Slashdot Mirror

No, I think the word you want is occluded.

Yeah, it's highly doubtful that he really thinks "they" is spelled "htey," and "them" is spelled "htem." On the other hand, some people really think that "embarrassed" is spelled "embarassed."

It's EMBARRASSED. Can you say EMBARRASSED? Yeah. I knew that you could.

Here's a link to the dictionary, in case anybody's too stupid to look it up on their own: EMBARRASSED

entropy

inertia

entropy

inertia

Is an AEROPLANE something you fly in the aero?

Is an aeronautical engineer someone who designs aeronauts?

Is a cellular phone made from cells?

Is an aeroplane a large, flat surface made from aeros?

The answer to all of these is no. This is why we have dictionaries.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "lawyer" and "judge." Why don't you look into it?

This is, by turns, misleading and plain wrong.

I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:

1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?

This is not the litmus test. Copyrighted material need not be copied exactly for infringement. See that part on "substantial similarity" above. While the exact breadth of copyright protection is not nailed down, it is certainly not "exact" by any stretch of the imagination or caselaw.

2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.

Uh, what? First, SCO only has to show that it was more likely than not copied. Reasonable doubt is only for criminal trials. Second, again, it need not be copied exactly. Third, it need not be disguised. In fact, copyright is a strict-liability statute. Intent is completely irrelevant. Even if you are influenced subconsciously, you are liable. Independent creation is a complete defense, but not realistic here, I don't think. Fourth, I don't understand what you mean by divergence and re-implementation. It sounds like similarity or derivative works. In either case, your standard of exact copying is wrong. Derivative works are entitled to the same protection as the original.

3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?

Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.

We pretty much know that #1 is false

First, your #1 isn't the right test. Second, you know nothing until a jury tells you. It's a crapshoot like no other.

and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove.

Well, you have a strawman. You constructed an impossibly narrow and inaccurate test. Of course it's impossible to prove.

#3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else.

Again, nothing to do with copyright, which, with contract breach, is the heart of SCO's claims. I feel you might not be well-versed on these points.

Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.

Barratry. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

1 : the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state
2 : an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a master of a ship or of the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo
3 : the persistent incitement of litigation

[from http://www.m-w.com/]

They're not inciting litigation. They're instigating it. Furthermore, they haven't done it persistently, just one big, long case.

IANAL, but I have taken copyright and contract law classes. I am not Just Guessing here.

1 : an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time : AGE
2 a usually eon : a very large division of geologic time usually longer than an era b : a unit of geologic time equal to one billion years

pray that we end up like the other "Cold War"

It's appropriate that Microsoft refers to it as MAD. For Microsoft's sake, I'd strongly recommend they review each of the components of MAD - mutually assured destruction.

How would Microsoft be affected? I, like many other members of the F/OSS, spend many hours of my day dealing with Microsoft uses and their customers. I'm increasingly irritated with the support time their products require, though I've attributed a good portion of that to the lack of sophistication of the user. Yesterday I spent four hours dealing with rather messed up registry disaster problem.

Instead of fixing, I'm going to replace and eliminate. I will no longer quietly support Microsoft products, and instead will advise affected parties that the solution is to use something else. We know this to be the recommended solution for IE. I've already done this with Mozilla (quite successfully, with several hundred converts in the past month alone) for some time. Microsoft wants a "us vs. them" but may not realize the mutual part of the destruction means "them too." I'm ready to start doing my part.

pray that we end up like the other "Cold War"

It's appropriate that Microsoft refers to it as MAD. For Microsoft's sake, I'd strongly recommend they review each of the components of MAD - mutually assured destruction.

How would Microsoft be affected? I, like many other members of the F/OSS, spend many hours of my day dealing with Microsoft uses and their customers. I'm increasingly irritated with the support time their products require, though I've attributed a good portion of that to the lack of sophistication of the user. Yesterday I spent four hours dealing with rather messed up registry disaster problem.

Instead of fixing, I'm going to replace and eliminate. I will no longer quietly support Microsoft products, and instead will advise affected parties that the solution is to use something else. We know this to be the recommended solution for IE. I've already done this with Mozilla (quite successfully, with several hundred converts in the past month alone) for some time. Microsoft wants a "us vs. them" but may not realize the mutual part of the destruction means "them too." I'm ready to start doing my part.

pray that we end up like the other "Cold War"

It's appropriate that Microsoft refers to it as MAD. For Microsoft's sake, I'd strongly recommend they review each of the components of MAD - mutually assured destruction.

How would Microsoft be affected? I, like many other members of the F/OSS, spend many hours of my day dealing with Microsoft uses and their customers. I'm increasingly irritated with the support time their products require, though I've attributed a good portion of that to the lack of sophistication of the user. Yesterday I spent four hours dealing with rather messed up registry disaster problem.

Instead of fixing, I'm going to replace and eliminate. I will no longer quietly support Microsoft products, and instead will advise affected parties that the solution is to use something else. We know this to be the recommended solution for IE. I've already done this with Mozilla (quite successfully, with several hundred converts in the past month alone) for some time. Microsoft wants a "us vs. them" but may not realize the mutual part of the destruction means "them too." I'm ready to start doing my part.

Pointing to Creative's Nomad line as iPod knockoffs is far from accurate.

Whatever you think of the quality of either iPod or Creative's Zen Touch, it's hard to debate that the Zen Touch is a "cheaper knockoff" of the iPod. It's obviously cheaper (i.e. less expensive) and a look at it's picture shows clearly that it's a knockoff, (i.e a copy of something popular). The UI as depicted looks quite like that of the iPod, and the form is about the same. Really, the only thing it appears to be missing is Apple's scroll wheel interface, and Apple probably has a patent on that.

So if you prefer the phrase "uncostly imitation" to "cheaper knockoff," that's fine with me.

But heck, the Zen can't even play AAC files! You can't use it with the world's most popular online music store! And it's not even all that much less expensive. I think I'll stick with "cheaper knockoff," thanks.

Main Entry: quantum leap
Function: noun
: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance

While it's nice to think that people would have the background to understand any language, that simply isn't the case. Learning a Latin based language isn't sufficient to speak other romance languages. Where I live, we have a large contigent of spanish speakers, and they tell me that while Portugese is similar, they still have a lots of trouble with it. Those that speak Italian or French (also romance, or Latin based if you like, languages) have even more trouble with it. Those that speak German, Norwegian, Finnish, etc are totally lost, nevermind oriental languages.

English: son
Spanish: hijo
Portuguese: filho
Italian: figlio

The Portuguese and Italian are pronounced approximately the same (the -lh- and -gl- are the same sound).

But wait! We can include English too.

English: filial = of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter

Regarding German, Norwegian, Finnish, and oriental languages, well, since none of those are Romance/Latin-based languages, I fail to see your point. Even English, a Germanic language, has enough Latin words that an English speaker with a decent vocabulary could figure out "filho."

It is official; Netcraft confirms: English is dying.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered English speaking community when Slashdot confirmed that English use has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Orkut members. Coming on the heels of a recent Slashdot poll which plainly states that English has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. English is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Orkut census.

You don't need a foreskin to predict English's future. The hand writing is on the wall: English faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for English because English is dying. Things are looking very bad for America. As many of us are already aware, English continues to be lost in the Portuguese babble. Long vowels and hard consonants crumple like Volkswagens facing the SUV juggernaut which is Brazil.
American English is the most endangered of them all, having been overwhelmed by 93% of all Brazilians. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time American English scholars Daniel Webster and Noam Chomsky only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: American English is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.Theo, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, states that there are 350,000 speakers of American English. How many speakers of Portuguese are there? Let's see. The number of English versus Portuguese posts on Orkut is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 350000/5 = 70000 Portuguese speakers. Japanese posts on Orkut are about half of the volume of Portuguese posts. Therefore there are about 35000 speakers of English. A recent article put
Portuguese at about 80 percent of the Orkut market. Therefore there are (70000+5000+700)*4 = 302800 Brazilians! This is consistent with the number of Orkut messages to English speaking groups.

Due to the troubles of Google, abysmal sales and so on, America went out of business and was taken over by Canada who speak two dying languages. Now Canada is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that English has steadily declined in users. English is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If English is to survive at all it will be among Minnesotans and survivalist groups hunkered down in Montana. English continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, English is dead.

Fact: English is dying

Try Webster's dictionary though. 2nd definition (noun):

1 a : a source of diversion : RECREATION b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

So hunting, fishing, poker, and (yuck) math, if they're done for fun or competition can be considered sport. Granted that's not usually what's thought of when one hear's sport.

They look like dead people, because they're about the right shape and color, but lack all of that "whatever" that makes a person alive.

Hence, funereal, or having to do with a funeral.

It's got to do with our perception of artistic representation of faces. The phenomenon is known as the "Uncanny Valley." We cut things a lot of slack when they don't look realistic at all (mario, for example) but when they get really, really close to real-- the tiny bit of difference sticks out like a sore thumb. There's this nasty place just before 100% realistic where even the tiniest imperfection makes things look awful. And they generally end up looking like dead people.

Consider the faces in games containing models of real people-- The Matrix, or Alias. They look like walking mannequins, and can be kinda unnerving.

Dude... M-W.com. Try it, please?

The Xbox is not a behemoth. It's not even close. The Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, SNES, PS1, PS2 were and are behemoths. The Game Boy series is the granddaddy of all behemoths. The Xbox is floating at the same level of market penetration that NEC saw with the TurboGrafx, that Atari saw with the Atari 5200, that Nintendo saw with N64, and that Sega saw with the Master System, the Saturn and the Dreamcast. You are fighting facts with personal anecdotes. But, if we want to go the anecotal route: My Atari 2600 from 24 years ago, is still up and running, and I'm still buying games for it, and there are people still selling 2600s on the net (Want one with S-Video output? It's out there.). The games were compelling and fun, and still are now.

If you can look at me in 20 years and tell me that you are still playing your Xbox on a regular basis, then I will concede your point.

My suspicion is, however, if Sony learns from its mistakes on the PS2 (and everything they've said on that front point to the answer being "yes") and creates the PS3 most of us want, then players such as you and your friends will not be looking at the Xbox Next. Just a guess. ;)

I was attempting to be fascistous...

Yeah, I'm stretching "predict" a little. :) A better contrast of the various available synomyns is here.

However, since whether a prediction must be made "in advance" of an event's occurence or "in advance" of knowing the result is something that all dictionaries don't agree on, it's not such a big stretch. After all, from the speaker's point of view, the process is the same.

--Yours for an unambiguous lexicon, PMuse ;)

(Oh, and for the AC's benefit, those example predictions were all hypotheticals and were chosen to illustrate various time sequences and various kinds of "knowledge" that would eventually be used to decide if they were correct. The use of "I" was a style choice, not a statement of belief.)

I might agree with that being his definition, except he seems to denigrate the idea that we have "simulated" the pen and paper world with computers.

That's true, but what evoked the ire of some /.ers was that Kay seemed to deride what people are doing with computers in general. I don't think Kay is saying we should be "running simulations" (narrowly defined) instead of our usual mundane tasks; but rather that everyone is already engaging in simulation whenever they use computers, and that such tasks are inherently mundane because they're sub-optimal simulations. The hinted ideal (beyond the article now) is either perfect simulation or not simulation at all, but simulacre:
a way of interaction that isn't modeled on corporeal phenomena.

That said, I also assume that buried in his evaluation is a degree of criticism for what people currently choose to do with computers regardless of the model or technology status quo. Don't fault Kay for such a judgment, though. We need people with his vision, which is fueled by dissatisfaction with the status quo. His criticisms are more discriminating than the automatic gainsayers would make them out to be.

This "arrogance" (so quoted because it is the closest word I can't render at the moment),

From: Merriam-Webster

Gee, I don't see any mention of government in there, do you?

I concur. Opera caches every page, so even for ones that are dynamically rendered, there's no reconnecting to the server. The _only_ site I've ever seen that took longer to load in Opera is here. Some sort of script runs which totally halts Opera for about 5 seconds. Drives me nuts, but at least it's only the first time per session.

To be completely fair, from what I can tell "bolded" is not really a word. In any usage of the term bold, adding the 'ed' suffix will not produce the past tense. In the case of the word 'bold,' you should use the term 'bold-faced', or simply 'bold' by itself without a suffix. ;) All of this is from Merriam Webster, which has no listed past tense of the word bold, aside from "bold-faced."

And you obviously haven't looked in a dictionary:

homophobia
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
(emphasis mine)

... doing things well, not with vapourware or doing dirty tricks to make people not follow the competence, not even limiting people on choosing the competence.

Okay, I can sort of understand the whole "lose" vs. "loose" bit, but what's the deal with mistaking competence for competition?

... doing things well, not with vapourware or doing dirty tricks to make people not follow the competence, not even limiting people on choosing the competence.

Okay, I can sort of understand the whole "lose" vs. "loose" bit, but what's the deal with mistaking competence for competition?

Where are your references?

I'm using two pieces of information and putting them together. The first is Moore's claim that F911 is an "op-ed" piece.

Moore is quoted in this article as saying, "I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House...It [the movie] is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

The second, of course, is the definition of propaganda: "The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person."

As you can see from the definition, even if the film contains nothing but fact, which is still being debated, it can, and is, be done in a way so as to be considered propaganda.

So, as you can see, I'm not spreading lies, I'm spreading Moore's own words and using common meanings of words to understand what he says.

The fact that you bring up a source where he claims that the film is not propaganda reveals either that he doesn't know what the word means (which makes him uneducated at best, stupid at worst), or that he is contradicting himself (which makes him inconsistent at best, or a liar at worst, or perhaps it means that he has changed his mind about his own work between the two interviews).

Belloc

Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.

As for the facts, here is what Merriam-Webster says:

1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]

Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.

Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.

On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.

For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.

One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.

since weapon is defined as
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another

does this make having a degree in CS equivalent to being a terrorist bomb making specialist?

You missed the point. Allow me to help: lose vs. loose.

"lose" and "loose" are different words and the poster was making fun of the fact that you used one when you meant the other. It was a fairly lame joke, I'll grant.

You missed the point. Allow me to help: lose vs. loose.

"lose" and "loose" are different words and the poster was making fun of the fact that you used one when you meant the other. It was a fairly lame joke, I'll grant.

M-W has you covered. Most astronomers I know pronounce it like "Hoi-gens" (hoi like in "a-hoy", gens with a hard g).

It looks like you have chosen the degenerate case here, and one in which really wasn't part of the article, and isn't part of the court decision here.

From the article:
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

This law and article is not about rape. Is not about kiddie porn. Is not about child rape. Is not about making kiddie porn of child rape.

That much being said, your comparison of immorality is flawed. because what you brought up isnt being discussed here. as for being kosher yes it is one of those social mores, however it is a religious law of orthodox jews. And like I said the government has no place implementing religious laws or beliefs. Im afraid you deserve as slashdot RTFA citation.

One definition of press includes: "Commentary or coverage"

Merriam-Webster says "news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters" (7c). But I don't think they were counted in the Pew study. Or the UCLA one (UCLA only compared a few shows IIRC and not the entire regular broadcast).

The press, conservative on tax cuts and social security? Come on now...

Come on now what? They're far wealthier than average. They want tax cuts.

Are you saying that congress is in general conservative?

Given the Republican majority on both houses of Congress, that would be an accurate statement.

Actually, his nickname is quite accurate the way it is.

There is no such word as incented :-(

My marketing teacher uses it all the time and it drives me bonkers.

Act,(1),noun
8 : a display of affected behavior : PRETENSE

Act,(2),verb
4 : to behave in a manner suitable to

As is very common, the act is more important than actually BEING professional. Large corporations are in no way honest, nor do they communicate unless it's profitable to do so, and simplicity is not beneficial for patent applications.

As long as the general populance believes it, however, they are safe and profitable.

Act,(1),noun
8 : a display of affected behavior : PRETENSE

Act,(2),verb
4 : to behave in a manner suitable to

As is very common, the act is more important than actually BEING professional. Large corporations are in no way honest, nor do they communicate unless it's profitable to do so, and simplicity is not beneficial for patent applications.

As long as the general populance believes it, however, they are safe and profitable.

Goddammit!

freaking

I think the definition of freaking better fits his sentence than the definition of fucking.

Maybe you shouldn't act like you know what somebody is saying when they say something that is obviously different.

freaking

I think the definition of freaking better fits his sentence than the definition of fucking.

Maybe you shouldn't act like you know what somebody is saying when they say something that is obviously different.

English grammar dictates parallel structure, if one compares, contrasts, or lists a country it is inferred that one is comparing, contrasting or listing that country to or with another country or countries (when the terms can be interpreted as a country or a continent).

Thus 'American' in the context that I used it refers to the citizens of the United States of America.

Don't believe me, check the dictionary

It was a mnemonic to assist people in remembering telephone numbers, and represented the first two numbers of the local exchange. (It is also the reason that alpha characters were originally included on the telephone keypad.)

I'll always remember my first phone number - LOgan 16386 - so I guess the mnenomic worked. It had nothing to do with the 'town/borough' where the CO was located, as there is no Logan, MI.)

"In light of Gordon Cormack's Study of Spam Detection recently posted on Slashdot, I felt compelled to architect an appropriate response...

But Khan wasn't a mutant. He was a product of eugenics.

Yes, I am bitter that your Star Trek joke appears above my X-Men joke.

-Peter

adb, you stole my post!

Jonathan,

Invest in a thesaurus. Or you can use this one. You might have used any of the following perfectly serviceable verbs: scratch, scrawl, scribble; draft, draw, make out, write down, write up, hatch, make, generate, or construct.

Please don't recast innocent nouns as verbs.

Thank You,
Peter

I like to acknowledge my resources.

Steve "Rim" Jobs was inspired by my cluster. My fine cluster of dingleberries