Slashdot Mirror

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".

...and keep fighting, never even noticing their wrists are broken for being hopped up so much on the PCP.

Hmm, boy, that sounds apocryphal, you mean to tell me someone fights with both wrists broken? I find that hard to believe, I mean sure they don't feel the pain, but how effective a fighter are they with broken wrists? Sounds like cover for a bunch of cops who stand around in the street beating one single man with nightsticks to me.

Maybe the cops need better tools (leg- and wrist-irons instead of 'cuffs, tazers or the like, maybe even a tranquilizer gun?) but there is NO justification for a half-dozen cops standing around in the street repeatedly beating one man with nightsticks.

1. 1 To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
2. 
   a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
   b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.

But if that's not good enough for you, perhapse you'd like a few more. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo

Guess which definition is listed first over at Merriam Webster? In fact all the vast majority of all the 'hackers' I know are of the licit variety. If a population insists being called something else then its popular name then do it. We call eskimos Inuits. We call indians Native Americans.

If the majority of the population that considers themselves a hacker take the definition of "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer", the popular defintion is wrong and should be changed.

that would be impedance mismatch.

See impedance

Thank you Merriam-Webster.

There's actually nothing wrong with saying "Earth hours". The fundamental unit of time is a "Day"; the time it takes between two successive transits of the Sun. (Actually, if you want to get technical, a Day is really defined as the average time between successive solar transits for a particular year: 1820). A second is *defined* to be the 1/86,400th part of a Day, a minute is *defined* to be 60 seconds, and an Hour is *defined* to be 60 minutes. The point is, they are all tied to the length of an Earth-Day, so using "Hours" on Mars is just as arbitrary as using "Days" on Mars.

Still not convinced? Merriam-Webster defines Hour as "the 24th part of a day", as does dictionary.com.

We're talking about plain-English terms. In plain English, a work belongs to him what created it.

In plain english I bought it, I own it.

Any time you reffer to a specific copy everyone knows it belongs to the person that bought it. If you walk into a room with a song playing on the CD player and say "Cool, Hotel California! Who does that belong to?" the person who bought the CD is going to say "Me!". There is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to respond "It belongs to Elektra Entertainment Group".

I doubt a random 8th grader is going to have any difficulty with the plain english sentence "This is my book/music, it is copyrighted by the author".

So legally and in plain english, I own it. The copyright lobby is trying to spread the false impression that the copyright holder owns it, but it just isn't true. Copyright is not ownership of the copies, never was, (hopefully)never will be. They are trying to justify DRM by saying it's not your data, they want to claim it is their data. The fact is that it IS your data. You bought it, it's yours. You have the right to use it in a school project, you have the right to play it backwards, you have the right to cut it up in pieces, you have the right to scramble it any way you like. And if the file is encrypted then one of the ways to scramble it happens to decrypt it. The DMCA tries to make decryption a crime, but it is a crime you can commit merely by thinking and sitting motionless.

As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

OneLook Dictionary Search provides two definitions and links to TWENTY-FOUR other dictionary definitions. Not a single one gives any hint that theft might cover copyright infringment, and most of them explicity rule it out. For example Merriam-Webster says "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property ".

Reffering to infringement as theft is at best a figurative use of the word, and based on 28 dictionary definitions I'd say it's clearly a new usage.

If you went back in time before the internet existed, I think people would have looked at you a bit funny if you called it theft when someone copied a music cassette.

The common english term for copyright violation is copyright violation. The copyright lobby is trying to get what it wants by redefining the language. Copyrights are not property. Infringment is not theft. The RIAA does not own the DRM file I bought any more than Ace Publishing owns the book I bought. BTW, patents aren't property either.

-

>when was the last time you saw a freeway without a "cleanup sponsored by" sign?

Hmmm.. you mean sort of like clean-up crews who get plaques and awards? Hmmm.. sort of like exactly what I said?. It's not jingoistic nonsense any more than saying the US has a problem with obesity, it's the damn truth.

Even your link points to a clean-up club. You prove my point. Remember Woodsy-the-Owl, "Give a hoot, don't pollute" ?? How about Earth Day? There is a strong anti-litter / "clean-it-up" attitude in this country that you don't have to look too hard to find as you've kindly demonstrated.

That is not true in many places. They litter with abandon and glee, if that requires I criticize the US in the same breath then so be it: We wallow in Doritos and french fries and TV and have a far lower literacy rate than many countries. I did read the article, almost doubling the average amount of plastic used is a dubious improvement for the environment, and pushing the cost of community clean-up on the merchant is questionable ethics and anyway will just push the cost down to the consumer who ends up paying more for those bags. Do you go around being an aggressive contrarian just for kicks? Also, you need to click here.

Access is a noun. Hence one can perform an act which becomes illegal access, one can grant or revoke access, but one cannot access something anymore than one can plane, car, or fireplug.

Hmm... Take a look at this and go to where it says "access[2,transitive verb]"

Of course, bitching on /. about grammar is about as pointless as crying "Dupe"
But what the hell, I do that too.

Even on stories that are not duplicated, I take it.
Ok, not duplicated yet.

Being a hax0r does imbibe you with any knowledge of how to develop secure systems.

Saying something "imbibes you" is like saying something "learns you." See the dictionary. You can learn a bit of knowledge. Something doesn't learn you the knowledge. Likewise, you can imbibe knowledge, but something else can't imbibe you the knowledge.

which all non-security orientated developers know how to fix (and code against)

Ugh.

Knowing how to defeat a burglar alarm system is a far cry from knowing how to build one, just as knowing how to write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow is a far cry from knowing how to write and develop for a secure environment.

You wouldn't usually write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow. Microcode is a way to implement a given CPU/Instruction Set Architecture more easily by coding it in a specialized machine language. You might write some assembler or machine language (machine code) to exploit a buffer overflow. If you could insert microcode into a machine, then you've REALLY 0wn3d it big time! Webopedia

I wouldn't hire either of you to do security. Mr Morse, because he's probably trying to manipulate the media to break into business. You because you can "effectorively communorcate" about as well as George W. Bush.

Try plugging it into an on-line dictionary, idiot. Diarrhea is the commonly used American spelling; diarrhoea is an acceptable alternative which is usually prevalent in other English-speaking nations.

"what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?"- this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!

It probably was inspired by Plato or Descartes. It's the *Western* philosophy of rationalism.

See here
and
here .

The ecology of Gibson's relationship to technology is vital to his writing. His strength, like Coupland's in Generation X and Microserfs, has been his understanding of the zeitgeist of digital culture. He has an orgranic relationship to - and a prescient understand of - what is happening.
His latest book reflects this more than any other, and this is why it was not well-received by geeks. The social impact of the internet is reflected in things like teenage girls texting each other, not unix programmers with bad facial hair.
This interview explains Gibson's intentions.

My comment wasn't entirely serious but since you insist upon parsing it that way...

unique is precisely that - one of a kind. ...Do you people have dictionaries?


Yes. Right here. J.D. Salinger, frex, seems not to completely disagree with me.

Yeah, it's pretty sad, really, although I suppose it is probably a good thing that at least _someone_ is paid to do some actual reporting.

I saw a quote a few months back from the editor of a newspaper in California. Something to the effect of, "If running a story requires us to do any fact checking or investigation, we don't print it."

I don't know a whole lot about the AP and Reuters, but I do know that if you subscribe to it, you get the whole feed, not just parts.

This means that many fringe topics that no media source would waste the money on following still get covered, instead of just following what they think as news.

I suppose it's a bit like usenet -- a few topics (groups) attract most of the users.

Unlike usenet, however, either you get (pay for) the whole feed, or none of it. There's no partial subscription which might exclude, say, gay rights stories, which some media outlets normally might not cover.

The news media is almost as bad as any other media industry: precious little money goes towards development of something worthwhile. I'm not sure what the money _does_ go towards, but the major difference between the news media and the recording industry is that the news media isn't trying to crush alternative sources of news (such as online sites), because what the AP feeds us through the major news corporations is more complete than any single website operator could manage.

AP/Reuters allows the news media to maintain a competetive advantage over other sources. If this weren't the case, I don't know what the Internet would look like today -- the major media corporations form the single largest lobby in America, and could exert a lot more political pressure than the RIAA or MPAA ever could.

You don't win elections without media coverage. Period. This is why, some people (including Ralph Nader) argue, third-party candidates never receive a huge number of votes.

I suppose this post is part information and part rant, but it amazes me how indignant people get about the control the recording industry has over politics while ignoring the fact that the news media has many times more control. The only difference is that people notice the RIAA "stepping on their toes" by shutting down Napster, for instance, but they don't notice the stories that the media outlets fail to cover, simply because of the monopoly (well, oligopoly really) on widespread coverage.

Everyone notices Napster shutting down. Nobody notices that when Congress wanted to charge tens (or hundreds, I forget which) of billions of dollars to the media outlets to license the digital spectrum (around 1996 as I recall, but don't quote me), the media outlets refused to pay, and forced the FCC to give them the licenses for free, basically on the justification that since they already controlled the existing spectrum, that they should by default be given the digital spectum as well.

This resulted in America losing out on billions of dollars. The media companies claimed that the money that they would be saving by not having to pay licensing fees would go towards improving programming.

Has anyone noticed television or radio getting better in the last 6 or 7 years? Think back to radio a decade ago. Now think of it today. It's not just the RIAA who started making music suck -- when Clear Channel plays the same few variations on top 40 across the nation, why produce anything other than homogenized crap?

Footnotes:

1) Slashdot needs legitimate footnote tags.
2) Sorry about the rant.
3) I'd not really drawn a parallel between the RIAA and the news media before, so if anything seems a bit shaky to anyone still reading, please comment! I'd love to hear what I've missed or gotten wrong.
4) Windows users: Merriam Webster's browser toolbar kicks ass. So does Google's, of course, but that almost goes without saying.

Rouge APs want to be found. Otherwise, why would they be applying cosmetics for coloring the cheeks or lips red? Alas, frequently, due to their garish application of rouge, most APs tend to attract only rogues.

Rouge APs want to be found. Otherwise, why would they be applying cosmetics for coloring the cheeks or lips red? Alas, frequently, due to their garish application of rouge, most APs tend to attract only rogues.

Presented, for your consideration, one word: galgenhumor.

Uhm, why do you say that? According to Merriam Webster spam is: unsolicited usually commercial E-mail sent to a large number of addresses.

Why can those messages not be 'personalized' and still fit that definition?

Ever notice that spam now-a-days has random strings of characters placed throughout it? That's to make it unique to prevent spam filters from looking the checksum of the message up in a database and marking it as spam.

...so 3% of Normandy's population died?

Quotation and quotation mark are indeed valid, but so is using quote as a noun.

Hope this clears things up.

It's worth noting that the word Tungsten comes from the swedish words tung and sten meaning 'heavy' and 'rock'. Heavyrock C, anyone? If you don't believe me, check out Merriam-Webster.

This might help.

Irregardless is not a word

Sure it is. It's just a word that is fairly new, is not widely accepted and has no real reason to exist.

Merriam-Webster says it well.

Perhaps you should check the dictionary before you put your foot in your mouth.

Google would disagree. "hard disk" yields 4 billion hits, and "hard disc" only 2 billion.

A bit of history might help you get over your issues.

Since the word disk comes from the Latin discus, I doubt very much that it's short for diskette.

Main Entry: joystick
Pronunciation: -"stik
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps from English slang joystick penis
Date: 1910
1 : a lever in an airplane that operates the elevators by a fore-and-aft motion and the ailerons by a side-to-side motion
2 : a control for any of various devices (as a computer display) that resembles an airplane's joystick especially in being capable of motion in two or more directions

Ah, I see, thank you very much. You see, all along, I've been relying on fringe definitions like the one from a little-known dictionary called "Merriam-Webster": "4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system", and dictionary.com: "One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file."

Clearly, what I should have done right from the beginning was consult the authoritative source of etymology, the one you cited, namely Costas Tavernarakis' homepage on some freakin' personal homepage in Greece!

Look, you've lost. "Hacker" is someone who breaks into computer systems illegally. That's the accepted use in English. It will never mean anything else, regardless of how much a handful of computer hobbiests like yourself will it to. So you found someone's homepage that carries about as much weight as your own post on Slashdot, as far as redefining a word goes. Big deal. It's over. Let it go. Find a new word.

I don't think that sanctioning dangerous research will prevent it from happening.

I agree. Reverse psychology will only get you so far ;-)

I'm not generally one of the 'grammar nazis' here, but your sentence means exactly the opposite of what (I think) you meant:

See the second entry (transitive verb) of sanction.

-chris

• Good songs
• The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
• The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
• The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.

Okay, I'll bite.

I think anyone with at least a modicrum of IQ understands this. The direct problem is that corporations do not have IQs, they have people who run them, and the big-cheese of the RIAA have a lot of people that run them.

To put it another way: Musical recordings, songs, lyrics, accompanying video, and trademarks, are all potentially valuable intellectual property. That is, they're valuable assets to the rich, potential income, retirement collateral, virtual wealth. The Big-Five own a lot of this IP. Copyright extensions mean that this vault of IP wealth has aquired a deep-rooted stability. Consequently, a lot of wealthy people invest in these corporations, to build their asset portfolios. The result? The Big-5 are million-headed hydras, who can not control their own assets. Beside the point, I feel I should point out that many of these assets physically rot before the copyright expires, because IP is percieved as eternal-until-public-domain.

So, my point is that you have two things impeding these corporate mammoths from mobilizing in the face of change. First, these corporations do not have the power to act independantly of their shareholders. Second, IP is the backbone of rich fools, and they deathly fear anything that can undermine the value of their assets.

As to the second, you can see where laws like the DMCA and the Canadian (and soon to be American) Media Tax come from. The rich, mostly unorganized and unenlightened about technological improvements, finance and lobby for laws that will [not] protect American financial assets (IP), and thus the economy closest to the average politician, who is an almost always an investor.

This is a "natural" course of events in a capitalist society, but it's about as natural as a blood clot or a cancer. Idealy, such a situation will kill itself off. When the stock market crashed [which it has done repeatedly since it came into being], each time, a massive number of novices invested poorly, without interest in the material of their investments, and without vision of what they were investing in, beyond money. This is what has happened to the massive backbones of the RIAA. Now see, the few bright people running the big-names have very little control over their company's policies, and more agile, privately owned companies are springing up to fill the economic void the corporations are physically incapable of ever delivering. What will prevent a stock market crash is that 1) these companies will probably go public, and 2) Music IP is still not the live vein of the US economy, despite what lobbiests want believed. I believe these smaller corporations, cdbaby and theendrecords, for instance, will save both music and that domain of the economy. Musicians couldn't care less about the later, despite the unfortunate dependancy.

I'd like to advance another theory, while I'm at it. As I said, normally a healthy capitalist society would eject such a malady as the present Music Oligopoly. Each of the Big-5 aquired telecommunications companies in its past. Telecommunications companies posses government-granted monopolies. Economists fear monopolies because of how drastically they damage capitalist economies, and there is good evidence to support that fear. Monopolies were granted to telecom industries to advance both public and economic welfare. Those companies were aquired by companies whose profession is the buying, selling, and leasing of limited monopolies [IP]. I think there's a very important fact to be had here, it deserves a study. Aside, I think it's obvious enough tha

surprize

reputedly... dumbass.

Hm.

Certainly, prior to 9/11/01 the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil was comitted by an American. Very true. I'm not sure how this relates to the point i.e., the origins of Islamic terrorism but never mind.

The discussion was of Islamic terrorists: mostly, they're a group of (among other things) religious extremists. American terrorists are a different fish entirely, as are Basque seperatists, and (arguably) the IRA. But we weren't talking about them.

(Minor point: spelling American as "Amerikan" is sophomoric: it looks like you pull your ideology verbatim from the liner notes of a Rage Against the Machine album.)

Obviously you and I have different definitions of the word liberal.

I dunno: you never gave me your definition. For the record, here goes. Mr. Webster says:

A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Yep, I qualify. For the several qualifications: I believe in (or strive for) progress; despite my cynical nature I think the mass of humanity are good; individual rights and the protection of civil and political freedoms are central to my political beliefs, evidenced by my membership in the ACLU.

In any event, this is beside the point. I reject the dogmatic idea that anyone who disagrees with me is against me (i.e. is not a liberal). I simply hate muddled-headed thinking, which is what I was responding to in the parent post.

Oh -- about Iran/Iraq. Your statement "the US armed both Iraq and Iran to try to get them to kill each other" isn't even an argument, it's an opinion, and one I would challenge you to back up with fact, policy statements, or something. The American policy of the time -- balancing powers and denying regional hegemony -- is neither peculiar to the U.S. nor is it intrinsically evil. In any event, in a free market society can the seller be responsible for the fact that both parties wanted to buy from them? No.

You'll recall, however, that the American arms sales to Iran started a scandal that rivaled Watergate; that our elected officals punished some of the offenders and implemented controls to attempt to prevent such things from occuring in the future. In short, the system worked. As a liberal and an American, I dig that.

I know this is slashdot, but perhaps next time reason rather than rant.

It only takes as long to "coin the meaning of a new term" as it takes you to think of a term, and think of a meaning. Voila! It's coined. Whether it becomes an accepted part of the language is another thing entirely.

"Second Superpower" was a term apparently invented a month or two ago, and spread rapidly throughout certain communities. I'd never heard it myself until I saw this article, but then there's a lot of words I don't know. (Anyone who thinks ve knows all words, is deluding verself.) The author is not saying that Google defines the word or provides a usage for it -- you didn't read the article, did you? -- but rather that the usage of the term was coopted by Google (probably accidentally), because of the placement of a particular article high in the search results for that term. Moore's usage of the term is now more prevalent, according to Google, than the original usage.

Phrases like "Second Superpower" come and go all the time. Remember "Family Values"? Remember "Mistakes were made"? Neither of those have left English entirely, but they are certainly far less prevalent than they were before. Language is a very fluid thing; it is not defined by dictionaries any more than the species of birds are defined by books on ornithology. The key phrase to remember is, "Dictionaries give usages, not definitions" (see this article and this article).

Actually, according to most dictionaries, that's no longer the only acceptable meaning. In fact, many list the original, literal meaning as a secondary definition, not the primary one.

Language, like software, evolves. :-)

It's *WRONG* to say 'disorientate'. It's not a word people, puh-lease!!!

At my university:
Classes tought with C#: 0
Classes tought with Java: 6

Class taught in Spelling: Priceless.
For all else, there's m-w

Price-gouging is also called profiteering. Merriam-Webster uses this definition:

one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

Ok, LCD screens are not an essential good and even though this is this a time of emergency for some, it's hardly relevant to the need for an LCD monitor. I'm not even sure they're making that much profit since there's such a high waste ratio in making LCDs. Besides, LCDs are just priced at what CRTs used to be ... so in retrospect were CRTs being price gouged?

INTENT suggests clearer formulation or greater deliberateness [the clear intent of the statute].

synonyms INTENTION, PURPOSE, DESIGN, AIM, END, OBJECT, OBJECTIVE, GOAL

INTENT suggests clearer formulation or greater deliberateness [the clear intent of the statute].

synonyms INTENTION, PURPOSE, DESIGN, AIM, END, OBJECT, OBJECTIVE, GOAL

• Translate - 2 a : to turn into one's own or another language b : to transfer or turn from one set of symbols into another
  
• Coalition - 2 : a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action
  
• Occupation - 3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
  

Because[sic] the US really, really respects the opinion of the rest of the World.

http://www.webster.com is your friend. They even have a way you can put a dictionary/thesaurus on your home page: http://www.m-w.com/tools/search/searchboxes.htm

You can do the same thing with Google. I have both on my webpage. Isn't that simply rad? ;)

Your lawn dart delivery system reminds me of a similar system that *has* seen a decent amount of use -- the "wrap document around brick and hurl through plate glass window" delivery method...

Anyway, he didn't really build this thing because it's the best way to deliver a document... haven't you ever built anything just for fun, because you could?

I wrote a little text-to-speech converter once entirely in HTML and JavaScript, using the word pronunciations at Merriam-Webster Online. Naturally it was horrible, but very funny to listen to.

When we first got Cisco IP phones at my previous office I wrote a program that used the call manager web interface to initiate an outgoing call from any phone in the building to an external number of your choice (you'd just type in the target extension, destination number, and hit "make the call!").

You make rules -- like "work on this is only allowed between 12 and 1pm" -- because of course there's no real point. Maybe just "because it was there". And possibly to proudly show your little mutant creation to your friends and laugh about how interesting but useless an achievement it is.

4. Al Gore knows government. True, but he knew the last government. That's a problem. He knew a lot of key decisons makers and might have been able to leverage those. Now there is a new government, and many decisions of scale and size are made by political apointee's and their sub-ordinates. This means he in fact has very little leverage for Apple now that GWBush is in office.

Presidents come and go, but mandarins are in it for the long haul. And we all know who's actually making the decisions...

[...] causing processes to go bezerk.

Sounds weird, but it's legit and old.
(according to m-w, anyway)

Main Entry: 2certificate
Pronunciation: -'ti-f&-"kAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cated; -cating
Date: 1883
: to testify to or authorize by a certificate; especially : to recognize as having met special qualifications (as of a governmental agency or professional board) within a field

Meriam-Webster online

If your situation is as you say, then your g/f does not practice what she says she believes and is not what she says she is.

That is to say you cannot claim to be of a faith (any faith or non-faith) and yet live in open and willfull contradiction to the tennants of that faith.

For example, a vegetarian cannot claim to be one and yet eat any type of meat any time she/he wants. If they do, then they don't really fall under that belief system.

That is not to say that to be of a faith you have to follow all the "rules/regulations/ideas" of that faith, unless the belief of that faith is that anything less than 100% compliance is unacceptable. You just cannot continually and willfully disregard selected principles of that faith and only keep the ones you want. If that person does so, then they fall under their own catagory or branch of that faith.

For example a pacifist cannot believe it is ok to kill someone in special circumstances. They either believe the precept or not.

Bringing it back to your example; A Christian does not have to keep all the precepts of that faith to be called one. Far from it, because no one can. They must only continually strive to do so, and not live in open contradiction to those ideas.
robi

And what's the difference between a Geek and a Dork?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: geek
Pronunciation: 'gEk
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low German geck, from Middle Low German
Date: 1914
1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of


http://www.yourdictionary.com/
dork
(dôrk)
n.
Slang: A stupid, inept, or foolish person: "the stupid antics of America's favorite teen-age cartoon dorks" (Joshua Mooney).
Vulgar Slang: The penis.


I have also heard the word dork used as slang in referring to a whale's penis.

"...The chip is dubbed Godson-2 and is the follow-on to a 32-bit, 266-MHz version released last year that is aimed at the embedded systems market.
...snip...
Godson-2, which has also been translated into English as Dragon or Longxin, has already been prototyped. "

uh... since when is "Longxin" English? no entry in the Dictionary