Slashdot Mirror

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

> Its "definately", not "defanatly". :)

Try It's and definitely .

Well, the movie was pretty bad.

Do you not know the difference between balled and bawled?

Well, the movie was pretty bad.

Do you not know the difference between balled and bawled?

The word we were looking for was pandemic.

1. pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population
2. epidemic: an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development; specifically : a natural population suddenly and greatly enlarged

The word we were looking for was pandemic.

1. pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population
2. epidemic: an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development; specifically : a natural population suddenly and greatly enlarged

The word we were looking for was pandemic.

1. pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population
2. epidemic: an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development; specifically : a natural population suddenly and greatly enlarged

I believe you have confused

algorithm -- a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation (Webster's)

with

Al Gore-ism -- exaggerated or affected adherence to Al Gore's style (Webster's)

It's a common mistake.

I believe you have confused

algorithm -- a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation (Webster's)

with

Al Gore-ism -- exaggerated or affected adherence to Al Gore's style (Webster's)

It's a common mistake.

Ladder
Latter

Swing, and a miss.

-Jesse

Ladder
Latter

Swing, and a miss.

-Jesse

"Obstensibly"? Probably not. Not even in US spelling.
Try "ostensibly".

"Seperate"? No.

Have a nice day, O professional academic :D

"Obstensibly"? Probably not. Not even in US spelling.
Try "ostensibly".

"Seperate"? No.

Have a nice day, O professional academic :D

But the truth is, 99% of gun use is against people.

Not that this belongs here at all, but I can't sit and let such an obviously ignorant (and I mean that in the Merriam-Webster sense not the pejorative I'm sure you assumed) comment go unanswered.

The majority of firearms are owned by responsible, law-abiding citizens, and are used for a variety of reasons. How about hunting? (contrary to the animal rights radical point of view, animals are NOT people too...don't start the whole "hunting is bad" thing. If I hunt to suppliment my freezer, and eat what I kill, and happen to enjoy the sport of it, I'm no worse than a guy ordering a burger at McD's) How about sport? Shooting as a competative sport likely uses far more rounds of ammunition between practice and competition (1000+ rounds a week in practice, plus several hundred in competition for a lot of competitive shooters). No matter what you may think, it's quite an enjoyable challenge to just shoot at paper targets and put all the rounds through the same hole in the paper. People play DOOM and that's ok...I choose to shoot REAL guns for entertainment. There's also collectors. you know, the folks who appreciate a firearm as a marvel of modern engineering (anybody who has looked at and doesn't see the elegance in the functional and ergonomic design of John M. Browning's Model 1911 .45 must have their eyes closed), or as an important piece of history. Like it or not, your freedom (if you are in the US) was won with guns, and they still keep you safe to this day.

As far as your 99% goes, I'd like to see ANY verifiable statistic to back that up. I can easily produce research performed by many institutions (including US government bodies) that demonstrate that more firearms in the hands of more responsible law abiding citizens results in fewer violent crimes and fewer gun related deaths. Sometimes a weapon is effective as a deterrant you know...

Just my $.03...Keep the change.

1. [1pro-] : relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning (proactive inhibition of memory)
2. [2pro- + reactive] : acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

Not so fast there... An atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. What you're describing is more like an agnostic, which is one who believes that we cannot know if there is a deity.

Not so fast there... An atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. What you're describing is more like an agnostic, which is one who believes that we cannot know if there is a deity.

Paper is not an audio storage medium. However, it would still fall under that surcharge, as it could be used to store illegally copied text from book or illegal copies of artwork.

I can just picture the controversy that would flare up if something like this was imposed in the US and an office supply company like Staples started charging such a surcharge.

"Okay, you're purchasing a box of copier paper. That's $5.48 for the cost of the paper, plus an extra $20 anti-piracy surcharge, plus tax ..."

Sure gives new meaning to the word "ream", doesn't it?

You do know what a steer is, right?

as a complete treatise on Absurdism, which I've not seen mentioned very often. Most people consider it to be a pleasant book, a light read, something funny to have to pass the time, but to me it's more like a book of lessons on reality. I personally think it affected me as much as the Tao Te Ching.

It's got a lot of philosophy woven in, no doubt, but has anyone ever seen/read about some more serious interpretations of the text?

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a difference between "stealing" and copywrite "infringement". Infringement is a form of "trespassing" on someones' right or privilege (i.e. not theft).

infringement

This whole notion of labeling 'copying' of a file as "stealing" or "pirated" is false.

For instance, say you have a really nice death star and I gather some rebels to take it for myself - that's stealing. You no longer have said death star, but I do. Now, if I illegally aquire plans for your really nice death star and perhaps make my own (or probe its weaknesses), that's infringement. You still have your death star. I have not "taken" anything from you.

Allow me to wear my Devil's Advocate hat for a moment...

Did you ever notice how "evil" countries/leaders often publicly claim to be not evil, just like the Google guys. Yet secretely, they vie for world domination. What if Google only claims to be not evil, but really they are trying to control the world's access to information in some sort of evil plot for world domination? How do we know that these satellite images are accurate and unretouched? What if they edit them to make certain cities or areas more or less attractive, like where they are buying/selling real estate for profit? I mean, soon you'll be able to see the conditions under which anyone else in the world lives... or at least you can see it as Google wants to present it, where it wants to present it.

I'm taking off the hat now. It doean't fit me well.

I do think it's cool how I can see a satellite image of my home, complete with my car in the driveway and patio furniture in the back yard. Cool and kind of scary.

acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters

It's sort of like how the definition of sci-fi has been twisted to exclude Star Wars.

Dragging a 'file' from the CD/DVD to the computer is an installation.

When the act of dragging an icon involves moving more than just one file, configuring settings for the user, even if it is at the first run, your software is being installed and configured.

Define: Install

I call bullshit.
Grow up.

Main Entry: 1de facto
Pronunciation: di-'fak-(")tO, dA-, dE-
Function: adverb
Etymology: Medieval Latin, literally, from the fact
: in reality : ACTUALLY

• to repair, adjust, or work with something in an unskilled or experimental manner

some time in americas history, a guy (cant remember who) wanted to make US english simplier and different from UK english and to make it simpler was to drop all the U's in words like color.

not trying to be a spelling nazi, but i think you mean vehemently.
you were so far off, it made me think it was a word you learned by hearing, but it's rare enough in usage you might not have seen it in print.

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

Hyperbole. It's often used when somebody wants to use an exaggerated improbability (like enough money can buy a copyright on two words) to illustrate a point (the legal system is weighted in favor of those with lots of money). It's probably not appropriate for technical writing, but is often effective in more informal setting (e.g., a weblog) if the audience is capable of detecting it. Apparently that's not the case here. But please, tell me how you did in law school. I'm sure you graduated first in your class at Princeton Law School, right? I'll bet you've even been published in their Law Review. Perhaps you could point me to some of your articles.

It's an actual, legitimate word, Mr. word nazi. Heaven forbid he use words outside your little box.

Ludacris is a rapper. I refuse to take anyone seriously who confuses Ludacris and ludicrous.

English is not Greek, and, like it or not, "octopuses" and "octopi" are both listed in dictionaries of the English language, but "octopodes" are not.

Octopi here, but no octopodes.

Or to put it another way, I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I still disagree with you. :)

English is not Greek, and, like it or not, "octopuses" and "octopi" are both listed in dictionaries of the English language, but "octopodes" are not.

Octopi here, but no octopodes.

Or to put it another way, I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I still disagree with you. :)

You don't say. Well that's great, since that would make absolutely perfect sense and all. You know, right not meaning anything even close to write, and thus the past tense copywritten would make much more sense.
Usagecertainly ageees with you, doesn't it?

Don't worry lad, no one is going to take away your writes.

I don't have a problem with DRM persay

No offence, but I think you meant per se.

If you don't accept the terms, don't buy the media. Whats so hard about that? Just don't use it to justify obtaining the content in a non-legal way. Those are the terms the people who paid for the content offered, as the previous posters pointed out, you are buying a license to the content, you don't own the song itself. If it did work that way, I could have made a fortune selling Nike the rights to my Beatles White album.

P.S. I dont think the parent you are replying to mentioned anything about the theft you keep bandying around.

Better check you eyes bud, I didn't use that word. Nor the homonym for steel. I don't think any of us mentioned that you support puppy defenestration, either

No, Alanis, that's belligerent. Irony is another animal altogether, see here for details.

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster , American Heritage Dictionary, and, heck, even Dictionary.com , which aggregates entries from entirely too many useless sources, say that "copywritten" isn't a word.

This makes sense, since right and write have different meanings. Even though copyrights were originally put into place for written materials, it is still a right, not a write.

Its not an undisputed source of all knowledge. It just happens to be a convient reference.

Feel free to check Merriam-Webster or Dictionary. As you'll see both have similar definitions and neither list violence as a requisite.

1 a : DEDUCTIVE b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions -- compare A POSTERIORI c : presupposed by experience
2 a : being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand

Certainly the fact that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics gives rise to a definition 2(a) or 2(b) reason why it's impossible. If you're unwilling to consider the laws of thermodynamics "self evident propositions", then there can't be any a priori reasons that anything in science can't happen, and the demand for a priori reasons becomes an absurd request (because it means that we must exhaustively search theough every possible experiment, and cannot use physical law to guide us). And if we do take it as self evident that a theory that breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false.... then that is an a priori reason to reject homeopathy....

I won't repeat it, because what you say is false. You should at least consult Merriam-Webster Online before making such incorrect claims. See leverage.

I won't repeat it, because what you say is false. You should at least consult Merriam-Webster Online before making such incorrect claims. See leverage.

Property is by nature theft

How can something that you just synthesized - produced where it didn't exist before - be theft? You must mean that producing something, and then not giving it to someone for free is what you consider theft. So, how do you rate labor? Is not laboring for someone for free also theft? If that's the case, than not agreeing to be your slave is the same as stealing from you. Your concept makes everyone a slave to everyone else, all the time, and if they don't like being a slave, then they are a thief.

You'll be a lot more pursuasive if you actually use words in a meaningful way. Defining the limits by which you're willing to spread around that which you have created is not "limiting other people's right to intellect."

From M-W:

Intellect - a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for knowledge b: the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

That's a good definition of the word. Your intellect is your capacity for intelligence. My not entertaining you for free with my music or movie does not limit your intellect. Limited intellect is as limited intellect does (and argues).

In one case, copyright is being used as a tool to protect the ability to freely disseminate and modify works. In the other case, it is being used as a tool to restrict freedom of distribution and prevent modification.

I love your twisted logic here, justifying copyright infringement on the one hand because it promotes "freedom" but condemning it on the other because it promotes the "freedom" to disseminate. Orwell would love you.

Here's the situation, and it's not a shade of grey as you imply: copyright infringement is either good for all or bad for all, you can't pick specific instances where it's good for some and bad for some. That's called subjectivism, and it has no business intruding into a legal matter such as copyright infringement. Open that door and all law suddenly becomes entirely relative, and you do not want to go down that path. Is murdering a white supremacist wrong? Sure, the world's better off without him, but does that make murder "right"? You cannot use the "it's for the greater good" argument because there is no "fair" way to define the greater good. What's good for you is most likely bad for someone else. That's why these matters must be objective, not subjective.

So, which is it? Would you stand on a hill and defend my right to violate the GPL however I see fit? I doubt it.

Don't look now, but your double standard is showing. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with this definition instead.

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary& va=irregardless&x=0&y=0

We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.

Just because the word "war" isn't used in the official congressional authorization, doesn't mean that Congress hasn't approved a state of war. Congress is free to use its power to make a state of war, declared or not, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution in whatever way it sees fit, including conceding the ability to make war to the President under circumstances prescribed by specific laws passed by the same Congress that has this constitutional power.

May I bring to your attention HJR 114, that specifically authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.

Now, assuming you trust the Marriam-Webster definition for "war", in sense (1), HJR 114 certainly declares "a state ... of open and declared armed hostile conflict" between the United States and Iraq, and in sense (2) we are certainly in "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" as a result of the actions authorized by HJR 114 being taken.

Just because HJR 114 doesn't say "We Declare a State of War with Iraq" doesn't mean that the United States is not in a state of war with Iraq. It just hasn't been formalized into those words (which activate a sequence of other laws that are entirely unnecessary for our purposes in this conflict.) While HJR 114 does not declare war, and is rather specific on reporting and such as related to the War Powers Act, its overall effect isn't much different from this, except that "the full resources" of the United States and its people are not formally committed.

An interesting take on the "formal" declaration of war and its use (and possible obsolescence) can be found here. More reading material on the subject of war and who can declar it can be found here.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."

You're right, because as another astute Slashdot reader pointed out, there is a strong argument that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs under the Geneva convention. On the other hand, there are *actual* POWs being held in Iraq that do meet the definition.

May I refer you to Webster, definition 10 for free:

10 : not costing or charging anything

actually, whinge is a perfectly cromulent word, which is different from whine (although they have similar meanings)...

m-w.com entry

dictionary.com entry