Slashdot Mirror

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for launced:

1. lensed
2. lanced
3. linseed
4. launched
5. launces
6. lancer
7. leaned
8. launce
9. lenses
10. leanest
11. leanness
12. lancet

de minimis non curat lex

Seriously, compared to some of the shit that goes on in our society today, I really think the last thing we should be worrying about is copyright infringement. Sure it may be illegal, but when we can't even handle murderers and rapist, I don't think wasting time, energy, and money on copyright infringement is a good idea.

Of course, the corporations disagree because the more they push for stronger enforcement of these laws, the more money they can make. Theoretically speaking of course.

Quoting from the Miriam Webster Website:
"a volcanic crater that has a diameter many times that of the vent and is formed by collapse of the central part of a volcano or by explosions of extraordinary violence."

They bought SCO, and are now living up to their name...

I don't think it's an unfair suppository to make at all that Microsoft is viewing this as a high-risk low-cost gamble on SCO winning this fight.

I hate those unfair suppositories, especially from Microsoft.

I always knew Bill Gates was trying to shove something up my bunghole.

Section 3.03 clearly states that AT&T may revoke the license fo non-compliance when they provide the licensee with 2 months notice specifying such breach. Simply saying "you aren't complying is not specifying.

Maybe its not the greatest thing ever (I don't know, never seen one in person), but for a brand new product that is not a ripoff I think its doing pretty well. How great was MacOs 1.0 compared to OSX? Not very good at all, but its a starting point, the initial idea is out there, and basically it works. Now its time to expand and make it better.

What I'm wondering, is what its a segway to. From merriam webster:
Main Entry: 2segue
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): seÂgued; seÂgueÂing
Date: circa 1913
1 : to proceed without pause from one musical number or theme to another
2 : to make a transition without interruption from one activity, topic, scene, or part to another

Language is not a static thing and you know it. You're obviously at least minimally involved with technology; you're most likely using words that didn't exist 100 years ago to talk about it.

Computing is already helping biology, like with protein folding. This is only going to get stronger.

Biology may help build better computers, either by "growing" things like media, or with nanotechnology indistinguishable from biology being used to grow chips.

However, the "ultimate" convergance of a biological computer is not going to happen, except perhaps in an isolated sense where it can be made cheaper to grow a computer. The problem with biological computing is that generally we want to compute, not be awed by the biology. (Far, far too many people when trying to imagine the future get sidetracked by the "awe" factor, but the "awe" factor is not a long-term factor.)

"Pure" biological computing has an unavoidable disadvantage vs. non-biological computing: It's biological. Which is to say, you need an infrastructure to keep the biological part alive, which the non-biological solution does not need. This is an intrinsic flaw which can not be overcome except by leaving the biological realm. By the time we could build the "biopacks" seen in Voyager, we'll be able to build something much better that isn't biological. The part of the system keeping the biopack not only alive, but in the quite-likely narrow environment it will actually "work" in, would be better spent on actually doing the computation.

Biological systems are astonishingly redundent, but that's just not necessary for non-living systems, where cracking the system open, repairing it, and reassembling it and expecting it to work isn't that big a deal. Do you think twice about repairing your car that way? Since it is of no particular consequence if a computer "dies" briefly, there's just no need for the astonishingly complex low-level redundency and healing capabilities in living systems.

A pure, 50-50 convergance is a chimera. Both fields will be helping each other, computing probably helping biology more then the opposite, but total convergance is not going to happen. "Every discipline inevitably thinks of itself as the most fundamental." Computer science isn't exempt, and I know biologists feel that way. But a dispassionate examination shows there are fundamental differences such that the only way they are going to "merge" is if biology ends up being redefined to be the same as "nanotechnology" and includes things that we do not currently consider "biological".

Which will probably happen, but it's not the sense you're asking about right now.

BTW, "genetic" computing is mostly a side-show. It's practical significance is virtually nil. It looks cool, but it's slow as all hell and unreliable to boot. (What, slow you say? Yeah, it takes forever to set up the problem. Sure, it runs quickly after that, but it's disingenuous to dismiss the setup time, which while certainly possible to accelerate, will almost by definition take longer then checking the answer directly.) Current machines can already stomp the performance of any pure genetic computer you can imagine. (Note this very distinct from a machine that some genes may grow; be sure you know what these terms mean before you criticize this post, all you budding Slashdot biological computing experts. ;-)

A lot of other existing "biological computing" is mostly a side-show too; cute, but it takes some serious trips into fantasy-land to come up with a practical application that will actually beat the non-biological competition.

To the extent you care about my opinion, and remember, you asked, I would not advise getting too far involved in this field.

(Now it's entirely possible that in the process of researching a pure biology computer that something interesting could be learned. I also think pure quantum computers are impossible but the research is useful and useful hybrid solutions will be developed, so the research is not a waste. But on a personal level, I would still not want to actively pursue something that's unlikely to be possible.)

Fighting these windmills seems a bit Quixotic to me..

Cliff Notes:
Quixotic
Don Quixote

HTH, HAND.

As an alternative for dictionary.com, try www.m-w.com

The large problem I have with athiests (of which I am one)

Might help to spell it atheist, but, okay, sure.

If you beileve there is a God, then I must use that as a pretense in which to discuss things. I must accept that what I say will be put through a filter, and thus I will relent to your assertions if only to communicate in a mutually beneficial way.

No, you need not.

Like I mentioned above, there are things like the subjunctive mood; this, I am quoting from The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of verb forms that represents a denoted act or state not as fact but as contingent or possible or viewed emotionally

What does this mean? Quite simply, it's a what-if thing; saying something that doesn't reflect reality at all, although it could.

There is also the counterfactual, e.g., "What if I hadn't crashed my car two years ago?" deliberately contradicts reality; something that can't be changed.

Also, try on this little bit of logic:

Suppose X.
We know Y to be true.
If Y is true X cannot be true.
Therefore, not-X.

And in none of that did you have to say, "I believe X is true."

1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric

The word you're looking for:

Main Entry: onÂoÂmatoÂpoeÂia
1 : the naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it (as buzz, hiss)
2 : the use of words whose sound suggests the sense

[Merriam-Webster Online]

Why "New-nix?" GNU is pronounced "guh-NEW".

Not from where I'm standing, it isn't.

Honestly, that's one of the things that bugs me about the whole "GNU movement" (aside from it being a "movement" in the first place, as discussed above). GNU/Linux just looks and sounds stupid, especially since people can't even agree on how to pronounce it ("nu", "guh-nu", "gee en ewe").

The actual code has to do something particular that is germain to SCO

Definition of fraud? How about we start with the dictionary. You're suggesting misslabelling, not declaring the true value, disguise. etc - i.e. deceipt and trickery. Also, using a friend as a courier only works if they don't exceed their personal allowance, and is probably illegal (I'm guessing on this point), although not very well enforced.

As for the victim when you don't pay taxes? That's easy: that's me and every other citizen. You lower the money available for the services the goverment provides and thus lower the quality of the service, and you contribute towards my tax burden being higher than it should be. If you don't like the system, you don't have a right to avoid it - the solution is to get more involved in politics or persuade other people to vote for representatives who will help change the system.

BTW, in some jurisdictions, labelling as "Personal Goods" only works if you're a returning resident/citizen whose goods travel with them or shipped separately. It doesn't apply to existing residents.

Shops in "duty free" areas at airports, etc, are only good for small purchases as most jurisdictions I've seen give you only a small personal allowance. The taxes don't "[magically] go away" if you buy too much.

You also mentioned that you do these tricks to avoid paying duties on small items. Most jurisdictions that I've lived in provide a low threshold on imports before the taxes are applied anyway.

Finally, what's this comment about "superior consumer protection of the US credit cards"? I've lived in the US and I didn't find them any better. In fact, my credit cards had ridiculous limitations on my credit rights, such as only applying them to purchases in my home state or within X miles of your home. Well, according to the credit agreement provided by the CC company. I'm sure there were companies with better agreements, but I didn't discover them in my three years (made harder by the stupid system that wouldn't pull my credit file from another country leaving me with no history, which is almost as bad as having bad credit history), which means "superior consumer protection" is not a legal position, but a discretionary one.

too. I guess you're not a journalist or editor or proof reader or whatever at that magazine.

Animals are not sentient? You claim to have a gun and a copy of the Constitution, and aren't afraid to them use them. How about a dictionary?

You, sir, are the moron.

(tig)
"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors"
"We borrow it from our children"

For what it's worth, the name's Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Pronunciation from M-W.com

Middle English chek, from Middle French eschec

Seems to suggest that "check" is the correct modern spelling and that people writing "cheque" are just weird, or "chiefly British."

Besides, incorrect spelling is one of the cornerstones of Slashdot, like incorrect grammer. (How many people will catch that, I wonder?) Complaining about it is so passé.

Middle English chek, from Middle French eschec

Seems to suggest that "check" is the correct modern spelling and that people writing "cheque" are just weird, or "chiefly British."

Besides, incorrect spelling is one of the cornerstones of Slashdot, like incorrect grammer. (How many people will catch that, I wonder?) Complaining about it is so passé.

There is no 'exception' needed since internal copying by a single entity is not considered to be distribution.

It is according to the definition of "distribution" in a dictionary of the English language. "to give out or deliver especially to members of a group" That's the same definition that applies to US copyright law. Note that US law doesn't consider corporations to be single entities for purposes of using copyrighted works.

then they must license the modifications to him under the GPL.

You must invoke the GPL (giving the recipient full redistribution rights) whenever performing an act that violates the author's copyright. This includes anything it would be illegal to do with a traditional proprietary program like Microsoft(tm) Access(r). Making a single copy for a co-worker to use on your job is one such violation.

No doubt it depends a great deal on context--and it probably has also evolved significantly over time. It's like the term 'geek'. Earlier in this century, a geek was "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake."

Later the definition was expanded to include a more general class of social misfits, eventually coming to mean those socially awkward individuals with a strong intellectual bent.

Now, the name 'geek' has been claimed as almost a badge of honour for members of that misfit intellectual community. In some circles (I'm looking at you, gentle reader), there is no stigma attached to being considered a 'geek'. The term has been picked up by mainstream marketers (ie ThinkGeek) who probably see it as a valuable demographic.

...is your friend, especially when you can't spell.

yeah, just what we need, more /.ers who think they will get mod points from using webster's word of the day in their posts.

Whether you know it or not, a wether is a castrated ram and not the conjunction you were looking for.

Women do not vote as a bloc

This was not my argument. I wrote, "Women tend to vote for security rather than for freedom." If they tend to vote for security, then that implies that sometimes they do not. Your criticism is a strawman.

men do wave the "what about the children" line around

I agree and never argued otherwise. Furthermore, the "what about the children" bait is only partially related to voting for security.

and women certainly don't all vote for "increased security" at the expense of liberty

You're repeating your first strawman here.

liberty and freedom are not synonyms

Au contraire!

You're either an idiot or a troll. I really don't care which.

Probably because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. It sure explains the slashdot-style, low-intelligence ad hominems.

And you're right--I can't resist replying.

And why is this? If I were really such an idiot or a troll, then why waste your time on me? It seems like you're giving me an awful lot of power over your actions.

Tell you what. Feel free to get in the last word.

How do I know if I'll really get the last word it? So far, simple questions seem to get your fingers moving smacking your keyboard uncontrollably.

I'll read it, delete the comment, and we'll never have to speak again.

First, how do you plan to delete the comment? Second, how can we speak again since we've never spoken in the first place?

This project, therefore, is entirely moot, at least in regards to the SCO lawsuit...

I think you understand the most literal level, but I think you're missing the logic. I think you're right, this doesn't have anything to do with the lawsuit. I think this is punitive . I think this is a side-project, to punish SCO for violating community standards, no matter what happens to the lawsuit.

As such the rest of your concerns are irrelevant, since as you yourself say this has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

This is a long-term project, to establish the danger of messing with the UNIX community, to make anybody else in the future who thinks they can milk money from the community, or that a lawyer-spasm is preferable to simply going out of business, think twice because they can expect the community to lash out not just in rhetoric, but with legal manuevers of their own. Textbook deterrence.

I'm not ESR and I don't know. But that's how I read this, and I think it's a great idea. May not go anywhere but if it works it's very poetic and appropriate payback.

One word sums up CowboiKneel's hygienic challenge: dingleberries

*BBBRRRRTTTT*

Incorrect! Intresting is *NOT* in the dictionary. Interesting, however, is.

Check it out.

Hysteria would be a bad side effect of this device. Most women will not be willing to use this device for safety if it makes their uteri wander away.

Would everybody stop it with the "you sir" bullshit? It's not funny. It's not witty. It doesn't make you look intelligent. It's just fucking stupid.

You sir need to calm yourself and relax, and come to an understanding of sardonic writing styles.

Buffy: Shut up ho, and kill uber-vamps.

Buffy: Shut up ho, and kill uber-vamps.

Buffy: Shut up ho, and kill uber-vamps.

The one we used was:

Kids Playing Chicken On Freeways Get Squashed

or in haiku form:

Kindergarteners
Playing Chicken On Freeways:
Guaranteed Slaughter!

(``Kindergarteners'' is an acceptable variant of ``Kindergartners'' according to Merriam-Webster.)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't know what untrasonic is, either.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't know what untrasonic is, either.

try looking at a dictionary

of course a student is right and people whos job it is to research words is wrong

you dumb fuck, grow up and get real

In the UK they mean the same thing, allthough i dont see hoards of brits complaining that Austin Powers movies have got it wrong

languages evolve unlike some humans here seem to

but lets see what the dictionary has to say

Main Entry: hacker
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

so your wrong it seems, get over it

I don't even know what you are talking about. A cracker is pretty much by definition also a hacker, but a hacker is generally someone who experiments with computers as a hobby. Which means almost all of Linux was written by hackers. Drivers that were written without the aid of the manufacturers were "hacked". The current environment of equating hackers with "bad" is media nonsense.

From Meriam Webster:

4 a : to write computer programs for enjoyment b : to gain access to a computer illegally

Finish your education off by increasing your vocabulary.

I don't want to assist the troll but I feel driven to point out that the meaning of modesty is not "knowing one's abilities" but is in fact "freedom from conceit or vanity".

Conceit is "excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue" and vanity is "inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance".

I don't want to assist the troll but I feel driven to point out that the meaning of modesty is not "knowing one's abilities" but is in fact "freedom from conceit or vanity".

Conceit is "excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue" and vanity is "inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance".