Slashdot Mirror

You make a very good point. When will we wake up?

Honestly, I am ashamed to be living in this country at the moment. If our founding fathers were to see what is happening right now, they would turn over in their fucking graves, and then ask to be rebuired in Europe. We beleive that we are the greatest country in the world, even when we were founded on the concept of equality. We sit back and let the "big guy" make, break, or bend all the rules and then complain that we can't do a thing about it.

Now I know that most of you are thinking, "What do you mean?? I've made my post! I've written my congressmen! I've done my part!" Well have you? They say that the pen is mightier than the sword, but in this case, we might have to try harder.

Look, I'm not trying to be a troll here (although it may be too late), and I might be a little off topic, but this law just underlines a much bigger problem. We, "Joe Sixpack", don't make the laws anymore. Now it is the person or corporation with the most money. If this gets passed, how far will they go? They are asking for permission to legally commit crimes. I thought that laws were put into place so that this sort of thing wouldn't happen!

I wonder at what point the revolt will happen.

Maybe not a revolt, but just an eye opener. When will we finally realize that this sort of thing has gotten completely out of hand? To me, the scariest thing is this isn't the government we are talking about, but a CORPORATION, "a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession" (Merriam-Webster). I don't see anywhere in there that says they can make the law.

It's so blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that your corporations are out of control.

They are out of control, and as for all of you that don't live in america, I envy you. Its hard to live in a country where everyone wants a peice of the pie, and then some. It doesn't leave that much for the little people.

I say that if this actually gets passed, we fight back. I could maybe understand if they were targeting the person who was actually breaking the law, but that's not the case. I don't want my connection going down just because some asshole decided to go download "Fight Club." Why must we be punished for the actions of another? I say if you get DoSed, DoS them right back. tacokill is right. If this does get passed, it should be open season.

If it isn't... well, then I want a first-class, one-way ticket to anywhere but here.

My God, what have we done? -Robert Lewis

Islam and Jehovah's Witnesses are not, and as far as I know do not claim to be, Christian because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God nor that he is a Divine Being of any kind. Christianity is not a specific religion, nor is it limited to Protestant religions. It is based on a belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is a category that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints falls squarely into. The examples you cite of "radically non-Christian" beliefs are among arguments commonly taken out of context to foster distaste for our belief system, and it is probable you did not hear them from a member of our church. For example, we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We also read in the Bible that Lucifer is a fallen from Heaven (cf. Isa. 14:12 -- "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer!"), so we may infer that he, too, was a child of God, albeit "child" is used in a completely different context. So to say that Lucifer is a brother to Jesus Christ is nothing more than to say we are all children of God, but not in the sense that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so Jesus Christ is a brother to all of us, but in an astronomically superior sense. The other example you cite is not something you will find anywhere within the canon of scripture used by the Church, and is extrapolated from a belief that cannot be intelligently discussed without a foundation of much more basic beliefs. In any case, the beliefs upon which those things are founded, even in context, are more like the quantum physics of our belief system. The basic algebra is mostly the same. I think it is much more important, especially in our interfaith relations, that, like other Christians, we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ that instruct us to love our neighbors, do good to others and live good, clean lives. It is for this reason that Mormons can often be found working alongside Baptists, Protestant Christians and Catholics for common causes despite certain doctrinal differences (of which there are many -- that I do not dispute).

I know /. is not the best place to have a religious discussion, but these kinds of misconceptions are the things that get us classed and confused with JW's so frequently (I have seen so many people shocked at the fact that we celebrate Easter, Christmas and birthdays, I just had to say something).

What country are you from, as you've surely not learnt about freedom. No manufacturer has any right to tell me how to use a product that I own. The whole idea is ridiculous - could you imagine Ford trying to tell their customers that the only passengers they can carry in their cars are people who own Fords?

In any event, it is really unconscionable that XFS isn't being integrated into 2.5.

It is nothing of the sort. For one thing, you should look up the word unconscionable - "I do not think it means what you think it means." For another, if you think it such a great crime, why don't you undertake to integrate it?

Hint: "integrate" does not mean "take the SGI patch and throw it at Linus". It means "comb through SGI's patch, figure out what all was added to the kernel to support XFS, and take it apart feature by feature." Then, for each separate feature:

• Produce an independent patch - independent meaning does not require the rest of the XFS patch, does not break the kernel, and actually accomplishes something on its own.
• Figure out how to justify its existence in a sufficiently convincing way that Linus knows you're actually trying to improve the kernel, not just throw crap in it so you can have XFS.
• If Linus thinks your feature is stupid, poorly designed or poorly implemented, he's probably right. He's pretty amazing that way. You must take his criticism into account to figure out another way to get the needed facility. (If necessary, hash something out on linux-kernel or linux-fsdevel.) Iterate until you get a patch Linus likes, then adapt XFS to use that instead.

Finally, when Linus has merged enough of your patches that XFS has all it needs, send Linus the XFS filesystem code itself. At this point Linus will most likely take it. If Linus has objections to the XFS code itself, work with him to clean it up as necessary. Remember, just because code was good enough for IRIX doesn't mean it's good enough for Linux. (:

Here endeth the XFS Integration Mini-HOWTO.

What? You don't want to be the one who gets to do all that after all? Then quitcher bellyachin'.

Funny how you acuse (and continue to do it) ppl of being full of sh!t (hint: not a valid argument -- ad nauseum).

Funny how you acuse (and continue to do it) ppl of being full of sh!t (hint: not a valid argument -- ad nauseum).

"Goober" is another word for "peanut". The name got hijacked presumably because of its similarity to "booger".

I think the word you are looking for is oxymoron, not redundant.

Entry: yet
Pronunciation: 'yet
Function: adverb
...

2 a (1) : up to now : so far <hasn't done much yet> -- often used to imply the negative of a following infinitive <have yet to win a game>
...

In other words, by the definition above, the phrase could be reconstructed "No one has [so far] volunteer[ed]" or (by flipping the clause) "So far, no one has volunteered."

I just realized that there is no other simple construction that uses the infinitive; every alternative I can find changes the infinitive to a past tense. Actually, I think that's exactly what the sentence needs. My preference would be the construction "No one has yet volunteered" -- a simple change, but one that makes the phrase substantially less ambiguous.

I just checked the Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, and couldn't find a definitive reference in either for this construction. (How I wish I had a copy of Strunk & White by my desk...) If anyone can find a reference to support (or to refute, I'd be interested), please post it. Thanks!

tough competitive force. . . . It's non-traditional, it's free and it's cheap", Steve Ballmer about Linux

Hmm, methinks Steve is using cheap as in "of inferior quality or worth" or "contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities." Webster's. Personally I think the word is best applied to Windows.

What would you consider to be examples of American `organizations' acting in a `totalitarian and domineering' manner overseas? What are your sources for these examples?

Here's a speech on the topic. A newspaper article is here originally published in the Boston Globe. There's a good essay on the subject here, although I am sure you'll pooh-pooh this one as you do anything associated with the UN, the author is extremely credible. I leave the rest of the trivial google searching you can use to do your own research to you.

Or to turn the whole thing on its head, since it is plain to even the metaphorical "Blind Freddy" that large companies get away with whatever they are not specifically prohibited from doing, and act in a totalitarian and domineering manner (click to look 'em up if you have trouble) whenever they possibly can (hence the extremely large amount of legislation existing to regulate corporate behaviour especially monopolistic behaviour) what point, exactly, are you attempting to make?

What would you consider to be examples of American `organizations' acting in a `totalitarian and domineering' manner overseas? What are your sources for these examples?

Here's a speech on the topic. A newspaper article is here originally published in the Boston Globe. There's a good essay on the subject here, although I am sure you'll pooh-pooh this one as you do anything associated with the UN, the author is extremely credible. I leave the rest of the trivial google searching you can use to do your own research to you.

Or to turn the whole thing on its head, since it is plain to even the metaphorical "Blind Freddy" that large companies get away with whatever they are not specifically prohibited from doing, and act in a totalitarian and domineering manner (click to look 'em up if you have trouble) whenever they possibly can (hence the extremely large amount of legislation existing to regulate corporate behaviour especially monopolistic behaviour) what point, exactly, are you attempting to make?

Patrick Henry, a member of the First Continental Congress and first Governor of Virginia said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

George Washington, the first U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army said the following:

"It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible."

"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."

"The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."
- "Farewell Address," 1796

Noah Webster, a framer of the Constitution and "Father of the Dictionary", wrote in an 1832 public school textbook, History of the United States, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

I can guess only that you are a foreigner attempting to mock the beliefs and principles upon which the United States of America was founded and relies.

Let us be clear!
The U.S.A. was founded as one Nation under the triune God, Jehovah:

1. Father God
2. Jesus the Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), Son of God, Savior ><>
3. the Holy Spirit

They are diverse enough that loosing wouldn't kill them.

"Loosing"?! "LOOSING"?!

Loosing means the act of letting fly, the act of letting loose, or the act of relaxing. I'm not sure what they're loosing in your sentence, but it doesn't make sense.

Unless you meant "losing" as in L-O-S-I-N-G, which means "the act of failure, or being brought to destruction" - which would make sense in that sentence.

Now I'm sorry if English isn't your native language or anything like that (although with a ".us" domain name, it probably is) but there are so many people here - and on the Internet in general - who spell "LOSING" with a second "O" that it does not have!

Oh, and apparently you're an idiot for thinking that Walmart has a vested interest in improving Linux.

However, I think that you do have a point - if Walmart thinks it'd be cheaper to improve the Linux product to increase their sales, they well might decide to roll their own or make deals with Linux vendors to improve the existing Linux distros. To people who say that Walmart is "just trying to cut costs," remember that bringing costs in-house - growing "horizontally" - has been used in the past by big buisnesses (Rockerfeller, Carnegie...) to help increase profits by removing a middle-man from the process.

Since I don't have a clear financial view of how much it would cost Wal-Mart to help with Linux as opposed to leave well enough alone, I can't say whether or not they will - at this time, I expect that they will not and simply pump cash into the Linux distros they sell through licensing expenses, and maybe request improvements.

Of course, the flip side to the coin is that they may be simply using this as a barganing tactic to get Microsoft to lower costs. In which case it still may be in their best interests to improve Linux, or at least threaten to do so. It's hard to say without knowing the exact costs as well as having market data to help predict the costs and benifits to trying to improve Linux compared to letting the distros evolve naturally. Time will tell...

11. Have a good maniacle laugh - To Be Done

The plural of X-Box is X-Boxes. Please consult Merriam-Webster and try again.

Competition implies that the OSS community is tied up in a parry-and-jab with MS, which we most definately are not -- why else would we be so eager to interoperate with Windows boxen, even when it means trying to adhere to MS's broken "standards"?

1 : the act or process of competing : RIVALRY: as a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms b : active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply
2 : a contest between rivals; also : one's competitors <faced tough competition>

While it's hard to speak of the open source / free software community as a competitior due to lack of organization, several companies such as Mandrake are directly competing against Microsoft for the desktop market. They do have their tactic and can change it if they want.

Try using this some time.

BTW, I'm wondering what part of 'Uniform Resource Locator' these yahoo's don't understand.

Just because a resource locator is uniform does not mean it should be universally accessable, available or used by each and everyone.

BTW, I'm wondering what part of 'Uniform Resource Locator' these yahoo's don't understand.

Just because a resource locator is uniform does not mean it should be universally accessable, available or used by each and everyone.

Thanks!

Look up pan in a dictionary. That particular entry lists one meaning as "a harsh criticism". While the lawyers in mention have perhaps harsh criticism for cyber-silliness, they aren't calling for an outright ban on internet exceptions.

You mean, 'sketchy', 'used', 'necessarily', 'weight', 'intimidate', and 'employees'. Not to mention the other horrific and egregious grammatical errors in there.

Oi. Go back to remedial school, please. (Note: I refuse to accept the, "I am stupid," or, "I am an engineer," excuses. If you're smart enough to read and to use a web browser, you're smart enough to learn how to spell and use decent 9th grade grammar.)

Seemed apposite.

Seemed apposite.

welp i read it. Looks to me like they are spending more money than they take in. Not to the point that they are always borrowing. Its not deficit spending. This is just deficit to me, as in spending it faster than you get it. It also looks like their major source of income was in the form of loans and the like. The people loaing the money EXPECT a return on investment. Taking on a loan with no real plan to pay it back becomes a major liability in a busness. Also in a period when everyone else was cutting back they expanded their total assests from 6mil to 9mil. Where do you think that money came from? It sure was not from net receivables. It looks to me like it came from selling stock. Which is a form of a loan.

They had a bad financal model. Its broke. You can not give something away for free and expect people to just keep giving you money. Then suddenly start charging for it and expect to keep people to keep coming in for it. They were/are spending money like they are an 90 million dollar company when in reality they are a half a million dollar company. The party is over and they are just trying to see who will get stuck with the check.

Your citation of Germany as being a market economy is correct - a market econonmy in which all economic activity was subject to control by the state. Krupp Steel's ownership was managed by the Nazis. About 1925 (?) the last remaining Krupp heir was a woman. She was married off to "some guy" who adopted the name of Krupp (see "The Arms of Krupp", a fascinating book.)

According to Merriam-Webster, you're correct as well regarding the social component. I was ignoring that aspect in the discussion, partly because I'm lazy :O)

M-W: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

This reminds me of Anakin Skywalker in SWII - "Someone should make them do the right thing."

So, in addition to being ironic in the dictionary sense, it is ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense?

I think you mean stress not duress...

Or, what exactly are you doing when you exercise?!

I think you mean stress not duress...

Or, what exactly are you doing when you exercise?!

They gave my mom a rasher of shit...

Cripes people. Just because it sounds correct if you say it fast enough with a mouth full of spam sandwich to a drunken telemarketer doesn't make it right.

And now that I've given you a ration of crap, we can get back on topic.

I am sure things like this will happen in the future, but when it is the reality for majority of people, are we still "watching TV" or do we call it something totally different?

I believe we are fixated to thinking that TV means receiving a broadcast transmission. Instead in year 2015 we might be watching "something+vision" like "D vision" (and your favorite show will be D vision by zero). Any other suggestions on terms replacing TV in future?

from Merriam-Webster's thesaurus:
Entry Word: television
Text: a medium of communication involving the transmission and reproduction of images by radio waves

Well first of all, its convenient that you left out definition a from www.m-w.com which is exactly the same as the first one from dictionary.com. Secondly, from a legal standpoint, copyrighted materials aren't even property. They are works for which the government has granted someone an exclusive liscense to control the distribution of the work for a limited period of time. Insisting that copyright infringment is "theft" is just a convenient way to distract people from the real nature of the crime.

i really hate the phrase "me thinks".

It's not a phrase, it's a word.

Of course, some people are idiots.

>> when you buy it is just trying to lighten your >> wallet.

>You mean lightnen your wallet.

No, he means 'lighten' :)

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: lighten

1 a : to relieve of a burden in whole or in part


Is the spelling you used some sort of East-of-the-Pond derivative?

What literary authorities have defined "blog"? It does not yet appear in the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or at dictionary.com

If it's not in either of these places yet, who's to say what definitions are right or wrong?

"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."

No I can't give you a reference off the [sic] of my head. It's just what I was thought [sic] in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ephemeral
Pronunciation: i-'fem-r -'fe-m&-, -'fE-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek ephEmeros lasting a day, daily, from epi- + hEmera day
Date: 1576
1 : lasting one day only
2 : lasting a very short time
synonym see TRANSIENT
- ephemerally /-r&-lE/ adverb

Impressive.

I sure hope those aren't PUBLIC sites!

To date, I have only heard two reasons to use anything other than W3C and open standards. The first is always "I learned to do it Microsoft's way, it has cost me a lot of pain and effort and I do not want to go through that again." The second is more substantial, "those standards don't do what I need."

You can certainly convert, but it's a long ugly process that doesn't mean any additional revenue for the company, so it's a hard sell.

How about lower operating costs, fewer medical expenses for you (headaches, migranes, ulcers), and almost immessurably more modular and more standards compliant design? A more nimble design that can take any changes you want to make quickly and elegantly, instead of a six month jaunt through gehenna?

Then, you must consider if you really enjoy being tied to a platform because you've put so much effort into it for such fragile results. Consider the psychological game gone into this, binding you to an inferior platform through your blood, sweat, and time. You're tied to IIS because you've already spent for it. In the future, you'll have to spend more time, money, blood, and sweat, just to make up for the ground being lost to competitors using better implimentations.

I, personally, would probably break down and cry after going through all that effort and realizing it was so much wasted time and effort, that you could have done it SO much faster, with better tools, and had better results. I know most people become violent rather than facing the possibility, nevermind considering it.

If I'm not sure how to spell a word I usually look it up at Merriam-Webster. If I don't know how to spell it, I'm generally not exactly sure of the definition/connotation, and so it's probably a good idea to make sure that's really the word I'm looking for. It's also pretty good at making suggestions, and if I'm not sure that's really what I want, there's also a theraurus.

I've always been a bit of a spelling nazi, so for me a spell checker is just a tool to catch typos. I find it really irritating when it keeps questioning me simply because I have a large vocabulary. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult, especially for a company like MS, to give their office suite a real dictionary. Maybe they sell one as a seperate add-on to bleed more money from their customers? I don't know.

The spell checker is just an annoyance, though. It's the grammar checker that really irks me.

You have serious personal control issues.

It might be worth noting that the images might meet the dictionary definition of "pornography" depending on your personal reaction to the image. But they hardly meet the usual type of content associated with the term.

I found the included imagery... imature. But it was very easy to scroll past the two images and pay attention to the real content of the site: a fish aquarium in a computer case.

But hey - I have that kind of self control. Maybe you don't.

Main Entry: piracy
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
Date: 1537
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

property needs not be tangible.

See also: Irony.

i've found merriam-webster online to be better than dictionary.com

So are "ain't", "you'uns" and "nabs." Irrespective of the fact that irregardless is bad usage, usage rules, and the practice of pointing them out, are for the particulary Pecksniffian. This is not unlike the odd fallacy monger who tosses out post hoc, ergo propter hoc whenever someone mentions the time.

Usually a misspelling like this occurs when a person with fine language skills recognizes that a word such as "begat" is the correct word to use in the sentence.

Merriam Webster shows you

He didn't misspell it, fucktard. Begat is the past tense of beget.

is "irregardless" a word there, too?

Why not? It's a word here and here as well.

Well, to some extent, I pulled it out of my ass. To a different extent, my ass is particularly qualified: I'm on my way to a PhD in archaeology. I believe there is a geologic table in Merriam Webster that has dates of these periods, but I"m not positive. Regardless, I know when the boundary between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic are, and I know what the currently accepted (though, as always, subject to revision) theory as to the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens is.

By "not 'people' as they are today" I mean that, prior to the Upper Paleolithic, there was very little differentiating our ancestral hominids from other (modern or ancient) nonhuman primates. They could make tools more specified, but still were barely capable of more than a modern chimp using an anvil to crack a nut or a twig to "fish" for termites. There has been no indication of any ability to think symbolically.

Toward the end of the Middle Paleolithic (about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago) we begin to see three very important things: 1. displacement of materials over very large distances, 2. intentional human burials, and 3. evidence of collective planning and coordinating, especially in regards to hunting meat. Materials being displaced over large areas that share no boundaries indicates a capacity for symbolic displacement, or the first necessity for language. Perhaps some sort of protolanguage arose during this time. Intentional burials are the first evidence we have for any sort of symbolic act. These things all indicate the very beginnings of symbolic thought. You must admit that, since we're talking about the very beginnings of symbolic thought (and that we, currently, are capable of language and symbolic thought far beyond this level) it's only appropriate to remind everyone here that these are not "people" we're talking about as we are people today.

So, with the capacity for symbolic thought emerging 40,000 to 35,000 years ago, the appearance of something so complex as a representation of a human face at 30,000 years ago would tell us a lot. For quite a few thousand years after that point, all we currently have are uniform-looking fertility figures and stick-figures hunting elaborate animals painted on walls (yes, the limits of what we've found in the archaeological record.) Regardless, somewhere on the border between Middle and Upper Paleolithic (and where do you think these borders come from?) something changed dramatically in hominids' perceptions of the world. They gained capacity for symbolic thought-- they perhaps became capable of drawing a face and recognizing a drawing. Additionally, it is just at this time (beginning of the Upper Paleolithic) that Neanderthals go extinct, and that our own forerunners are left to dominate the hominid line. (Before this extinction, technology and art and symbolic things like burials were associated with neanderthals as well-- not just our own ancestors.)

What I got out of the article is that caves with paintings of animals in them date back nearly as far as the end of the Middle Paleolithic and beginning of the Upper. Given the faces on the floor of one of these caves, it is possible that there are others in the other caves mentioned-- the ones that date back 30,000 years. Given that possibility, we could learn quite a lot about the development of early hominids.