically, but socially, economically, even morally.

I've never met an advocate that says Linux, or any FOSS, is superior in every way, particularly from a technical point of view. You're creating a straw man.

I don't actually disagree with most of that -- I just think that most decision makers don't give a shit.

It's partly about teaching them to give a shit - about taking the long term view, not the loaded short-term TCO arguments that M$ likes to push. I agree it's an alien way of thinking to many at the moment but you've got to start somewhere,

If you want them to use Linux -- or any other OSS solution -- you need to show them how it addresses their needs as they perceive them, and stop trying to change their whole world view.

Like I said, I think we need to do both. Addressing their immediate needs and also get them thinking long term.

M$ seems to think it's worth spending millions on biased "feel good" ad's with no actual content. Why is that? Can FOSS afford to ignore those ad's? I don't think so.

I think we're in agreement that FOSS should be promoted, just disagree on the emphasis.

Part of what's happening is that many Linux proponents are young. They're passionate about what they do. You're trying to push back the tide if you want to stop that.

---

Commercial software bigots - a dying breed.

According to Webster's napalm is not sodium palmitate, but naphthene palmitate.

You must have met the management team of the company I work for. Avoid confusion and do not use the word "showstopper". Actually, I would not use "mayor wholes" either, but that might have been a typo.

Main Entry: showstopper
Pronunciation: -"stä-p&r
Function: noun
1 : an act, song, or performer that wins applause so prolonged as to interrupt a performance
2 : something or someone exceptionally arresting or attractive <the gold crown was the showstopper of the exhibition>

Hey, I can't believe it, but you are right: gullible

log to the base 2 of 16 is 4.

Algorithm.

Actually, laws have nothing to do with furries or otherkin; the word you're looking for is draconian.

Both Merriam Websters and Dictionary.com disagree with you.

Draconic is the same as draconian.

It's painstaking as in "taking pains".

gorged , jackass.

polemic : 1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b : the art or practice of disputation or controversy -- usually used in plural but sing. or plural in constr.
2 : an aggressive controversialist

posthumous
2 : published after the death of the author
3 : following or occurring after death

From http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: commodity
Pronunciation: k&-'mä-d&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English commoditee, from Middle French commodité, from Latin commoditat-, commoditas, from commodus
1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment c : a mass-produced unspecialized product
2 a : something useful or valued b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE
3 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT
4 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

If you don't have it, you want it. If you need it, you'll go through a lot to get it. It *is* valuable and the people who have it may want to be compensated for their efforts in getting it. That is their right. They have no obligation (but your morals aside) to give out anything that they've discovered except under their own terms. In extreme cases, what you hope is that someone else will develop the same knowledge and be a little more nicer about making it available.

All this "knowledge wants to be free!" stuff is just emotional, moralistic slants on the holders' own beliefs and what they wish it would be. They want it to be free so they can take advantage of it and use it (for free), that is all.

If I discover the "Universal Cure for all things that ail Humans, including age", you can bet damn well that I'm going to want to be compensated for it and I'll laugh at anyone who tells me that it "wants to be free!". Live in the real world with me instead of your idealistic, emotionally and morally defined world.