Slashdot Mirror

Y'know, I wondered about that for about a nanosecond. Too bad I didn't even care enough to pop-up the Merriam Webster Dictionary window I keep open all the time and check...

Socialism has been bandied about unsuccessfully for quite some time now.

No, you're talking communism. All cited examples are dictatorships. Sweden is about the most socialist democratic country theres been - 100% health coverage for everyone, well distributed wealth, free education, 13 month pat/maternity leavy etc etc. Doesn't ruin the economy or it's players either. Read for more info.

So, if someone was holding your loved one, with a knife to their throat, how would you want the police to respond? With a hug?

Yes I am a pacifist. Where applicable. Hitler -> no alternative. Iraq (second and third times around) not necessary. Ex-Yugoslavia - should've been there before and better. My point was against police brutality, not violence. You can learn the subtle yet fundamental difference here.

Fascism bears a 180 degree resemblance to right wing ideology.

This educational site gives : "Mussolini's fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, hatred of communism, admiration of military values and unquestioning obedience."

I count five out of five for Bush. But let's not get silly : there is no comparison possible again.

What I don't understand is why any peaceful person would ever want to carry firearms.

How arrogant and totalitarian of you

Ehm. No. I said I don't understand why. Nothing arrogant or totalitarian at all. And you've just completetly failed to convince me that there is any use. I think using firearms to pacify people around you is more totalitarian.

Maybe you need to live in a less dangerous place?

Main Entry: rhetoric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

Main Entry: rhetorical
Pronunciation: ri-'tor-i-k&l, -'tär-
Variant(s): also rhetoric /ri-'tor-ik, -'tär-/
Function: adjective

1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected

2 a : given to rhetoric : GRANDILOQUENT b : VERBAL - rhetorically /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

apocryphal - of doubtful authenticity

apocryphal 1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious: "Wildly apocryphal rumors about starvation in Petrograd... raced through Russia's trenches" (W. Bruce Lincoln).

It baffles me why when remote-control cars started getting a little more complicated, we're suddenly calling them robots. They're not.

No, just the majority. If Bob disagrees with the majority, the majority overrules him. In this case the majority of the population supports copyright law (again, do not confuse popular sentiments on slashdot with the majority opinion) even though you do not. Thus the government is free to enact copyright laws despite your personal objections.

"The government which has produced the RIAA spends billions each year without the approval of the people."

The RIAA is a trade group, not a government entity.

"There is nothing anarchistic about disapproving, as an individual, with the government."

No, but refusing the government is anarchistic by definition.

"I pulled my definition from www.m-w.com and double-checked it with www.dictionary.com. Both sites used the term "individual"."

Not in the context that you use it. Neither say the final authority is in the individual, as that would not be democracy. In a democracy, a majority can overrule the individual.
The term is actually never mentioned in the Merriam-Webster defintion, and in the dictionary.com only in the context that it has "respect for the individual within a community". Thats not the same as authority.

"You obviously wanted to touch off a flame war, or appeal to a demographic, when you used rape as a topic. "

No, I was using an extreme example to show the faults of your argument. If you prefer you can substitue murder in there, it doesn't matter. If you are free to nullify a law you disagree with, so can anyone else, including a pyscho like Jack.

Don't confuse democracy with anarchy.

Does that really mean anything? What are you trying to say? Are you saying that jury nullification is a right only in an anarchy? Are you saying that an anarchy is the only system where the final authority rests in the people?

democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority, he absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

So other than just trying to post something with 70s British punk buzzword in it, what do you mean when you invoke "anarchy"?

If it's not the government, it's not censorship.

No.

One entry found for censor.
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Iraq asked us to stay: Do you mean the Iraqi's or the U.S. installed interim government?

Saddam was a cruel, murderous dictator: Why don't we take out the other murderous regimes? The Turkish seem to be a good fit.Oh wait, we've been giving them millions in military aid during the last decade, and we've been trying to get them in the EU. Hardly the same treatment that Saddam received for his similar atrocities.

And, uh, you're use of the word "fact" is not very accurate. They're opinions, or just plain wrong. As I said, it was the interim government, not Iraq (that would imply strong majority support of the populace) that asked us to stay, and it's *your* opinion tht Saddam had to be taken out. So, that whole line there is laughable.

I only assumed you listened to Hannity, O'Rielly or Limbaugh since they are the *main* purveyors of such ridiculous trash as you've been spewing. Hardly hypocritical to make an assumption. I never claimed that you were wrong for making one. Lookup hypocrite.

I just find it odd that even before the war started, we were building an oil pipeline through Kuwait up to Iraq. Don't you find that odd?

Another oil pipeline, suited for the U.S. More.

Hey, at least you do believe oil played a roll. There's hope for you yet.

Anyway, I'm not irked. I'm laughing at your expense. I find your attempts at logic enjoyably bad, and your "knowledge" of the world so sorely lacking that it is on the verge of hilarity. So, please don't stop.

Hey, how about giving us laypersons a definition of haptic before you toss such jargon around willy-nilly? According to Merriam-Webster it means:
relating to or based on the sense of touch

> And not the IRS didn't steal any money from you.

That's what the IRS do! Although they don't simply steal, it is robbery because they do it under the threat of violence. Taxation fits the definition of "robbing" perfectly.

Merriam-Webster: "1 a (1) : to take something away from by force : steal from (2) : to take personal property from by violence or threat"

In taxation, the "threat"/"force" is the armed policeofficers comming to your house if you don't ante up.

Moose.

benevolent

malevolent.

benevolent

malevolent.

You're right in that the sail wouldn't help much as you increase the distance from the sun. However, if you were able to build up enough speed while still close to the sun you could escape the solar system and have plenty of speed left over. As for the force the particles coming off the sun will exert on the sail, I suppose that depends on the size and material of the sail.

The thing I'm curious about, and will read up on, is if they think they can tack to manuver within our own solar system. I don't think you can use tacking manuvers in space. You would need a fluid for your vessel to travel in and also need a preferred direction of travel due to the shape of the vessel. Without it I believe the only direction to travel (neglecting gravity wells) would be directly away from the sun. Just thinking about this now, though, it might be a useful means of adjusting an orbit by unfurling the sail at an appropriate time.

I didn't say I don't mind the extortion (it's extortion, incidentally, of which blackmail is merely a special case which does not apply in this circumstance).

I merely recognize that just like everyone else, the poor and destitute will act in their own economic interest and, if they can't get stuff of their own, will take my stuff.

I didn't say I don't mind the extortion (it's extortion, incidentally, of which blackmail is merely a special case which does not apply in this circumstance).

I merely recognize that just like everyone else, the poor and destitute will act in their own economic interest and, if they can't get stuff of their own, will take my stuff.

Why would you look to Wired for questions about language? That's what dictionaries are for! If you want to know if a word should be capitalized or not, look to a dictionary like OED or Merriam-Webster. Incidentally, Merriam-Webster lists internet with a capital "I."

Insightful? Please.

There's nothing legitimate or commendable about being a bigot.

What I was talking about was a rational approach to reducing the cost of doing business in this country. What do I mean by that? Perhaps we should examine:

[ ... ]

*Torte reform

And before you claim that "begs the question" is a special case which must use the third definition of the word solely because it is commonly used that way, it is also just as (if not more) commonly used in the way the origional post used it.

Direct all complaints to Merriam Webster. Maybe you can get them to change their definition for their next version. Unlikely, but possible.

BTW, the dictionary does address the confusion over the word decimate. Sorry to spoil your perfect example that the dictionary use can be wrong.

descend the full length of the Marinara trench

Get this man some food! He's starting to hallucinate. After you've plumbed the depths of your spaghetti sauce, read about the Marianas trench.

</smartass>

But seriously, good post. +1, Informative, as well as +1, Funny.

You mean, "If you've been hoist by your own petard". See hoise .

The verb hoist in the old cliché is actually the past tense of the mostly-archaic hoise , which was eventually replaced by its past tense in common usage (much like what's happening to lie and lay today). Believe it or not, the Slashdot editors actually got an English phrase right for once!

Petard

You obviously didn't read the article.

You didn't even read the fscking title of the article.

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

Maybe this will be the one new thing you learn today.

Wow, bullets that emulate old videogames?
http://www.mame.net/

Sweet, get me some that will emulate Space Invaders, so when I fire them they turn into giant white pixels.

(Yes, yes, sarcastic and pedantic. The mental picture amused me though. And I think the word you want is maim.)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=maim&x=0&y=0

A bit off-topic...

So I went to the site to see what the author had posted on her site in regards to this issue. Not much of anything, really, except...

There is a link in her nav for "Exerpts." I ain't no grammar guy, but it didn't look quite right to me, so I went to m-w.com and was told that "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."

Is "Exerpts" like, a British spelling or something?

And a bit on-topic, I find the publisher and the author's behavior reprehensible in this matter. I will no longer buy Penguin Putnam books should they succeed in bullying this person, regardless of what her site is used for.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a distinction.

Only in the sense that there is a distinction between "red" and "tall": they are not the same, nor are the exclusive. They are orthogonal.

A republic is a government whose chief of state is not a monarch (so, yes, the USSR was composed of actual republics -- but the USSR itself was not a Republic since it had no chief of state, which is why summits in the Cold War were so difficult for protocol officers: Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan/etc. were both Chiefs of State and a Heads of Government whereas Kruschev/Brezhnev/Gorbachev/etc. were neither, but only party officials; like the head of the DNC or RNC).

A democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This form of government may be a Republic or it may not (eg, the UK is a monarchical democracy, while the US is a republican democracy). Similarly, a republic may or may not be democratic (eg, Ba'athist Iraq was a Republic because Saddam Houssein was the chief of state but was not a monarch).

So, claiming the USA is not a democracy because it is a republic is like claiming "that building is not red because it is tall".

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a distinction.

Only in the sense that there is a distinction between "red" and "tall": they are not the same, nor are the exclusive. They are orthogonal.

A republic is a government whose chief of state is not a monarch (so, yes, the USSR was composed of actual republics -- but the USSR itself was not a Republic since it had no chief of state, which is why summits in the Cold War were so difficult for protocol officers: Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan/etc. were both Chiefs of State and a Heads of Government whereas Kruschev/Brezhnev/Gorbachev/etc. were neither, but only party officials; like the head of the DNC or RNC).

A democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This form of government may be a Republic or it may not (eg, the UK is a monarchical democracy, while the US is a republican democracy). Similarly, a republic may or may not be democratic (eg, Ba'athist Iraq was a Republic because Saddam Houssein was the chief of state but was not a monarch).

So, claiming the USA is not a democracy because it is a republic is like claiming "that building is not red because it is tall".

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a distinction.

Only in the sense that there is a distinction between "red" and "tall": they are not the same, nor are the exclusive. They are orthogonal.

A republic is a government whose chief of state is not a monarch (so, yes, the USSR was composed of actual republics -- but the USSR itself was not a Republic since it had no chief of state, which is why summits in the Cold War were so difficult for protocol officers: Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan/etc. were both Chiefs of State and a Heads of Government whereas Kruschev/Brezhnev/Gorbachev/etc. were neither, but only party officials; like the head of the DNC or RNC).

A democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This form of government may be a Republic or it may not (eg, the UK is a monarchical democracy, while the US is a republican democracy). Similarly, a republic may or may not be democratic (eg, Ba'athist Iraq was a Republic because Saddam Houssein was the chief of state but was not a monarch).

So, claiming the USA is not a democracy because it is a republic is like claiming "that building is not red because it is tall".

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There's a distinction.

Only in the sense that there is a distinction between "red" and "tall": they are not the same, nor are the exclusive. They are orthogonal.

A republic is a government whose chief of state is not a monarch (so, yes, the USSR was composed of actual republics -- but the USSR itself was not a Republic since it had no chief of state, which is why summits in the Cold War were so difficult for protocol officers: Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan/etc. were both Chiefs of State and a Heads of Government whereas Kruschev/Brezhnev/Gorbachev/etc. were neither, but only party officials; like the head of the DNC or RNC).

A democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This form of government may be a Republic or it may not (eg, the UK is a monarchical democracy, while the US is a republican democracy). Similarly, a republic may or may not be democratic (eg, Ba'athist Iraq was a Republic because Saddam Houssein was the chief of state but was not a monarch).

So, claiming the USA is not a democracy because it is a republic is like claiming "that building is not red because it is tall".

As for a), I had discussions on this very issue and I know what you're getting at. You're still wrong, though, the USA certainly is a democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". (M-W)

There are different definitions of the term: some (probably: most) apply to the USA, the more specific ones don't. However, most people usually deal with the more general terms and maybe are not even aware of the meaning of the more specific term. The burden of dealing with any ambiguity rests with those who are aware of the different meanings...

As for b) I guess most people are well aware of that. It just begs the question whether this is a good thing or not. From an outsiders point of view, the presidential election system is very weird - for instance, the existance of states which de facto already belong to one or the other party, making the elections mostly a battle for the remaining borderline candidate states. (I apologise for any incorrect terminology.)

You are completely missing the point. There is a fundamental difference between taking property from someone and making a copy of an artistic work. Since you claim that "theft" is not an actual law, then lets see what the dictionary has to say about theft:

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

No depriving is going on here. I'm not trying to defend downloading doom 3 here, but theft and copyright infringement (or piracy) are different things. The only reason to refer to piracy as theft is to associate piracy with the more negative image that theft has (which is rather ironic), as piracy is acceptable to the general public (see napster).

Dunno where you got your info about the 'small I' from...

I thought that, for a book if introduction, the short 'i' was the universal pronunciation, but Merriam-Webster agrees with the original poster, that the short 'i' is the British pronunciation.

BTW, it's pronounced with a short I, the British way.

Where you even alive a few years ago? At all? The old Netscape vs Microsoft ruling *did* find Microsoft to be a monopoly. Absolutely.

Prove it. Put up a link to the court document that specifically calls Microsoft a monopoly. Do it and I'll post a retraction and an apology. If you can't do it, you owe me a retraction and an apology.

And no, 100% marketshare is not the definition of a monopoly.

Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Oops! What's that I find? You're wrong again, it seems. So sad. Please post your retraction and apology and I'll feel a little less guilty about pointing out your deficiency.

So, to put it in your own words, "you're either misinformed, exaggerating, or outright lying. I hope it's the first case."

Since you've been unable to post anything remotely resembling evidence to back up your assertion, it is you that fits this question. So far, the answer seems to be option number three, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

What does "best" mean here? It doesn't mean "best for the consumer".

Exactly! "Best" is a nebulous term that can mean anything, but in this case, "best" means whatever product the consumers decided to adopt. Microsoft Office is "best" in the category of being the most successful product suite in the history of computing. Is that "best" for consumers? Well, they're buying it in droves...what do you think? It's either the "best" in its class or there is no viable competitor. Since competition exists in the form of things like Wordperfect suite, or OpenOffice, or StarOffice, or all the others, clearly consumers have chosen Office as the "best" of the pack. Whether it's "best" for you is irrelevant to the discussion; you representing an insignificant fraction of buying power. The majority has chosen Office as the "best" by numbers alone. Everything else is secondary.

The word "hackers" was successfully successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:

"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."

- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.

- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?

- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.

Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.

I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple

I grant you Merriam-Webster may not be definitive, but it's here (variant gullable included too, while I'm at it.)

No, I immediately thought of this.

Simper on, little processor.

Maybe you could explain how that's vengeful, when it seems like common sense to the rest of us. Or maybe you could just stop trolling.

The rest of us? It's just you and me, man. Anyway, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? I generally wish that upon very few individuals -- and only for the most heinous of actions. The fact is that your logic is based on emotion and subjective thinking more than logical and objective discussion. When these types of attitudes are based purely upon emotion, we generally see a vengeful, punitive attitude. In your case, it is no different. When you talk about removing someone from our society (prison, not exile) for what amounts to no more than really bad judgement (not malice)...it's vengeful.

FWIW, I looked into the Webster's definition of malice...it was the first place I looked. I didn't get your definition...how long did you search for that? I also checked google. I'm not saying that you made it up -- I'm sure it's out there. However, did you have to dig for that? Were you perhaps trolling there?

If this were such a common sense attitude, why is trying drunk drivers for murder such a new thing? Did we just wake up and smell the common sense 14 years ago? Were we not enlightened enough 14 years ago? Or, were organizations like MADD just really successful in their propaganda camapigns? Ever wonder what they mean by alcohol related traffic fatalities? They massage the crap out of their numbers to present the data in an alarming way.

Look, DUI/DWI is a problem. I'm not going to deny that. However, our overall legislative response to it has not been reasonable or rational. Our rights have been trampled so people like you can feel better. Your posts about it have shown that you are not willing to have an objective discussion about it. It's cut-and-dry for you, and is clearly an emotion-driven issue.

So...uhh, who's the troll now, troll?

Ripped from my other post in a reply to a troll:

Definition of Satire according to m-w.com:

One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT

None of that applies to this situation. Here's parody:

Main Entry: 1parody
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Clearly in this case, the definition for parody applies. This case is completely without merit.

Ripped from my other post in a reply to a troll:

Definition of Satire according to m-w.com:

One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT

None of that applies to this situation. Here's parody:

Main Entry: 1parody
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Clearly in this case, the definition for parody applies. This case is completely without merit.

One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT

None of that applies to this situation. Here's parody:

Main Entry: 1parody
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Clearly in this case, the definition for parody applies. This case is completely without merit.

One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT

None of that applies to this situation. Here's parody:

Main Entry: 1parody
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Clearly in this case, the definition for parody applies. This case is completely without merit.

go look up "Democracy" and then go look up "Republic" and see why you should have paid more attention in 2nd grade

Most dictionaries provide horrible definitions of democracy. Democracy nearly always means republic. There isn't a single dictionary, that I've come across, that provides a properly sanitized and unbiased definition of democracy. A proper definition of democracy is: "a system characterized by voting." That's it. That's all. There is no more. The properly cleaned defintion of democracy doesn't attempt to sway the reader's opinion about fraud, graft, rigging votes, or who really is to benefit from such a system. Consider, as a counterpoint, these definitions from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Don't those sound nice, perfect, utopian, and pretty? No room for dishonesty. No room for rigging the vote. No room for propaganda and lies. No room for reality. It's all about the people.

Take the definition for Republic, as well:

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

Consider the line "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Who are they trying to kid???

context
Main Entry: context
Function: noun
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

[speaking about linux being hosed] standsolid: ...could figure out a decent way to go back, using a command-line.

prisoner-of-enigma: If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2

If your 2.5 linux kernel install completely hosed your machine, it was due to your own incompetence, or inability to read one of the many guides that were available at the time

So let me get this straight: if I take a working Linux system, upgrade it with beta/unstable packages or kernels, and it refuses to boot, it's now all my fault. But if I do the same thing with Windows, it's Microsoft's fault? That sounds like something I've heard of before...oh, yes, here it is:

double standard
Main Entry: double standard
Function: noun
1 : BIMETALLISM
2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

Oh, and let's not forget that you can always uninstall SP2 RC2 (backing up all modified files prior to upgrade is mandatory during the install of RC2 -- you can't tell it not to back up). If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2. The only situation that would leave you totally lost is if you destroyed the disk partition, something I have yet to hear anyone complain about with SP2 RC2.

Yep, it's definitely all Microsoft's fault, isn't it?

Indeed.

Fortunately, Democrats have been listening to their base, and while network security may be a problem at the convetion, Some Democrats have been moving secret information the old-fashioned way:

In their pants.

Happily, they still have time to make sure that those who disagree with them will have to sit at the back of the bus:

Cement barriers, 8-foot-tall chain-link fencing, and heavy black netting have been installed around the protest zone outside the FleetCenter, angering protesters who say they will be penned in and closed off from Democratic National Convention delegates. Much of the area is located under abandoned elevated Green Line tracks that slope downward. The setup, which one netting installer called ''an internment camp," will force tall protesters at the southern end of the zone to lower their heads to avoid banging them on green metal girders.