Slashdot Mirror

Main Entry: prejudice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun

2 a ... (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

(Merriam-Webster)

An alternative definition is "A mainframe computer that is among the largest, fastest, or most powerful of those available at a given time"

Again, the word "mainframe", which I don't believe covers any cluster solution, even if it's built with 10,000 3GHz P3s. That would, however, be a very powerful compute pool, but not a mainframe.

Of course, you could argue whether that dictionary definition is now wrong and whether the definition of supercomputer should include these clusters; Dictionaries reflect the language of the time, they don't define it.

Merrian-Webster defines a cult as a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious. I think that a majority of us can agree that the idea that we were cloned from aliens is unorthodox.

If a girl shows her best friend her diary, does it suddenly stop becoming a diary, and become something else?

Look at the definition of a diary, and tell me where it says diaries can't be published.

Do you mean asinine? Like replying to someone's post for the sole purpose of correcting spelling?

No, the sign "No shirt, No shirt, No service" is not a law in all places. When was the last time you went to Daytona Beach?
Sorry for the metaphor but that was the best way to put into the perspective that sometimes one does not have to sign noterize and witness before God an agreement that can be settled by a notice such as a sign.

By the way, if metaphors had no place in deciding law, then how would the legalities of new technologies be determined?

In the meantime check out this concept:

Paragraph:

1 a : a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line b : a short composition or note that is complete in one paragraph

Try this on for size:
new concept

That said, Google has a right to decide advertising as it sees fit. The decision to allow or disallow certain types of advertising is indeed censoring material, and Google has every right to do so.

They also have a right to block from their search engine whatever material they find objectionable. However, in that case, the censorship is indeed evil -- unless Google makes it explicity clear that the information is filtered.

In summation: filtering of advertising, not evil. Filtering of information: evil. Anybody who confuses advertising with information: needs to think about what planet they're living on.

In response to this, the IAB is happy to provide four new formats for the new year, because the banner is actually well liked.

Also, what the hell ever happened to designing a page that was...oh...I don't know....simple? If I just have an image at the top, does it really matter how big it is? Why do I have to redesign my entire site?

"Larger ad units are far more alluring and impactful," Mr. Schroeder said. "Now that we offer skyscapers, big boxes and leaderboards, there is no question that the banner is less relevant. The leaderboard, for instance, occupies basically the same position on our pages as a banner, but is more than twice the size."

A dictionary doesn't even show a word for impactful. Those clever marketing people, so innovative. Of course, I think they're more moronicful. I also think they are suckful.

I like how they take normal words (skyscraper, leader board) and turn them into marketingesse. I'm just thankful that the pop-up, was met by something like mozilla with pop-up blocking, or what I propose we call guillotine

Even though she has been diagnosed with ADHD by a doctor, I question giving drugs to "correct" the behavior of such an individual. I don't know what long term effects drugs like the dreaded "r" have, but I'd be afraid of neutering my child with such drugs if I found they had a high IQ.

This is a reasonable fear to have; around my house we would jokingly refer to Ritalin as the "zombie worker bee pill".

But for me, Ritalin was immensely helpful in helping me to put all my smarts to use. Growing up, I was deeply frustrated at how little I got done: I started a million things, and finished about two. I had a long string of report cards that talked about the great gap between my potential and what I actually accomplished. Ritalin (and the other ADHD drugs I tried) allowed me to actually focus on something in a normal way, which was a revelation.

Unfortunately, I didn't get diagnosed until college, so I had 18 years of bad habits and self-esteem issues to unwind. If I could wave a magic wand, I would change things so that I could have tried Ritalin (and other ADHD meds) intermittently from an early age (e.g., a week on, a week off). I really value the saltative way my ADHD-flavored brain works, but it was only the addition of some drug-induced mundane habits that let me really flower.

As long as you're going to correct people on that misspelling (which I heartily approve of!), you might want to tell them what the correct spelling is: voila (technically with an accent that slashdot doesn't seem to want to let me enter the HTML entity for).

Still, it's funny to read it out loud and wonder what the hell they were thinking... >:-)

Yes, geek is derogatory.

Thank you. This is one of the best laid-out posts I've seen here in ages. The only thing which would make me marginally happier would have been if these guys had known what an ochlophobe was.

Another question to ask is "How were artists, composers and performers renumerated prior to the advent of the recording industry?"

And yet another good question is, why were they being given new numbers when what they really needed was money?

Another question to ask is "How were artists, composers and performers renumerated prior to the advent of the recording industry?"

And yet another good question is, why were they being given new numbers when what they really needed was money?

Hubris

Almost 500 years, according to Merriam Webster. The first entry sets the date at 1560 AD.

There is a difference between the words "book", "novel", and "volume".

See here under definition 1 d of book:
'a major division of a treatise or literary work'

LOTR was always 1 novel consisting of 6 books. Tolkien wanted it printed in 1 volume, but the publisher insisted on splitting it into 3 volumes, each with 2 books.

-chris

I amd the recipient of one of these letters. Here's the deal:

I was told to stop using the term Windows(tm) in conjunction with my home improvement project. I was informed that now I have to call the items openings especially in the wall of a building for admission of light and air that is usually closed by casements or sashes containing transparent material (as glass) and capable of being opened and shut .

This has put a real crimp in my dealings with my contractor. They think I'm crazy for using such a long phrase when a common word would suffice.

Is that insane, or what?

How about we refer to an American dictionary? Constitution. Nowhere does it say it has to be a single document. You are judging a foreign concept based on your own nation's practices. This just doesn't work. You're also using a very narrow definition of the word "constitution", also based on your country's practices.

You obviously don't understand how the British constitution works. Have no doubt, it too defines many of the same things as the American constitution. In some way I prefer the British approach as it allows for more freedom: it defines what you can't do, which makes everything else permissive, and thus it is more able to cope with a changing world - there are parts of the American constitution that I think are outdated or unnecessary (e.g. 2nd amendment) that are now retarding society's development as people try to define themselves from this aging document. Don't get me wrong, the writers of that constitution did an amazing job and showed great foresight, yet it is still too rigid for me as it is a document from a different time when people had a increasingly different values.

The parliamentary system goes against much of the grain of the American system by allowing the partial merging of the executive and legislative branches of goverment. However, this doesn't mean that the constitution is any less weak at preventing abuse of power. In fact, I see far more abuse going on right now with GWB and his cronies than in the parliamentary democracies. He surely cares little for individual's rights, whether defined by the constitution or it's intents, or not.

no doubt, but this comes from Middle English taken from Latin, which, I don't believe includes the Americas, the North American continent, or the United States.
As the brit I used to work with used to say, "Management is nothing more than the redaction department for my ideas."
Google returns about 65,000 hits.

The etymology is here

analyse various pieces written by the chosen composer, find the common themes, and then use them to produce new pieces which would have the same "feel" as the originals.

I like the Mirriam-Webster website more anyway. Who's to say what dictionary defines the language other than the dictionary's creators?

Unless you're making thousands of copies and selling them, copyright infringement is not a crime. It's tort. Traffic law varies but failing to stop at a stop sign is probably some kind of misdemeanour. If you were inebriated or just deranged you could be charged with driving to endanger, a felony.

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.

Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:

steal: verb (In the transitive sense)

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate

take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.

I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.

Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.

(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)

Yes, according to Merriam-Webster Online:

One entry found for gruntle.
Main Entry: gruntle
Pronunciation: 'gr&n-t&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): gruntled; gruntling /'gr&nt-li[ng], 'gr&n-t&l-i[ng]/
Etymology: back-formation from disgruntle
Date: 1926
: to put in a good humor <were gruntled with a good meal and good conversation -- W. P. Webb>

What do you mean by "aniquilates"? Do you mean "anihilates"? I don't see the former in the dictionary.

And the word is "Antipathy". While the literal definition holds words like "distaste" and "enmity" as synonyms (see Merriam-Websters online for a nice impartial dictionary) the common usage I have heard all my life is "extreme apathy".

To quote the old joke...

Teacher: "Are you ignorant? or just plain apathetic?"
Student: "I don't know... and I don't care!"

My presumtion is that the phrase originated as the pejorative, "They don't even eat their own dog food!", which asserts that the fact that a company doesn't even use it's own product is a big vote of no confidence. It's crap, and they know it. Marketroids, always ones to capitalize on a hot new idiom, tried spinning the inverted "We eat our own dogfood" into something positive. But the admission was there that it was still dog food. This says to me: "We know it's crap, but we still use it, so obviously it can't be *that* crappy! Besides, it's our crap, and we need you to think we believe in it."

How about some context: Look on the label from a can of dog food, one of the more common ingredients is "tripe". While apparently it is one of the basic food groups for dogs, it carries another important connotation for humans.

You go ahead a eat your own dogfood. When I produce dog food, I feed it to the dogs.

HTH. HAND.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=objective

"... b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum."

Find me two perfectly unbiased analysts to make this decision. You can't, short of people who are completely unbiased because they don't know anything about the topic.

The definition talks about "reducing subjective factors to a minimum" By including Microsoft as well as OSS adovcates they are trying to balance the panel.

I agree with you about Stallman, but if the panel had been made up of just Stallman and the FSF the slashbots probably would be appaulding Japan over their selection of a well-rounded panel.

Since you can't find a truly objective person you have to balance everyone's views. As an old cliche puts it, there are three sides to every story, your side, his side and the truth. Japan wants to find out the truth, not Microsoft's story, and not OSS's story. By putting members of both extremes on the panel they are doing the best possible in the real world to get an objective analysis.

Do you even know what a firewall is?

Dumbass.

Oh, and thanks for having the balls to post under your handle.

Let me make it more clear for my Anonymous Cowardly freind:
Mod chips can allow for untrusted code to be run by an Xbox. This code could possibly be something like an aimbot or some other game client-side game cheat(lets not go into the whole...is it smart to have client side checks..blah blah). Lets say the little cheater's code (perhaps maliciously) sends baddly formed data words to the server possibly doing damage, but likely ruining someone else's game experience. Is this so inconvievable? It happens all the time with PC MMRPGs and game server have been brought down by cheaters.

[...] going kamakazi [...]

Actually, YOU don't seem to understand the basic definition of a monopoly. MS has a monopoly because the court found that there was not a viable competitor in the market - they have exclusive possesion or control of the desktop OS market.

The "abuse" of that monopoly (using monopoly power to leverage other business in a way that gives MS an unfair advantage) is the illegal part.

While I agree that "most people" don't care if MS used standards, I would bet that "most computer professionals" DO care, yet due to the monopoly issue can do very little about it. MS's failure to adhere to standards (and the embrace and extend practice) makes it REALLY flippin hard to interface MS systems to other non-MS systems.

The definition of "monopoly" has absolutely nothing to do with "whether or not a company sells things for what the market will bear".

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

What you are talking about is merely one "classical complaint" about why monopolies are bad ("Monopolies are potentially dangerous because once a company has a monopoly, it can effectively charge whatever it wants").

Microsoft is a monopoly because they have a near-100% market share in many areas.

Microsoft is abusiving their monopoly (as determined by the Feds) because they abused their monopoly standing in various ways (e.g. browbeating all hardware vendors to not offer any alternative-OS/no-OS computers).

If I recall correctly, having a monopoly isn't even illegal... it's abusing a monopoly that's illegal. But as the old saying goes, "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", so most people nowadays don't seem to draw much distinction between "a monopoly" and "an abusive monopoly". Since, in the end, virtually all of the former turn into the latter-- and usually in short order...

Linux is pretty bad about this with normal processes, but VMware exasperates the problem.

Nice concept but the lack of haptic feedback will severely limit it's usability for most people. I know personally that I operate my remote almost completely by feel. That's how most tv manufactures design their remotes.

the way, what're you goin' didactic on yo ass!

A professional assasin would've killed his target, got out, and collected his paycheck.

Yes and no. Mostly yes -- a professional assassin is typically hired to kill a specific target. A true mercenary does the job purely for financial gain, not for ideological purposes, and so the motivation to escape is obviously high.

But what if your aim is to instill fear? Suicide bombers don't care about getting out; they want to take as many with them as possible. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover the motivation for the snipers was to instill as much fear as possible in the American population. To that end, it was a big success -- no apparent link between the targets, which meant anyone could be next, and they just kept on going day after day with no-one having a clue who they were.

So, the lesson is that, while professional is usually taken to mean that one gets paid for the task, that's not the only definition. It can refer to someone who performs a task to high standards and with a certain degree of expertise (look it up on Merriam-Webster).

(Oh, and it's Pyrrhic, not phyrric. Even without the correct spelling, it still refers to Pyrrhus, so you should at least capitalize it as a proper noun. Classical education ain't what it were.)

Not necessarily. I visited Merriam-Webster to check on this, and "receiving financial return" is just one of the many definitions of a professional.

I believe there was a related debate on a recent Slashdot poll involving programming, where two of the options were "Professional" and "Open Source". This was a poor choice of words, since the two are not mutually exclusive.

(from http://www.m-w.com/ )

Main Entry: obsolete
Pronunciation: "b-s&-'lEt, 'b-s&-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus, from past participle of obsolescere to grow old, become disused, perhaps from ob- toward + solEre to be accustomed
Date: 1579
1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED
2 of a plant or animal part : indistinct or imperfect as compared with a corresponding part in related organisms : VESTIGIAL
synonym see OLD
- obsoletely adverb
- obsoleteness noun