Slashdot Mirror

Towards the bottom of the document:

Most of these features are designed to mitigate against malicious attacks on systems even when they do not have the latest patches installed.

The wavy green line underneath 'mitigate' in my version of Word ('97) suggests they use 'militate'.

That's the spirit - go get 'em Word! Grrr!

Merrium-Webster seems to disagree with you... (emphasis mine)

Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gard-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

The term piracy has been used to refer to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials for more than 150 years. This definition appears in any reasonable dictionary, even going back to 1828.

So get over it, already. It's piracy.

I love the privateer spirit behind the X-Prize contest as much as the next guy, but I gotta say that ultimately, chemical rocket powered flight out of Earth's gravity well will never get cheap enough to bootstrap a new age of space exploration.

I agree with your opinion, but I must point out that the word "privateer" does not mean what you think it means...

The trouble is that the corporations can make it technically impossible to exercise your fair-use rights without defeating an encryption scheme. And then they bought themselves a set of laws to make it illegal to defeat the encryption. So they use a combination of technology and special legislation to make what was legal (and still is legal in some abstract sense) impossible.

That is certainly violating our fair-use rights.

Archaic it may be, but invalid it is not.

Not that I consider this any sort of credible source, but Meriam-Webster Online requires only the denial of the existence of God to qualify as an athiest, rather than someone who treats logical reasoning as the only source of truth.

I also think that "one-time" shifts in a moral compass also happen to those who believe in God. But I would still call that compass fixed, since it's position at any given point in time is known. Living with situational ethics, on the other hand, the moral position at any given point in time is not known. I live with situational ethics, not because of any belief in reasoning as the only source of truth, but because I don't think knowing the relative position of any moral compass at any point in time is necessary to know what action to take at that point in time.

BTW, the fscked comment I made earlier was more of a /. "greeting" rather than an accurate assesment of my feelings towards your beliefs.

Not that abortion of universal jurisdiction, i.e. the ICC.

Apparently abortion can be a synonym for "monstrosity." The above is a confusing usage, however -- considering that the poster would probably have us abort any experiment in universal jurisdiction.

I do agree that Iraq should have jurisdiction.

Besides, the US and Iraq (and Iran) are not parties to the Rome statute.

Not that abortion of universal jurisdiction, i.e. the ICC.

Apparently abortion can be a synonym for "monstrosity." The above is a confusing usage, however -- considering that the poster would probably have us abort any experiment in universal jurisdiction.

I do agree that Iraq should have jurisdiction.

Besides, the US and Iraq (and Iran) are not parties to the Rome statute.

...but you're not.

This isn't a myth because it never happens. It's a myth because it doesn't happen as often as we'd like.

Now, According to m-w.com:

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1(a): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
2(a): a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
(b): an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

This is not a myth. It is something which is true for a variety of reasons, and false under some circumstances. If it doesn't happen as often as some people would like, it is not necessarily a myth. Begone, ye article of the trolls!

As others have mentioned, the font doesn't come with Windows, but it is a fairly common font. Zap Dingbat seems to be a play on Zapf Dingbats... I don't think there's any more to it than that. If you meant where the font "Zapf Dingbats" got its name, Hermann Zapf is a famous font designer from Germany, and the dictionary will tell you what a dingbat is.

THEN they would have to prove that ownership.

The thing is, Linus (And hence the Linux kernel effort) has detailed records of what came from whom (and therefore from where). SCO has no such records except the vague statement that "whatever we (sco) have we own."

If there is common code, and Linus can prove who provided it to him (e.g. who wrote it), and SCO cannot prove even the first records of who provided the code to *them*, then guess who legally possessess "proof of ownership."

See the word Provenance (which usually applies to "fine art"). Lets say I walked up to you with a genuine Picasso, proveably genuine, if I can't provide the chain of ownership that demonstrates that it is mine to sell to you, you would be a fool to buy it.

The same basic features apply to the (mis-named) intellectual property issues. If SCO demonstrates that there is code in common between something they claim to own and the Linux kernel, they will need to be able to make a stronger claim of ownership than that made by the OS community.

This is the basis of the ATT vs BSD settlement. In that case BSD was more pursuasive in their ownership of the disputed text because they had the original copyright notices that included the names of the authors, and they had the authors right there saying "yep" I wrote that under X cirsumstances. ATT was in the SCO position of just having some program text in a bunch of files, no attributable authors and no copyright notices.

The point is, SCO has produced no proof because they have none. They are (probably) hoping to release whatever confluence of code they may have as close to closing arguments as possible, on the grounds that such material would apear to stand on merrit. They *cannot* release that data because the very presence of submission and aproval-for-inclusion records kept in the linux project system (BitKeeper et al) is, by definition, "more pursuasive" than any straight claim.

We saw how fast the one example that got out was debunked. By this time SCO is hoping to do a drive-by submission-of-evidence. That never works. 8-)

Guessing that they have some kind of case is very bad. The simple fact that they havn't produced a single spesific instance of (provenanced) code in the process of pursuing thier case, is rather indicitive.

Remember that in civil cases there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It is purely "proponderance of evidence." In a civl matter it is *ONLY* a question of who has "more and more credible" evidence.

"incredible" evidence and clames are, by definition, useless.

Main Entry: sale
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sala, from Old Norse

Democracy is a horrible form of government--it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

If we returned to a Republic, and focused on limiting the powers of the government instead of a consistent regime of overtaxation, then I don't think this would be as much of a problem.

Methinks perhaps you do not understand what a republic means. Being a republic has nothing to do with limiting the powers of the government; it just means that we have representatives. (In our democratic republic, they're elected; in the old Roman republic, they were they heads of the most powerful families.) Our republic just means that the two wolves and the sheep vote for a hyena to decide whats for dinner.

What limits the powers of government (at least in theory) is that we have a constitutional democratic republic.

I guess Linux is resistant to those dreaded "spell checkers," too.

Perhaps it meant to say "trogons", though exactly what hazard is brought about by Central American birds I haven't figured out yet.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but a PC isn't a console. Would it behove you editors to actually correct sentences like this one before you hit the "publish" button?

[/embarrassed-public-sigh 8-)]

I am supprised no AC jumped on me for that one... 8-)

Wicked! I get to catch no other than Bruce Perens himself posting a sizeable but subtle fallacy. I suppose that I get to really feel cool now, in a geeky sort of way. Anyway. Apologies, Bruce, for I strongly doubt you did it on purpose, but here it goes!

> One nice thing about GNOME is that a commercial license is not
> necessary to write and distribute a proprietary GNOME application.

*clears throat*

"One nice thing about paper and pencils is that a pricy PC is not necessary to design and write loads of code."

I mean this seriously, and this says nothing either for or against paper and pencils as opposed to computers.

Only, well, in both cases, the right tool will simply save enough time to make the cost well worth it.

And before some excited kid mods me down for daring to disagree with Bruce, let me tell you that if you've never used paper and pencil to design a piece of code you just thought up where no computer was at hand, you don't deserve your /. geek points.

Different tools work well in different circumstances, that's all. Deal.

And in this specific case, it is not unlikely there's a reason why one of the Linux desktop environments has more proprietary companies developping for it than the others.

Food for thought, I hope.

(Having karma to spare is a nifty thing, you get to speak plainly and maybe get people to think. That's way cool.)

Bali out.

Main Entry: apostrophe
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French, from Late Latin apostrophus, from Greek apostrophos, from apostrophos turned away, from apostrephein
Date: 1727
: a mark ' used to indicate the omission of letters or figures, the possessive case, or the plural of letters or figures

I used "democracy" as a generic term for a system of majority-rule. Click here and type in "democracy" and read the definitions for the word. No, wait. I'll save you the trouble. It says, among other things, this: 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.

Next time you feel the need to "correct" somebody, make sure you know what you're talking about. And stop capitalizing nouns for no reason--we're not writing in German.

1. the person who enjoys running from fire to fire and is demonstrably active at all times
2. The person who works diligently to prevent those fires from occurring in the first place.

Suffice it to say, I'd rather hire the lazy ones.

This might help.

Thanks, but I think most people are missing the qualifier that was placed before "good looking". Namely the word "fairly". This word has many definitions as seen at Merriam-Webster Online.) The definition I had in mind was number 6:

6 : RATHER 5, MODERATELY <a fairly easy job>

I believe most people would agree that she is moderately good looking. Perhaps not "hot" (whatever that means) by your standards, but nice enough anyway.

But like you said, everyone's standards (and preferences) are different.

Case and point

Just a nit: the phrase is "case in point".

tongue-in-cheek
satire
idiot

tongue-in-cheek
satire
idiot

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

To be pedantic: the use of the word "socket" as a verb is only found in modern American or colloquial English. Look up "socket" in a British or International English dictionary and you will see it listed as a noun only. e.g. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=754 42&dict=CALD

The "1533" listed in your reference (Merriam-Webster -- a modern American english dictionary) refers only to the usage of the word "socket" itself, and most definitely does NOT refer to the specific application of the word as a transitive verb. The unfortunate listing of the date under the verb is misleading. (A side-effect of a database-driven website blindly serving data without context or deeper understanding, I suppose. See http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/S0528800.html for a better presentation).

See http://www.m-w.com/dates.htm -- dates for first recorded occurrence are not related to the actual meaning of the word in modern English.

You can also see the 1828 definition here. Note that in 1828 the word is not listed as a verb.

Check the etymology in a more complete source than an online dictionary to see what I mean...

Wow, guess I got a bit carried away with this reply. I think I'm turning into some kind of language lawyer or "word addict". :o

"Socket" already is a verb. It has been for at least 470 years. Obviously, one can plug a plug into a socket. Similarly, one can socket a plug with a socket. The nouns and the verbs match well. I never heard anyone talking about maling or femaling connectors together. "Connect" is another perfectly good verb. After all, aren't they all connectors? As the great LAPD ass whup victim Rodney King opined, "Can't we all just get along?"

Yep, you said it :)

Ridiculous - how hard can it be?

No, it would be the proper definition of ironic as a marine biologist team who exists to provide a warm, friendly, tree-hugging smokescreen for the whaling industry announces the glorious news of a new kind of whale only to find out that the industry which they were protecting destroyed them all decades ago.

See definition #3. Also, if this were a disingenuous ploy to expose that the whaling industry had killed them off, then it could be construed as definition #1.

Oh great, more gasoline! *sigh*

First of all, you will never catch me in "MCSE school", those are for idiots who think they can pay $5000 dollars and learn enough in two days about Windows to get a job that pays 100K a year! hahahaha You honestly sound like one.
Second of all, you have failed!

In Window the Guest account looks just like any other user account. The only difference is that internally Windows treats the Guest account different. When a user try to access network resources and fails authentication then Windows effectivly logs them in as Guest (if the account is enabled). This means that all unauthenticated users will be logged in and have the permissions and rights of the guest account. Sure you can set the password, and someone can type in the user 'Guest' and what ever password you set, but thats not what an anonymous account is. An anonymous account is one that does not require authentication. If I make an account for Yo Momma, and she gives it out to everyone like 'the clap' does that mean its an anonymous account? No! It just means that she's a whore.

Here read this, then eat my ass....loser!
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr eeview/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechn
ol/windowsserver2003/p roddocs/standard/dsadmin_con cepts_accounts.asp

Please keep posting i'm rather enjoying this...it's kind of like a virtual punching bag!

If Windows does that then it is wrong. And no other system does something that incredibly stupid. If I have an account, and I set a password on it, I expect you not to have access when you fail the password. What I mean by go back to MCSE school is that you need to pull your head out of the Windows universe (eg the asshole) and look at the rest of the world.

Anonymous accounts can and do have passwords on other systems. And this does not mean they are not anonymous. Do you even know what that word means? Try looking it up in the dictionary. Oh, wait, this is slashdot and you are a "windows administrator" so I will have to do it for you:

Main Entry: anonymous
Pronunciation: &-'na-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anOnymos, from a- + onyma name -- more at NAME
Date: 1631
1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
- anonymously adverb
- anonymousness noun

The above being from Merriam-Webster. Now to explain so that your reading comprehension skills are not so sorely taxed. An anonymous account is not tied to a specific person. It is a shared account. It can have whatever password you want. I know that Microsoft has taken over your brain so you can't think for yourself and cannot fathom a concept so advanced as that you might want to restrict access, but that is how it works.

Besides, what's the deal here, anyway? Are you telling me that in order to have a user have an Exchange mail account they have to have a login to my Exchange Server? God, I hope that is wrong, and if it isn't, well it is just wrong on so many levels I am not going to even start. To require email users to have OS accounts on the mail server is such an idiotic mood and violation of basic security principles only Microsoft could do it.

Yep, next they'll be suing Merriam-Webster... Oh, and all of you whose last or first names begin with SCO will have to pay the $699 license fee. Maybe they'll ask Bill to call his company Mirft instead. *Cue maniacal laughter* ;-) "We have free Linux. Let's start working on that whole free lunch thing!"

I did "pop up a leve & look", and was denied access. BTW: I called GWB sanctimonious because he invokes religion. The fact that I find him somewhat hypocritical *is* a value judgement on my part... but that does excuse your usage of the word. Why don't you find out what it means to be sanctimonious first (and consequently pious), before speaking out of your ass. here's a dictionary if you need help.

You thought wrong.

What's the problem with saying "x begs the question..." when x is a scenario, and does indeed make you think of a certain question?

The problem is that it's not what the phrase means. I agree that it sounds like it means "makes you think of the question", but that's not what it means. Like a lot of things (incorrect usage of the apostrophe, poor spelling, etc) in English, it doesn't really matter - but it's wrong, and that irks some of us. Everyone has one or more pet hates; incorrect language usage is one of mine.

Look at it this way - lots of people here get their knickers in a twist over the whole hacker/cracker thing. This is just the same thing.

How is "x raises the question..." any better

Because it's the correct phrase, and you're actually saying what you mean.

If you choose to use the correct version, and somebody asks why you're such a pompous git

But they wouldn't, would they? They wouldn't know that you were correctly not saying "begs the question", unless they think that that's the only way of saying that. Otherwise, you're just using one of a number of phrases that mean (or sound like they mean) the same thing.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is. It's wrong, because it means something else. It's not like there isn't a perfectly good alternative, that's only a single sylable longer. Besides, from this definiton of beg, you can see that the phrase "begs the question" is consistent with definition 3b.

And the dictionary would be wrong. Look up router at Merriam-Webster. (link)

An example of one that is wrong is MSN's Encarta Dictionary. (link) Of course they also mispronounce the other from of router (the woodworking variety) as well. Go into any woodcraftsman store and ask for a "root-er" and they are going to look at you funny.

please note that there is no mention of truth or falsity in Merriam-Webster's entry for "myth", except in a secondary denotation.

entries 2b and 3 would seem to be the only ones that should be cause for offense. however entry 1a works just fine in the curent context, unless you want to object to "ostensibly".

please note that there is no mention of truth or falsity in Merriam-Webster's entry for "myth", except in a secondary denotation.

entries 2b and 3 would seem to be the only ones that should be cause for offense. however entry 1a works just fine in the curent context, unless you want to object to "ostensibly".

Good post, but one small correction: IMPETUS deals with motivation, while IMPOTUS, I assume, is something that deals with the lack of motivation --specifically in the male of the species....

Damn, I'm a pompous ass!

1 : permitting the passage of light: a : CLEAR, TRANSPARENT b : transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly

a small, but possibly signifigant point. british people are subjects, rather than citizens.

so... from merriam-webster

citizen - 1 : one that is placed under authority or control: as a : VASSAL b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

subject - 1 : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman 2 a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

and to finish: "citizen" is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people (the rights of a free citizen). "subject" implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch (the king's subjects).

a small, but possibly signifigant point. british people are subjects, rather than citizens.

so... from merriam-webster

citizen - 1 : one that is placed under authority or control: as a : VASSAL b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

subject - 1 : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman 2 a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

and to finish: "citizen" is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people (the rights of a free citizen). "subject" implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch (the king's subjects).

There's nothing about "new" mentioned anywhere in there, you pulled that out of your ass just so you could complain.

Merriam-Webster defines news as "a report of recent events". If Slashdot is "News for Nerds" then an article from over a year ago ain't news.

"... since IE's idiot customer base ..."

According to M-W the word idiot means "feebleminded person having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial care"

Thanks a lot dude. I'm using IE at work and still able to post without custodial care.

Main Entry: 1myriad
Pronunciation: 'mir-E-&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek myriad-, myrias, from myrioi
countless, ten thousand
Date: 1555
1 : ten thousand
2 : a great number

Oh, I forgot:

(end rant)

(begin spelling nazi rant)

mystery - spelled as mistery

(end spelling nazi rant)

Sorry, when I see mistery I keep on thinking mistress or Myst

Main Entry: 2stereotype Function: noun Etymology: French stereotype, from stere- stere- + type Date: 1817 .. 2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

he turns into an over-the-top, shoot-at-your-partner, child-as-hostage, ranting-raving scenary-chewing badguy

That's what he is the whole time. You just don't fully realize it until the end. The whole movie, he's callous, bull-headed, but tries to be that wolf in sheeps clothing. There's no "turn-around" for the sake of the story. It's a story about a corrupt cop trying to corrupt another cop, and the boundaries keep getting pushed, until, yes, the rookie does survive, but barely, and we aren't given a resounding "bad men pay" message, we are given a message of eye for an eye survival, and the idea that it easily could have gone the other way. (very depressing movie all-around).

What other shows can you list which featured a blatant murderer as the main character?

How does having "a blatant murderer" as the main character stop it from being a soap opera? I refer you first to this and this. Yes, Star Trek is a soap opera for nerds. The fact remains that people aren't really shocked by The Sopranos, we've always liked our mobsters, and this just fills that fantasy in a TV soap format. It's not based on real life mobs, it doesn't portray anything that has really happened, it is a bit on fantastical escapism, and the characters fit the mold of characters on all sorts of other soap operas. Sure, it's a new twist, but it's like calling a new guadruple cheeseburger at Jack in the Box groundbreaking. Sure, it's in a place you've never seen it before. Sure, it takes it a little bit farther. But it's still all the same ingredients.

DES MOINES, Iowa (Dow Jones)--McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - News) characterized a published report that it plans a massive digital song giveaway promotion as "pure speculation."

It's "pure speculation". Notice they didn't say anything against/for it. Speculation is a very neutral term. Merriam Webster says:

Speculation: an act or instance of speculating

And speculating means: to meditate on or ponder a subject

McD is still WORKING ON IT! Doesn't mean they've decided one way or another, it's just that they're thinking about IT! Before /. issues a retraction, try RTFD (Reading the F**king Dictionary). Can we set up some kind of dictionary fund for /. editors? Like this or this?